. ‘ United States General Accounting Office GAO Briefing Report to Congressional Requesters January 1990 MEDICARE Increased Denials of Home Health Claims During1986 and 1987 i GAO/HRD-90-14BR : United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548 Human Resources Division B-225004 January 24,199O The Honorable Olympia J. Snowe House of Representatives Dear Ms. Snowe: In November 1987, you and a number of your colleagues (see app. I) expressed concern over the increased denials of Medicare home health care claims during 1986 and 1987. You asked us to analyze a number of issues related to these denials, including . the reasons for the increased denials, . the extent and causes of variation in denial rates among regions of the country, . the number of home health agencies that lost their waiver of liability during this period, and l the effects of the increased denials on the appeals process. In addition, we determined the administrative and legislative changes that have decreased denials since 1987. We reported our preliminary results in briefings with you on September 14, 1988, and the other requesters and their staffs on October 5, 1988. Also, at your request, we presented our preliminary results in an Octo- ber 13, 1988, briefing before the Advisory Committee on Medicare Home Health Claims, established by the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988. This report elaborates on that information and presents the results of additional work performed since then. Medicare, administered by the Health Care Financing Administration Background (HCFA) within the Department of Health and Human Services, is a health insurance program that covers almost all Americans age 65 and over and certain individuals under 65 who are disabled or have chronic kid- ney disease. Authorized under title XVIII of the Social Security Act, Medicare provides a home health care benefit for beneficiaries who are confined to their home (homebound), under a physician’s care, and in need of part-time or intermittent skilled nursing care or physical or speech therapy. By law, the home health benefit covers skilled nursing care services pro- vided by Medicare-certified home health agencies or by others under contract to such an agency. Services provided by home health aides, Page 1 GAO/HRBfM%l4RR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials B-226004 such as helping patients bathe, groom, and get into and out of bed, are not covered by the benefit unless the beneficiary requires skilled nurs- ing care or physical or speech therapy. HCFA contracts with insurance companies, called intermediaries, to proc- ess home health benefit claims and generally administer the benefit.1 When an intermediary denies all or part of a claim, the home health agency may still receive payment under certain conditions. For example, if it has a history of few denials, it may be granted a waiver of liability, which protects beneficiaries and providers from being liable for noncov- ered services when they did not know and had no reason to know that the services were l not medically reasonable and necessary or l based on the need for custodial rather than skilled nursing care. Denied claims for which an agency does not receive payment may be appealed. In previous reviews, GAO and HCFA'S Bureau of Quality Control concluded that HCFA was paying for noncovered services because of material weak- nesses in internal controls over payment for home health services. In 1986, GAO reported that uncertainty over the meaning of such terms as homebound and intermittent care may result in inconsistent coverage determinations by the intermediaries2 In response to these studies and to certain legislative changes, HCFA initiated a number of actions between 1986 and 1987 intended to minimize Medicare payments for noncovered home health services and provide for more consistent administration of the home health benefit by its fiscal intermediaries. Following these actions, home health bill denials increased from about 3.1 percent of bills processed in the first quarter of fiscal year 1985 to a peak of 9.0 percent for the first quarter of fiscal year 1987 (see pp. 15 to 16). The number of denied bills increased from about 186,000 in fiscal ‘Home health agencies can be freestanding or provider based. Freestanding agencies are those that are not a subdivision of another Medicare provider, such as a hospital or skilled nursing facility. In fiscal year 1986 there were 47 intermediaries; during fiscal year 1987 the number of intermediaries processing claims for freestanding agencies was reduced to 10 as required by the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. One of the 10 left the program in December 1988, leaving 9 intermediaries processing claims for freestanding agencies. During foal year 1989 all provider-based home health agencies were transferred to these nine intermediaries. ‘Medicare: Keed to Strengthen Home Health Care Payment Controls and Address Unmet Keeds (GAO/HRD87-9, Dec. 2,1986). Page 2 GA0/EIRD9044J3E Medicare Home Health Claima Denials R-226004 year 1985 to about 408,000 in fiscal year 1987. Since 1987, the denial rate has steadily declined to about 4.3 percent. During congressional hearings held throughout the country in 1986 and Reasonsfor Increased 1987, industry officials, providers, and beneficiaries raised a number of Denials concerns about HCFA actions they viewed as causing denials and eroding the home health benefit. Legislation has been enacted to address many of these concerns (see app. II). Although many factors contributed to the increased denials of home health claims in 1986 and 1987, we believe the increases can be attrib- uted primarily to certain administrative changes: . The number of claims subjected to detailed review increased from about 25 to over 60 percent. Since most denials result from detailed review, this could be expected to more than double the number of denied claims. l Standardized medical information forms requiring more detailed infor- mation on which to make claims decisions were instituted; denials increased because intermediaries had more information on which to make decisions and also because they denied claims where forms were not filled out completely. . Claims payment activities for freestanding home health agencies were consolidated under 10 regional fiscal intermediaries during fiscal year 1987. Because of the variation in intermediaries’ medical review per- formance and interpretation of coverage criteria, the change in intermediaries may have resulted in increased denials until the home health agencies adjusted to the review practices of their new intermediaries. Prior to the consolidation, HCFA evaluated the effectiveness of the l review procedures of these 10 intermediaries; this evaluation resulted in increased denials as the intermediaries changed their review procedures in response to HCFA'S findings. Immediately following the HCFA evalua- tion, the home health claim denials were the highest ever. (See pp. 18 to 21.) quarterly data on denials of home health agency bills show signif- Regional Variation in HCFA'S icant variation of denial rates among HCFA regions, particularly during Denial Rates fiscal years 1986 and 1987, when denials were increasing. The variation resulted in part from differences in review practices among the regional fiscal intermediaries. For example, the volume of claims medically Page 3 GAO/HRD9&14RR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials IL226004 reviewed by intermediaries varied, half of the intermediaries were deny- ing claims in 1986 when information was missing from the claim forms while others were not, and there were inconsistent interpretations of certain coverage criteria. Inconsistencies among intermediaries in reporting denials to HCFA also led to variation in denial rates. Half of the intermediaries reported only denials that resulted from their detailed review process; they tended to have lower denial rates than the other half, which reported denials from detailed review and other sources, such as the initial review of claims for eligibility. (See pp. 22 to 24.) Precise data on the number of home health agencies that lost their More Agencies Lost waiver of liability during this period and the effects of loss of waiver on Their Waiver of beneficiaries were not available. Data provided to GAO by 8 of the 10 Liability regional intermediaries, however, shows that the percentage of agencies that lost their waiver of liability increased from about 16 percent for the quarter beginning February 1,1986, to about 32 percent for the quarter beginning November 1, 1986. Also, regional intermediaries did not use consistent methods to determine agencies’ eligibility for the waiver, cre- ating potential inequities in the granting of waivers. Home health industry officials say that the loss of waiver adversely