No Surprise Act AKA Good Faith Estimates

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) effective January 1, 2022 has ramped up the new No Surprise Act (“NSA”) or often called the “Good Faith Law”. This law shall apply to group health plans, health insurers, health care providers and health care facilities (“Providers”). The NSA requires health care providers to be proactive and reactive as it relates to providing patients who are self-pay or shall receive out-of-network bills from their health insurance a pre-bill outlining the services they are intending to receive and could potentially receive.

Self-Pay

Self-Pay patients apply to a wide range of medical providers; therefore, the importance of this law is crucial for providers accepting cash patients. The provider will be required to transmit to patients itemized disclosures of the services offered at the facility, these disclosures are called “Good Faith Estimates”. A Good Faith Estimate will include various detailed terms that a patient must have upon request, or a provider will be required to inform a patient that said estimate is available to them when inquiring about services. The disclosure will be required at the front desk and on the providers website.

Out-of-Network

If a provider treats patients who have insurance coverage and is not in network with said insurance plan, the provider is subject to and will have to abide by the NSA.

The driving complaint by patients that lead to the institution of the NSA was surprise medical bills, which are essentially caused by balance billing. Balance billing occurs when a provider bills an amount or difference not covered by an insurance plan. Under the NSA, providers will have to implement the proper disclosure requirement of this practice, which must be presented to patients prior to the treatment. Providers will be required to obtain notice and consent forms signed by patients authorizing any additional billing not covered by the out-of-network coverage prior to providing said treatment.

Does Not Apply To

The NSA will not apply to vision or dental insurance plans which are solitary plans. However, if the vision and dental is an added benefit to a health plan it will be covered. The NSA will not apply to balance billing practices for those in the ground ambulance business. Providers who service Medicare, Medicaid, Indian Health Services, Veterans Affairs Health Care, or TRICARE shall not apply to NSA.

Penalties for Non-Compliance

A patient shall be allowed to dispute any bill charge in excess of $400 personally or through an independent third party, a “dispute resolution entity”, which shall determine the amount owed by the patient. An email shall be sent to the provider stating that a dispute has arisen, and the provider will be required to upload certain documentation surrounding the dispute. During a dispute resolution period, providers will not be allowed to move the bill into collection or threaten collection, if collection is already ongoing it shall be paused, late fees on the unpaid bill shall not be collectable, and any threats of retaliation against the disputing patient shall not be permitted. However, providers shall have the option to settle the claim with a patient directly abiding by the above, upon executing a settlement form. Failure to adhere to the NSA shall result in penalties up to $10,000 per violation.

No Surprise Billing Requirements to be Implemented Jan 1, 2022

On January 1, 2022, a new federal law, “Requirements Related to Surprise Billing, Part I” (“The Rule”),  goes into effect for health care providers and facilities and for providers of air ambulance services.  The Rule will restrict excessive out-of-pocket costs to consumers which resulting from surprise billing and balance billing.

Group health plans and health insurers contract with a network of provider and health care facilities, these providers are considered as in-network providers.  They agree to accept a specific payment for their services.  Providers and facilities that are not contracted with a health plan or insurer are known as out-of-network providers (OON). They usually charge higher amounts than in-network providers.  When OON providers do not receive full payment for their charge from the insurance payor, they charged the patient for the difference between the charge and the amount paid, a practice known as balance billing.Continue reading

Five Reimbursement Denial Reduction Tips

EOB

EOBBy: Zach Simpson

  1. Review EOBs and determine where denials are originating and their root cause

While reviewing EOBs practices need to determine if a trend can be established that identifies the root cause for why claims are being denied. Trends can be established by asking if most denials are originating in your patient access and registration departments, or are denials occurring because of insufficient documentation, or due to billing or coding errors?

Continue reading

COVID-19 Temporary Waivers and New Rules Issued by CMS to Combat the Pandemic

covid-19 temporary waiver

covid-19 temporary waiverBy: Susan St. John

CMS has issued temporary waivers and new rules to help the American health care system address the increased need for health care services caused by COVID-19. Among the waivers, CMS is allowing hospitals to set up services in alternative sites to accommodate increased patient census. Hospitals may be allowed to use ASCs, inpatient rehab hospitals, hotels and dormitories for non-COVID-19 patients or patients not requiring critical inpatient services. Hospitals are also being encouraged to increase staffing, allowing hospitals to increase staff through hiring of local and non-local providers/practitioners as long as they are appropriately licensed in the same state as the hospital or another state. However, even though CMS has created flexibility for rendering services during this pandemic, use of alternative “hospital” sites and expansion of hiring staff must comport with a state’s emergency preparedness or pandemic response plan.Continue reading

Seeking Compensation for Out of Network Claims: A Primer for Providers

healthcare fraud

out of network litigationBy: Matt Fischer

Litigation involving out of network claims by providers, also referred to as “non-participating” or “non-par”, continues to be rampant into 2019.  Complexity of plan administration, increased state and federal rule making, and rising costs are resulting in increased litigation.  A recurring issue: unpaid claims disputes.

