Clinical laboratories are advised to continue developing methods for making prices for procedures available to the general public
Even as an effective treatment for COVID-19 continues to elude federal healthcare agencies, Medicare officials are pressing ahead with efforts to bring about transparency in hospital healthcare pricing, including clinical laboratory procedures and prescription drugs costs.
In FY 2021 Proposed Rule CMS-1735-P, titled, “Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and Proposed Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2021 Rates; Quality Reporting and Medicare and Medicaid Promoting Interoperability Programs Requirements for Eligible Hospitals and Critical Access Hospitals,” the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) proposes to “revise the Medicare hospital inpatient prospective payment systems (IPPS) for operating and capital-related costs of acute care hospitals to implement changes arising from our continuing experience with these systems for FY 2021 and to implement certain recent legislation.”
The proposed rule suggests a 1.6% increase (about $2 billion) in reimbursement for hospital inpatient services for 2021, but also eludes to the possibility of payer negotiated rates being used to determine future payment to hospitals.
In its analysis of the proposed rule, Modern Healthcare noted that CMS is “continuing its price transparency push, to the chagrin of some providers.”
However, the provisions in the proposed rule do, according to the CMS news release, advance several presidential executive orders, including:
Controversial Use of Payer Data for Future Medicare Rates
This latest CMS proposed rule (comments period ended July 10) moves forward “controversial price transparency” and has a new element of possible leverage of reported information for future Medicare payment rates, Healthcare Dive reported.
The 1,602-page proposed rule (CMS-1735-P) calls for these requirements in hospital Medicare cost reports:
Median payer-specific negotiated inpatient services;
Inclusion of rates for Medicare Advantage plans and other third party plans;
“In addition, the agency is requesting information regarding the potential use of these data to set relative Medicare payment rates for hospital procedures,” the CMS news release states.
Thus, under the proposed rule, the nation’s 3,200 acute care hospitals and 360 long-term care hospitals would need to start reporting requested data for discharges effective Oct. 1, 2020, a CMS fact sheet explained.
In the news release following the release of the proposed rule, CMS Administrator Seema Verma had a positive spin. “Today’s payment rate announcement focuses on what matters most to help hospitals conduct their business and receive stable and consistent payment.”
However, the American Hospital Association (AHA) articulated a different view, even calling the requirement for hospitals to report private terms “unlawful.”
“We are very disappointed that CMS continues down the unlawful path of requiring hospitals to disclose privately negotiated contract terms,” AHA Executive Vice President Tom Nickels (above) said in a statement, adding, “The disclosure of privately negotiated rates will not further CMS’ goal of paying market rates that reflect the cost of delivering care. These rates take into account any number of unique circumstances between a private payer and a hospital and simply are not relevant for fixing Fee-for-Service Medicare reimbursement.” (Photo copyright: American Hospital Association.)
AHA and other organizations attempted to block a price transparency final rule last year in a lawsuit filed against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees CMS, Dark Daily reported.
During in-court testimony, provider representatives declared that revealing rates they negotiate with payers violates First Amendment rights, Becker’s Hospital Review reported.
Officials for the federal government pushed back telling the federal judge that they can indeed require hospitals to publish negotiated rates. Hospital chargemasters, they added, don’t tell the full story, since consumers don’t pay those rates, Modern Healthcare reported.
In addition to the increase in inpatient payments and price transparency next steps, the recent CMS proposed rule also includes a new hospital payment category for chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. The technique uses a patient’s own genetically-modified immune cells to treat some cancers, as an alternative to chemotherapy and other treatment covered by IPPS, CMS said in the news release.
The agency also expressed intent to remove payment barriers to new antimicrobials approved by the FDA’s Limited Population Pathway for Antibacterial and Antifungal Drugs (LPAD pathway). “The LPAD pathway encourages the development of safe and effective drug products that address unmet needs of patients with serious bacterial and fungal infections,” the CMS fact sheet states.
Clinical laboratories are gateways to healthcare. For hospital lab leaders, the notion of making tests prices easily accessible to patients and consumers will soon no longer be a nice idea—but a legal requirement.
Therefore, clinical laboratory leaders are advised to stay abreast of price transparency regulations and continue to prepare for sharing test prices and information with patients and the general public in ways that fulfill federal requirements.
Clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups should consider this another example of how CMS is taking forward steps to encourage value-based payment arrangements throughout the health system
With the sky-high cost of many prescription drugs and gene therapies, it was only a matter of time before the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) would seek to link reimbursement for them to patient outcomes.
