Medicare Payment Fiasco Causes Delay in Claims Processing

Action Should Not Mean Delayed Payments

By James Arvantes | AAFP News Now
7/1/2008

The Bush administration has announced it will delay the processing, but not necessarily the payment, of Medicare claims to give Congress more time to pass a bill blocking a 10.6 percent reduction in the Medicare payment rate. However, the administration’s action should not result in delayed Medicare payments to physicians, said Kent Moore, the AAFP’s manager of health financing and delivery systems.

CMS is required by law to hold Medicare claims it receives for 14 days before issuing payment on the claims. In normal circumstances, the agency starts to process claims within a few days of receiving them, paying them by the end of the 14-day time frame, Moore said. CMS now plans to hold Medicare claims for 10 business days before processing them to give Congress more time to pass Medicare payment legislation that is expected to negate a 10.6 percent payment cut effective July 1.

“CMS will use that 14-day window they have statutorily and refrain from processing the claim,” Moore said. “Instead of processing (a claim) at the front end of that 14 days, they will process it 10 days later on the hope that Congress will act within the first days of July,” said Moore. “Physicians should not see a delay in payment,” he added.

In late June, the House overwhelming passed an 18-month Medicare physician payment bill that would have prevented the 10.6 percent reduction scheduled for the remainder of this year, along with a 5.4 percent cut scheduled for 2009. But the Senate failed to pass the legislation, allowing the 10.6 percent cut to take effect on July 1. Congress adjourned for a weeklong July 4 recess on June 27 and will return on July 7. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., in a prepared statement, said the Senate would address the Medicare legislation shortly after returning from the July 4 break.

Many physicians, meanwhile, are upset and angry, said Moore, thinking CMS will withhold Medicare payments, a perception that he characterizes as a misunderstanding.

“CMS is simply saying that they are going to take advantage of the 14-day payment floor they already have by law,” Moore said. “They still intend to pay claims in a timely manner.”

Although physicians will experience a reduction in their Medicare payment levels if Congress and the Bush administration cannot agree on a Medicare payment bill by mid-July, there is an expectation that they will agree on a payment bill by then and will make the legislation retroactive to July 1.

CMS has said that physicians should submit their Medicare claims for services on or after July 1 using the pre-July 1 scheduled amount. Claims submitted after June 30 that reflect the 10.6 percent reduction will be paid based on that amount, and “will likely require providers to resubmit a revised claim,” said CMS in a June 30 press release.

Submitting claims with pre-July 1 amounts “will facilitate reprocessing of the claims by CMS, if needed, and will ensure that physicians are able to collect the full pre-July 1 allowed amount, when or if the cut is retroactively negated,” said Moore.

However, noted Moore, “physician practices may only collect copayments and deductibles from Medicare beneficiaries based on the reduced (Medicare) rate, even if they are charging the pre-July 1 rate to Medicare.”

Physician practices wishing to avoid confusion may choose to hold their Medicare claims in-house until it becomes clear that new legislation will be enacted or until cash flow becomes a problem, said Moore. “This will reduce the need for (physicians) to reconcile two payments — the initial claim and the reprocessed claim — and it will simplify physician billings of beneficiary co-insurance and payment calculations for payers that are secondary to Medicare,” said Moore.

 

Health Insurance Falling Short for More People

Number of underinsured up 60% last year vs. 2003, study finds

By KRISTEN GERENCHER
June 13, 2008 3:38 p.m
Source: wsj.com – The Wall Street Journal

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — People without health insurance risk potential financial disaster if they should need expensive medical care, but a growing number of underinsured Americans also find themselves on shaky financial ground.

Despite the U.S. economy’s growth in the last five years, the number of people with health insurance who face high out-of-pocket medical expenses relative to their incomes has risen sharply since 2003, according to a new study.

More than 25 million working-age Americans were underinsured last year, up 60% from the 16 million who had inadequate coverage in 2003, according to a report from the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation in New York. The rate of underinsurance nearly tripled among middle- and higher-income families, those with at least $40,000 in family income.

“Lack of insurance is only one part of the problem, as even the insured have serious gaps in coverage,” said Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund. “Insurance coverage is the ticket into the health-care system, but for too many, that ticket doesn’t buy financial security or genuine access to care.”

The upward trend in the underinsured rate reflects how much rising health-care costs have outpaced wage gains. Premiums for family coverage have jumped 78% since 2001, while wages have risen 19% and general inflation has gone up 17% in that time, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Researchers considered people who had coverage all year long underinsured if they had out-of-pocket medical, prescription, dental and vision expenses that amounted to 10% or more of their total household income, or 5% if they were low income. People who had deductibles equal to or greater than 5% of their income also qualified as underinsured because of their potential financial exposure.

