Posted on

Medicaid Changes Could Provide a Big Boost to School Mental Health Services

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: New rules included in the legislation passed after the Uvalde shooting should make it easier for schools to get more Medicaid reimbursement than the $4B/year the currently get.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

 
 

mmpile/E+

As the founder of a public residential high school in Baton Rouge, La., Sarah Broome saw Medicaid as a logical way to pay for much-needed student mental health services.

Many students at Thrive Academy came from low-income families and had a history of trauma. Broome wanted to bring in social workers and counselors to lead group therapy and individual treatment.

But, while those services were covered by Lousiana’s Medicaid program, cutting through the red tape to file for payment was much more difficult than Broome anticipated.

“To implement school-based Medicaid, I had to add running a health-care organization to my job,” said Broome, who now works full-time as a school Medicaid consultant. “There are things that are normal in that world that were not normal in my world.”

Obstacles like confusing billing codes and outdated federal guidance have made the school Medicaid billing process so difficult that some administrators don’t even try—leaving money on the table that could pay for students’ much-needed medical and mental health treatments, advocates say.

They hope new federal measures will change that, providing crucial resources to schools to help them navigate the bureaucratic maze and open up a long-term funding stream to help them tackle a widely recognized youth mental health crisis.

Those measures were included in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, a legislative package Congress passed after the May 24 school shooting in Uvalde, Texas.

The act requires the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to update a technical assistance guide for schools that hasn’t changed since 1997, long before the use of interventions like telehealth, and to provide best practices for navigating complicated billing procedures.

It also provides $50 million in grants for states to implement or expand school-based Medicaid programs, and it directs federal officials to set up a technical assistance center to help states and schools find ways to pay for services.

Medicaid is a big funding stream for schools that is often overlooked

The bill’s changes, a long-time goal of education policy and children’s advocacy groups, center on an eight-year-old policy shift involving what’s known as the “free care rule.” That change was designed to make it easier for schools to charge Medicaid for services not included in students’ individualized education programs, or IEPs, the plans that detail accommodations and services for students with disabilities.

In a 2014 letter, the Obama administration told states that the so-called “free care rule” does not apply to schools. Under that rule, schools previously could not seek Medicaid reimbursements for services provided to Medicaid-enrolled students if they provided those same services for free to other students.

The Obama-era change in guidance aimed to give schools an opportunity to help meet the needs of vulnerable students, organizations like the Chicago-based Healthy Schools Campaign said at the time.

But states were initially slow to align their Medicaid programs with the new federal policy, which meant schools couldn’t take advantage of it. Doing so would require states to adjust their federally approved plans and, in some cases, change state law.

By March 2022, 17 states had adjusted their Medicaid programs in accordance with the “free care” guidance, according to a tracker maintained by the Healthy Schools Campaign.

But, even in those states, some school leaders struggled to take advantage of Medicaid dollars because doing so was too costly and complicated, said Sasha Pudelski, the advocacy director for AASA, the School Superintendents Association. Educational administrators aren’t trained in the complicated world of medical billing, and few states have a designated point person to help them understand it.

Medicaid pays for about $4 billion in school-based services a year, AASA estimates. Though that makes Medicaid the third- or fourth-largest federal funding stream for many schools, it represents less than 1 percent of the massive federal program’s overall budget.

That contrast has translated to very little political will to fix long-standing problems and inefficiencies, Pudelski said.

But the concern about student mental health following the disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with declarations of a crisis by people like U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, provided a window for action. The Safer Communities Act’s Medicaid provisions will provide incentive for states to update their programs and resources for schools to follow-up, Pudelski said.

“If we don’t take advantage of this opportunity to change this program, it’s never going to happen,” she said.

Even states that have already adopted the “free care” change may be able to free up more dollars by making additional changes, said Broome, the former Baton Rouge school leader.

For example, states could recognize more school-based health and mental health providers as eligible for Medicaid payment. They could clarify what school nursing services are covered by Medicaid, and they could better align documentation required by their education agencies with documentation required by their Medicaid programs.

New funds for mental health services

New Medicaid funds could help schools pay for things like hearing screenings, coordinating care for students, and health services. But advocates see the biggest opportunity in mental health services.

While many necessary health treatments, like physical therapy, are already covered by students’ IEPs and billed to Medicaid, mental health services are often needed by students without such plans.

Long before the pandemic, schools reported concerns about climbing rates of depression and anxiety among students. But it was hard to find the resources to address those concerns.

A March analysis of federal data by Education Week found that nearly 40 percent of all school districts nationally, enrolling a total of 5.4 million students, did not have a school psychologist in the first full year of the pandemic. Just 8 percent of districts met the National Association of School Psychologists’ recommended ratio of 1 school psychologist to 500 students.

Federal data show a similar shortage of counselors and social workers in schools. And the student support staff who are in place are often too busy with tasks like special education evaluations and scheduling to provide direct counseling to students.

“Everybody is in the same boat I was in,” Broome said. “Of course I want to provide mental health [services], but I can’t afford it.”