A recent CMS proposed rule (CMS-2842-P) concerning value-based purchasing (VBP) for prescription drugs covered by Medicaid encourages payers to engage in Medicaid state value-based purchasing (aka, pay-for-performance) arrangements for expensive prescription drugs. This rule may have implications for medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups if it were extended to cover companion diagnostics linked to expensive therapeutic drugs and gene therapies.
CMS also intents the proposed rule to help drug manufacturers ease roadblocks to contracting with payers—including Medicaid—a CMS fact sheet explained.
Federal officials are looking to reimburse healthcare providers for prescribing drugs that are shown to work best on patients that truly need them, while also incentivizing pharmaceutical manufacturers to created drugs “of high patient value,” stated Laffer Healthcare Intelligence, a Nashville, Tenn. healthcare investment firm, in an email to its intelligence service subscribers.
In a press release announcing the proposed rule, Seema Verma, CMS Administrator, said “We are creating opportunities for drug manufacturers to have skin in the game through payment arrangements that challenge them to put their money where their mouth is.”
Old Regulations Don’t Address Value, Expensive Gene Therapies
According to CMS, for 30 years federal regulations have favored the “volume of drugs” sold over the “quality of drugs.” Simultaneously, during the past three years the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved four gene therapies with many more “in the development pipeline,” Verma wrote in the journal Health Affairs. “While the lifesaving impact of these often-curative therapies are profound, their costs are unprecedented,” she stated.
CMS’ new rule proposes to define value-based purchasing as “an arrangement or agreement intended to align pricing and/or payments to evidence-based measures and outcomes-based measures,” Verma added.
Companion Diagnostic: Molecular and Genetic Testing
For clinical laboratories, the case CMS makes for therapeutic drugs could be applied to expensive molecular diagnostics and genetic testing. CMS may base reimbursement on how accurately and how fast a lab test can enable a diagnosis. Also, payment could be linked to a lab’s report and guidance to the ordering provider in selecting a therapy that makes a difference in the patient’s outcome.
“This is exactly the concept of the companion diagnostic,” said Robert Michel, editor-in-chief of Dark Daily and its sister publication, The Dark Report. “Take, for example, a $5,000 genetic cancer test that that stages a $500,000 cancer prescription drug. Patients who will not benefit from the drug will not get it. And the $5,000 lab test may keep, say, 10 people from getting a drug that wouldn’t work for them. Thus, the $50,000 in lab tests could save $5 million in prescription drug costs,” he explained.
For its part, Novartis, the Basel, Switzerland-based creator of Zolgensma, said the proposed CMS changes are “an important first step,” and helpful to the company’s “access strategy” in the US, BioPharma Dive reported.
Healthcare experts envision that deals struck under the new proposed CMS rule will focus on gene therapies and expensive drugs, MedPage Today reported.
“Measuring outcomes is costly; it takes time, and everyone has to come up with a way to do it. So, if a drug costs $50, it’s not worth going to every single patient (in research). If the drug costs $500,000, maybe it’s worth it … figuring out if the drug worked. That’s why people talk about it in the context of gene therapies,” Alexander Dworkowitz (above), Partner, Manatt Health, New York, told MedPage Today. (Photo copyright: Manatt, Phelps and Phillips, LLP.)
According to the Laffer Healthcare Intelligence analysis email, CMS’ 137-page proposed rule is “very broad,” but focuses on three themes:
“First, CMS wants to establish an official definition for VBP models to accelerate development of drug pay-per-value programs.
“Second, CMS want to restrict the amount of opioids doctors can prescribe.
“Third, very subtle changes are proposed that negatively affect the PBM (pharmacy benefit management) industry.”
CMS’ proposal also includes standards aimed at fighting opioid prescription fraud and misuse in Medicaid drug programs, noted Fierce Healthcare.
Transparent Drug Prices
Medical laboratory leaders may want to monitor the progress of this proposed rule. In addition to value-based payment, the rule advances price transparency by clearing the way to sharing prices of therapeutic drugs and how they improve patient care, while also lowering costs.
Meanwhile, a refresh of lab information technology to enable authorization of genetic and molecular tests by payer also may prove worthwhile.
Insurance industry claims new federal price transparency regulations cost each payer as much as $13.6 million in set up and maintenance costs
Price transparency in hospital, clinical laboratory, and other service provider costs marches ever closer to reality for America’s healthcare consumers. Meanwhile, some insurers and hospital groups are working to block implementation of federal rules they argue will confuse consumers and potentially lead to higher costs.