affects beneficiaries because providers without waivers may be reluc- tant to provide certain services to beneficiaries when they have any doubts about whether the service is covered. Also, providers may refuse to accept new patients when they are not sure the patient will qualify for home health benefits. (See pp. 25 to 27.) The number of denied claims appealed to intermediaries and administra- Agencies Appealed tive law judges increased substantially from about 10,000 in fiscal year More Denied Claims 1986 to about 64,000 in fiscal year 1988. The percentage of denied claims reversed at these levels also increased. However, the increase in reversals does not necessarily mean that the claim should have been paid when first submitted; many reversals occurred because agencies submitted the additional information to the intermediary needed to approve the claim. (See pp. 28 to 33.) . Page 4 GAO/HRD9&14BR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials R-225004 Since 1987, the number of denials has decreased substantially to about Recent Changes Have the 1985 level even though the number of claims being subjected to Addressed the Denial detailed review has continued at over 60 percent of claims processed. Issue HCFA has instituted specific administrative actions that have decreased denials and also resulted in a narrowing of the variation in regional denial rates. As denials have declined, so have the number of home health agencies that have lost their waiver of liability. (See pp. 33 to 34.) The Congress has also passed legislation clarifying some of the home health benefit provisions, giving HCFA specific requirements for adminis- tering the benefit, and increasing the home health services available under Medicare and other programs. However, some of these provisions were repealed by the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Repeal Act of 1989. (See app. II.) We did our work at HCFA'S headquarters in Baltimore and its Boston Scopeand regional office. We analyzed readily available statistics on home health Methodology claims, denials, appeals of denials, and numbers of providers who had lost their waiver of liability. We did not verify the accuracy of the data intermediaries were reporting to HCFA but did identify inconsistencies in how certain data were reported. We visited one regional fiscal intermediary and surveyed all 10 regional intermediaries through a mail questionnaire. We also visited two home health agencies in Vermont and two in Maine as well as an association that has been representing the interests of more than 5,000 home health providers. We also reviewed recent legislation, a court decision, and sev- eral congressional hearings pertaining to home health issues. We did not obtain formal written agency comments on this report; how- ever, we discussed its contents with HCFA officials and incorporated their comments where appropriate. Copies of this report are being sent to the other requesters, the congressional committees having jurisdiction over matters discussed in the report, the Secretary of Health and Human Ser- vices, and other interested parties. If you have any questions regarding . Page 5 GA0/HRB9044RR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials B22soo4 this report, please call me at (202) 275-5451. Other major contribu- tors to this report are listed in appendix IV. Sincerely yours, Janet L. Shikles Director, Health Financing and Policy Issues Page 6 GAO/HRlS~14BlZ Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Page 7 GAO/HIUHO-14BR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Contents Letter 1 Section 1 12 Background Home Health Agencies Program Administration 13 13 Waiver of Liability 14 AppeaIs Process 14 Prior Concerns Raised Over Administration of the 15 Program Home Health Denials Increased in Fiscal Years 1986-87 15 Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 17 Section 2 18 Reasonsfor Increased Standardized Medical Information Forms Increased Medical Review 18 19 Denials Consolidation of Intermediaries 20 Strengthening of Intermediary Performance 20 Savings Ratio Not a Major Factor 21 Section 3 22 Reasonsfor Varying Extent of Regional Variation Reasons for Regional Variation 22 22 Denial Rates Among HCFA Regions Section 4 25 Effect of Increased Waiver Status Data Are Limited 25 Questionnaire Results on Waiver Status 25 Denials on Waiver of Liability Status Section 5 28 Effect of Increased Appeals Activity Increased Substantially 28 Reversals Have Also Increased 29 Denials On the Appeals Reasons for Reversals 31 Process Appeals Cost 32 Page 8 GAO/HRJiNO-14BB Medicare Home Health Claima Denials Contents Section 6 34 Recent Changes Denials Have Decreased Regional Variation Is Narrowing 34 35 Affecting the Home Health Program Appendixes Appendix I: List of Congressional Requesters 36 Appendix II: Industry Concerns and Congressional 38 Actions Related to Medicare’s Home Health Benefit Appendix III: Bill Denials by Region 41 Appendix IV: Major Contributors to This Report 51 Tables Table 4.1: Number of Home Health Agencies Off Waiver 26 (Fiscal Years 1986-88) Table 5.1: Reconsiderations and ALJ Hearings (Fiscal 29 Years 1986-88) Figures Figure 1.1: Increase in Home Health Denials-National 16 Totals Figure 2.1: Relationship Between Program Changes and 19 Increased Denials Figure 3.1: Denials of Home Health Agency Bills for 23 Selected Regional Intermediaries Figure 5.1: Reconsiderations Completed (Fiscal Years 30 1985-88) Figure 5.2: ALJ Hearings Completed (Fiscal Years 31 1985-88) Figure III. 1: Denials of Home Health Agency Bills- 41 ’ Atlanta Region Figure 111.2:Denials of Home Health Agency Bills- 42 Boston Region Figure 111.3:Denials of Home Health Agency Bills- 43 Chicago Region Figure: 111.4:Denials of Home Health Agency Bills- 44 Dallas Region Figure: 111.5:Denials of Home Health Agency Bills- 45 Denver Region Figure: 111.6:Denials of Home Health Agency Bills- 46 Kansas City Region Page 9 GAO/HRD9@14BR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Contents Figure: 111.7:Denials of Home Health Agency Bills- 47 New York Region Figure: 111.8:Denials of Home Health Agency Bills- 48 Philadelphia Region Figure: 111.9:Denials of Home Health Agency Bills- 49 San Francisco Region Figure: III. 10: Denials of Home Health Agency Bills- 50 Seattle Region Abbreviations ALI administrative law judge GAO General Accounting Office HCFA Health Care Financing Administration Page 10 GAO/HED-9044BE Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Page 11 GAO/HRLNO-14BB Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Section 1 Background Medicare, administered by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) within the Department of Health and Human Services, is a health insurance program that covers almost all Americans age 65 and over and certain individuals under 65 who are disabled or have chronic kid- ney disease. The program, authorized under title XVIII of the Social Security Act, provides protection under two parts. Part A, the hospital insurance program, covers inpatient hospital services and certain post- hospital care in skilled nursing homes and patients’ homes. Part B, the supplementary medical insurance program, covers primarily physician services. Although home health care is financed under both parts, about 98 percent of home health is paid under part A. Home health care generally is defined as health care prescribed by a physician and provided to a person in his or her own home. Home health benefits covered by Medicare are, by law, oriented toward skilled nurs- ing care and include . part-time or intermittent nursing care provided by or under the supervi- sion of a registered nurse; l physical, occupational, or speech therapy; l medical social services to help patients and their families adjust to social and emotional conditions related to the patients’ health problems; l part-time or intermittent home health aide services;’ and . certain medical supplies and equipment. In fiscal year 1987, home health agencies made about 36.1 million visits to 1.37 million Medicare beneficiaries at an estimated cost of $2.3 billion. To qualify for Medicare home health care, a person must be confined to his or her residence (homebound), be under a physician’s care, and need part-time or intermittent skilled nursing care and/or physical or speech therapy. The services must be furnished under a plan of care prescribed and periodically reviewed by a physician. Individuals who need help with activities of daily living, such as eating or using the toilet, but who do not need skilled nursing care or physical or speech therapy, do not qualify for Medicare home health benefits. In addition, Medicare benefi- ciaries who are not homebound but need part-time or intermittent skilled nursing care are ineligible for these benefits. I Home health aides, among other things, help patients