Contact Us
Categories
- Workplace Violence
- Assisted Living Facilities
- Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Civil Rights
- Medical Residents
- EMTALA
- FDA
- Reproductive Rights
- Roe v. Wade
- SCOTUS
- Medical Spas
- medical billing
- No Surprises Act
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Workplace health
- Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act
- Code Enforcement
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- Employment Law
- FFCRA
- CARES Act
- Nursing Home Reform Act
- Acute Care Beds
- Clinical Support
- Coronavirus
- COVID-19
- Emergency Medical Services
- Emergency Preparedness
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- KBML
- medication assisted therapy
- SB 150
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Legislative Developments
- Corporate
- United States Department of Justice ("DOJ")
- Employee Contracts
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Opioid Epidemic
- Sexual Harassment
- Health Resource and Services Administration
- Litigation
- Medical Malpractice
- House Bill 333
- Senate Bill 79
- Locum Tenens
- Physician Prescribing Authority
- Senate Bill 4
- Chronic Pain Management
- HIPAA
- Prescription Drugs
- "Two Midnights Rule"
- 340B Program
- EHR Systems
- Hospice
- ICD-10
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Primary Care Physicians ("PCPs")
- Skilled Nursing Facilities (“SNFs”)
- Uncategorized
- Affordable Insurance Exchanges
- Drug Screening
- Electronic Health Records (“EHR")
- Fraud
- Health Care Fraud
- HIPAA Risk Assessment
- KASPER
- Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure
- Kentucky’s Department for Medicaid Services
- Mental Health Care
- Office for Civil Rights ("OCR")
- Physician Assistants
- Qui Tam
- Stark Laws
- Urinalysis
- Accountable Care Organizations (“ACO”)
- Affordable Care Act
- Alternative Payment Models
- Anti-Kickback Statute
- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”)
- Certificate of Need ("CON")
- Charitable Hospitals
- Compliance
- Data Breach
- Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
- Electronic Protected Health Information (ePHI)
- False Claims Act
- Federally Qualified Health Centers (“FQHCs”)
- Fee for Service
- Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act)
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)
- Health Professional Shortage Area ("HPSA")
- Hospitals
- HPSA
- HRSA
- Limited Services Clinics
- Medicaid
- Medical Staff By-Laws
- Medically Underserved Area ("MUA")
- Medicare
- Mid-Level Practitioners
- Office of Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (OIG)
- Part D
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”)
- Pharmacists
- Rural Health Centers (“RHCs”)
- Rural Health Clinic
- Telehealth
- American Telemedicine Association (“ATA”)
- Criminal Division of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”)
- Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (“HEAT”)
- Hydrocodone
- Kentucky Board of Nursing
- Kentucky Pharmacists Association
- Qualified Health Care Centers (“FQHC”)
- Telemedicine
- Agreed Order
- APRNs
- Chain and Organization System (“PECOS”)
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California
- Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA")
- Emergency Rooms
- Enrollment
- Hinchy v. Walgreen Co.
- Jimmo v. Sebelius
- Maintenance Standard
- Overpayments
- Re-validation
- United States ex. Rel. Kane v. Continuum Health Partners
- Vitas Innovative Hospice Care
- Webinar
- 2014 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (“PFS”)
- 501(c)(3)
- All-Payer Claims Database ("APCD")
- Appeal
- Chiropractic services
- Chronic Care Management
- Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (“CLIA”)
- Compliance Officer
- Compounding
- CPR
- Dispenser
- Drug Quality and Security Act (“DQSA”)
- Essential Health Benefits
- HealthCare.gov
- House Bill 3204
- ICD-9
- Kentucky Senate Bill 7
- Kindred v. Cherolis
- Long-term care communities
- Medicare Part D
- Minors
- National Drug Code ("NDC")
- New England Compounding Center ("NECC")
- Ophthalmological services
- Outsourcing facility
- Physician Compare website
- Ping v. Beverly Enterprises
- Power of Attorney ("POA")
- Prescriber
- State Health Plan
- Sustainable Growth Rate (“SGR”)
- Texting
- "Plan of Correction"
- Affinity Health Plan
- Arbitration
- Audit
- Cadillac tax
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- Community health needs assessment (“CHNA”)
- Condition of Participation ("CoP")
- Daycare centers
- Decertification
- Denied Claims
- Department of Medicaid Services’ (“DMS”)
- Division of Regulated Child Care
- Doe v. Guthrie Clinic
- EHR vendor
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employer Mandate
- ERISA
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- False Billings
- Federation of State Medical Boards (“FSMB”)
- Food and Drug Administratio
- Form 4720
- Grace Period
- Health Professional Shortage Areas (“HPSA”)
- Health Reform