The first is a Proposed Rule, titled, “Transparency in Coverage Proposed Rule” (CMS-9915-P) that would require payers to make public on their websites negotiated rates for in-network providers and allowed amounts paid for out-of-network providers. Insurers also would be required to make an online “tool” available to members that would provide consumers with out-of-pocket cost estimates for “all covered healthcare items and services.” The 60-day public comment period for this rule went into effect November 15, 2019.
Medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups may want to closely monitor ongoing efforts by payers and hospital groups to block these rules, since any changes will extend to their services, as well as extend price transparency to most employer-based group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual coverage.
Will Transparency Lead to Higher Healthcare Costs?
In its story on insurer claims, FierceHealthcare reported that the rule would require payers to disclose a “staggering” amount of data, leading to implementation costs 26 times more than the Trump administration’s $510,000 estimate. To comply with the federal rule, an insurer will spend as much as $13.63 million on setup and maintenance. That prediction is based on an economic analysis from economic consulting firm Bates White, which conducted the survey on behalf of The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA).
“Some plans have indicated they would be forced to run two sets of tools—one designed to meet member shopping needs and another implemented only to meet the requirements of the proposed rule,” the BCBSA told FierceHealthcare.
Meanwhile, the Association for Community Affiliated Plans (ACAP) argued in a letter to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Seema Verma that cost-sharing liability estimates—which are not a price quote for care—could “lead to consumer confusion and frustration.” The ACAP also asserts the transparency plan could inadvertently lead to higher healthcare cost increases.
“In the absence of quality data, consumers may determine that high cost equates to higher value, select the higher-cost providers, and ultimately drive up medical expenses, especially in circumstances where the consumer’s out-of-pocket costs have been met,” wrote ACAP Chief Executive Officer Margaret A. Murray.
“We have long supported efforts to make quality and pricing information more accessible, understandable, and actionable for consumers,” the ACHP wrote. “But they need real-time, patient-specific information tied to individual coverage benefits, not a massive published list of prices that may only frustrate consumers and likely increase costs over time.”
Hospital Associations and Healthcare Systems Bring Lawsuit Against HHS
In December 2019, several hospital associations and healthcare groups filed a lawsuit to block next year’s implementation of the hospital price transparency rule. The plaintiffs included the:
These healthcare organizations and providers joined together to argue that HHS lacks the statutory authority to require and enforce public disclosure of individually negotiated rates between commercial health insurers and hospitals. They also say consumers are likely to be confused by the information they receive.
“America’s hospitals and health systems stand with patients and are dedicated to ensuring they have the information needed to make informed healthcare decisions, including what their expected out-of-pocket costs will be,” said Rick Pollack (above), President and CEO, American Hospital Association, in a news release. “Instead of giving patients relevant information about costs, this rule will lead to widespread confusion and even more consolidation in the commercial health insurance industry.” (Photo copyright: American Hospital Association.)
In its legal response, HHS contends that hospitals are adding to consumers’ confusion by failing to provide transparency.
“They do not dispute that consumers are casting about for accurate information about prices in a complex healthcare system, yet they rely on that same complexity as an affirmative reason to deprive patients of pricing information they need to figure out their out-of-pocket expenses,” HHS said in its brief.
DePaul University Professor Anthony LoSasso, PhD, who specializes in healthcare economics, admits to being “on the fence” regarding the pros and cons of transparency plans.
“I want to think that people can benefit from price transparency. But for a variety of reasons, people don’t look at pricing info even when it’s available,” LoSasso told WTTW News in Chicago.
Nevertheless, HHS vows to continue its push for price transparency.
“Hospitals should be ashamed that they aren’t willing to provide American patients the cost of a service before they purchase it,” HHS Deputy Assistant Secretary and National Spokesperson Caitlin Oakley told Reuters in a response to the hospital groups’ lawsuit.
In light of the government’s push to make healthcare pricing more transparent, clinical laboratory and anatomic pathology leaders in hospitals and health systems would be wise to prepare for a future that includes price shopping by consumers.
Physicians and clinical laboratories that do business with other healthcare providers who have been denied enrollment in Medicare or had their enrollment revoked are under increased scrutiny
Efforts by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
(CMS) to crack down on fraud could soon be bolstered by artificial
intelligence (AI) tools, placing new pressure on medical
laboratories and anatomic pathology groups to ensure that their billing
practices are fully compliant with current federal “affiliations” regulations.