During 2007, 42% of adults, or 75 million people, were either uninsured or underinsured, up from one-third in 2003, according to the study of 2,616 people ages 19 to 64. It was published online Tuesday in the journal Health Affairs.

Similar patterns to uninsured

Employers burdened by rapidly rising health-care costs have been shifting more of those costs to workers or limiting benefits, the study found. The underinsured were more likely to have individual or small-group coverage, and those with employer-based health insurance were more likely to work in low-wage jobs or at small firms than their adequately insured counterparts. What’s more, the underinsured were more likely to report paying high deductibles and many paid high annual premiums.

The underinsured often resembled the uninsured more so than the insured in their health-care choices and experiences. More than half of the underinsured — 53% — and 68% of the uninsured avoided needed care because of cost, compared with 31% of the adequately insured who went without, the study found. That includes not seeing a doctor when sick, not filling prescriptions and not getting recommended diagnostic tests or treatments.

About 45% of the underinsured reported difficulty paying medical bills, being contacted by collection agencies or changing their way of life to keep up on health-care payments, just shy of the 51% of uninsured who said the same.

In the U.S., even people with health insurance can rack up medical debt or face bankruptcy, said Cathy Schoen, senior vice president of the Commonwealth Fund. “As a nation we are losing ground. We need to move in new directions.”

Leon Rousso, a certified financial planner in Ventura, Calif., who sells health insurance as part of his business, said he tries to place moderate-income people in health plans that have a sensible annual out-of-pocket maximum and reasonable coverage for their biggest potential out-of-pocket costs. Sometimes that means moving them to a higher deductible plan in exchange for lower premiums.

Of course, many people have to take whatever their employer offers them, he said.

Insured people “don’t really have a lot of clout,” Rousso said. “Middle to lower middle class, that’s really where the vulnerable spot is. You see a lot of people who don’t have a lot of money.”

Those who shop for their own plan are wise to look for coverage of big-ticket items. Rousso advised focusing on financial protection for hospitalization charges and prescription drugs.

“Those are the biggest places to lose your fortune,” he said. “It’s all about protecting your assets.”

Many of the underinsured are in scaled-down, more affordable health plans, said Nancy Davenport-Ennis, chief executive of the nonprofit Patient Advocate Foundation in Newport News, Va. The group tries to help people with chronic, debilitating and life-threatening conditions get the care they need, with 78% of its annual cases involving cancer patients.

“We actually found that an underinsured consumer has a tougher time getting to resources than a completely uninsured consumer,” she said.

The underinsured are often in plans that have limits such as dollar caps on diagnoses and specific services and restrictions on the number and kind of drugs covered, which can undercut the kind of aggressive care many cancer patients count on, Davenport-Ennis said.

“In affordable plans, it’s almost standard to see a cap on the number of radiation visits you can have a year – somewhere between 12 and 15 — while most cancer therapies that have radiation as part of the treatment protocol historically require six consecutive weeks of daily treatments,” she said. “If you’re capped at 12, you’re going to be a private-pay person for the next 18.”

The Patient Advocate Foundation offers free case management for health-insurance issues of the seriously ill. Its hotline is 1-800-532-5274.

Controversy over cost controls

The U.S. spends enough on health care — 16% of its gross domestic product — to extend adequate health insurance to all, said Alan Sager, a health policy and management professor at Boston University’s School of Public Health.

“It’s something everyone wants and deserves, and crafting durably affordable health care is essential to rebuilding the economy,” he said.

“If we continue to accelerate toward the cliff, we’ll be spending more money on care but will have more uninsured and underinsured people, which means hospitals and doctors will work harder to overserve those of us who still have good insurance.”

In Massachusetts, a statewide reform law passed in 2006 that aimed to cover all residents “took an important step” but introduced new tensions, he said, especially around politically palatable cost-control methods. Many of the ones currently in vogue in national politics as well won’t do the trick, Sager said.

“The ideas that are under widespread political discussion — electronic medical records, prevention, chronic-care case management or deinsuring patients so they will be more motivated to shop by price and quality — none of these things will work to contain costs,” Sager said. “They’re all being pushed because they offer the shallow political promise of containing costs without actually disrupting business as usual in health care. Business as usual in health care means regular, large infusions of more money every year.”

Still, Sager said he’s optimistic that the next five years will bring major improvements in the nation’s health-care system.

“We all know we’re medically vulnerable because none of us is going to live forever, but as more of us realize that we’re also financially vulnerable, we’ll demand change and [solutions] that work financially, medically, ethically and politically.”