While COVID-19 relief funds provided by the American Rescue Plan can be used to hire new staff and programs, that money must be obligated by 2024, leaving school leaders with few answers about how to sustain new programs after the money runs out.

But Medicaid could be the solution, Broome said.

After she studied up on the program, Thrive Academy was able to hire two staff social workers, four contract social workers, and two full-time nurses.

That new staff provided individual counseling, group therapy, and intensive trauma therapy.

In the year before those changes, students were brought to the emergency room 30 times for a suicide risk assessment, Broome said. In the year after, just one such visit was required.

“The headache it took me to figure this out, I don’t want any other school leaders to experience this,” she said.
 

Clipped from: https://www.edweek.org/leadership/medicaid-changes-could-provide-a-big-boost-to-school-mental-health-services/2022/08

Posted on

DE- Judge upholds auditor effort to subpoena Medicaid records

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: Turns out the state agency can not withhold information needed to determine if it is correctly determining member and provider eligibility.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

DOVER, Del. (AP) — A Superior Court judge on Wednesday denied a motion by Delaware’s Department of Health and Social Services to quash a subpoena from the state auditor’s office seeking information regarding eligibility for Medicaid programs.

Judge Craig Karsnitz rejected the notion that Auditor Kathleen McGuiness does not have the authority under Delaware law to conduct performance audits of state agencies such as the Division of Medicaid and Medical Assistance. DHSS attorneys had argued that the auditor’s duties were limited to conducting after-the-fact “postaudits” of financial transactions by state agencies.

“To me, this argument is unnecessarily convoluted, and the language of the Delaware statute is clear,” Karsnitz wrote. “A postaudit is an audit of a transaction or transactions after the fact, and a performance audit is a form of postaudit. This is exactly what we have here.”

A spokeswoman for DHSS said the agency is reviewing the ruling “and will take appropriate next steps.”

McGuiness’ office did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

McGuiness resorted to her subpoena power last August after notifying DHSS in May 2021 that her office would be conducting an audit of Medicaid eligibility for the period from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2020. In her audit notification letter, McGuiness requested 14 different categories of records, including a list of all individuals who received Medicaid support during the three fiscal years. She also requested read-only access to Delaware’s Medicaid computer systems for two members of the audit team.

DHSS Secretary Molly Magarik responded by asserting that the release of certain information, such a list of Medicaid participants, is prohibited by law. DHSS also argued that the proposed audit was both unauthorized and duplicative of reviews conducted by other government entities that have legal authority to investigate Medicaid, a program that serves almost a third of Delaware’s population.

Magarik offered, “in a show of good faith and transparency,” to provide a much smaller amount of information, including organizational charts, training manuals and links to DHSS websites that are already publicly available.

McGuiness refused to back down, however, saying DHSS had been unable to demonstrate for several years that it was effectively screening Medicaid applicants for eligibility before approving or denying benefits.

McGuiness noted that a required independent annual audit of federal programs administration in 2020 included five repeat findings of problems involving DHSS that had been previously noted in the prior year’s audit. Three of the five repeat findings involved the Division of Medicaid and Medical Assistance, with “material weakness” found regarding compliance with Medicaid provider eligibility requirements and with Medicaid provider health and safety standards. The audit also found a “significant deficiency” regarding compliance with Medicaid client eligibility requirements.

“It is unconscionable that these failures continue to happen, especially within the Medicaid program, which serves such a vulnerable population,” McGuiness said in a news release last year. “Clearly, this is a problem that has existed for years — long before the COVID-19 pandemic, so that’s not a valid excuse for why these critical Medicaid reviews aren’t happening.”

The dispute involving scrutiny of the Medicaid program began a few months before McGuiness was indicted last October on felony counts of theft and witness intimidation, and misdemeanor charges of official misconduct, conflict of interest and noncompliance with procurement laws. The charges involved allegations that McGuiness engaged in favoritism in hiring her daughter as a part-time employee in 2020, improperly structured payments under a contract with a company she had used as a campaign consultant when running for lieutenant governor in 2016, and intimidated and harassed employees who questioned her conduct.

McGuiness, who is responsible as auditor for rooting out government fraud, waste and abuse, was acquitted on the felony charges last month but convicted on the misdemeanor charges of conflict of interest, official misconduct and structuring a contract payment to avoid compliance with state procurement rules. The case marked the first time in Delaware history that a sitting statewide elected official had been convicted on criminal charges.

McGuiness, who is seeking re-election and faces a Democratic primary challenger next month, faces a presumptive sentence of probation, but the convictions have not been formally entered and no sentencing date has been set. The trial judge is currently considering post-trial defense motions asking for a judgment of acquittal, or, in the alternative, a new trial.

