Source: https://medicaidlawnc.com/2018/08/22/hasty-and-careless-termination-decisions-can-put-medicare-caid-providers-out-of-business/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 09:05:19+00:00

Document:
When action happens in the Medicare/caid world, it happens quickly. Sometimes you do not receive adequate notice to coordinate continuity of care for your consumers or patients. For example, on August 3, 2018, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced that at midnight on August 18, 2018, it would be terminating the contract between CMS and ESEC, LLC, an Oklahoma-based surgery center.
CMS provided ESEC 15 days notice of complete termination of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements. Now I do not know the details of ESEC’s financial reliance on Medicare or Medicaid, but, these days, few providers are solely third-party pay or cash-only. I can only assume that ESEC is scrambling to initiate a lawsuit to remain afloat and open for business. Or ESEC is praying for a “rescind” by correcting whatever issues it purportedly had. Personally, I would not count on a possible rescind. I would be proactively seeking legal intervention.
Baylor St. Luke’s Medical Center’s heart transplant program lost federal funding August 17, 2018. The hospital will no longer be able to bill Medicare and Medicaid for heart transplants.
Effective August 9, 2018, Brookwood Baptist Medical Center’s Medicare contract was terminated. The notice was published July 25, 2018.
As of August 12, 2018, The Grandview Nursing & Rehabilitation Facility’s Medicare contract was terminated. Notice of the termination was published August 1, 2018.
As of September 1, 2018, Compassus-Kansas City, a hospice company, will lose its Medicare contract. Notice was provided August 17, 2018.
On August 3, 2018, CMS announced that it was terminating Deligent Health Services Inc.’s Medicare and Medicaid contact, effective December 5, 2017. (That is quite a retroactive timeframe).
Can Careless Judy put a healthcare provider out of business?
This happens all the time. Sure, ESEC probably had knowledge that CMS was investigating it. However, CMS has the authority to issue these public notices of termination without holding a hearing to determine whether CMS’ actions are accurate. What if Careless Judy in Program Integrity made a human error and ESEC actually does meet the standards of care. But you see, Careless Judy accidentally used the minimum standards of care from 2008 instead of 2018. It’s an honest mistake. She had no malice against ESEC. But, my point is – where is the mechanism that prevents a surgical ambulatory center from going out of business – just because Careless Judy made a mistake?
To look into whether any legal mechanism exists to prevent Careless Judy from putting the ambulatory center out of business, I turn to the legal rules.
Subsection (b) states that CMS or the State may terminate the contract with the provider if the provider “Is not in substantial compliance with the requirements of participation, regardless whether immediate jeopardy is present.” On the bright side, if no immediate jeopardy exists then CMS or the State must give 15 days notice. If there is found to be immediate jeopardy, the provider get 2 days. But who determines what is “substantial compliance?” Careless Judy?
The provider is not complying with the provisions of title XVIII and the applicable regulations of this chapter or with the provisions of the agreement.
The provider or supplier places restrictions on the persons it will accept for treatment and it fails either to exempt Medicare beneficiaries from those restrictions or to apply them to Medicare beneficiaries the same as to all other persons seeking care.
It no longer meets the appropriate conditions of participation or requirements (for SNFs and NFs) set forth elsewhere in this chapter. In the case of an RNHCI no longer meets the conditions for coverage, conditions of participation and requirements set forth elsewhere in this chapter.
It fails to furnish information that CMS finds necessary for a determination as to whether payments are or were due under Medicare and the amounts due.
It refuses to permit examination of its fiscal or other records by, or on behalf of CMS, as necessary for verification of information furnished as a basis for payment under Medicare.
It failed to furnish information on business transactions as required in § 420.205 of this chapter.
It failed at the time the agreement was entered into or renewed to disclose information on convicted individuals as required in § 420.204 of this chapter.
It failed to furnish ownership information as required in § 420.206 of this chapter.
It failed to comply with civil rights requirements set forth in 45 CFR parts 80, 84, and 90.
In the case of a hospital or a critical access hospital as defined in section 1861(mm)(1) of the Act that has reason to believe it may have received an individual transferred by another hospital in violation of § 489.24(d), the hospital failed to report the incident to CMS or the State survey agency.
In the case of a hospital requested to furnish inpatient services to CHAMPUS or CHAMPVA beneficiaries or to veterans, it failed to comply with § 489.25 or § 489.26, respectively.
It failed to furnish the notice of discharge rights as required by § 489.27.
The provider or supplier refuses to permit copying of any records or other information by, or on behalf of, CMS, as necessary to determine or verify compliance with participation requirements.
The hospital knowingly and willfully fails to accept, on a repeated basis, an amount that approximates the Medicare rate established under the inpatient hospital prospective payment system, minus any enrollee deductibles or copayments, as payment in full from a fee-for-service FEHB plan for inpatient hospital services provided to a retired Federal enrollee of a fee-for-service FEHB plan, age 65 or older, who does not have Medicare Part A benefits.
It had its enrollment in the Medicare program revoked in accordance to § 424.535 of this chapter.
It has failed to pay a revisit user fee when and if assessed.
In the case of an HHA, it failed to correct any deficiencies within the required time frame.
The provider or supplier fails to grant immediate access upon a reasonable request to a state survey agency or other authorized entity for the purpose of determining, in accordance with § 488.3, whether the provider or supplier meets the applicable requirements, conditions of participation, conditions for coverage, or conditions for certification.
As you can see from the above list of possible termination reasons, many of which are subjective, it could be easy for Careless Judy to terminate a Medicare contract erroneously, based on inaccurate facts, or without proper investigation.
The same is true for Medicaid; your contract can be terminated on the federal or state level. The difference is that at the state level, Careless Judy is a state employee, not a federal.
42 CFR 498.20 states that an initial determination by CMS (like a contract termination) is binding unless it is reconsidered per 42 CFR 498.24.
A Stay of the termination should suspend the termination until the provider can obtain a hearing by an impartial tribunal until the appeal has been completed. The appeal process and supposed automatic Stay of the termination is the only protection for the provider from Careless Judy. Or filing an expensive injunction.
Posted on August 22, 2018, in Administrative Law Judge, Administrative Remedies, Appeal Rights, CMS, Due process, Federal Government, Federal Law, Health Care Providers and Services, HHS, Injunctions, Knicole Emanuel, Lawsuit, Legal Analysis, Legal Remedies for Medicaid Providers, Legislation, Medicaid, Medicaid Appeals, Medicaid Attorney, Medicaid Audits, Medicaid Providers, Medicaid Services, Medicare, Medicare and Medicaid Provider Audits, Medicare Attorney, Medicare Audits, Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals, Preliminary Injunctions, Provider Appeals of Adverse Decisions for Medicare and Medicaid, Termination of Medicaid Contract, TRO and tagged Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, Knicole Emanuel, Legal Remedies for Medicaid Providers, Medicaid, Medicaid Agreement, Medicaid Attorney; Medicaid Lawyer; Medicare Attorney Medicare Lawyer, Medicaid Contracts, Medicaid Providers, Medicare, Medicare Agreement, Medicare Contracts, Medicare providers, Potomac Law, Potomac Law Group, Preliminary Injunctions, Program Integrity, termination of Medicaid contracts, Termination of Medicare Contracts, Termination of Provider Agreement, Terminations of Medicaid Contracts, Terminations of providers. Bookmark the permalink.	Leave a comment.

References: § 420
 § 420
 § 420
 § 489
 § 489
 § 489
 § 489
 § 424
 § 488