Many physicians come to the conclusion that some contracts aren’t worth entering.  More and more physicians are opting out of participating provider contracts or have chosen not to participate in the first place.  Reimbursement is usually the prime reason.  The law that controls much of the litigation surrounding these disputes is the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).  ERISA is a federal law that sets minimum standards for most plans along with fiduciary responsibilities for plan sponsors.  Under ERISA, a “Summary Plan Description” must be created for each plan that sets forth the rights and benefits of each plan member and importantly, how out-of-network reimbursement is determined. Continue reading

Managed Care Appeal: How to Make an Out of Network Appeal Count

out of network appealBy: Karina Gonzalez

As many know, out-of-network providers have much different appeal rights with commercial plans than in-network providers.  It is important to understand each health plan’s appeal procedure as well as time requirements for an appeal may vary.  However, the appeal process is still one of the most important tools providers have to get paid in the current environment of reduced reimbursements, caps on the number and frequency of services, bundled payments based on specific codes, delayed payments, daily errors in claims processing leading to denied claims, claw backs, and the list goes on.  Continue reading

Copay Waiver Questions: OIG Opines that Charities Allowed to Help with Patients’ Insurance Obligations

financial hardshipBy: Jacqueline Bain

In the healthcare business, giving a patient a break on a health insurance copay is often viewed as suspicious. The reasoning for the suspicion is that the financial incentive may give one provider a competitive advantage over another, or persuade a patient to seek services that might not be medically necessary.  Moreover, any person who interferes with a patient’s obligations under his/her health insurance contract may be viewed as tortuously interfering with that contract. However, in an advisory opinion issued on December 28, 2016, the OIG opined that, in certain instances, a non-profit, tax-exempt, charitable organization could provide financial assistance with an individual’s co-payment, health insurance premiums and insurance deductibles when a patient exhibits a financial need.

The party requesting the advisory opinion was a non-profit, tax-exempt, charitable organization that did not provide any healthcare services and served one specified disease. The non-profit, tax-exempt, charitable organization is governed by an independent board of directors with no direct or indirect link to any donor. Donors to the non-profit, tax-exempt, charitable organization may be referral sources or persons in a position to financially gain from increased usage of their services, but may not earmark funds and or have any control over where their donation is directed.Continue reading

Big Reimbursement & Balance Billing Changes in Florida Law

VOBBy: Karina Gonzalez

Earlier this year, the Florida legislature passed prohibitions against balance billing by out-of-network providers for emergency services and where the patient goes to a contracted facility but does not have an opportunity to choose a provider such as emergency room physicians, pathologists, anesthesiologists and radiologists.

Specific reimbursement requirements went into effect on October 1, 2016 for certain out-of-network providers of emergency and non-emergency services, where a patient has no opportunity to choose the provider.

Under these circumstances, an Insurer must pay the greater amount of either:

(a)         The amount negotiated   with an in-network provider   in the same community where services were performed;

(b)        The usual and customary rate received by a provider for the same service in the community where service was provided; or

(c)         The Medicare rate for the service.Continue reading

Cigna Lawsuit Loses Texas Case Against Humble Surgical Hospital, Hit with $16 Mil Judgment

anti kickbackBy: Karina Gonzalez

Cigna recently sued a Texas hospital, Humble Surgical for overpayments.  Humble Surgical is an out-of-network (OON) provider.  Cigna alleged fraudulent billing practices and that the hospital engaged  in a scheme to defraud payors by waiving members’ financial responsibility.

While the suit involved many other  allegations  our article focuses on the arguments Cigna made on failure to collect co-payments, deductibles, and co-insurance and fee-forgiving practices by the hospital.   There were several other issues raised that are important to various practices that Cigna has engaged in with out-of-network providers.  Cigna has consistently audited South Florida providers alleging failure to collect patient financial responsibility or fee-forgiveness, then informing the provider that it was not entitled to any reimbursement because these practices fell within the exclusionary language of the member’s plan.

The suit brought under federal law, ERISA and also Texas common law seeking reimbursement for all overpayments. Cigna was seeking equitable relief including imposing a lien or constructive trust on  fees paid to the hospital.

Humble Surgical counter sued against Cigna for  nonpayment of patients’ claims, underpayment of certain claims and delayed payment of all claims in violation of ERISA, including other causes of action. Here’s what happened: Continue reading

Addiction Treatment Attack by Payers Grows

money viseBy: Jeff Cohen

Addiction treatment providers continue to react to an assault by payers to run them “out of town.”  The first round of attacks (in the Fall of 2014) focused on the practice of copay and deductible write offs.  The phrase cooked up by lawyers for Cigna, “fee forgiveness,” wound its way into the courts system in Texas in a case (Cigna v. Humble Surgical Hospital, Civ. Action No. 4:13-CV-3291, U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Tex., Houston Division) against a surgery center, where Cigna argued that the practice of a physician owned hospital in waiving “patient responsibility” relieved the insurer from paying ANYTHING for services needed by patients and provided to them.  Though the case did not involve addiction treatment providers, it gave addiction treatment lawyers a look into what was going to come.  The same argument made in the Texas case was the initial attack by Cigna in a broad attack of the addiction treatment industry, especially in Florida.

As addiction treatment providers fielded Cigna’s “fee forgiveness” attack in the context of “audits,” providers held firm to the belief that justice would prevail and that they would soon restore a growing need for cash flow.  “If we just show them that we’re doing the right thing,” providers thought, “surely they will loosen up the purse strings.”  After all, this was a patient population in terrific need of help, with certain [untested] protection by federal law (the Mental Health Parity Act).Continue reading