 
 

Clipped from: https://nonpareilonline.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/judge-upholds-auditor-effort-to-subpoena-medicaid-records/article_d1c97223-da28-5f24-952b-97c31afafd09.html

Posted on

Patient-level factors influencing adherence to follow-up imaging recommendations

 
 

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: Even after accounting for all other person-level variables, Medicaid members still don’t complete ordered imaging followups.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

 
 

Purpose

To determine which, if any, patient-level factors were associated with differences in completion of follow-up imaging recommendations at a tertiary academic medical center.

Methods

In this IRB-approved, retrospective cohort study, approximately one month of imaging recommendations were reviewed from 2017 at a single academic institution that contained key words recommending follow-up imaging. Age, gender, race/ethnicity, insurance, smoking history, primary language, BMI, and home address were recorded via chart extraction. Home addresses were geocoded to Census Block Groups and assigned to a quintile of neighborhood socioeconomic status. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to evaluate each predictor variable with significance set to p = 0.05.

Results

A total of 13,421 imaging reports that included additional follow-up recommendations were identified. Of the 1013 included reports that recommended follow-up, 350 recommended additional imaging and were analyzed. Three hundred eight (88.00%) had corresponding follow-up imaging present and the insurance payor was known for 266 (86.36%) patients: 146 (47.40%) had commercial insurance, 35 (11.36%) had Medicaid, and 85 (27.60%) had Medicare. Patients with Medicaid had over four times lower odds of completing follow-up imaging compared to patients with commercial insurance (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06–0.88, p = 0.032). Age, gender, race/ethnicity, smoking history, primary language, BMI, and neighborhood socioeconomic status were not independently associated with differences in follow-up imaging completion.

Conclusion

Patients with Medicaid had decreased odds of completing follow-up imaging recommendations compared to patients with commercial insurance.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.clinicalimaging.org/article/S0899-7071(22)00184-X/fulltext

Posted on

Access to Urological Care for Medicaid-Insured Patients at Private Equity-Owned Urology Practices

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: Clinics funded by private equity do not prioritize patients whose insurance pays less and is harder to deal with.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

In light of current national trends in practice consolidation, researchers sought to define appointment availability for Medicaid-insured patients seeking care at urological practices linked with private equity companies.

They found 214 private equity-affiliated urology offices that were geographically matched with 231 non-private equity-affiliated urological offices. Investigators posed as an adult patient with either Medicaid or commercial insurance in the clinical scenario of new-onset, painless hematuria using a standardized script. The main result was whether or not the patient’s insurance was accepted for an appointment. The appointment wait time was a secondary consequence.

In 12 states, we made 815 appointment inquiry calls to 214 private equity (PE) and 231 non-PE-affiliated urology practices. Appointment availability was greater for commercially insured patients (99.0%; 95% [CI]: 98.1%-99.9%) than for Medicaid-insured patients (59.8 %; 95 % CI: 55.0%-64.6%) (P<.0001). Medicaid acceptance was greater in non-PE associated practices (66.8%; 95% CI 60.4%-73.2%) than in PE affiliated practices (52.1%; 95% CI 45.0%-59.2%) (P=.003). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, state Medicaid expansion status was independently associated with Medicaid appointment availability (odds ratio [OR] 2.20; CI 1.14-4.28; P=.020), whereas PE-affiliation was independently associated with lower Medicaid access (OR 0.55; CI 0.37-0.83; P=.004). Appointment wait times did not differ substantially between commercially and Medicaid-insured patients (19.2 vs. 20.1 days; P=.59), while PE-affiliated practices had shorter mean wait times than non-PE offices (17.5 vs. 21.4 days; P=.017).

Access discrepancies for urologic assessment were more evident in patients with Medicaid insurance at urology offices bought by private equity.

Reference: goldjournal.net/article/S0090-4295(22)00181-9/fulltext

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.physiciansweekly.com/access-to-urological-care-for-medicaid-insured-patients-at-private-equity-owned-urology-practices/

Posted on

Biden admin will allow TennCare’s controversial block grant, with some caveats

 
 

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: The state will no longer have a cap on spending, and CMS will tell it how it can spend the savings, and the closed formulary is out. But let’s still call it a block grant.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

The Biden administration is making TennCare’s new block grant, approved under President Trump, more tenable to Democrats who fought it from the start. And TennCare officials say they’re open to alterations, though they have yet to submit a formal response.

TennCare is Tennessee’s Medicaid program that provides health insurance for 1.4 million people — mostly women, children and those with disabilities. It’s mostly funded by the federal government, and conservatives have pushed for years to get the money as a block grant with much more flexibility for states. Tennessee was the first — and only — to get such a proposal approved. But TennCare director Stephen Smith says it was never just a block of money with no strings attached.

“I don’t place a lot of importance on what this is called,” he tells WPLN News.

And now, the federal agency over Medicaid is making the state’s latest funding formula even less like a block grant.

Under the changes, outlined in a letter dated June 30, the funding model would revert to being based on how many people have TennCare coverage instead of a dollar cap. There were always caveats with the cap allowing for years with big enrollment growth, so Smith says the change is not a big deal. Also, the feds want more say-so over how the state spends the money that it saves. Smith says there’s nothing to hide.