Write to Kristen Gerencher at kgerencher@dowjones.com

 

State proposes ban on HMO billing practice

June 1, 2008 | By LORA HINES | The Press-Enterprise

State officials, hospitals and doctors are locked in a dispute over whether some patients can be charged if they are taken to an emergency room outside of their health care network. For some, that bill can be a couple of hundred dollars, but for others it can reach into the thousands.

The ban proposed by the California Department of Managed Health Care would affect members of HMOs, such as Kaiser Permanente, not members of other kinds of insurance plans. The department only regulates HMOs. Administrators and hospital-based doctors say the state should be targeting insurance companies.

Statewide, thousands of people get pressed for payment by doctors and hospitals, typically after they are taken to an emergency room outside their insurance plan. Doctors and hospitals that think health care plans and insurance companies have shortchanged them on payment for treatment then try to make up the difference by going after patients who already paid their share. It’s called balance billing.

Karla and William Gledhill, of Chino Hills, understand the practice well.

The couple got hit with a $53,000 bill from Arrowhead Regional Medical Center in Colton after their insurance company, Anthem Blue Cross, paid about $25,000. Their 16-year-old son, Ryan, was flown to the hospital after a serious dirt bike crash in Lucerne Valley.

Karla Gledhill said she racked up late-payment fees and bill-collection threats as she repeatedly wrote letters and made telephone calls to the hospital and insurance company. Last week, the insurance company agreed to pay the bill.

Gledhill said she thought she would have to hire an attorney, which sometimes is a patient’s only recourse, hospital officials say.

The hospital and insurance company said privacy laws prevented them from commenting on the family’s claim.

“You don’t know anything about balance billing until you’re stuck in the middle, trying to hammer out what’s right,” Gledhill said.

Balance Billing

More than 1.75 million insured Californians who visited emergency rooms in the past two years were asked to pay more, even after their co-payments and deductibles, according to the California Association of Health Plans. The professional organization represents 40 health care plans that cover an estimated 21 million Californians.

The average balance bill was $300, which added up to about $528 million that patients spent in addition to their co-payments and deductibles, the association said. More than half of the patients who were balance billed paid.

“The practice needs to be banned, period,” said association spokeswoman Nicole Kasabian Evans. “The patient shouldn’t be placed in the middle. That’s what the insurance companies and health care providers are doing.”

In July 2006, Gov. Schwarzenegger ordered an end to balance billing after he realized many residents were being charged for medical expenses they didn’t owe, said Cindy Ehnes, director of the state Managed Health Care Department. But the department couldn’t come up with a suitable solution to HMOs and providers, she said. So, the department decided to merely ban the practice.

“We have tried many other approaches to solve this problem,” Ehnes said. “We have decided to go back to our first job, which is to protect consumers.”

Ehnes said she had hoped lawmakers would have passed legislation regulating balance billing. At least seven states have balance billing laws, including Colorado and Florida. Meanwhile, state Sens. Don Perata, D-Oakland, and Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, have introduced balance billing legislation.

HMO Vs. Hospital

The ban comes as Kaiser, the state’s largest HMO, got a temporary restraining order earlier this month from Los Angeles County Superior Court against Prime Healthcare Services Inc., of Victorville, to stop it from collecting money from thousands of Kaiser patients or reporting them to credit agencies. A hearing is set for Thursday.

“This has been an ongoing dispute for a year or year and a half,” said Dr. Ben Chu, president of Kaiser’s Southern California region. “… They threatened to trash their credit ratings if they didn’t pay.”

Earlier this year, Prime Healthcare sued Kaiser, claiming that Kaiser owes $25 million for its patients who were treated at eight of Prime Healthcare’s hospitals, including Desert Valley Hospital in Victorville, Chino Valley Medical Center and Montclair Medical Center.

Prime Healthcare attorney Michael Sarrao couldn’t be reached for comment.

Prime Healthcare has accused Kaiser of delaying payments by repeatedly demanding patient medical records, claiming that care provided was unnecessary and requiring transfer of members to Kaiser hospitals.

Chu disputed the claims.

“It’s not about delaying payment,” he said. “It’s about substantiating claims.”

Calculating Health Cost

Dr. Richard Frankenstein, president of the California Medical Association, said the organization, which represents 35,000 doctors, will fight the state Managed Health Care Department’s ban.

“They ought to be regulating the insurance companies, not the doctors, which it does not have the authority to do,” he said. “We see this as a $500 million transfer from patients to insurance companies, and the insurance companies aren’t paying the bill.”

On average, Frankenstein said, insurance companies pay all but about $30 of a doctor’s bill.

“If that doctor sees 50 to 60 patients, that $30 does add up,” he said.

Some specialists may not work on-call emergencies if insurance companies refuse to pay and they can’t bill patients, Frankenstein said.

Frank Arambula, Arrowhead Regional Medical Center’s chief financial officer, said the hospital compares its costs to those of other facilities, which are reported to the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. The data are posted on the agency’s Web site.

