Title I of Part BB of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (the “Act”) and interim final rules issued by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Labor (the “Ministry”) in July 2021 (see our post) ) here) and October 2021 (see post) here), group health plans, health plan issuers, and health care providers, ushering in a new era aimed at both preventing unexpected medical claims and providing a system for resolving disputed claims. I told you
On August 19, 2022, the departments will issue final regulations incorporating comments received on the Interim Regulations (the “Final Regulations”), clarifying some of the requirements set forth in the statute and the Interim Regulations, and providing relevant explained a federal court decision. In particular, the final rule primarily addresses three different but related topics. (1) removes “falsifiable presumption criteria,” (2) adds a new rule on “downcoding,” and (3) reminds arbitrators of the written requirement. The final rule will take effect on October 25, 2022.
Background: law
Broadly speaking, the law created a structure for resolving billing disputes arising from out-of-network emergency medical care and services provided by out-of-network providers at in-network facilities. For these out-of-network services, the cost of such services is the “recognized amount”, the amount determined under state law (as applicable), or the amount billed and the amount eligible for payment (“QPA”). ). QPA is generally the median contracted rate of a plan/issuer for a particular item or service and is indexed to inflation. Upon receiving an invoice from an out-of-network provider, the plan/issuer can either make the first payment or decline the payment. In either case, plan/issuer must provide QPA, legal information, and contact information to out-of-network provider if provider wishes to initiate her 30-day open negotiation period. If the provider and plan/issuer cannot agree on an appropriate cost during her 30-day open negotiation period, the dispute enters the “Federal IDR process.” Simple, isn’t it? not exactly.
Elimination of Refutable Presumptions
An interim final rule issued in October 2021 requires accredited IDR entities (arbitrators) to (in most cases) choose the offer that is closest to the QPA, making it “falsifiable” that the QPA is the correct price. Estimates” were created. However, a federal court in Texas overruled this rebuttable presumption standard.
In light of the Court’s opinion, the final rule issued on August 19 eliminates the rebuttable presumption that QPA is the correct price. The final rule also waives the requirement that a qualified IDR entity must select the offer closest to his QPA. Instead, an accredited IDR entity selects an offer that best reflects the value of the item or service being offered by first considering the QPA and then the “additional information” relevant to the dispute. For these purposes, “Additional Information” includes information relating to:
- The provider’s level of training, experience, and quality and results measurement.
- Market share held by the provider or plan/issuer in the region where the item or service was offered.
- The acuity of individuals receiving health care services, or the complexity of providing health care services to individuals.
- Educational status, case mix, and service coverage of facilities that provided medical services.
- proof of the good faith efforts (or lack thereof) made by the provider or plan/issuer to enter into a network agreement or contract fee with each other during the past four years; and
- A request made by an authenticated IDR entity.
Improved transparency when downcoding
The department recognized that planners/issuers may “downcode” when determining QPAs. As defined in the Final Rule, downcoding means “the modification of a Service Code by a Plan or Issuer to another Service Code, or Modification, addition, or deletion of modifiers by any person”. Use a lower QPA than the service code or amendment billed by the air ambulance service provider, facility, or provider. For example, if a patient goes to the emergency room for the flu, but the plan/issuer decides to base her QPA on the cold service code/rate.
As briefly mentioned above, if the Plan/Issuer makes an initial payment or refuses to pay a claim, the Plan/Issuer will provide the Provider with the QPA for each item or service in writing. is needed. QPA is a “recognised amount” and is a statement that the QPA has been calculated in accordance with applicable regulations and information regarding the 30 day open negotiation period followed by the Federal IDR process. Additionally, if requested by the provider, the plan/issuer must provide: Information as to whether the QPA includes contract fees that are not fee-based per service and whether the QPA was determined using underlying fee schedule fees or derived amounts. Information to identify the eligible database (if used to determine QPA), information to identify the associated service code (if used to determine QPA), and plan/issuer risk-sharing, bonuses, penalties or other incentive-based or retroactive payments or payment adjustments to contract rates.
As part of its goal of increasing transparency and facilitating an open negotiation process, the department states that if a QPA is downcoded, the plan/issuer will, in addition to the information above, provide the service code that was downcoded. decided that it was necessary to provide a statement that An explanation of why the claim was downcoded (including an explanation of which code was changed) and the amount of QPA if the code had not been downcoded.
Note to Arbitrators
After reaching a final decision, the certified IDR entity shall, in all cases, review the decision, including the reasons behind the decision, the information considered, the weight given to the QPA, and any other information considered. Must be explained in writing. This written determination shall be provided to the parties and the department. The agency is considering the form and method of such written determination, which will be announced in future guidance.
important point
In the aftermath of the enactment of the No Surprises Act and subsequent publication of the interim final rule, there was a perception that the rule would favor plans/issuers at the expense of providers. The final rule levels the playing field in three ways.
First, the final rule eliminates rebuttable presumptions about QPA and requires certified IDR entities to consider other factors in addition to QPA. Other factors may indicate that a higher rate than QPA is appropriate.
Second, the final rule seeks to suppress downcoding. The plan/publisher must provide important information if downcoded. Providing additional information comes at the cost of increased compliance costs, but allows accredited IDR entities to use more data to make correct pricing decisions.
Finally, a correctly done QPA will undoubtedly include some of the additional factors mentioned above. Of course, including some of these factors may make the QPA more accurate than the calculation, provided that these additional factors are not double counted. in a vacuum.
The final rule expands on the interim final rule and incorporates court decisions on certain provisions. They add a high degree of transparency and balance the interests of the plan/issuer and the provider. However, the myriad of regulations surrounding the process add complexity and increase compliance costs for both providers and plan/issuers. Additionally, the final rule largely assumes that accredited IDR entities are well trained in medical procedures, medical claims, and insurance. I’m thinking it might make it less final than it suggests.
[View source.]