“We reinvest back into the program to enhance benefits, enhance services and add people to the program,” Smith says, pointing out TennCare has already expanded benefits like taking thousands off a wait list for home-based care.

The new administration is totally rejecting limits on which medications patients can get, known as a closed formulary. But TennCare knew that was a possibility, which is why Smith says the drug limits still haven’t been implemented a year and a half into the new funding model.

It also behooves the state to go along with the demands because the “block grant” — if it can still be called that — is already generating savings, Smith says. But that money can’t be spent on newly approved initiatives like dental coverage-for-all until the sticking points are settled.

“This is a 10-year waiver,” Smith says. “So, it’s to our benefit to solidify this, so we can have certainty for the next eight years.”

 
 

Clipped from: https://wpln.org/post/biden-admin-will-allow-tenncares-controversial-block-grant-with-some-caveats/

Posted on

Medicare Telehealth Services for 2023 – CMS Proposes Substantial Changes

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: CMS is starting to firm up the moving forward approach to telehealth reimbursement for Medicare.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

 
 

On July 7, 2022, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released its proposed 2023 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) rule. The rule, if enacted as proposed, will:

  1. Create three new permanent telehealth codes for prolonged E/M services;
  2. Discontinue reimbursement of telephone (audio-only) E/M services;
  3. Discontinue the use of virtual direct supervision;
  4. Postpone the effective date of the telemental health six-month rule until 151 days after the PHE ends;
  5. Extend coverage of the temporary telehealth codes until 151 days after the PHE ends; and
  6. Add 54 codes to the Category 3 telehealth list.

Reading between the lines, the nature of CMS’ comments and the changes it proposed (and refused to propose) suggest that CMS rulemakers anticipate the Public Health Emergency (PHE), and associated PHE waivers, will expire no later than the first half of 2023.

Three New Telehealth Codes for Prolonged E/M Services

This year, CMS rejected all stakeholder requests to permanently add codes to the Medicare Telehealth Services List. Following its standard evaluation process for such requests, CMS considered whether they met appropriate categories. Category 1 services must be “similar to professional consultations, office visits, and/or office psychiatry services that are currently on the Medicare Telehealth Services List.” Category 2 services require “evidence of clinical benefit if provided as telehealth” and all necessary elements of the service must be able to be performed remotely. CMS rejected this year’s requests because none of the proposed services (e.g., therapy, electronic analysis of implanted neurostimulator pulse generator/transmitter, adaptive behavior treatment and behavior identification assessment codes) met the requirements of Category 1 or 2 services. Interested stakeholders can collect and submit better evidence to persuade CMS to add these codes on a Category 1 or 2 basis next year (submissions are due by February 10, 2023).

Although it rejected stakeholder-submitted codes, CMS itself proposed three new codes to be added to the Medicare Telehealth Services list on a permanent basis:

  • GXXX1 (Prolonged hospital inpatient or observation care evaluation and management service(s) beyond the total time for the primary service (when the primary service has been selected using time on the date of the primary service); each additional 15 minutes by the physician or qualified healthcare professional, with or without direct patient contact (list separately in addition to CPT codes 99223, 99233, and 99236 for hospital inpatient or observation care evaluation and management services).

 
 

  • GXXX2 (Prolonged nursing facility evaluation and management service(s) beyond the total time for the primary service (when the primary service has been selected using time on the date of the primary service); each additional 15 minutes by the physician or qualified healthcare professional, with or without direct patient contact (list separately in addition to CPT codes 99306, 99310 for nursing facility evaluation and management services).

 
 

  • GXXX3 (Prolonged home or residence evaluation and management service(s) beyond the total time for the primary service (when the primary service has been selected using time on the date of the primary service); each additional 15 minutes by the physician or qualified healthcare professional, with or without direct patient contact (list separately in addition to CPT codes 99345, 99350 for home or residence evaluation and management services).

CMS added these codes because they are similar to current CPT codes 99356 and CPT 99357 and HCPCS code G2212, all listed on a permanent basis.   

Discontinue Reimbursement of Telephone (Audio-Only) E/M Services

Under PHE waivers, CMS allowed separate reimbursement of telephone (audio-only) E/M services (CPT codes 99441-99443), something that was embraced by a sizeable cohort of practitioners and patients, particularly in rural areas or patients without suitable broadband access for audio-video. 

CMS rejected requests to permanently add these services to the Medicare Telehealth Services List. With the exception of certain telemental health services, CMS stated two-way interactive audio-video telecommunications technology will continue to be the Medicare requirement for telehealth services following the PHE. This is because Section 1834(m)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act requires telehealth services be analogous to in-person care by being capable of serving as a substitute for the face-to-face encounter. In CMS’ own language, “We believe that the statute requires that telehealth services be so analogous to in-person care such that the telehealth service is essentially a substitute for a face-to-face encounter.” As audio-only telephone is inherently non-face-to-face, CMS determined, that modality fails to meet the statutory standard. 