bathe, groom, get into and out of bed, use the toilet, take self-administered medicines, and exercise. Page 12 GAO/HRDS@14BR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Section 1 Background Medicare home health services must be furnished by Medicare-certified Home Health Agencies home health agencies or by others under contract to such an agency. Agencies participating in the program must meet specific requirements of the Social Security Act. The number of Medicare-certified home health agencies increased from 2,212 in 1972 to about 5,661 in 1988. This growth has primarily taken place in facility-based and for-profit home health agencies, while the number of more traditional nonprofit home health providers-visiting nurse associations and government agencies-has declined slightly.” HCFA administers the home health care program through nine regional Program fiscal intermediaries-eight Blue Cross plans and Aetna Life and Casu- Administration alty (Florida Aetna).” These intermediaries . serve as a communication channel between home health agencies and HCFA, l make payments to home health agencies for covered services provided to Medicare beneficiaries, and l establish and apply payment safeguards to prevent program abuse. Providers submit their claims for home health visits and other items to the intermediaries. To identify noncovered services, intermediaries eval- uate the claims through a utilization review process.4 This process includes a medical review program whereby specified claims are reviewed to determine if the services billed were medically necessary and appropriate and covered by the home health benefit. Through this process, intermediaries decide to either pay the claim in full or deny all or part of it. Under certain conditions, providers may still receive pay- ment for denied visits under the waiver of liability or through the appeals process described below. ‘Facility-based agencies include hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and rehabilitation-based agencies. Visiting nurse associations are generally community-based agencies supported by contributions and patient fees. Government agencies consist mostly of county or local public health departments. “There were originally 10 regional fiial intermediaries; however, Prudential Insurance Company (New Jersey Prudential) withdrew from the program as of December 31,1988. “Noncovered services include those that are (1) not reasonable or medically necessary, (2) provided to beneficiaries who are not homebound, and (3) in excess of the services called for by approved plans of treatment. Page 13 GAO/HRIWO-14BR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Section 1 Background The waiver of liability provision of the Social Security Act protects ben- Waiver of Liability eficiaries and providers from being liable for noncovered services when they did not know and had no reason to know that the services were . not medically reasonable and necessary or . based on the need for custodial rather than skilled nursing care. When these situations occur HCFA will pay providers for the cost of the services as long as the number of denials does not exceed 2.5 percent of total visits billed. When a provider exceeds the 2.5-percent rate in a cal- endar quarter, Medicare will not reimburse the provider for such ser- vices, usually for the next 3-month period. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 created a second waiver of liability category under which the beneficiary is not liable when ser- vices are denied for “technical” reasons (i.e., because the beneficiary was not “homebound” or did not require “intermittent” skilled nursing care).5 HCFA pays providers for services denied for technical reasons using the same 2.5-percent criterion that applies to “medical necessity” denials. Under an appeals process created by the Social Security Act, a decision Appeals Process to deny payment for services may be appealed to the intermediary for reconsideration regardless of the amount involved. The intermediary’s reconsideration decision may be appealed to a Social Security Adminis- tration administrative law judge (AU) if the amount in controversy is $100 or more. Where the amount is $1,000 or more, denials upheld by the AIJ may be appealed to federal courts. Appeals must be filed within 60 days from the date of the decision at each level of the process. Beneficiaries may appeal any denials and may appoint a qualified indi- vidual (including a provider) to represent them in the appeals process. If the beneficiary appeals, the provider is made party to the proceedings. A provider may initiate an appeal if the ultimate liability rests with (1) the provider or (2) the beneficiary and the beneficiary will not exercise his or her appeal rights. A provider cannot appeal claims paid under the waiver of liability provision. “The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 extended the waiver, which became effective July 1,1987, to November 1,199O. This provision was not repealed by the Medicare Catastrophic Cover- age Repeal Act of 1989. , Page 14 GAO/HRtHO-14BR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Section 1 Background Prior Concerns Raised tration of the Medicare home health benefit.” We reported that about 27 Over Administration percent of the visits reviewed at 37 agencies and paid under the benefit of the Program were questionable or improper. We attributed those problems to the vagueness of the coverage criteria (particularly uncertainty over the exact meaning of terms such as “homebound” and “intermittent care”), insufficient information being submitted with the claims upon which to base a coverage decision, and poor performance of the intermediaries in reviewing claims. HCFA'S 1984 evaluation of the home health program also questioned administration of the benefit by the fiscal intermediaries.’ HCFA nurses reviewed a sample of beneficiaries’ records previously reviewed by seven fiscal intermediaries under the utilization review program. The intermediaries had denied 8 percent of the claims reviewed; the HCFA nurses said they should have denied 45 percent. Concerned about the consistency with which intermediaries interpreted such terms as “intermittent care,” the Congress, through language in the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to reduce the number of intermediaries administering the home health program to 10 or fewer by July 1,1987. The reduction was intended to improve program management and promote consistency in program administration. In response to the above concerns HCFA began instituting a number of administrative changes in 1985 to reduce payments for noncovered ser- vices, improve program management, and ensure more consistent claims determinations by intermediaries. Home health bill denials increased from 3.1 percent of total bills Home Health Denials processed in the first quarter of fiscal year 1985 to a high of 9 percent in Increased in Fiscal the first quarter of fiscal year 1987. Since then, they have gradually Years 1986-87 declined. (See fig. 1.1.) 'Medicare Home Health Services: A Difficult Program to Control (HRD-N-155, Sept. 26, 1981). Medicare: Need to Strengthen Home Health Care Payment Controls and Address Unmet Needs (GAO/ m-87-9, Dec. 2, 1986). ’ 1984 National Home Health Study. An unpublished study by HCFA’s Bureau of Quality Control. . Page 15 GAO/HRD9@14BR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Section 1 Background Figure 1.1: Increase in Home Health Denials-National Totals 25 Percent of bills denied 20 Source: HCFA. As a result of the increased denials, more denied claims were appealed and the number of home health agencies that lost their waiver of liabil- ity also increased.