- Home Health Prospective Payment System
- Home Medical Equipment Providers
- Hospitalists
- Individual mandate
- Inpatient Care
- Intermediate Sanctions Agreement
- Kentucky Health Benefit Exchange
- Kentucky Medical Practice Act
- Kynect
- Licensed practical nurses (LPN)
- Licensure Requirements
- List of Excluded Individuals and Entities
- LLC v. Sutter
- Long-Term Care Providers ("LTC")
- Low-utilization payment adjustment ("LUPA")
- Meaningful use incentives
- Medicare Administrative Coordinators
- Medicare Benefit Policy Manual
- Medicare Shared Saving Program (MSSP)
- Mobile medical applications ("apps")
- Model Policy for the Appropriate Use of Social Media and Social Networking in Medical Practice (“Model Policy”)
- National Institutes of Health
- Network provider agreement
- Nonprofit hospitals
- Nonroutine medical supplies conversion factor (“NRS”)
- Nurse practitioners (NP)
- Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (“ONC”)
- Part A
- Part B
- Patient Privacy
- Payors
- Personal Service Entities
- Physician Payments
- Physician Recruitment
- Physician shortages
- Provider Self Disclosure Protocol
- Qualified Health Plan ("QHP")
- Quality reporting
- Registered nurses (RN)
- Residency Programs
- Self-Disclosure Protocol
- Social Media
- Spousal coverage
- Statement of Deficiency ("SOD")
- Trade Association Group Coverage
- Upcoding
- UPS
- “Superuser”
- Advanced Practice Registered Nurses
- Autism/ASD
- Business Associate Agreements
- Business Associates
- Call Coverage
- Compliance Programs
- Critical Access Hospitals (“CAHs”)
- Essential Health Benefits (“EHBs”)
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Group Purchasing Organizations ("GPO")
- House Bill 104
- Kentucky House Bill 159
- Kentucky House Bill 217
- Kentucky Primary Care Centers (“PCCs”)
- Managed Care Organizations (“MCOs”)
- Medicare Audit Improvement Act of 2012
- Patient Autonomy
- Personal Health Information
- Recovery Audit Contractors (“RAC”)
- Senate Bill 39
- Senate Finance Committee Report
- Small Business Health Options Program (“SHOP”)
- State Medicaid Expansion
- Abuse and Waste
- Center for Disease Control
- Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan programs (“CO-OPS”)
- Free Conference Committee Report
- Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS)
- House Bill 1
- House Bill 4
- Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services
- Kentucky Health Care Co-Op
- Kentucky Health Cooperative (“KYHC”)
- Kentucky “Pill Mill Bill”
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
- Pain Management Facilities
- Sunshine Act
- Employee Agreement
- Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program
- Health Insurance
- Healthcare Regulation
- Health Care Law
McBrayer Blogs
Watch out MCOs--What to do with Medicaid Managed Care Organizations’ Payment Denials. Medicaid’s Findings of Alleged Overpayments—Relief?
With reported revenues in the billions of dollars and net profits not far behind, insurance companies providing a Medicaid Managed Care product are making huge profits on Kentucky’s Medicaid business. Across the country, lawsuits are being filed that go so far as to allege that these Medicaid Managed Care Organizations (“MCOs”) have been unjustly enriched and have made fraudulent misrepresentations, as well as negligent misrepresentations to providers and their staff. WellCare, in particular, is the subject of a new action in Florida based, in part, on its Kentucky Medicaid business. While these lawsuits create a very important way to address reimbursement issues, Kentucky providers have a new avenue to pursue claims against MCOs. In April of 2016, the Kentucky legislature directed that health care providers have a process by which a Medicaid MCO’s final decision denying a healthcare service or claim could be reviewed and appealed. Under the statute, providers could receive an independent, third-party review of denied Medicaid managed-care claims, as well as an administrative process for review. Prior to the new process in Senate Bill 20, the only avenue for appeal was to the MCO itself or through the Department of Insurance’s policy of reviewing claims regarding failure to make prompt payment, which was a process established by policy, not regulation. Finally, in December 2016, the final regulations implementing the statute and providing the process for appeal were promulgated by Kentucky’s Department for Medicaid Services (“DMS”), making available long-awaited relief for health care providers facing denied claims from Medicaid MCOs.
Kentucky’s new appeals process, codified in KRS §205.646, is similar to those found in states such as Virginia and Georgia, where some Kentucky MCOs also operate. This was at least the second attempt by the legislature to bring this appeals process to Kentucky – the last attempt was vetoed by Governor Beshear in 2013. The new process applies to all MCOs that contracted with the state after July 1, 2016, and the emergency regulations became effective as of December 1, 2016.