Therefore, 151 days after the PHE expires, audio-only telephone E/M services will revert to their pre-PHE “bundled” status under Medicare (i.e., covered but not separately payable). Practitioners will no longer receive separate reimbursement for these services.

Discontinue the Use of Virtual Direct Supervision

Under Medicare Part B, certain types of services (e.g., many diagnostic tests, services incident to physicians’ or practitioners’ professional services) must be furnished under the direct supervision of a physician or practitioner. For Medicare purposes, direct supervision requires the supervising professional to be physically present in the same office suite as the supervisee, and immediately available to furnish assistance and direction throughout the performance of the procedure. The supervising professional need not be present in the same room during the service, but the “immediate availability” requirement means in-person, physical – not virtual – availability.

In connection with PHE waivers, CMS temporarily changed the direct supervision rules to allow the supervising professional to be remote and use real-time, interactive audio-video technology. That change did not require the professional’s real-time presence at, or live observation of, the service via interactive audio-video technology throughout the performance of the procedure.

This change was temporary because CMS was concerned widespread direct supervision through virtual presence may not be safe for some clinical situations. In its proposed PFS rule, CMS rejected requests to make virtual direct supervision a permanent feature in Medicare. CMS is considering whether or not it should make virtual direct supervision a permanent feature of Medicare at some point in the future. Interested stakeholders with data are invited to submit comments and information to CMS on this topic.

If the proposed rule is finalized, virtual direct supervision will expire at the end of the calendar year in which the PHE ends. If the PHE ends in October 2022, the supervision waiver will end December 31, 2022. If the PHE ends in January 2023, the supervision waiver will end December 31, 2023.

Postpone the Effective Date of the Telemental Health Six-Month Rule Until 151 Days After PHE Ends

In 2020, Congress imposed new conditions on telemental health coverage under Medicare, creating an in-person exam requirement alongside coverage of telemental health services when the patient is located at home. Under the rule, Medicare will cover a telehealth service delivered while the patient is located at home if the following conditions are met:

  1. The practitioner conducts an in-person exam of the patient within the six months before the initial telehealth service;
  2. The telehealth service is furnished for purposes of diagnosis, evaluation, or treatment of a mental health disorder (other than for treatment of a diagnosed substance use disorder (SUD) or co-occurring mental health disorder); and
  3. The practitioner conducts at least one in-person service every 12 months of each follow-up telehealth service.

For a full understanding of the rule, read the frequently asked questions and what it means for practitioners at Medicare Telehealth Mental Health FAQs.

This rule was originally scheduled to take effect the day after the PHE expires. Following an amendment to the rule, it is now set to take effect 151 days after the PHE expires. 

Extend Coverage of the Temporary Telehealth Codes Until 151 Days After the PHE Ends

Temporary telehealth codes are those services added to the Medicare Telehealth Services List during the PHE on a temporary basis, but which were not placed into Category 1, 2, or 3. Coverage of those temporary telehealth codes had been scheduled to end when the PHE expires.

In its proposed PFS rule, CMS states it will extend coverage of those temporary telehealth codes until 151 days after the PHE ends. CMS is doing so for consistency with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (CAA). CMS stated this extension may simplify the post-PHE transition by applying the same coverage end date to all the various waiver-related telehealth codes in a hope to reduce billing errors.

Note, the Category 3 codes are set to expire December 31, 2023, while the other temporary telehealth codes are set to expire 151 days after the PHE ends. This means, under the proposed rule, if the PHE ends after August 2023, the Category 3 codes would expire before the temporary telehealth codes. If finalized, health care providers would need to keep a careful eye on the calendar to ensure billing practices keep up with the various sunset dates.

Add 54 Codes to the Category 3 Telehealth List

CMS’ Category 3 list contains services that likely have a clinical benefit when furnished via telehealth, but lack sufficient evidence to justify permanent coverage. CMS proposed adding 54 codes to that Category 3 list. The services fall into nine categories: (1) therapy; (2) electronic analysis of implanted neurostimulator pulse generator/transmitter; (3) adaptive behavior treatment and behavior identification assessment; (4) behavioral health; (5) ophthalmologic; (6) cognition; (7) ventilator management; (8) speech therapy; and (9) audiologic. The complete list can be found at this link.

Keep in mind, these codes will expire December 31, 2023.Category 3 codes were originally slated to expire at the end of the year in which the PHE ends, but CMS extended coverage of those codes through December 31, 2023. In this year’s proposed PFS rule, CMS declined any further extension, so all Category 3 codes will expire at the end of 2023. In the event the PHE extends well into 2023, CMS said it will consider a further extension of the Category 3 codes at that time.

What to Do Next?

Providers, facilities, technology companies, and virtual care entrepreneurs interested in changes to the telehealth codes for 2023 should consider providing comments to the proposed rule. CMS is soliciting comments on the proposed rule until 5:00 p.m. ET on September 6, 2022. Anyone may submit comments – anonymously or otherwise – via electronic submission at this link. Alternatively, commenters may submit comments by mail to:

  • Regular Mail: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-1770-P, P.O. Box 8016, Baltimore, MD 21244-8016.