* Because of the increased denials, some industry rep- resentatives charged that HCFA was attempting to dismantle Medicare’s home health benefit and filed lawsuits contending that HCFA violated the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act in implementing cer- tain changes to the home health progrxng During congressional hear- ings held throughout the country in 1986 and 1987, industry officials, providers, and beneficiaries raised concerns about HCFA actions they viewed as causing denials and eroding the home health benefit. Legisla- tion has been enacted to address many of these concerns (see app. II). ‘This means that they did not get paid for their denied claims until they regained their waiver. “The act requires agencies to notify the public through the Federal Register to allow for comment on proposed regulations before they are promulgated. Page 16 GAO/-SO-14BR Medicare Home Health Claims Deni& Section 1 Background Because of the controversy surrounding the administration of the home Objectives, Scope,and health benefit, Representative Olympia J. Snowe and 66 other Members Methodology of Congress requested that we determine (1) the reasons for the increased denials, (2) the extent and causes of variation in denial rates among regions of the country, (3) the number of home health agencies that lost their waiver of liability during the period of increased denials, and (4) the effects of the increased denials on the appeals process. We also identified actions taken by HCFA and the Congress since the period of increased denials. We did our work at HCFA'S headquarters in Baltimore and its regional office in Boston; we visited one regional fiscal intermediary-Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Maine (Maine Blue Cross) and surveyed the 10 regional fiscal intermediaries that service freestanding home health agencies by use of a mail questionnaire. We visited two home health agencies in Vermont and two in Maine that congressional staff from those states identified as having specific concerns about the administra- tion of the home health benefit. We also visited the National Association for Home Care, an industry association representing the interests of more than 5,000 home health providers. We (1) reviewed prior GAO and HCFA reports, recent legislation, congres- sional hearings, and an August 1988 court decision (Duggan v. Bowen) affecting the home health benefit; (2) gathered and analyzed statistics from HCFA and other sources on home health claims, denials, appeals of denials, and numbers of providers who had lost waivers of liability; and (3) interviewed HCFA, home health industry, and intermediary officials. We did our work from January 1988 to January 1989 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, with the excep- tion that we did not verify the accuracy of the data intermediaries were reporting to HCFA. However, through our questionnaire we identified inconsistencies in how certain data are reported to HCFA; these inconsis- tencies are discussed later in the report. Page 17 GAO/HRD9@14BR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Section 2 Reasonsfor Increased Denials In response to the concerns raised by GAO and the Health Care Financing Administration’s Bureau of Quality Control between 1981 and 1986, HCFA implemented a number of changes to improve the administrative control over the home health program. These changes included . implementing standardized medical information forms to provide better information on which to make payment decisions, . increasing the number of claims medically reviewed before payment, . consolidating medical review for freestanding home health agencies under 10 regional intermediaries, and . evaluating the regional intermediaries’ medical review practices just before consolidation. We believe many of the denials of home health claims in 1986 and 1987 can be attributed to HCFA'S implementation of these changes; the 10 regional intermediaries generally agree. As shown in figure 2.1 the increases in denial rates in fiscal years 1986 and 1987 roughly corre- spond to the period of implementation of these changes. In August 1985, HCFA implemented standardized medical information Standardized Medical forms for home health agencies to use in requesting payment from Information Forms intermediaries. The forms (HCFA forms 485 and 486) gave medical reviewers more detailed information on each beneficiary’s general phys- ical condition, “homebound” status, functional limitations, nutritional requirements, services prescribed, and services received. The additional information was intended to increase the accuracy and consistency of coverage decisions. HCFA requires home health agencies to submit the forms 485 and 486 with the initial claim and the claim closest to the recertification date 60 days later. Interim bills submitted before recer- tification need not be accompanied by these forms. This initiative led to more claims denials because (1) medical reviewers had more information on which to make coverage decisions, and (2) some intermediaries denied claims because certain information was missing, instead of requesting the required data. The regional intermediaries cited denials associated with the implementation of the new forms as a primary reason for increases in fiscal year 1986. Page18 Section 2 Reasons for Increased Denials Figure 2.1: Relationship Between Program Changes and Increased Denials 25 Percent of bills denied i 10 5 ****.I--------**** 0 QuarterFiscal Year 1 Medical review doubled and new form used ( Intermediaries consolidated Source: HCFA The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 more than Increased Medical doubled the funds available for medical review and audit of home health Review and other Medicare claims. During fiscal year 1986, HCFA implemented the changes that this increased funding allowed. Before fiscal year 1986, intermediaries performed medical reviews on about 25 percent of home health claims and, therefore, paid the other 75 percent without detailed reviews. HCFA instructed intermediaries to perform medical reviews on every home health claim with a HCFA form 485 and a 486 attached; interim bills did not generally receive such reviews. HCFA officials told us that this resulted in intermediaries performing medical reviews on about 62 percent of the home health claims processed in fiscal years 1986 and 1987 (more than double the percentage reviewed in fiscal year 1985). The increased number of bills subjected to medical review resulted in more denials and higher denial rates even though the percentage of bills Page 19 GAO/HRD9014BR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Section 2 Reesona for Increased Denials being denied during medical review did not increase significantly. For example, in both 1985 and 1987, intermediaries denied about 10 percent of the bills subjected to medical review. However, because over twice as many bills were subjected to medical review in 1987, there were over twice as many denials. As a result, the HCFA-reported denial rate,’ was 7.9 percent in 1987 compared with 3.4 percent in 1985. The regional intermediaries cited increased medical review of claims as one of the primary reasons for increased denials in fiscal years 1986 and 1987. Beginning in the first quarter of fiscal year 1987, administration of the Consolidation of home health benefit for freestanding home health agencies was consoli- Intermediaries dated under 10 regional intermediaries; this caused over 3,000 of the agencies to change intermediaries. Because of the variation in intermediaries’ medical review performance and interpretation of cover- age criteria, the change in intermediaries may have resulted in increased denials until the home health agencies adjusted to the review practices of their new intermediaries. While the intermediaries did not cite the consolidation as the primary reason for the increase in denials, 7 of the 10 cited the adjustment period for agencies transferred to a new inter- mediary as increasing denial rates to a moderate extent; all inter- mediaries cited the consolidation as increasing denial rates to some extent. Just before the consolidation to 10 regional intermediaries, HCFA Strengthening of attempted to strengthen program controls and obtain more consistent Intermediary decisions from the intermediaries by evaluating the appropriateness of Performance their medical review decisions. This evaluation, conducted by HCFA’S Health Standards and Quality Bureau, was intended to identify individ- ual intermediary medical review training needs. Preliminary results of the evaluations were sent to the intermediaries and HCFA’Sregional offices in September 1986, but no final report was issued. The Health Standards and Quality Bureau evaluation found about 28 percent of the visits reviewed should have been denied, but that intermediaries had denied only 2.7 percent. In the first quarter of fiscal year 1987, immediately following the bureau’s evaluation, the home health claim denials were the highest ever. The intermediaries cited the ‘Bills denied divided by bills processed. Page 20 GAO/HRD-W14BR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Section 2 Reasons for Increased Denials bureau’s review as the most significant reason for the increase in denials during fiscal year 1987. In October 1986, before the Health Standards and Quality Bureau could implement training programs based on their evaluation, HCFA trans- ferred responsibility for monitoring the quality of medical review deci- sions by regional intermediaries to its Bureau of Program Operations. Since assuming this responsibility, that bureau has tried to promote uni- form and accurate application of medical review guidelines by con- ducting quarterly meetings with regional intermediaries and reviewing case studies of coverage decisions. There have been other reasons suggested by the home health industry Savings Ratio Not a as having been responsible for the increased denials in 1986 and 1987. A Major