Photo of Carol Loepere

Carol Loepere

Subscribe to Carol Loepere's Posts
Contact:Read more about Carol Loepere

On May 3, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law provisions that will require health care entities to submit a notification to the state Department of Health (DOH) providing information about any material transaction involving that health care entity.

The law, passed as part of the state’s budget, was originally crafted to give the DOH authority to review and approve those transactions. Ultimately, following several iterations during the legislative process, that approval power was stripped out by the state general assembly and replaced with the current notice requirement.

The law will take effect on August 1, 2023 and states on its face that it will apply to all “material transactions” involving health care entities that close on or after that date. That said, the requirements for transactions that close between August 1 and August 31 are a somewhat open question, given the 30-day notice requirement in the law. The DOH is tasked by the law with creating regulations that may address this situation.…

Continue Reading New York Passes Health Care Transaction Notice Requirements

With only one day left before the final rule scaling back nondiscrimination regulations took effect, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) issued an order staying the repeal of certain parts of the former regulations. On June 19, 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) published a final rule scaling back nondiscrimination regulations first released in 2016 to implement Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The 2016 regulations had imposed significant requirements on health care providers to ensure that all individuals were provided “meaningful access” to care. As part of the 2016 regulations, OCR banned discrimination “on the basis of sex,” which was defined broadly as “on the basis of pregnancy, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom, childbirth or related medical conditions, sex stereotyping, or gender identity.” The 2020 final rule revised the 2016 regulations significantly, however. In one of its most controversial changes, OCR removed the definition of “on the basis of sex” contending that “on the basis of sex” shall revert to the “plain meaning” of the term “sex” in Title IX of the Civil Rights Act – meaning not to encompass discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. OCR’s decision came on the heels of a Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga. four days prior which concluded that discrimination “on the basis of sex” encompasses claims based on gender identity and sexual orientation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Accordingly, within the course of less than a week, the Supreme Court broadly interpreted the same term that OCR severely limited.

Shortly after OCR announced its reversal of the nondiscrimination requirement based on gender identity and sexual orientation, various interest groups began mounting legal challenges. With the order issued by EDNY on August 17, 2020, we are already seeing evidence of the legal battles likely to ensue over the definition of “on the basis of sex,” placing certain parts of OCR’s final rule in legal limbo.
Continue Reading Federal Court stays repeal of “On the Basis of Sex” definition in recent nondiscrimination final rule one day before regulations take effect

A final rule published by the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) significantly scales back nondiscrimination regulations first released in 2016. The final rule, which was published in the Federal Register on June 19, 2020, implements Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and pares back numerous nondiscrimination regulations applicable to covered health care entities in an effort to reduce regulatory costs and eliminate duplicative legal obligations.

In doing so, the final rule drastically changes the interpretation of  Section 1557’s scope, waters down stringent requirements designed to promote universal access to covered programs and providers, and alters enforcement provisions. Despite these notable changes, certain core nondiscrimination provisions remain, such as communication and access standards for disabled and limited English proficiency (LEP) individuals. As a result, covered entities will need to understand how their obligations under the final rule change, what remains the same, and what to look out for moving forward when it becomes effective on August 18, 2020. Below are the new rule’s main takeaways.…

Continue Reading Office for Civil Rights issues final rule scaling back nondiscrimination requirements for health care covered entities as Supreme Court broadens discrimination protections

Shortly after President Trump declared a national emergency related to COVID-19, CMS issued blanket waivers under section 1135 of the Social Security Act that are intended to ensure there are sufficient health care items and services available to meet the increased need, as well as reduce related administrative burdens on health care providers.

Our comprehensive…

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has officially cancelled a planned program to require certain hospitals to participate in Medicare episode payment models (EPMs) for acute myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft, and surgical hip/femur fracture treatment procedures furnished in designated areas of the country, along with a Cardiac Rehabilitation (CR) Incentive Payment Model. These programs, which were slated to launch on January 1, 2018, were summarized in previous posts. In a press release, CMS states that not pursuing these models gives it “greater flexibility to design and test innovations that will improve quality and care coordination across the in-patient and post-acute care spectrum.”