 
 

  • Express Overnight Mail: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-1770-P, Mail Stop C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850

If submitting via mail, please be sure to allow time for comments to be received before the closing date.

Want to Learn More?

For more information on telemedicine, telehealth, virtual care, remote patient monitoring, digital health, and other health innovations, including the team, publications, and representative experience, visit Foley’s Telemedicine & Digital Health Industry Team.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.foley.com/en/insights/publications/2022/07/medicare-telehealth-services-2023-cms-changes

Posted on

Washington State plan aimed to lower Medicaid pharmacy payments is rescinded

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: The state will not be allowed to set rates for dispensing fees pharmacists can charge, even though a state plan amendment was approved to do just that.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

 
 

Washington State Pharmacy Association | Jul 6, 2022 | Washington

CMS rescinded approval of a Washington State Medicaid amendment that aimed to dramatically lower pharmacy reimbursement rates.

 
 

 
 

The Washington State Pharmacy Association (WSPA), the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA), and the National Association of Chain Drug Stores (NACDS) voiced support for the CMS decision that they say will help maintain reliable patient access to care and pharmacy viability in Washington. 

“Pharmacies provide essential care and access to medications,” WSPA CEO Jenny Arnold said. “Adequate reimbursement for safe patient care is essential. Our pharmacies should not have to choose between taking care of their patients and keeping their doors open, so we are relieved by this outcome.”

On Jan. 19, 2021, the last day of the Trump administration, the acting CMS administrator approved a plan to reimburse pharmacies for Medicaid patients far below the actual cost of dispensing prescriptions. The decision was a sharp departure from CMS’ previous position, which was that the state’s reimbursement was unlawful primarily because it failed to consider the cost of dispensing. 

WSPA, NCPA, and NACDS sued CMS, accusing CMS of violating its own rules. As a result, the Department of Justice—which represented CMS in the case—filed a motion to remand the matter back to CMS, agreeing with the pharmacy groups that the final decision approving the amendment was unsupported by the administrative record before CMS and would not survive the legal challenge. 

“This is a win for patients and pharmacies not only in Washington, but around the country,” NCPA CEO Brian Douglas Hoey said. “Unfair pharmacy reimbursement rates must not stand. We are celebrating the outcome of this fight and will continue working to protect essential health care services provided by pharmacy teams.”

CMS reconsidered the Jan. 19, 2021, decision and determined that the amendment—which would have reimbursed pharmacies of all sizes well-below cost—would be disapproved. Specifically, CMS determined that the amendment is inconsistent with the requirement that “States have a State plan that provides such methods and procedures to assure that payments are consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care and are sufficient to enlist enough providers so that care and services are available to the general population of the geographic area.” 

CMS also found that the amendment was inconsistent with federal regulations “which provide that payments for drugs are to be based on combined examination of the ingredient cost of the drug and a professional dispensing fee.” 

“Pharmacies have a vital role to play in health care delivery, and CMS’ decision will go a long way in helping to ensure that the most vulnerable Americans continue to have access to the pharmacy-based services they rely on and expect,” NACDS President and CEO Steven C. Anderson said. “We commend CMS for doing the hard but necessary work to reverse its approval of Washington State’s flawed pharmacy reimbursement plan, which has for many years jeopardized the ability of pharmacies to meet patients’ health and wellness needs. This is not only a victory for Washington pharmacies and their patients, but also for pharmacies and the vulnerable patients they serve across the nation.”

This press release was provided by the Washington State Pharmacy Association.

Clipped from: https://stateofreform.com/featured/2022/07/cms-rescinds-approval-of-amendment-aimed-to-lower-pharmacy-reimbursement-rates/

Posted on

CMS wants Tennessee to change Trump-approved Medicaid block grant plan

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: Biden HHS now wants to un-approve the TN waiver that allows the state to deliver on value-based care.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

 
 

Jason Kempin via Getty Images

Dive Brief:

  • The Biden administration is asking Tennessee to make fundamental changes to its plan to create a Medicaid block grant program in the state.
  • The state’s controversial Medicaid plan was approved in the final days of the Trump administration. But the CMS held a federal public comment period through September that resulted in “significant concerns” for regulators about whether Tennessee’s policy promotes the objectives of Medicaid, according to a new letter to the director of TennCare, Tennessee’s Medicaid program.
  • The letter sent Thursday requests that Tennessee submit a new financing and budget neutrality model based on a traditional per member per month cap, instead of an aggregate cap, among other modifications.

Dive Insight:

Tennessee took a notable step to realize a long-held conservative goal in early 2021, when the Trump administration greenlit a waiver allowing the state to use a modified block grant in its Medicaid program.

Under the 10-year waiver, Tennessee receives a lump sum of money annually from the federal government. Tennessee can keep up to 55% of any amount spent below the funding cap and reinvest it in other programs, giving it significant power over how it spends federal dollars.