Factor frequently cited reason is the 5 to 1 savings-to-cost ratio standard that HCFA used in evaluating intermediary performance. One of many stan- dards in HCFA'S Contractor Performance Evaluation Program, this stand- ard required that intermediaries recover $5 in benefit savings for every $1 spent on medical review. The industry contends that this standard encouraged intermediaries to arbitrarily deny claims to meet the standard. HCFA officials contend that, since the savings-to-cost ratio was only one of many performance standards, an intermediary that arbitrarily denied claims to meet this standard would adversely affect its performance when measured against other standards (such as those relating to the accuracy of coverage decisions). In March 1987, HCFA reduced the stand- ard to a 2 to 1 ratio but did not use the standard in the fiscal year 1987 evaluations of intermediary performance. HCFA eliminated the standard completely from the fiscal year 1988 contractor evaluations because of the controversy and uncertainty associated with its use. In response to our questionnaire, 7 of the 10 regional intermediaries told us that the 5 to 1 ratio had little effect on increased denials in fiscal years 1986 or 1987. Overall, they felt that of all the reasons discussed in the questionnaire, this standard had the least effect on the increased denials. Page 21 GAO/HRD9@14BR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Section 3 Reasonsfor Varying Denial Rates Among HCFA Regions The Health Care Financing Administration’s quarterly data on denials of home health agency bills for fiscal years 1985 through 1988 show signif- icant variation of denial rates among HCFA regions. The variation results in part from differences in medical review practices among the regional intermediaries and inconsistencies among intermediaries in reporting denials to HCFA. Two of the 10 regional intermediaries had relatively low denial rates Extent of Regional throughout the 4-year period-Florida Aetna’s highest rate was 5.6 per- Variation cent in the first quarter of fiscal year 1987, and New Jersey Prudential peaked at 7.3 percent in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1987. The other eight intermediaries experienced dramatic increases in denial rates in at least one quarter of fiscal year 1987, though rates for all decreased in fiscal year 1988. For example, the denial rates for Maine Blue Cross were consistently below 5 percent until the first quarter of 1987, when they increased to about 15 percent. (See fig. 3.1 for denial rates for selected intermediaries and app. III for denial rates for all regional intermediaries.) Regional variation in denial rates results primarily from differences in Reasonsfor Regional intermediaries’ medical review practices and methods for reporting Variation denials to HCFA. Differences in Medical The intermediaries’ responses highlighted a variety of medical review Review Practices practices and guideline interpretations. For example: l The volume of claims medically reviewed by intermediaries varied. (The national average was 62 percent.) One intermediary, through the use of a utilization review screen, medically reviews 100 percent of its claims.’ That intermediary had the highest quarterly peak denial rate of all the regional intermediaries-20.1 percent. Screens were used to a varying extent by four other intermediaries for all or part of 1987. l Five of the intermediaries indicated that they were denying claims in fiscal year 1986 when information was missing on HCFA forms 485 or 486. In May 1987, HCFA instructed intermediaries to stop denying claims because of missing information and, instead, to request the necessary information. ‘Screens are parameters used to identify claims that should be subjected to more detailed review. Page 22 GAO/HRD90-14BR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Section 3 Reasons for Varying Denial Rates Among HCFA Regions Figure 3.1: Denials of Home Health Agency Bills for Selected Regional Intermediaries 25 Percent of bills denied 20 15 10 5 0 - Iowa - Des MoinesBlue Cross -I I I WisconsinBlue Cross m Florida-Aetna n n mn Maine Blue Cross Source: HCFA l Inconsistent interpretations of certain coverage definitions continued. For example, as a result of meetings among themselves, the intermediaries identified a number of areas of inconsistent interpreta- tions and requested HCFA to clarify definitions of a number of terms, such as “daily care.” HCFA responded to each request. Inconsistent Reporting of The 10 regional intermediaries were not consistent in the way they Denials reported denial statistics to HCFA at the time of our review. HCFA requires intermediaries to report denials as either (1) medical denials or (2) non- medical denials. Nonmedical denials can result from both the initial cler- ical review of claims or from the medical review process2 Half reported “Reasons for nonmedical denials occurring during medical review include duplicate services being rendered or noncovered supplies being provided. Page 23 GAO/HRD-SO-14BB Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Section 3 Reasonf3 for Varying Denial Rates Among HCFA Regions only denials occurring as a result of medical review; the others reported denials from both medical review and other sources, like the initial review of claims for eligibility. Thus, five intermediaries that reported denials from both medical review and other sources tended to have higher peak quarterly denial rates than those reporting only medical review denials. Four had peak denial rates in fiscal year 1987 that ranged from 18.6 to 19.7 percent. The other intermediary experienced a high of 13.6 percent. In contrast, four of the five intermediaries that reported only medical review denials tended to have lower peak quarterly denial rates. These intermediaries had peak quarterly denial rates ranging from 5.6 to 15.2 percent in fiscal year 1987. The fifth had the highest quarterly denial rate during fiscal year 1987-20.1 percent-but it performed medical reviews of 100 percent of home health claims. Other Reasons Intermediaries reported a number of other possible reasons for the vari- ation in denial rates, including (1) the number of and quarter in which home health agencies were transferred to a new intermediary during consolidation, (2) the size and experience of home health agencies in the intermediary’s region, and (3) differences in accepted medical and nurs- ing practices between the regions. Unusual circumstances can also result in variation. For example, one intermediary responded that inappropri- ate and even fraudulent billing practices at several of its large providers skewed its denial rates. . Page 24 GAO/HRIWO-14BR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Section 4 Effect of Increased Denials on Waiver of Liability Status Loss of waiver of liability (see p. 14) adversely affects an agency because it is not paid for denied claims until it regains its waiver. Home health industry officials say that the loss of a waiver also adversely affects beneficiaries because providers without waivers may be reluc- tant to provide certain services to beneficiaries when they have any doubts about whether the service is covered. Also, providers may refuse to accept new patients when they are not sure the patient will qualify for home health benefits. Precise data are not available on the number of home health agencies that lost their waiver because of the increased denials. Data provided to us by fiscal intermediaries, however, show that the percentage of agen- cies that lost their waiver generally increased when home health claims denials increased. Because intermediaries did not use consistent meth- ods to determine agencies’ eligibility for a waiver of liability, differences exist in the availability of the waiver. The Health Care Financing Administration does not routinely collect sta- Waiver Status Data tistics on the waiver status of home health agencies, but did collect such Are Limited information for the period July 1987 through March 1988 in response to a requirement in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986.’ On average, about 20 percent of the agencies were operating without a waiver at any one time during this period. The chief of HCFA’S Opera- tional Initiatives Branch, who conducted the study, advised us that some agencies did not have a waiver due to low utilization (those processing fewer than 10 claims in a 6-month period) and some lost their waiver because they exceeded the 2.5-percent denial criterion. Low utili- zation providers are not eligible for a waiver of liability. This official also said that HCFA does not have actual or estimated figures on the number of low utilization providers. Waiver data for fiscal years 1986,1987, and 1988 were provided by 8 of Questionnaire Results the 10 intermediaries in response to our questionnaire.2 As shown in on Waiver Status table 4.1, the percentage of agencies that lost their medical waiver was highest for the period beginning November 1,1986, when 31.8 percent were without a medical waiver. The percentage of providers without a ‘As of June 1989, the report being prepared by HCFA was in draft form. ‘Florida Aetna and south Carolina Blue Cross could not provide all of the requested data for the entire period. . Page 25 GAO/HRNW14J3R Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Section 4 Effect of Increased Denials on Waiver of Liability status medical waiver remained relatively high for the next 6 months but grad- ually decreased to about 13 percent by August 1988 (about 21 months later), the lowest rate experienced during the 3-year period. The per- centage of agencies without a technical waiver (see p. 14 for discussion of medical and technical waiver) peaked at 4.2 percent for the period beginning November 1, 1988. Table 4.1: Number of Home Health Agencies Off Waiver (Fiscal Years Home health agencies 1986-88)' Without Without Effective date of waiver Total medical waiver technical waiver statusb serviced No. Percent No. Percent 02-01-86 i ,478 241 16.3 c . 05-01-86 1,494 315 21.1 c . 08-01-86 1,636 404 24.7 c . 11-01-86 1,941 617 31.8 c . 02-01-87 2,381 733 30.8 c . 05-01-87 2,793 746 26.7 c . 08-01-87 3,499 797 22.8 c . 11-01-87 3,566 762 21.4 124 4.0" 02-01-88 3.583 628 17.5 102 2.9 05-01-88 3,591 572 15.9 116 3.2 08-01-88 3,148d 405 12.94 85 2.7" 11-01-88 3,627 548 15.1 152 4.2 Yncludes data from 8 of the 10 reglonal fiscal Intermediaries; Flonda Aetna and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of South Carolina are excluded. bBased on denials from the pnor calendar quarter. ‘Technical waiver became effective July 1, 1987. dExcludes Blue Cross of California. which serves about 400 home health agencies Like HCFA'S data, our data include providers without a waiver because of low utilization status. When intermediaries identified low utilization providers on their medical waiver reports, they represented as many as 8.5 percent of the total home health agencies served by the intermediaries. Low utilization providers can represent a significant per- centage of the home health agencies without waiver for an individual intermediary. For example, for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1988, Health Care Service Corporation (Illinois Blue Cross) reported that 80 of its 468 agencies were without a medical waiver-40 for low utilization and 40 because the number of denials exceeded 2.5 percent of total vis- its billed. Page 26 GAOjHRD9@14BR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Section 4 Rffect of Increased Denials on Waiver of Liability Status Intermediaries’ application of HCFA'S policy regarding low utilization providers is inconsistent. Depending on which intermediary processes its claims, a home health agency can lose its waiver of liability if it (1) processes fewer than 10 claims in a g-month period, (2) exceeds the 2.5 percent denial rate regardless of the number of claims processed, or (3) processes fewer than 10 claims in a 6-month period and has more than 2.5 percent of its claims denied in three consecutive quarters. Problems With Waiver For a time, intermediaries were using different methods to calculate denial rates for determining eligibility for a waiver of liability, resulting Calculation in different treatment of home health agencies. Some intermediaries were using all visits medically reviewed (which averaged about 62 per- cent of visits processed) as the denominator in the waiver calculation, while others were using all visits processed. In an October 1986 regional home health intermediary meeting, intermediaries realized that they were calculating the waiver using different methods, brought this to HCFA'S attention, and requested clarification. In November 1987, HCFA instructed all intermediaries to use all visits billed as the denominator in calculating denial rates. Page 27 GAO/RRB90-14BR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Effect of Increased Denials on the Appeals Process The number of claims appealed to intermediaries and administrative law judges increased substantially as initial denials increased. The percent- age of denied claims reversed also increased. This latter increase does not necessarily mean that the claim should have been allowed originally. Many reversals occurred because home health agencies that had not submitted sufficient information with their original claim submitted additional information when they appealed. The increased appeal activity resulted in increased administrative costs for providers and intermediaries, but quantifiable cost data from the Health Care Financing Administration, intermediaries, or the industry are very limited. The cost to a home health agency for submitting a reconsideration varies depending on the amount of new information submitted. Appeals before a Social Security Administration ALJ are more costly. It costs the Social Security Administration an average of $715 for each appeal. Only about 3,300 AU hearings were completed in fiscal year 1988, however. Table 5.1 shows that the number of reconsiderations and ALJ decisions Appeals Activity increased substantially from fiscal year 1986 through 1988. Reconsider- Increased ations and ALJ hearings do not necessarily correspond to the denials in Substantially the fiscal year due to (1) the go-day period allowed for filing an appeal and (2) the time required to process the appeal. Nonetheless, it appears from the data that only about 11 percent of the claims denied in fiscal years 1986,1987, and 1988 were appealed. Page 28 GAO/IElUHO-14BRMedim Home Health Claims Deniala Section 5 Bffect of Increased LIenida on the Appeals Process Table 5.1: Reconsiderations and ALJ Hearings (Fiscal Years 1986-88) FY 1986 FY 1967 FY 1966 Total Claims processed 5,386,500 5,154,800 5,055,100 15,596,400 Claims denied 321,333 407,826 257,884 987,043 Reconsiderations: Completeda 9,596 37,853 60,756 108,205 Reversedb 2,351 12,023 20,037 34,411 Percent reversed 24.5 31.8 33.0 31.8 ALJ hearings: Completeda 537 1,179 3,296 5,012 Reversedb 349 543 2,447 3,339 Percent reversed 65.0 46.1 74.2 66.6 Total reversed: 2,700 12,566 22,464 37,750 As a percent of completed reconsiderations 28.1 33.2 37.0 34.9 As a oercent of all denials 0.8 3.1 8.7 3.8 %zludes withdrawn and dismissed cases. blncludes partial reversals Source: HCFA As table 5.1 shows, the percentage of denied claims reversed upon Reversals Have Also appeal has risen steadily, from about 0.8 percent in fiscal year 1986 to Increased about 8.7 percent in fiscal year 1988. Page 29 GAO/HRD9@14BBMedicare Home Health Claims Denials Section 5 Effect of Increased Denials on the Appeals Process Figure 5.1: Reconsiderations Completed (FiscalYears 1985-88) 70 Thousands of reconsidoratlons compktd 1985 1996 Fiscal Year Cases affirmed. withdrawn. or dismissed Cases reversed Source: HCFA Also the percentage of completed reconsiderations that resulted in pay- ment of a claim initially denied increased each fiscal year from 24.5 per- cent in 1986 to 33.0 percent in 1988. The percentage of completed ALJ hearings reversed increased from 65 percent to 74.2 percent, except for fiscal year 1987, when 46.1 percent were reversed. Figures 5.1 and 5.2 show the increase in appeal activity and reversal levels at the reconsid- eration and ALJ hearing levels during recent years. Page 30 GAO/HRD9@14BRMedicare Home Health Claims Demials Section 5 Effect of Increased Denials on the Appeals Process Figure 5.2: ALJ Hearings Completed (Fiscal Years 1985-88) 3500 Number of h-rings 3009 1985 1996 ‘1997 1998 F&al Year I Cases affirmed,withdrawn,or dismissed Cases reversed Source: HCFA Providers contend that many denied claims are reversed on reconsidera- Reasonsfor Reversals tion without the submission of additional information indicating that the claim was inappropriately denied. Intermediaries and HCFA officials have stated that reversals typically occur at the reconsideration level because additional information is provided’ and that the initial decision to deny the claim may have been appropriate, given the available data. We vis- ited two home health agencies in Maine and two in Vermont that claimed that reversals were being made by their regional intermediary without the benefit of any new information. When we visited the intermediary, however, we found that all of the reversals cited by the agencies were based on the submission of additional or explanatory information, which allowed the intermediary to reverse the original decision. ‘Section 3783 of the Medicare Intermediary Manual indicates that the reconsideration of the amount of payment under part A is based on (1) information in the intermediary’s possession at the time the initial determination was