In the same rulemaking, CMS also dramatically scaled back the ongoing Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model. By way of background, this program provides a “bundled” payment to participant hospitals for an “episode of care” for lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) surgery, covering all services provided during the inpatient admission through 90 days post-discharge (with certain exceptions).  The bundled payment is paid retrospectively through a reconciliation process; providers receive regular fee-for-service payments in the interim. The CJR model began April 1, 2016 and runs through 2020.

Most notably, the new rule gives certain hospitals participating in the CJR model a one-time option to choose whether to continue their participation in the model, effective February 1, 2018. This voluntary election option applies to hospitals in 33 of the 67 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) selected in the original CJR final rule, along with low volume hospitals and rural hospitals in the remaining 34 mandatory participation MSAs.  CMS is designating a one-time participation opt-in period from January 1 – 31, 2018 during which eligible hospitals may opt to continue to participate in CJR.  Note, however, that CMS will automatically terminate CJR participation for hospitals in the designated 33 MSAs, along with low volume and rural hospitals, as of February 1, 2018, unless the hospital elects to continue participation in the CJR model.  CMS expects the number of hospitals required to participate in CJR to fall from approximately 700 to about 370, and an additional 60 to 80 hospitals to make a voluntary election to continue participation.  A list of all current CJR participant hospitals and their status (mandatory or voluntary) is available on the CJR webpage, as is the Voluntary Participation Election Letter Template.

CMS also adopted a number of refinements to CJR model policies, including the following:…
Continue Reading CMS Scraps Cardiac/Hip Fracture Episode Payment Model, Downsizes CJR Program

Signals Trump Administration’s About-Face on Obama-Era Mandatory Innovation Models

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has just released a proposed rule to cancel a significant — but still-pending — Obama Administration program that would require certain hospitals to participate in Medicare episode payment models (EPMs) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), and surgical hip/femur fracture treatment (SHFFT) procedures furnished in designated areas of the country. Perhaps more surprisingly, CMS also would dramatically scale back mandatory participation in the ongoing Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) program, with an option for participating hospitals in about half of the current CJR locations to shift to voluntary participation.

As previously reported, the EPM and CJR programs were part of the Obama Administration’s high-profile efforts to move the Medicare system away from fee-for-service (FFS) payments and towards alternative payment models (APMs) that reward quality of care rather than volume of services. Although early APMs (e.g., the Bundled Payment for Care Initiative) were voluntary, CMS eventually shifted attention to mandatory models in order to broaden participation. President Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, M.D., has long been critical of mandatory Medicare payment innovation models and has been contemplating changes to these programs.  It is now clear that the Trump Administration is reversing course and pulling back from mandatory models.  In fact, CMS stated in an announcement that it “expects to increase opportunities for providers to participate in voluntary initiatives rather than large mandatory episode payment model efforts” in the future.

EPM/CR Models Slated for Cancellation

CMS published a final rule in early 2017 to establish a mandatory EPM program for AMI and CABG cases in 98 metropolitan statistical areas (MSA), along with a mandatory EPM program for SHFFT procedures in 67 MSAs covered by the CJR program. In short, CMS planned to provide a bundled payment to hospitals in selected geographic areas for individual episodes, covering all services provided during the inpatient admission through 90 days post-discharge.  In such cases, the hospital would be held accountable for spending during the episode of care.  The bundled payment to the hospital would be paid retrospectively through a reconciliation process (hospitals and other providers and suppliers would continue to submit claims and receive payment via the usual Medicare FFS payment systems).  A participant hospital would receive a “reconciliation payment” if its actual episode payments (combined Medicare Part A and B claims payments for services furnished to the beneficiary during the episode) were below the target price for the episode, and certain quality thresholds were met.  Beginning with the second performance year, affected hospitals would be required to repay Medicare for a portion of spending that exceeded the target price (with limits on upward and downward adjustment). The rule also included provisions intended to promote the use of cardiac rehabilitation services through a Cardiac Rehabilitation (CR) Incentive Payment Model.
Continue Reading CMS Proposes Cancellation of Medicare Cardiac/Hip Fracture Episode Payment Models, Scale-Back of Mandatory CJR Participation

In the waning days of the Obama Administration, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has unveiled a lengthy and complex final rule to establish mandatory Medicare bundled payment programs for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), and surgical hip/femur fracture treatment (SHFFT) procedures furnished in designated geographic areas.  The rule also includes provisions to promote the use of cardiac rehabilitation services, refine current Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model (CJR) rules, and integrate bundled payment programs into the new physician Quality Payment Program. The 1,606-page advance version of the rule was released on December 20, 2016; the official version is scheduled to be published January 3, 2017.