The waiver also allowed the state to create its own commercial-style formulary of covered prescription drugs without federal approval, and granted it authority to negotiate directly with drug manufacturers.

Tennessee said the waiver would allow it to spend money and be more flexible with benefits. But researchers said that capping federal funding — along with codifying incentives to spend below the cap — could result in the state restricting benefits to achieve savings, threatening low-income beneficiaries’ healthcare quality and access.

In an opinion piece published in The Tennessean in September, Karen Camper, a Democratic member of the state’s House of Representatives, called on the CMS to rescind the waiver entirely.

“Not rescinding the waiver undermines President Joe Biden’s health equity agenda, and marginalized Tennesseans will be the first to feel its negative impact. Setting a precedent with a program that wouldn’t need to be renegotiated for another 10 years is reckless and irresponsible,” Camper argued.

The CMS is now requesting that Tennessee make major changes to the proposal. Along with urging the state to find an alternative to its aggregate cap, federal regulators want Tennessee to modify its Medicaid terms and conditions to clarify that the state can’t cut benefits or coverage without amending its demonstration.

The agency also asked Tennessee to remove expenditure authority for pharmacy and associated pharmacy flexibilities from the demonstration. Additionally, Tennessee should include a request in the demonstration amendment for expenditure authority for state reinvestments to support with any savings, such as adult dental care or enhanced home services, the CMS said.

“Making these adjustments would significantly mitigate CMS concerns,” the letter says. The CMS requested Tennessee amend its demonstration by Aug. 30.

Oklahoma also tried for a block grant during the Trump administration, but later rescinded its waiver application.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/cms-tennessee-make-changes-medicaid-block-grant/626462/

Posted on

How the Hyde Amendment Is Related to the Overturn of Roe V. Wade

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: The Hyde Amendment remains in place (preventing taxpayer spending via public programs on abortion)- but it was not included in Biden’s 2023 budget proposal and it is up for re-enactment each year.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

 
 

 
 

People protest the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v Wade abortion decision in New York City, New York, U.S., June 24, 2022. REUTERS/Caitlin Ochs

  • The Hyde Amendment, which prevents the use of federal funds for abortions, took effect in 1976. 
  • Following the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, there have been renewed calls to abandon the Amendment. 
  • Biden excluded the amendment from a 2023 budget proposal, but it’s unclear if it will be added back. 

Following the Supreme Court’s Friday decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, there have been renewed calls from lawmakers and activists to abandon the Hyde Amendment, a legislative provision preventing federal funds from being used on abortion services. 

The Hyde Amendment, named for anti-abortion Congressman Henry Hyde who introduced the provision, was passed in 1976, just four years after the landmark Roe vs. Wade ruling that established the right to an abortion. The amendment, which prevents federal funds from services such as Medicaid to be used to provide abortions, was mired in legal challenges for its first years, leading to the Supreme Court case Harris v. McRae

In the 1980 Harris v. McRae decision, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 vote that states participating in Medicaid programs were not obligated to fund medically necessary abortions under the Social Security Act. In the United States, adults with a low income, children, pregnant women, and people age 65 or over are covered by Medicaid services. In 2010, about 45 percent of births in the country were covered by Medicaid.

“The Hyde Amendment is designed to deprive poor and minority women of the constitutional right to choose abortion,” Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in his dissenting opinion. “[F]or women eligible for Medicaid — poor women — denial of a Medicaid-funded abortion is equivalent to denial of legal abortion altogether.” 

With the Hyde Amendment in effect, abortions financed by federal Medicaid funds dropped from about 300,000 per year to a few thousand, according to the ACLU

The amendment has been reenacted every year since, with various changes. The 1978 version of the amendment offered new exceptions for rape survivors and incest cases, while later changes expanded the ban to prevent abortion funding from federal worker health plans, women in federal prisons, women in the military and peace corps volunteers.

Public support for federal abortion funding varies depending on the polling source and how the question is phrased — one 2014 CNN-ORC poll found just 39% of the public favors offering public funding for abortions for women who cannot afford them, while a 2021 Ipsos poll found 54% of people supported Medicaid-funded abortions. 

Over the last several years, Democratic lawmakers including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Rep. Ariana Pressley of Massachusetts have called for reversing Hyde Amendment funding restrictions on abortion, citing their disproportionate impact on marginalized women. 

“The Hyde Amendment is a back-end attempt to outlaw abortion that disproportionately denies the right of choice to low-income women and women of color,” Rep. Ocasio-Cortez said in a 2020 statement when she and other Congresswomen filed an amendment to repeal Hyde restrictions on funding. “It is critical that we put an end to this inhumane policy now.”

Though the amendment was not passed, Democrats in Congress attempted to remove Hyde Amendment restrictions in their government funding bills last year, the Wisconsin Examiner reported, but the terms were added back into the final spending package at the insistence of Republicans. 