made, (2) any statements or information that may be submitted by the party or parties, and (3) the medical and other records that are found to be required during the course of the reconsideration. In cases where the evidence taken as a whole is not clear and convinc- ing, a statement from the treating physician is to be obtained, in which the points at issue are discussed. Page 31 GAO/HRD-90.14BR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Section 5 Effect of Increased Denials on the Appeals Process Several factors contribute to the number of reversals at the ALJ level, according to the HCFA administrator. First, the judge often has additional information gathered as part of the appeals process. Second, the AIJ is technically bound to follow only the law and regulations and is not bound by HCFA instructions or manuals that are not part of the regula- tions Therefore, the judge may find in favor of a beneficiary if the rea- son for the denial is not clearly supported by criteria stated in the law or regulations. We could not identify any central source of data to show what home Appeals Cost health appeals cost providers, intermediaries, or government agencies that adjudicate home health appeals. However, we developed estimates of the cost of appeals based on HCFA data on Administrative Budget and Cost reports, Social Security Administration data on Medicare part A and Adversarial Hearings, and discussions with intermediary officials on the cost to appeal. Administrative costs associated with reconsiderations and ALJ hearings increased between 1985 and 1987 but represent only a small portion of total Medicare part A home health expenditures. The cost for all Medi- care appeals to intermediaries, not just home health cases, rose from $3.2 million in fiscal year 1985 to $8.7 million in fiscal year 1987. In fiscal year 1987 the average administrative costs for an intermediary were about $95 for each reconsideration and $46 for each AU hearing. The Social Security Administration’s average administrative cost for each Medicare appeal was $7 15. Using these average costs and the com- pleted case figures in table 5.1 yields an estimated administrative cost to intermediaries and government agencies of about $4.5 million for fiscal year 1987, which represents about 0.2 percent of the $2.3 billion total Medicare part A home health expenditures. Aggregate information on provider appeal costs is not readily available. The provider’s cost of an individual appeal varies. At the reconsidera- tion level, if the agency provides no additional information beyond that submitted with the original claim, the appeals cost would consist of the administrative costs required to complete and mail (1) a Request for Reconsideration of Part A Health Insurance Benefits and (2) an Appointment of Representative form if the provider is representing the beneficiary. In addition to the aforementioned costs, if the agency pro- vided additional information beyond that which was submitted with the Page 32 GAO/HRD90-14RR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Section 5 Effect of Increased Deniab on the Appeals Process original claim, the cost would increase in proportion to the tasks related to collecting, reviewing, and submitting the additional data. While appealing denied claims to the AW level may be much more costly to providers, there are relatively few ALJ hearings completed (1,179 in fiscal year 1987 and 3,296 in fiscal year 1988). By law, the provider cannot charge the beneficiary any fee for representation before an AU and may not be reimbursed if the appeal is unsuccessful. Page 33 GAO/HRD9@14JSR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Section 6 Recent ChangesAffecting the Home Health Program Administrative actions by the Health Care Financing Administration resulted in declines in denial rates, regional variation in denial rates, and the number of home health agencies that have lost their waiver of liabil- ity since early 1987. HCFA acted to address some of the reasons cited for the high denial rates Denials Have of 1986 and 1987, resulting in decreased denials. Specifically: Decreased 1. In May 1987, HCFA instructed the intermediaries to stop denying claims solely for missing information and, instead, to request additional documentation needed to process the claim. 2. HCFA'S Bureau of Program Operations eliminated two questions from the HCFA form 486 that industry officials felt were leading to increased denials: (1) block 11, which asked, “Is the patient receiving additional medically reasonable and necessary skilled care pursuant to a physi- cian’s plan of treatment paid for by other than Medicare?” and (2) block 18, which asked, “Is there an available, able, and willing care giver?” According to industry officials, intermediaries were denying claims based on positive responses to these questions on the grounds that the beneficiary’s care needs exceeded the limits of the Medicare benefit or that Medicare-financed services were not needed because of the avail- ability of alternative sources of care. In our opinion, eliminating block 11 from the form would likely decrease denials because this action limits the ability of intermediaries to identify beneficiaries whose care needs exceed Medicare coverage criteria. HCFA'S policy provides for denying aide services when there is a family member or other caring person who will provide care. Eliminating block 18 limits the intermediaries’ ability to enforce this policy by reducing the amount of information obtained on alternative care givers. 3. HCFA revised the standardized forms and developed a training video to facilitate implementation of the revisions. The director of HCFA'S Bureau of Program Operations said that the extensive training given to home health agencies by the regional fiscal intermediaries on coverage issues and proper documentation of claims also contributed to the reduction in denials. As a result of these actions, denials decreased considerably (from 9 per- cent in the first quarter of fiscal year 1987 to 4.3 percent in the third quarter of fiscal year 1989) even though intermediaries continued to . Page 34 GAO/HRDW14BR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials !3ection 6 Recent Changes Affecting the Home Health Program perform medical reviews on about 62 percent of claims processed. As the number of denials has decreased, so has the number of home health agencies that have lost their waiver of liability. While we also expect the number of appealed claims to eventually decrease, the data did not yet reflect a decrease in appeals at the time of our review. As national and regional claims denial rates have generally decreased, Regional Variation Is regional variation has narrowed. HCFA has taken action to reduce varia- Narrowing tion in medical review practices by clarifying that claims are not to be denied solely for missing information, and by meeting routinely with the regional intermediaries to discuss medical review, regional nursing prac- tices, and other issues. In addition, home health agencies have had the time to adjust to the medical review practices of their new fiscal intermediaries. . Page 36 GAO-Mb-14J.SR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Appendix I List of CongressionalR&questers Olympia J. Snowe House of Claudine Schneider Representatives David O’B. Martin Christopher H. Smith Don Sundquist Robert Garcia William F. Goodling James R. Olin Gus Yatron Richard H. Stallings Peter H. Kostmayer Arlan Stangeland Frederick C. Boucher James H. Saxton Edward J. Markey Lynn Martin James H. Bilbray Cardiss Collins Joe Kolter Lawrence J. Smith Steve Gunderson Matthew J. Rinaldo Butler Derrick W. J. (Billy) Tauzin Marge Roukema Doug Walgren Paul E. Kanjorski Gerry E. Studds Stephen J. Solarz Robert W. Davis Harris W. Fawell Patricia Schroeder Robert C. Smith Norman Sisisky Robert A. Borski Sherwood L. Boehlert Virginia Smith Dale E. Kildee Wayne Owens Robert T. Matsui Dennis E. Eckart Martin Frost Byron L. Dorgan Page 36 GAO/HRD-So-14BRMedicare Home Health Claims Denials Appendix I List of Congressional Requesters Bill Green William J. Hughes Clarence E. Miller John J. LaFalce Herbert H. Bateman Constance A. Morella Edward F. Feighan Jim Kolbe Daniel K. Akaka Amo Houghton Mickey Edwards Mike Synar Edward R. Roybal Norman D. Shumway Ben Nighthorse Campbell Larry E. Craig Louis Stokes Robert Lindsay Thomas Ted Weiss George W. Crockett, Jr. -. Dan Daniel Hal Daub Ferdinand J. St Germain James M. Jeffords United States Senate Page 37 GAO/HRD90-14BR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Appendix II Industxy Concerns and CongressionalActions Related to Medicare’s Home Health Benefit The side captions for this appendix represent some of the industry con- cerns relating to the denial of home health claims. The text that follows describes congressional actions taken in