“We set our rates based on market-driven prices,” he said. “We think it’s a fair assignment and the payer is going to pay those charges.”

Conversely, insurance companies rarely show patients and health care providers how they determine what to pay for service, Arambula said.

In a written statement, Anthem Blue Cross spokeswoman Peggy Hinz said the company reimburses out-of-network hospitals for what it considers reasonable and customary costs. It is changing its reimbursement policy to protect members who require emergency care, she wrote.

“It was not the intent of our reimbursement policy to increase out of pocket expenses for our members, who do not have a choice in selecting the place where health care services are performed, such as in the case of an emergency,” Hinz wrote.

Anthem Blue Cross bases its reimbursement rates on factors including submitted charges for payment, comparisons of charges for services offered at other hospitals, and service costs that are reported to the state, Hinz wrote.

Fighting the Bill

The Gledhills didn’t care whether Arrowhead Regional Medical Center was in their Anthem Blue Cross preferred provider organization network. Their son needed surgery on his pancreas.

“Worst case, we thought we would owe $6,000,” said Karla Gledhill, whose husband owns a small Anaheim business.

Anthem Blue Cross first determined the Gledhills owed the hospital $53,273.17 after it paid $25,121.28, according to a claim recap. It paid another $12,606.15 after Karla Gledhill complained to the California Department of Insurance.

The Gledhills still faced a $40,667.12 bill and no explanation of how Anthem Blue Cross determined what it would pay.

“How could I fight a fair fight if I didn’t have all the information?” Karla Gledhill asked. “I didn’t think Arrowhead’s charges were exorbitant for the care my son received.”

On May 21, Anthem agreed to pay the rest of Ryan Gledhill’s hospital bill after the company “made a one time administrative decision to remit payment,” according to the letter the Gledhills received.

The letter did not include further explanation, and Hinz said privacy laws prevented her from offering one.

Reach Lora Hines at 951-368-9444 or lhines@PE.com

---

Online Help

California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development: www.oshpd.ca.gov

California Department for Managed Health Care: www.hmohelp.ca.gov

California Department of Insurance: www.insurance.ca.gov

---

 

Balanced Billing Destroys Capitalist Economy – Opinion

By: Alex Wawro

Posted: 4/9/08

If you have health insurance you ought to know what “balance billing” is. Balance billing and the ongoing attempts to outlaw it directly determine how much you pay for medical services.

Typically, if you have medical insurance (say, Kaiser Permanente), your provider will pay any medical fees above your standard co-payment. If Kaiser, however, only pays a standard allotment of $500 for a service a physician would normally charge $750 for (say, an emergency cardiac bypass), the doctor or hospital might send the patient a bill for the missing $250.

What this means for the average consumer is that not only do they have to pay their co-payment, they may receive a second bill for the remaining amount the insurance chose not to pay. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger supports a bill that would outlaw balance billing.

The less money you have to pay the better, right?

Wrong. The legislation is blatantly unjust; worse, it undermines the foundation of free enterprise that our economy is built upon.

Think about it – when you sign up with an HMO like Kaiser, you agree to pay a standard fee monthly in exchange for a guarantee of financial aid if you need serious medical care.

In return, Kaiser receives monthly income and negotiates flat rates for services with a pool of physicians; those physicians give up the right to charge their own price in exchange for guaranteed business from Kaiser customers.

But if you, as a Kaiser customer, are brought to the ER for emergency surgery, there are no guarantees that the surgeon working is a Kaiser-approved doctor. If that surgeon saves your life, should he or she be forced to accept whatever percentage of the standard rate Kaiser chooses to pay him or her for the service? He does not receive the benefits of being a member of the Kaiser family; why should he be forced to abide by their restrictions?

Essentially, passing this bill destroys the basis of our capitalist economy in favor of a more socialist system in which the government regulates our freedom to spend and charge what we think is fair. By eliminating the practice of balance billing, Schwarzenegger forces all doctors to accept whatever healthcare providers think is fair payment.

Even worse, it makes the entire system of licensed physicians meaningless. A doctor who agrees to accept Kaiser’s rates does so in exchange for receiving more business from the company. In essence, what he loses in individual sales he more than makes up for in volume.

If all physicians are limited to collecting only what Kaiser chooses to pay, why bother contracting with doctors in the first place?

Kaiser can pay a doctor whatever they believe they can get away with, and the physician has no choice but to take what he is given.

By removing a practitioner’s ability to charge what he thinks is adequate for his services the government is sullying the principles on which this country was founded.

Though this legislation seems to benefit the consumer, in the end only the corporation wins.

---

© Copyright 2008 Weekly Hornet