Note that President-elect Donald Trump’s designee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Rep. Tom Price, M.D., has been highly critical of the proposed version of the rule published in August 2016, and has called on the CMS Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) to “stop experimenting with Americans’ health, and cease all current and future planned mandatory initiatives within the CMMI.” It is therefore uncertain whether all provisions of the final rule will actually be implemented as CMS currently envisions.  Nevertheless, impacted providers need to be prepared for potentially significant changes.

Mandatory Episode Payment Models for Cardiac Care, Hip/Femur Fractures

The final rule establishes new “episode payment models” (EPMs) that seek to “advance CMS’ goal of improving the efficiency and quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries and encourage hospitals, physicians, and post-acute care providers to work together to improve the coordination of care from the initial hospitalization through recovery.” CMS estimates that the EPMs will save $159 million during the duration of the program (July 1, 2017 through December 31, 2021).

CMS will “test” the EPMs beginning July 1, 2017 and ending December 31, 2021. CMS has selected 98 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) for the CABG and AMI EPMs, and will implement the SHFFT model in the same 67 MSAs where the CJR program is already underway. Acute care hospitals in these areas will participate in the models if they are paid under the Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) and are not concurrently participating in Models 2, 3, or 4 of the Innovation Center’s Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative for AMI, CABG, or SHFFT episodes. CMS estimates that approximately 1,120 hospitals will participate in the AMI and CABG models, and 860 hospitals will participate in the SHFFT model.

Under the final rule, an AMI, CABG, or SHFFT model episode will begin with an inpatient admission to an “anchor hospital” for the following specified Medicare Severity-Diagnosis Related Groups (MS-DRG):…
Continue Reading CMS Issues Final Mandatory Episode Payment Models for Cardiac and Orthopedic Cases, Plus New Cardiac Rehabilitation Incentive Payment Model and CJR Program Refinements

Observers are digesting what the Trump Administration will mean for the health care and life sciences industry.  Forecasting is more challenging for this incoming Administration than most given the relatively sparse policy details released during the campaign and the lack of a government service record to examine for clues.  Today President-elect Trump’s transition team released a one-page statement on health care policy, but many questions remain.  Nevertheless, we offer below our initial observations and issues to watch in the months to come.

  • Potential Sea Change. Uncertainty is, as some like to say, the “obvious comment” that characterizes the whole prospective Trump Administration.  Other than an intended “repeal and replacement” of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), President-elect Trump has provided relatively few details on a proposed health care agenda.  Until these policies are fleshed-out, expect an environment where some business decisions and investments may be delayed, with a resulting impact on merger and acquisition activity. That said, other transactions may become more likely, as the threat of new restrictions under a Clinton administration are removed, along with the prospect of potential regulatory relief under a Republican-controlled federal government.
  • Affordable Care Act Repeal and Replacement.  Trump has repeatedly indicated his desire to repeal and replace the ACA, including a vow to summon Congress into a special session for this task.  If the law is repealed, however, what would take its place, and how would Congress address the roughly 20 million Americans currently covered in some way under the ACA (and the potential rise in uncompensated care costs that also would result)?  Despite the call for repeal, certain parts of the law are popular. For instance, President-elect Trump noted on the campaign trail that he was in support of the ACA’s prohibition against the use of pre-existing health conditions to deny coverage (or as a basis for premium-setting).  Other proposals offered by Trump as candidate include allowing for the sale of health insurance across state lines as long as plans comply with state requirements, various tax benefits, and more transparency in health care pricing.  In today’s policy statement, President-elect Trump added support for high-risk pools, which he characterizes as “a proven approach to ensuring access to health insurance coverage for individuals who have significant medical expenses and who have not maintained continuous coverage.”  Congressional Republicans have offered a number of alternatives that are likely to be a springboard for reform, most notably the “Better Way” plan proposed by House Speaker Paul Ryan.  In fact, according to the Speaker’s office, “in the 114th Congress alone, House Republicans have introduced more than 400 individual bills that would improve our nation’s health care system” – demonstrating that Congress is not reticent about legislating on health care issues.  The new Senate’s Republican majority will not have the 60 votes required to override a potential Democratic filibuster of legislation to fully repeal the law. While Congress could use budget reconciliation authority (which requires only 50 votes in the Senate) to make significant changes, the drawn-out pace of the budget process may not satisfy those who want quick action in this area.  Regardless of the legislative vehicle, after years of calling for Obamacare repeal while President Obama was in office, the Republican Congress will be under tremendous pressure to act quickly – even if it is a “down-payment” on reform — now that Republicans will control the presidency and the Congress.

