Center for Medicare Advocacy Issues Public Comment on Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Proposed Rule
* * *
The Center, founded in 1986, is a national, non-profit law organization that works to ensure access to Medicare and quality healthcare. The organization provides education, legal assistance, research and analysis on behalf of older people and people with disabilities, particularly those with long-term conditions. The Center's policy positions are based on its experience assisting thousands of individuals and their families with Medicare coverage and appeal issues. Additionally, the Center provides individual legal representation and, when necessary, challenges patterns and practices that inappropriately deny access to Medicare and necessary care. The Center also participated on a
Regrettably, many beneficiaries are denied access to necessary care for which they qualify under the law. In the
MedPAC further reported, "Access to home health care is adequate: Over 98 percent of beneficiaries lived in a ZIP code where at least one Medicare HHA operated in 2018, and 83 percent lived in a ZIP code with five or more HHAs."/2
Unfortunately, while MedPACs statement on access adequacy may be true in theory, in reality, agencies are not required to take all beneficiaries who qualify for Medicare-covered care and, due to incentives and disincentives in the Medicare payment system, many agencies reject patients who most need care.
The following comments to the proposed rule will address PDGM, Quality Measures, Telecommunication Technology, Home Infusion Benefits, and Frequently Heard Access Issues Described to the Center by Patients and Home Health Agencies.
1. PDGM - The Current Medicare Payment System
Medicare home health qualifying criteria and coverage laws have remained largely unchanged over the past 20 years, although various payment systems and quality measurements have influenced the delivery of care. The PPS (Prospective Payment System) incentivized the use of therapy services, reduced the emphasis on nursing care, and diminished the delivery of covered home health aide services that are often the key to beneficiaries remaining safely at home. These changes are starkly noted in the chart (rounded to the nearest whole number) below.
See table here (https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=CMS-2020-0077-0126&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf)
Changes in access to home care services were not all attributable to PPS; other factors also play a part, including: agency ownership changes, mergers/acquisitions, an increase in for-profit agencies from <50% to >90%, and Medicare Advantage (MA) plan participation growth (coupled with relatively low MA plan payments that undercut total agency profits). Incentive payment models, quality measures, and CMS compliance/audit practices also influence agency behavior.
Currently, PDGM purports "to shift the focus from volume of services to a more patient-driven model that relies on patient characteristics." (FR 39409, 39412). Unfortunately, beneficiaries who are most in need, people with complex, longer-term and chronic conditions who were already facing access barriers to care, are faced with even greater barriers under PDGM. Simply put, PDGM is not appropriately guided by the needs of all patients but instead creates strong incentives to primarily serve short-term, post-acute care patient needs.
As an economic model, PDGM may make sense in the aggregate. But, it falls far short in practical application because agencies are allowed to cherry-pick the beneficiaries they serve. Many agencies reduce services, or refuse to provide services when beneficiaries "are less profitable". Under PDGM, the amount of therapy patients receive is dropping precipitously. This gap in therapy is not being filled by different care modalities; it has simply led to less available care.
As lead counsel in Jimmo v. Sebelius, the case that confirmed Medicare determinations should turn on the need for skilled care, not on an individual's ability to improve, the Center continues to strenuously object to PDGM and the limitations on care it poses for people with longer-term conditions. The following example illustrates some of the provisions of PDGM that result in access to care problems.
Example:
Consider two Medicare beneficiaries, Ms. A and Mr. B. In the case of Ms. A, from
Ms. A is a healthy, active beneficiary who lives in
Case mix and wage adjusted 30 day period payment calculation: 1.4269(2CA11 (HHGM)(Wound, low functional impairment, early institutional, no comorbidities, LUPA threshold 4)) x
Mr. B has severe COPD, multiple co-morbidities, and needs assistance with all his daily activities. 2 months ago, to keep him home in
Case mix and wage adjusted 30 day period payment calculation: .9502(3LC31 (HHGM)(MMTA respiratory, high functional impairment, late community, multiple comorbidities)) x
As can be seen from the example with Ms. A and Mr. B, PDGM payments to agencies for services have little correlation to the amount of care a beneficiary actually needs. Further, patient medical characteristics (functional level and comorbidities) represent a significantly smaller percentage of PDGM payments than episode timing and admission source. The average PDGM payment adjustment impact, after analyzing multiple home health resource groupings, is approximately as follows, for the 12 clinical categories:
* Episode timing (32%)
* Referral source (13%)
* Functional level (16%)
* Presence of comorbidities (10%)
The allowances for patient health and function characteristics cannot compare with the larger allowances for admission source and timing. The result of PDGM: Medicare beneficiaries with the most health care needs have the least access to Medicare-covered home health care.
