Healthcare Law Blog

Vaccination Mandate for Healthcare Facilities Blocked by Federal Court

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Interim Final Rule which would have required COVID-19 vaccination for employees of healthcare facilities that receive Medicare and/or Medicaid funding has been blocked by a federal court in Louisiana. Here’s what healthcare employers need to know. More >

Policy Reversal Means Return of Per Day Fines for Nursing Homes

On July 19, 2021, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) rescinded a guidance issued in 2017 that significantly limited the discretion of CMS Locations to impose substantial fines for noncompliance. (For reference, the 2017 Guidance can be found here. The accompanying CMP Analytic Tool can be found here.)  More >

Healthcare Providers Take Notice: AMA Updates E/M Codes for 2021

In addition to staying up to date on the constantly changing landscape of COVID-19 requirements, healthcare providers must also stay well-informed of industry changes unrelated to the pandemic. On January 1, 2021, changes in Evaluation and Management (‘E/M’) codes for physicians took effect. These changes, proposed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (‘CMS’), primarily impact 2021 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (‘MPFS’) reimbursements. More >

CMS Suspends the Advance Payment Program and Reevaluates Accelerated Payments

On April 26, 2020, the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services (CMS), announced that the Advance Payment Program for Part B suppliers was ending immediately and that the amounts being paid under the Accelerated Payment Program will be reevaluated. Going forward, new applications for the Advanced Payment program will not be accepted.  There are interesting implications and questions for providers who received funds under this program going forward as CMS has not issued any guidance concerning how this will be handled. More >

Coronavirus: Section 1135 Waivers Bring Relief to Healthcare Providers

Invoking powers under the National Emergency Act and the Stafford Act on March 13, 2020, the President declared a national emergency, which, in turn, authorized the Secretary of Health and Human Services to waive conditions of participation requirements for payment for healthcare providers through waivers provided under Section 1135 of the Social Security Act.  The 1135 waivers do not replace 1115 waivers that require states to individually submit requests for waiver of selected Medicaid requirements, but the 1135 waivers are designed to temporarily give healthcare providers more flexibility in providing services during the pandemic crisis. The 1135 waiver is very helpful but does not address all situations or answer all questions, and it creates ambiguity in certain circumstances.   More >

A New Opportunity: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Recognizes the Full Potential of Ambulance Crews and Services

In mid-February 2019, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), Innovation Center and the Department for Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced a ground-breaking payment and medical services initiative for ambulance providers called “Emergency Triage, Treat and Transport” (the “ET3”). This new model is the first step in allowing providers of Emergency Medical Services to finally “take off the gloves” to fully utilize both their medical skills and unique patient knowledge to implement a more efficient and effective care model. More >

CMS Executes About-Face on Pre-Dispute Arbitration Ban

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) published a proposed rule on June 5, 2017, that serves as an effective course reversal on pre-dispute arbitration agreements in a long-term care (“LTC”) setting. This caps off an effort by many in the healthcare and nursing home industry to stop the prior rule, which banned such agreements, from taking effect. More >

"Incident to" Billing - Easy to Get Wrong

Billing for medical services is never easy. Despite attempts by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) to simplify the rule regarding “incident to” billing for Medicare services, it remains misunderstood by a large swath of providers. This proves problematic, as incorrect billing practices may lead to overpayments and False Claims Act violations. Billing for “incident to” services is an important mechanism to reflect the actual value of mid-level services provided under the specific plan of a physician. When properly followed, the “incident to” rules allow physicians to bill for services provided by non-physician practitioners as if they were performed by the physician at physician reimbursement rates. Additionally, the non-physician provider can be an employee, an independent contractor or even a leased employee, provided that they are supervised by a physician and the requirements are met. Because of the confusing nature of allowing a physician to bill for services he or she did not directly provide to the patient, serious landmines exist that can create problems if the rules are not scrupulously followed and documented. More >

Recap of the Webinar, "What Providers Should Know: Overpayments and the False Claims Act"

On May 24th and 25th, 2016, McBrayer held a webinar on what providers should know regarding overpayments and the False Claims Act.  Lisa English Hinkle and Chris Shaughnessy, McBrayer healthcare law attorneys, guided participants through the interplay between overpayments from various federal healthcare programs and violations of the False Claims Act that can accrue heavy penalties. For further information on this webinar, contact McBrayer’s Marketing Director, Morgan Hall.

Some of the information shared by the presenters is also summarized below. More >

CMS Issues Proposed Rule to Cast a Wide Program Integrity Net

On March 1, 2016, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) quietly issued a proposed rule that would give the agency far-reaching tools in the area of program integrity enforcement. On its face, the Rule addresses enrollment and revalidation reporting requirements for Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP, but it also significantly increases its authority with regard to the denial or revocation of providers’ Medicare enrollment. More >