With the new regulations in place, providers should have a new tool for challenging reimbursement denials and findings of overpayment by MCOs. Because the statute and regulation are somewhat ambiguous, there is some question about whether denials of payment based upon statistical sampling, among other things, are appropriately reviewed in this process. We think that they are.
Third-Party Review
KRS §205.646 (2) states that “a provider who has exhausted the written internal appeals process of a Medicaid managed care organization shall be entitled to an external independent third-party review of the MCO’s final decision that denies, in whole or in part, a health care service to an enrollee or a claim for reimbursement to a provider.” The MCO must provide the decision in writing to the provider, along with a statement that the internal appeal rights have been exhausted and that the provider is entitled to an external review, along with the time period and contact address to request such a review.
The specifics of the external review process are the same in both the emergency and regular forms of 907 KAR 17:035. Upon receiving the final decision from the MCO, the provider has 60 calendar days to request third-party review. This can be done electronically, by fax or postal mail. The request must state the reason why the provider believes the MCO’s decision is erroneous. The MCO must then notify both DMS and the Medicaid enrollee within five business days of receiving the external review request, and DMS will assign a third-party reviewer to assess the case.
Because the time frames for requesting review and appeal, particularly appeal, are short, providers need to follow the requirements very closely and have a process in place where office and billing staff calendar denials and are equipped to handle them. Additionally, it is probably important to notify beneficiaries, as well, to assure that they know what is going on with the claim. This process could potentially get tricky if the beneficiary requests an administrative hearing on the denial before the provider does. In that case, the request for external third-party review will be denied. If the enrollee requests an administrative hearing after the provider requests third-party review, the third-party review will be suspended pending the full adjudication of the enrollee’s administrative proceeding.
Administrative Hearing
Once the independent third-party review has been conducted, both the provider and the MCO have the right to appeal the decision within 30 days. 907 KAR 17:040E (both emergency and regular regulations contain the same provisions) governs the appeal process after the third-party review.
The party that does not prevail in the administrative hearing will bear the costs of the hearing: a fee of $600 payable to DMS.
Accountability
The basic effect of these new laws and regulations is that MCOs are now held accountable for denial of care and claims. This process gives providers a right to an administrative review and ultimately review in Franklin Circuit Court. Having the process does not immediately mean relief, but it is a step toward resolution. MCOs now must provide an external review process and have a time frame that they should follow. They no longer get the final word on the reimbursement of claims and determination of medical necessity, supporting documentation, requirements, and quality of care issues. The process gives power to providers essentially on the behalf of their patients so that the balance now shifts back toward quality, comprehensive care of all patients.
Overpayment Appeals by Medicaid
901 KAR 1:671 governs the Medicaid appeals process in Kentucky for findings of overpayment by Medicaid rather than MCOs. This process applies not only to overpayments, but to any other appealable determination, such as termination or suspension of provider status, sanctions by the Department for Medicaid Services or withholding of payments during a fraud investigation. While the process has been around for quite a while, it is complicated and has important deadlines that can be easy to miss for providers.
When deciding whether to appeal an overpayment determination, a provider should consider one important benefit—Medicaid’s recoupment process is stayed or stops! In other words, a provider does not have to pay back the amount of overpayment immediately as Medicaid usually demands. The repayment is essentially tolled until the resolution of the administrative review and hearing process.
Once the decision to appeal has been made, the provider must first complete a request for a Dispute Resolution Meeting (“DRM”) within 30 calendar days of receipt of the demand or notice from the DMS. It is crucial to note that all allegations and issues must be raised in the DRM request or DMS will deem that the issue may be waived. And, it can be quite a chore to prepare a DRM request that raises all issues in a very short time frame. The provider may also elect to submit documentation in lieu of a meeting or even ask for a telephone conference. Within 30 days of the DRM, DMS will issue a decision, which can be appealed by requesting an administrative hearing within 30 days.
If the provider is dissatisfied with the administrative result, then an appeal can be taken to Franklin Circuit Court, which may, if asked, also order that recoupment not be instituted.
Conclusion
While the appeals process for both MCO claim denials and overpayment determinations is complicated and can be lengthy, both operate to provide healthcare providers with a route to defend claims and practices against overzealous determinations on the part of DMS and MCOs. The new appeals process for MCO denials and findings of overpayment is an important tool that providers should take advantage of when economical.
Lisa English Hinkle is a Member of McBrayer law. Ms. Hinkle chairs the healthcare law practice and is located in the firm’s Lexington office. Contact Ms. Hinkle at lhinkle@mcbrayerfirm.com or (859) 231-8780, ext. 1256, or reach out to any of the attorneys at McBrayer.
Services may be performed by others.
This article does not constitute legal advice.
This article will be available in a forthcoming edition of Medical News and will be available online at http://www.medicalnews.md.