response to each concern. Too Many Home Health The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 Care Claims Are Being . required that the Secretary of Health and Human Services report to the Denied Congress annually in March 198’7 and March 1988 on denial activity. The reports were required to address (1) the frequency of denials, (2) the reasons for denials, (3) the extent to which payments were made to providers under the limitation of liability provision, (4) the rate of reversals, and (5) an assessment of the appropriateness of any percent- age standard for granting favorable presumption of liability to providers. . required a demonstration program under which intermediaries will review and decide home health claims shortly after the onset of services. The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 . required the Administrator of HCFA to appoint an 1 l-member Advisory Committee on Medicare Home Health Claims to study the reasons for the increase in denial rates during 1986 and 1987, its ramifications, and the need for reforms. (This provision was repealed by the Medicare Cata- strophic Coverage Repeal Act of 1989.) Denial Letters Do Not The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 Explain Why Claims Are required that intermediaries furnish home health agencies a written Denied l explanation citing the statutory and regulatory basis for denying a claim. Definitions Are Too The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 Stringent and extended the waiver of liability to technical denials-those based on Interpretations Differ l “not homebound” or “not intermittent care.” Among Intermediaries Page 38 GAO/HRD90-14BR Medicare Home Health Claim.9 Denials Industy Concerns and CongressionalActions Related to Medicare’s Home Health Benefit The side captions for this appendix represent some of the industry con- cerns relating to the denial of home health claims. The text that follows describes congressional actions taken in response to each concern. Too Many Home Health The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 Care Claims Are Being required that the Secretary of Health and Human Services report to the Denied l Congress annually in March 1987 and March 1988 on denial activity. The reports were required to address (1) the frequency of denials, (2) the reasons for denials, (3) the extent to which payments were made to providers under the limitation of liability provision, (4) the rate of reversals, and (5) an assessment of the appropriateness of any percent- age standard for granting favorable presumption of liability to providers. l required a demonstration program under which intermediaries will review and decide home health claims shortly after the onset of services. The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 . required the Administrator of HCFA to appoint an 1 l-member Advisory Committee on Medicare Home Health Claims to study the reasons for the increase in denial rates during 1986 and 1987, its ramifications, and the need for reforms. (This provision was repealed by the Medicare Cata- strophic Coverage Repeal Act of 1989.) Denial Letters Do Not The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 Explain Why Claims Are . required that intermediaries furnish home health agencies a written Denied explanation citing the statutory and regulatory basis for denying a claim. Definitions Are Too The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 Stringent and extended the waiver of liability to technical denials-those based on Interpretations Differ l “not homebound” or “not intermittent care.” Among Intermediaries Page 38 GAO/HRD-9lS14BR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Appendix II Industry Concerns and Gmgressional Actions Related to Medicare’s Home Health Benefit Appealing Denied Claims The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 Takes Too Long and Costs . required a special denial report including the number of denials reversed Too Much on appeal. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 l required the timely processing of reconsiderations. Many Claims Denied As a result of individual members’ inquiries to HCFA, Becauseof $5 to $1 HCFA reduced standard to $2 to $1 in March 1987, and eliminated the Savings-to-Cost Ratio l standard from the fiscal year 1988 Contractor Performance and Evalua- Standard tion Program. HCFA’s Standardized The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 Forms Create Unnecessary. required the Administrator of HCFA to appoint an 1 l-member Advisory Administrative Burden Committee on Medicare Home Health Claims. (Repealed by the 1989 act.) Home Health Benefit Is The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 Being Eroded, and Unmet expanded the number of covered days of daily home care. (Repealed by Needs Are Increasing l the 1989 act.) l expanded benefit to include respite care. (Repealed by the 1989 act.) . expanded benefit to include intravenous drug therapy. (Repealed by the 1989 act.) The Older Americans Act Amendments of 1987 l added a new program for support of nor-medical in-home services for the frail elderly. l authorized consumer protection demonstration project for services pro- vided in the home. Page 40 GAO/HRD-9@14BR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Appendix III Bill Denials by Region Figure 111.1:Denials of Home Health Agency Bills-Atlanta Region 25 Percent of bills denied - Atlanta Region Average -m-m Florida-Aetna m South Carolina Blue Cross Source: HCFA. . Page 41 GAO/HRD-So-14RR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Appendix Ill Bill Deniala by Region Figure 111.2:Denials of Home Health Agency Bills-Boston Region 25 Psrcsnt of bills denied 20 15 10 5 0 QuarterFiscal Year - Boston Region Average I I I I Maine Blue Cross Source: HCFA Page 42 GAO/HRD-9@14BR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Appendix ICI Bill Deniala by Region Figure 111.3:Denials of Home Health Agency Bills-Chicago Region 25 Perani of billr daniod 0 68 8 E 6 o* CwarlerFkal Year - Chicago Region Average I I I I Illinois Blue CrosS m Wisconsin Blue Cross Source: HCFA. Page 43 GA0/HRD!%14BR Me&are Home Health Claims Denials Appendix III Bill Denials by Region Figure: 111.4:Denials of Home Health Agency Bills-Dallas Region 25 Percant of bills doniod 20 15 10 \ 5 0 - Dallas Region Average m-mm Blue Cross New Mexico Source: HCFA Page 44 GAO/IiRD-9@14BR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Appendix III Bill Lknials by Region Figure: 111.5:Denials of Home Health Agency Bills-Denver Region 25 Percent of bills denled 20 Note: Data do not reflect claims processed by Denver’s regtonal intermediary: Blue Cross of Iowa Source: HCFA. P8ge 46 GAO/HELM%14BR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Appendix Ill Bill Denida by Region Figure: 111.6:Denials of Home Health Agency Bills-Kansas Clty Region 25 Porcont of bills drnid 20 15 10 5 0 OuatlerFiscal Year - Kansas City Region Average I I I I Iowa - Des Moines Blue Cross Source: HCFA Page 46 GAO/HRlS9tSl4BR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Appendix III Bill Deniala by Region Figure: 111.7:Denials of Home Health Agency Bills-New York Region 25 Pemnt of bills denied 20 15 10 5 0 - New York Region Average - - - - New Jersey - Prudential Source: HCFA Page 47 GAO/HBD90-14BRMedicare Home Health Claims Denials Appendix III Bill Jkdds by Region Figure: 111.6:Denials of Home Health Agency Bills-Philadelphia Region 25 Percent of bills denied 20 5 0 E8 E9 39 8 Q P E $ Q 8 0” 6 Quarter/Fiscal Year - Philadelphia Region Average I I I I Pennsylvania - Philadelphia Blue Cross Source: HCFA. Page 48 GAO/HRD90-14BR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Appendix III Bill Denials by Region Figure: 111.9:Denials of Home Health Agency Bills-San Francisco Region 25 Percent of bills denied 20 15 10 5 0 Quarter/Fiscal Year - San Francism Region Average I -I I California Blue Cross Source. HCFA. Page 49 GAO/HRDSO-14BR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials Appendix IlI Bill Denials by Region Figure: 111.10:Denials of Home Health Agency Bills-Seattle Region 25 Perwnf of bills denied 20 15 10 QuartorlAscal Year Note: Data do not reflect claims processed by Seattle’s regional intermedii: California Blue Cross. Source: HCFA Page 60 GAO/HRD90-14BR Medicare Home Health Claims Denials . Appendix IV Major Contributors to This Report Jane Ross, Senior Assistant Director, (202) 275-6196 Human Resources James R. Linz, Assistant Director Division, Washington, - D.C. William A. Moffitt, Evaluator-in-Charge Boston Re@ona1 Office Teresa D ’ Dee, Site Senior . (lollra) Page 61 GAO/HRD9@14RR Medicare Home Health Claima Denials
Medicare: Increased Denials of Home Health Claims During 1986 and 1987
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1990-01-24.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)