Amid continued calls for the removal of the Hyde Amendment, President Biden similarly left such restrictions off his 2023 budget proposal, but it is unclear if they will be added back to the final bill text. 

We applaud the Biden administration for its recommitment to ending the Hyde Amendment by removing this decades-old policy, which disproportionately harms people of color working to make ends meet, from its budget,” Morgan Hopkins, the interim executive director of campaigns and strategies at All* Above All said in April when the budget was proposed, Prism reported. “It’s a significant step forward to ending a decades-old policy.”

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-hyde-amendment-how-related-to-roe-v-wade-2022-6

Posted on

KY- Pilot program at Nulu farmer’s market provides free produce to pregnant women on Medicaid

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: KY launched a new program that gets pregnant mommas $24 a week worth of healthier food for a year.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

 
 

Updated: 9:43 AM EDT Jun 21, 2022

 
 

A new program funded by the federal government aims to provide fresh produce for free to expecting mothers on Medicaid.With two growing kids, Sidney Ross knows the importance of having fresh fruits and veggies at her home. “Microgreens, which I really love microgreens, we got sweet potatoes and radishes today,” Ross said.This expectant mother is getting the produce she needs for her growing family thanks to a new program at the Phoenix Hill NuLu Farmer’s Market. The pilot program called the Fresh RX for mom allows pregnant women on Medicaid to get free produce worth up to $24 a week for 12 weeks. “I think the program is really awesome because it gives everybody an opportunity to receive healthy good vs unhealthy stuff,” Ross told WLKY.”The RX kind of emphasizes a prescription for healthy fruits and vegetables for pregnancy,” said Susan Borders, a Dietician with the program.It’s funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through the Community Farm Alliance of Kentucky. “Pregnancy is a particularly vulnerable time for nutrition, good nutrition is very important,” Borders said.The sign-up process, which you can do in person at the market, takes less than 10 minutes. Each woman is given tokens to pay the farmers, who benefit also because their product gets sold. Michelle Lesher is a former nurse and dietician turned farmer who takes pride in what she grows.”When food is more ripe and ready to eat and picked, it’s going to have higher nutrition and it’s going to taste better,” Lesher said.But what puts a smile on her face even more is who her vegetables and fruit help. It’s why she wants this program to be as successful as possible.”Maybe there are some moms out there a little intimidated about eating more veggies, maybe intimidated by coming to farmer’s markets in general, so I would just encourage you to make this be the little push,” Lesher said.A push that Ross says she plans on giving to other mothers she knows.”I have already let people know and I’ve even invited people to let them know I’ll be there at this time, so meet me there that way I can take advantage of it,” Ross said.If you fit the criteria or you may know someone that does, go to the Phoenix Hill NuLu Farmer’s Market at 1007 E. Jefferson St. They are open only on Tuesdays from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m.

LOUISVILLE, Ky. —

A new program funded by the federal government aims to provide fresh produce for free to expecting mothers on Medicaid.

With two growing kids, Sidney Ross knows the importance of having fresh fruits and veggies at her home.

Advertisement

“Microgreens, which I really love microgreens, we got sweet potatoes and radishes today,” Ross said.

This expectant mother is getting the produce she needs for her growing family thanks to a new program at the Phoenix Hill NuLu Farmer’s Market.

The pilot program called the Fresh RX for mom allows pregnant women on Medicaid to get free produce worth up to $24 a week for 12 weeks.

“I think the program is really awesome because it gives everybody an opportunity to receive healthy good vs unhealthy stuff,” Ross told WLKY.

“The RX kind of emphasizes a prescription for healthy fruits and vegetables for pregnancy,” said Susan Borders, a Dietician with the program.

Recommended

Survivors dig by hand after Afghanistan quake killing 1,000

It’s funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through the Community Farm Alliance of Kentucky.

“Pregnancy is a particularly vulnerable time for nutrition, good nutrition is very important,” Borders said.

The sign-up process, which you can do in person at the market, takes less than 10 minutes.

Each woman is given tokens to pay the farmers, who benefit also because their product gets sold. Michelle Lesher is a former nurse and dietician turned farmer who takes pride in what she grows.

“When food is more ripe and ready to eat and picked, it’s going to have higher nutrition and it’s going to taste better,” Lesher said.

But what puts a smile on her face even more is who her vegetables and fruit help. It’s why she wants this program to be as successful as possible.

“Maybe there are some moms out there a little intimidated about eating more veggies, maybe intimidated by coming to farmer’s markets in general, so I would just encourage you to make this be the little push,” Lesher said.

A push that Ross says she plans on giving to other mothers she knows.

“I have already let people know and I’ve even invited people to let them know I’ll be there at this time, so meet me there that way I can take advantage of it,” Ross said.

If you fit the criteria or you may know someone that does, go to the Phoenix Hill NuLu Farmer’s Market at 1007 E. Jefferson St. They are open only on Tuesdays from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.wlky.com/article/pilot-program-at-nulu-farmers-market-provides-free-produce-to-pregnant-women-on-medicaid/40302471#