Inequities in delivery of service under PDGM should be examined, not ignored. CMS cannot analyze data that does not exist for patients who are denied services under PDGM. MedPAC's simplified approach to access that examines only home health agencies that "offer" services by zip code cannot account for agencies that systematically cherry-pick patients and deny services to high-need, high-cost qualified patients, who are penalized for their health conditions.
Regrettably, PDGM rewards waste and abuse in the Medicare program, by paying home health agencies prospectively, allowing agencies to steer the delivery of services to certain beneficiaries and to inappropriately discharge other patients with few repercussions or oversight. The
This represents millions of dollars going to profits that should be going to patient care.
In the proposed rule, CMS states "[b]ased on our analysis, we conclude that the policies proposed in this rule would not result in an estimated total impact of 3-5 percent or more on Medicare revenue for greater than 5 percent of HHAs." (FR 39447). This statement flies in the face of historical experience that consistently shows a 16% profit margin, as stated by MedPAC./5
PDGM will continue to increase profits while care is reduced for the most vulnerable patients. An explanation for this is one we hear from home health agencies - traditional Medicare profits are subsidizing private insurer Medicare Advantage (MA) plan loses. Agencies make a 16% profit from traditional Medicare and use it to offset losses in their contracts with private MA plans; perhaps as a loss leader to obtain those companies more lucrative commercial insurance contracts. Allowing this system to continue abuses the
2. Quality Reporting Measurements (QRM)
CMS' decision not to provide quality updates or proposals (FR 39430) in this proposed rule is disappointing because they are necessary. Table 28 (FR 39429) lists 5 of 14 OASIS-based HH QRM measures (36% of measures) that require a patient to improve in order for an agency to get "credit" for "quality service".
CMS should not continue to ignore quality care for people for whom improvement is not a reasonable goal. CMS should propose measures to encourage agencies to help maintain the health of patients, or slow decline. Because CMS does not reward quality care to maintain patients' conditions, home care agencies have yet another disincentive to admit such patients or to continue to their needed care. In the example outlined above, for instance, an agency serving Ms. A would be further rewarded, with greater profits and higher quality star ratings, while an agency serving Mr. B would not be paid sufficiently under PDGM and would be further penalized because of lower quality measurement results.
Thus access to quality "maintenance care" is eroded and undermined by quality measures that do not include maintenance patients and clearly discriminate against them, through existing quality measures that reward care to patients who can improve. This conflicts with the Jimmo Settlement. This problem is further exacerbated when CMS penalizes agencies by 2% if agencies do not report their quality data (FR 39421). Quality matters for every patient, not just some. CMS should develop standards to measure quality care to maintain an individual's condition or slow decline - not just to improve. Quality measurements should consider, and encourage the provision of necessary care to, all Medicare beneficiaries.
Value Based Purchasing (VBP) was also not mentioned in the proposed rule. Although CMS considers VBP to be a separate consideration from quality measurements, agencies are further rewarded under VBP (in an annual increasing percentage through 2022), by criteria that mimics quality measurements, including improvement. VBP also rewards agencies that largely ignore maintenance patients, and penalizes agencies that help people maintain their conditions. CMS' QRM and VBP policies should be rectified immediately to properly include and measure quality care for patient who qualify and require home health services to maintain their conditions.
3. Telecommunications Technology (Telehealth) (FR 39427-39428)
a.
The Center strongly agrees with the following CMS statement in the proposed rule:
If there is a service that cannot be provided through telecommunications technology (for example, wound care which requires in-person, hands on care), the HHA must make an in-person visit to furnish such services. Furthermore, a HHA cannot discriminate against any individual who is unable or unwilling to receive home health services that could be provided via telehealth communications technology. In those circumstances, the HHA must provide such services through in-person visits as the intent of the Medicare home health benefit as defined in section 1861(m) of the Act is to provide items and services on a visiting basis in the individual's home. (FR 39428. Emphasis added.)
The Center urges CMS to develop policies and education efforts to clearly communicate this directive to agencies, patients, and health care practitioners.
Too often we hear from beneficiaries who are given misinformation about coverage laws, policies, or other protections afforded them through the home health conditions of participation.
Too often patients are essentially told by agencies, about receiving services, to "take it or leave it - this is what we'll provide you and if you don't take it, we won't admit you." With regard to telecommunications technology, the Center is concerned that agencies will offer in-person services to just over the LUPA threshold and designate the remainder of services to telecommunications, again telling patients to "take it or leave it". Practitioners who order services may also have little to no alternative but to "take it or leave it" for their patients, since other agencies say the same.