This is why, last October, CMS issued a Request
for Information (RFI) seeking feedback from vendors, providers, and
suppliers about the potential use of AI tools to identify cases of fraud,
waste, and abuse in billing for healthcare services. Statements from CMS
indicate that the agency plans to deepen its investigation into the affiliations
physicians and clinical laboratories have with healthcare providers that been
involved in fraudulent behavior within the Medicare program.
At present, CMS uses a variety of approaches to spot
improper claims, the RFI notes, including the use of human medical reviewers.
However, this is a costly process that allows review of less than 1% of claims.
AI tools would increase the speed and accuracy of those investigations
exponentially.
The RFI notes that AI technology could “help CMS identify
potentially problematic affiliations upon initial screening and through continuous
monitoring. One example would be a new tool or technology that would allow
easy, seamless access to state and local business ownership and registration
information that could improve CMS’ line-of-sight to potentially problematic
business relationships.”
In a blog post on the federal agency’s website, CMS Administrator Seema Verma (above) wrote that “Advanced analytics and artificial intelligence can perform rapid analysis and comparison of large-scale claims data and medical records that could allow for more expeditious, seamless and accurate medical review, and ultimately, improved payment accuracy.” [Photo copyright: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.)
CMS’ New Affiliations Rule Affects Clinical Laboratories
Our sister publication, The Dark Report (TDR),
provided in-depth coverage of this rule, which allows CMS “to revoke or deny
enrollment if it finds that a provider’s or supplier’s current or previous
affiliations pose an undue risk of fraud.” (See TDR, “Labs
Must Respond to New CMS Anti-Fraud Rule,” October 14, 2019.)
“For too many years, we have played an expensive and
inefficient game of ‘whack-a-mole’ with criminals—going after them one at a
time—as they steal from our programs,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma
said in a
statement about the new rule. “These fraudsters temporarily disappear into
complex, hard-to-track webs of criminal entities, and then re-emerge under
different corporate names. These criminals engage in the same behaviors again
and again.”
As TDR reported, the rule defines four “disclosable
events” that trigger the disclosure requirements:
Uncollected debt to Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP;
Payment suspension under a federal healthcare program;
Exclusion by the Office of Inspector General from participation in Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP; and
Termination, revocation, or denial of Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP enrollment.
If disclosure is required, CMS described five definitions of
an affiliation, using a five-year look-back:
Direct or indirect ownership of 5% or more in another organization;
A general or limited partnership interest, regardless of the percentage;
An interest in which an individual or entity “exercises operational or managerial control over, or directly conducts” the daily operations of another organization, “either under direct contract or through some other arrangement;”
When an individual is acting as an officer or director of a corporation; and
Any reassignment relationship.
One interesting consequence of these definitions is that
individuals or companies that invest and own an interest in a provider
organization that has one or more “disclosable events” would be flagged by the
provider at time of enrollment or re-enrollment in the Medicare program. Over
the years, some very prominent private equity companies have been investors and
owners of medical laboratory companies that owed money to Medicare or entered
into civil settlements with the federal government where the full amount of the
alleged overpayments was not recovered and the provider neither admitted nor
denied guilt. These affiliations would need to be disclosed and could be used
by CMS to deny enrollment in the Medicare program.
“Lab companies that engage in fraud and abuse—often paying illegal inducements to physicians to encourage them to order medically-unnecessary tests—distort the lab testing marketplace and capture lab test referrals that would otherwise go to compliant clinical labs and pathology groups,” stated Robert Michel, Editor-In-Chief of The Dark Report. “So, honest labs will recognize how the new rule can help suppress various types of fraud that constantly plague the clinical lab industry.” (See TDR, “Is New Medicare Affiliation Rule Good, Bad, or Ugly?” November 4, 2019.)
Other AI Applications in Healthcare
The CMS RFI also suggests other areas in which artificial
intelligence could help identify fraudulent activity, including real-time monitoring
of electronic
health records (EHR), risk
adjustment data validation (RADV) audits, and value-based payment systems.
“These tools hold the promise of more expeditious, seamless
and accurate review of chart documentation during medical review to ensure that
we are paying for what we get and getting what we pay for,” the RFI states.
“However, concerns about potential improper payments and bad actors remain. We
need to determine whether innovative new strategies, tools, and technologies
presently exist that can increase data accuracy and integrity and consequently
reduce improper payments.”