…
Continue Reading Looking Ahead to a Trump Administration: Health Care and Life Sciences Industry Perspectives

By October 16, 2016, all health programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), those administered by HHS, and Health Insurance Marketplaces (Covered Entities), must be in compliance with the final pieces of the final rule issued by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued May 18…

On September 28, 2016, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released a highly-anticipated final rule to strengthen requirements that long-term care (LTC) facilities must meet to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.  The sweeping rule – more than 700 pages – is intended to improve the safety, quality, and effectiveness of care delivered to facility residents.  According to CMS, the final rule reflects nearly 10,000 public comments on the July 16, 2015 proposed rule.  CMS adopted numerous changes from the proposed rule, including various revisions to staffing and training requirements, care planning rules, infection prevention, and control program provisions.
Continue Reading CMS Finalizes Major Changes to Medicare/Medicaid Requirements for Long-Term Care Facilities

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced proposals for three new “episode payment models” that, like the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model, would mandate provider participation in selected geographic areas. The episodes included in these payment models would address care for heart attacks, coronary artery bypass graft, and surgical hip/femur fracture treatment (excluding lower-extremity joint replacement). The performance period for these proposed episode payment models would begin July 1, 2017, giving hospitals and other providers a very short amount of time to prepare for these new payment methods. Comments are due October 3, 2016. Reed Smith is available to assist clients with preparation of comments or questions related to the proposed rule.
Continue Reading CMS Proposes Three New “Episode Payment Models” for Cardiac Care, Hip/Femur Fracture Cases, Plus Changes to CJR Model

On July 25, 2016, CMS announced ambitious, multi-pronged plans to expand mandatory Medicare coordinated care/bundled payment programs, promote the use of cardiac rehabilitation services, refine current Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model (CJR) rules, and integrate bundled payment programs into the upcoming Medicare physician quality/payment framework. The proposed “Advancing Care Coordination through Episode Payment Model” rule is part of the Administration’s efforts to move the Medicare system away from fee-for-service (FFS) payments and towards alternative payment models that reward quality of care rather than volume of services.
Continue Reading CMS Unveils New Mandatory Medicare Bundled Payment Models for Cardiac & Hip Fracture Cases, Plus Proposed Refinements to CJR Program

On February 9, 2016, the Obama Administration released its proposed fiscal year (FY) 2017 budget, which contains significant Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement and program integrity legislative proposals – including $419 billion in Medicare savings over 10 years. These proposed policy changes would require action by Congress, and Republican Congressional leaders have already voiced general…

As previously reported, CMS has published its final rule to establish a Medicare Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model that establishes a bundled payment framework for acute care hospitals for lower extremity joint replacement surgery (LEJR) episodes of care in selected geographic areas. The CJR initiative is particularly significant given that it is…

On November 16, 2015, CMS released its final rule to establish a Medicare Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model that will test whether bundled payments to acute care hospitals for lower extremity joint replacement surgery (LEJR) episodes of care will reduce Medicare expenditures while preserving or enhancing the quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries. CMS estimates that this initiative – which will be mandatory for most hospitals operating in selected geographical areas –will include about 23% of all LEJR episodes nationally and will result in approximately $343 million in net Medicare savings over five years. The advance version of the final rule is lengthy (more than 1000 pages) and complex. The basic framework of the program aligns with the program specifications set forth in CMS’s July 14, 2015 proposed rule. CMS did, however, push back the start date for the initiative; the regulations, while effective on January 15, 2016, are applicable when the first model performance period begins on April 1, 2016. Our preliminary observations regarding key features of the final rule and notable changes from the proposed rule include the following:…
Continue Reading CMS Finalizes “Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement” Model