CMS must prohibit agencies from refusing to care for patients who are "unwilling or unable" to accept services through telecommunications. The Center raises this caution because we are aware that many agencies ignore a CMS policy that requires agencies to provide qualifying home health aides when family members are "unwilling or unable" to provide care for their loved one./6
However, CMS oversight of this issue is lacking. We hear from beneficiaries who are told by agencies they cannot have aide services because they have a family caregiver who should provide the care. Rarely does the agency find out if the caregiver is willing and able to provide the care and the patient is willing to accept it. We fear that a similar lack of oversight will apply to telecommunications technology if patients are "unwilling or unable" to use it. In order to protect beneficiaries, CMS should develop and articulate clear guidelines and an effective oversight and enforcement mechanism to assure telecommunications technology is not the default means of providing care, and that patients don't lose access to in-person care.
b. Patient Inclusivity
The Center urges CMS to continue to "remind stakeholders" that access to all Medicare home health services, not just telecommunications technology, must be inclusive. The Center agrees with the following:
We remind stakeholders that access to telecommunications technology must be inclusive, especially for those patients who may have disabilities where the use of technology may be more challenging. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act protect qualified individuals from discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of benefits and services. Concerns related to potential discrimination issues under 504 should be referred to the
c. Telehealth Policies for Further Consideration
The Center, and the Medicare Rights Center (MRC), have published joint principles to address the needs of patients in policy conversations including for telecommunications technology, a number of which CMS has included in the proposed rule./7
The following principles are intended to aid such a process. When making decisions about whether and how to expand Medicare coverage for telehealth, we urge policymakers to:
1. Ensure any covered telehealth services are clinically appropriate;
2. Ensure that telehealth options supplement, rather than replace, in-person care--and ensure that payment incentives align with this goal;
3. Promote behavioral health parity to help address the unmet needs of current and future beneficiaries in both urban and rural settings;
4. Ensure that any expansion of telehealth does not exacerbate health, racial, or income disparities, and that actions and expenditures are authorized to meaningfully address the digital divide many Medicare beneficiaries face--including lack of or limited access to digital literacy training, reliable broadband, and remote technologies;
5. Ensure equitable access to telehealth for underserved communities, including Black Americans and people of color, individuals with disabilities, and people with limited English proficiency; purposefully collect data on such access; and ensure compliance with all existing civil rights laws, including rules requiring the use of interpreters and the provision of materials in alternative formats and non-English languages;
6. Require providers to accurately disclose beneficiary cost-sharing obligations prior to service, and to fully document such disclosures; connect beneficiaries and providers with the resources they need to understand their financial responsibilities; and carefully monitor to ensure that any waivers of cost-sharing are not happening in a discriminatory or otherwise problematic way;
7. Ensure that any expansion of telehealth protects patient privacy and data security for personal health information. HIPAA privacy protections must apply to telehealth interactions between the patient and provider and personal health data must also be kept secure;
8. Ensure any expansion of telehealth is identical in traditional Medicare and private Medicare Advantage, and that the services and necessary equipment to access telehealth are equally available to all beneficiaries, regardless of the coverage pathway they choose;
9. Ensure that telehealth does not weaken Medicare Advantage network adequacy standards, including by prohibiting telehealth providers from satisfying network adequacy requirements;
10. Require public release of data concerning Medicare-covered telehealth, including the type of services provided, beneficiary experience and preferences, programmatic and beneficiary spending, health outcomes, and quality measurements.
11. Ensure continuing, on-going monitoring, oversight, data collection, and evaluation in order to best inform future telehealth policymaking;
12. Provide an extended phase-out period for the temporary COVID telehealth waivers and rules in order to minimize interruptions in care and prevent rushed policy development.
Too often home health agencies discriminate against the most vulnerable patients by reducing or denying access to care for which they patients qualify under Medicare law. Telecommunications technology, although intended to be additive, creates more concerns for this population. Telecommunications technology can be a positive way to reach patients when that is the best form of access. But, this technology could also become a slippery slope, degrading quality home health care and access to in-person, hands-on care.
If CMS finalizes this proposed rule, the Center urges CMS to develop and implement a robust program of careful implementation and oversight so that access to in-person, quality home health care is ensured for all patients.
4. Home Infusion
For patients who hear that home infusion services will be covered by Medicare in 2021, it will be confusing and frustrating to navigate through the convoluted definition of what is covered, what is not, and why. Relatively speaking, the benefit is extremely limited as to the number of possible drugs and biologicals that are covered for home infusion. As the transitional home infusion drug (in effect 2019-2020) is broader than the permanent home infusion drug definition effective
The Center understands that CMS is following the definition set out in section 1861(iii)(3)(C) of the Act, defining a home infusion drug as a parenteral drug or biological administered intravenously or subcutaneously for an administration period of 15 minutes or more, in the home of an individual through a pump that is an item of DME. Such term does not include the following: (1) Insulin pump systems; and (2) a self-administered drug or biological on a self-administered drug exclusion list.