Clinical laboratories should not be surprised by any of this.
Artificial intelligence and machine learning are increasingly becoming vital
tools in today’s modern healthcare system. Nevertheless, lab leaders should
closely monitor CMS’ use of these technologies to root out fraud, as labs are
often caught up in their investigations.
Clinical laboratory leaders will want to pay close attention to a significant development in Maryland. The state’s All-Payer Medicare program—the nation’s only all-payer hospital rate regulation system—is broadening in scope to include outpatient services starting Jan. 1. The expanded program could impact independent medical laboratories, according to the Maryland Hospital Association (MHA), which told Dark Daily that those labs may see hospitals reaching out to them.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the state of Maryland expect to save $1 billion by 2023 in expanding Maryland’s existing All-Payer Model—which focused only on inpatient services since 2014—to also include primary care physicians, skilled nursing facilities, independent clinical laboratories, and more non-hospital settings, according to a CMS statement.
Healthcare Finance notes that it represents “the first time, CMS is holding a state fully at risk for the total cost of care for Medicare beneficiaries.”
Value of Precision Medicine and Coordination of Care to Clinical Labs
“If a patient receives care at a [medical] laboratory outside of a hospital, Maryland hospitals would be looking at ways to coordinate the sharing of that freestanding laboratory information, so that the hospital can coordinate the care of that patient both within and outside the hospital setting,” Erin Cunningham, Communications Manager at MHA, told Dark Daily. Such a coordinating of efforts and sharing of clinical laboratory patient data should help promote precision medicine goals for patients engaged with physicians throughout Maryland’s healthcare networks.
The test of the new program—called the Total Cost of Care (TCOC) Model—also could be an indication that Medicare officials are intent on moving both inpatient and outpatient healthcare providers away from reimbursements based on fees-for-services.
CMS and the state of Maryland said TCOC gives diverse providers incentives to coordinate, center on patients, and save Medicare per capita costs of care each year.
“What they are really doing is tracking how effective we are at managing the quality and the costs of those particular patients that are managed by the physicians and the hospitals together,” Kevin Kelbly, VP and Chief Financial Officer at Carroll Hospital in Westminster, told the Carroll County Times. “They will have set up certain parameters. If we hit those parameters, there could be a shared savings opportunity between the hospitals and the providers,” he added. (Photo copyright: LifeBridge Health.)
The TCOC runs from 2019 through 2023, when it may be extended by officials for an additional five years.
How Does it Work?
The TCOC Model, like the earlier All-Payer Model, will limit Medicare’s costs in Maryland through a per capita, population-based payment, Healthcare Finance explained.
It includes three programs, including the:
Maryland Primary Care Program (MDPCP), designed to incentivize physician practices by giving additional per beneficiary, per month CMS payments, and incentives for physicians to reduce the number of patients hospitalize;
Care Redesign Program (CRP), which is a way for hospitals to make incentive payments to their partners in care. In essence, rewards may be given to providers that work efficiently with the hospital to improve quality of services; and,
Hospital Payment Program, a population-based payment model that reimburses Maryland hospitals annually for hospital services. CMS provides financial incentives to hospitals that succeed in value-based care and reducing unnecessary hospitalizations and readmissions.
CMS and Maryland officials also identified these six high-priority areas for population health improvement:
Substance-use disorder;
Diabetes;
Hypertension;
Obesity;
Smoking; and
Asthma.
“We are going to save about a billion dollars over the next five years, but we are also providing better quality healthcare. So it’s going to affect real people in Maryland, and it helps us keep the whole healthcare system from collapsing, quite frankly,” Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, told the Carroll County Times.
OneCare in Vermont, Different Approach to One Payer
Maryland is not the only state to try an all-payer model. Vermont’s OneCare is a statewide accountable care organization (ACO) model involving the state’s largest payers: Medicare, Medicaid, and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont, Healthcare Dive pointed out. The program aims to increase the number of patients under risk-based contracting and, simultaneously, encourage providers to meet population health goals, a Commonwealth Fund report noted.
Both Maryland’s and Vermont’s efforts indicate that payment plans which include value-based incentives are no longer just theory. In some markets, fees-for-service payment models may be gone for good.
Clinical laboratory leaders may want to touch base with their colleagues in Maryland and Vermont to learn how labs in those states are engaging providers and performing under payment programs that, if successful, could replace existing Medicare payment models in other states.