On April 20, 2015, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (“OIG”) released educational guidance designed to assist governing boards of health care organizations (“Boards”) in their compliance oversight functions. This guidance, entitled “Practical Guidance for Health Care Governing Boards on Compliance Oversight” (the “Guidance”), was developed in a collaborative effort among the OIG, the Association of Healthcare Internal Auditors (“AHIA”), the American Health Lawyers Association (“AHLA”), and the Health Care Compliance Association (“HCCA”). The Guidance updates previous guidance issued by OIG and AHLA, and incorporates insight from the AHIA and HCCA to help assist the internal auditors, compliance officers, and lawyers that report to the Boards. The document addresses four key issues relating to a Board’s oversight and review of compliance program functions: (1) the roles and relationships among an organization’s audit, compliance, and legal departments; (2) the mechanisms and processes for reporting to the Board; (3) identifying and auditing regulatory risk; and (4) methods to encourage organization-wide accountability for achieving compliance goals and objectives. …
Continue Reading OIG Partners with Industry Associations by Issuing Practical Guidance for Health Care Governing Boards on Compliance Oversight

On November 6, 2014, CMS published a final rule that makes significant and highly technical changes to Medicare payment policies for durable medical equipment (DME), prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS).  Notably, the rule finalizes a new methodology for adjusting Medicare DMEPOS fee schedule payment amounts across the country using information from the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program (CBP). CMS estimates that this methodology will cut Medicare DMEPOS reimbursement by more than $4.4 billion over fiscal years 2016 through 2020. The rule also finalizes a mechanism to test the use of bundled monthly payment amounts for certain DME under competitive bidding; modifies CBP change of ownership (CHOW) and termination of contract rules; and codifies Medicare hearing aid coverage policy. Note that CMS did not adopt its proposal to clarify practitioner qualifications for providing custom fitting services for orthotics. The following is a summary of the final rule, with particular emphasis on revisions to CMS’s July 11, 2014 proposed rule.
…
Continue Reading CMS Adopts Major Changes to Medicare DMEPOS Payment/Coverage Policy Inside/Outside of Competitive Bidding Areas

On September 19, 2014, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health & Human Services issued a Special Advisory Bulletin (SAB) in which it identified several potential regulatory risks to federal health care programs as the result of coupon programs used by drug manufacturers to reduce or eliminate patient copayments for brand-name drugs. In the SAB, the OIG explains that coupon program sponsors and pharmacies will risk the receipt of penalties if they do not take steps to actively prevent federal health care program beneficiaries from using the coupons. According to the OIG, these coupon programs qualify as examples of remuneration offered to consumers to encourage the purchase and use of specific items, and therefore implicate the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. In addition, a claim that includes items or services resulting from such a kickback violation would constitute a false or fraudulent claim under the False Claims Act.
Continue Reading HHS OIG Paints with Broad Brush in Criticizing Drug Manufacturer Coupon Programs

Medicare suppliers of durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS) should be on the alert for enhanced Medicare supplier standard compliance monitoring by CMS, the National Supplier Clearinghouse (NSC), and their agents. Recently, these entities have taken draconian actions to revoke the enrollment of a number of suppliers who failed to be present during indicated hours of operation. Recent Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decisions have upheld such revocations for technical violation of the Medicare supplier standard, even in the face of extenuating circumstances, reinforcing the need for suppliers to review their practices and policies to ensure full compliance.
…
Continue Reading Is anybody home? Medicare contractors on the prowl for DMEPOS supplier violations of posted business hours and other physical facility standards.

This post was also written by Tillman J. Breckenridge. As has been widely reported, today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) individual health insurance mandate does not violate the Constitution because it may be viewed as a permissible tax on individuals who do not obtain health insurance.  The only provision of the law that the Court invalidated is a Medicaid provision that threatened states with the loss of existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the ACA’s Medicaid coverage extension. By preserving the vast majority of the landmark health reform law, the Court avoided the policy chaos that would have resulted from striking down the ACA in its entirety. There is now legal certainty for state and federal governments, health care providers and suppliers, drug and device manufacturers, employers and individuals.  As discussed below, the focus in Washington will return to continuing implementation of the law. Nevertheless, although the legal battle is over, the political fight will continue and likely reverberate through the coming Presidential and Congressional election campaigns. …
Continue Reading Supreme Court Upholds ACA Insurance Mandate, Limits Withholding of Medicaid Funds to States