It is, disappointing, however, to see home infusion coverage narrowing, rather than expanding. Once the infrastructure to certify and enroll home infusion suppliers is in place,
The limited home infusion coverage is a covered Medicare benefit, in addition to home health care. Under the home infusion benefit, a beneficiary is not required to be homebound. For non-homebound beneficiaries who could not qualify for home infusion services prior to this rule, it will be a welcome addition. However, this will create an extra burden for beneficiaries who previously received home infusion therapy through their home health benefit. The proposed amendment to 42 C.F.R. 409.49, to exclude home infusion from the definition of services covered under the home health benefit for covered drugs and biologicals, will force beneficiaries to continue to pay the Part B co-insurance for the physician (or other authorized practitioner) order/plan of care and for the DME order but, in addition, co-insurance will now apply for the infusion supplier, which would have been covered without cost-sharing under the home health benefit. CMS should consider the impact of this additional co-insurance to ensure it does not adversely impact access to this benefit for beneficiaries in need. CMS should also work with
5. Frequently Heard Access Issues Described to the Center by Patients and Home Health Agencies
The Center hears continuously from beneficiaries and agencies. We believe it is important for CMS to consider this information as well as comments CMS receives directly from beneficiaries. These are the most common home health access issues raised:
From Patients:
* I can't find an agency to provide me care; my care is being reduced; I'm being discharged.
* My agency says: I'm not homebound (when they do meet the homebound criteria);
* I'm told I have to be able to improve to get care;
* I'm told I don't need skilled care (even when they need a service specifically considered skilled and covered by federal regulations);
* I can only get home health aides 1-3 times a week; I can only get home health aides for a bath; a bath a week; Medicare doesn't pay for aides, but I can get them if I private pay.
From Agencies:
* We don't have enough staff; Medicare doesn't pay enough; MA plans pay worse; compliance is challenging; audits are intimidating; value-based and quality programs only measure improvement.
The Center is eager to continue to work with CMS and
Conclusion
New rules should be proposed that encourage agencies to provide care for all people who qualify under the law, for all services covered under the law. A study of traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage home health payments should be undertaken to ensure traditional Medicare is not subsidizing Medicare Advantage. Telecommunication Technology should be advanced with caution and oversight; patients should be fully informed of their right to choose, or not to choose, telecommunication technology; and providers should be educated about when it is appropriate to offer it. Home infusion rules should be carefully monitored to determine if the additional co-pays for homebound beneficiaries creates a barrier to necessary care. Further, the infusion benefit should be expanded to include drugs and biologicals not currently included in the program.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments on behalf of all those who have the legal right, and urgent need, to obtain Medicare-covered home health services.
Respectfully submitted,
* * *
For additional information, please contact
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ MedPAC
2/ MedPAC
3/ MedPAC
4/ MedPAC
5/ MedPAC
6/ Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, Chapter 7, Section 20.2, page 21 https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-andGuidance/Guidance/Manuals/Downloads/bp102c07.pdf
7/ 12 Principles to aid in telehealth policy processes https://medicareadvocacy.org/joint-principles-from-center-formedicareadvocacy-and-medicare-rights-center-medicare-expansion-of-telehealth-helps-beneficiaries-access-careduringthe-pandemic-but-caution-is-needed-bef/
* * *
The proposed rule can be viewed at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=CMS-2020-0077-0002
TARGETED NEWS SERVICE (founded 2004) features non-partisan 'edited journalism' news briefs and information for news organizations, public policy groups and individuals; as well as 'gathered' public policy information, including news releases, reports, speeches. For more information contact
Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., – Discussion
Advisor News
- Global economic growth will moderate as the labor force shrinks
- Estate planning during the great wealth transfer
- Main Street families need trusted financial guidance to navigate the new Trump Accounts
- Are the holidays a good time to have a long-term care conversation?
- Gen X unsure whether they can catch up with retirement saving
More Advisor NewsAnnuity News
- Pension buy-in sales up, PRT sales down in mixed Q3, LIMRA reports
- Life insurance and annuities: Reassuring ‘tired’ clients in 2026
- Insurance Compact warns NAIC some annuity designs ‘quite complicated’
- MONTGOMERY COUNTY MAN SENTENCED TO FEDERAL PRISON FOR DEFRAUDING ELDERLY VICTIMS OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
- New York Life continues to close in on Athene; annuity sales up 50%
More Annuity NewsHealth/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News
- PROMOTING INNOVATION WHILE GUARDING AGAINST FINANCIAL STABILITY RISKS SPEECH BY RANDY KROSZNER
- Life insurance and annuities: Reassuring ‘tired’ clients in 2026
- Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company Trademark Application for “RELIANCEMATRIX” Filed: Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company
- Jackson Awards $730,000 in Grants to Nonprofits Across Lansing, Nashville and Chicago
- AM Best Affirms Credit Ratings of Lonpac Insurance Bhd
More Life Insurance News