Live Webinar | Patient Access
Save
Live Webinar | Finance and Business Strategy
Save
Live Webinar | Finance and Business Strategy
Save
Live Webinar | Finance and Business Strategy
Save
News | Compliance

Mandates related to pricing, Medicare participation lead hospital concerns over healthcare IT proposed rules

News | Compliance

Mandates related to pricing, Medicare participation lead hospital concerns over healthcare IT proposed rules

  • Hospitals opposed a proposed ONC requirement that they provide pricing information for each patient and procedure.
  • Instead, hospitals urged that private and public insurance plans provide out-of-pocket price information to their beneficiaries.
  • Hospitals warned against requiring electronic data exchange of specific information, citing a lack of infrastructure.

Hospitals supported many of the transparency goals of two proposed healthcare IT rules, but two areas drew sharp concerns.

In comments due June 3, hospitals and their advocates warned of far-reaching consequences if the Trump administration finalizes proposed rules to change Medicare and Medicaid conditions of participation (CoP). The new rules would require exchange of specific patient electronic health information (EHI) and that records include pricing information.

Concerns about the price-information requirement

Specifically, a proposed rule on interoperability from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) sought comments on including within required EHI “price information,” which was left undefined, as part of requirements to prevent information blocking. 

Hospitals raised concerns about the proposal, including that it:

  • Fails to enhance competition based on quality and value, since price is not a proxy for quality
  • Creates a costly unfunded mandate by requiring hospitals to provide prices for each patient and procedure
  • Violates the First Amendment by compelling disclosure of confidential commercial information
  • Inhibits competition by creating a platform for price fixing

“Health plans would know what every other health plan was paying and could use that information indirectly to collude and drive prices below competitive levels, thereby reducing the incentives for actual competition in the marketplace and threatening the viability of some of the nation’s most vulnerable hospitals,” wrote the American Hospital Association.

Like other hospital-sector stakeholders, HFMA questioned both ONC’s legal authority to create the price-listing requirement and the requirement’s usefulness for insured patients, who prioritize out-of-pocket costs.

“HFMA’s members believe the most appropriate source of information for commercially insured patients/members is their health plan because it will have the necessary data to provide the most accurate, relevant estimate,” HFMA wrote in a letter to ONC.

Similarly, the Michigan Health and Hospital Association urged that private and public insurance plans provide out-of-pocket price information to their beneficiaries, with providers offering patient-specific out-of-pocket information to uninsured patients.

Trinity Health warned against using Medicare prices as a reference tool because such information could be misleading to non-Medicare patients and shoppers.

“Showing the rate Medicare pays may cause patient confusion and suspicion of the hospital’s pricing fairness. Hospitals with true procedure-level cost knowledge submit that Medicare reimbursement does not come close to covering their current costs,” wrote Tina Weatherwax Grant, JD, vice president of public policy and advocacy for the health system.

Alternate approaches could include federally developed or supported “real-time benefit tools that provide accurate out-of-pocket costs at the point of care,” wrote the Medical Group Management Association.

Hospitals also challenge CoP proposal

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released a separate but related proposed rule related to health information. It would amend the Medicare and Medicaid CoPs for hospitals, critical access hospitals and psychiatric hospitals to require the electronic exchange of admission, discharge and transfer (ADT) information. Additionally, CoPs would require hospitals to provide patient-event notifications.

Hospital concerns with the CoP provisions included that they:

  • Assume an infrastructure allowing routine exchange of such information even though such an infrastructure has not been built
  • Create conflicting and confusing hospital requirements relative to the ONC information-blocking rule
  • Move beyond existing information-sharing requirements to focus on the mechanism by which information must be shared
  • Create liability under the False Claims Act for hospitals that certified they were not an information blocker under the Promoting Interoperability Program (PIP)

Michigan-based Spectrum Health was among the health systems urging CMS to focus on building the PIP data-exchange infrastructure rather than layering additional requirements on hospitals.

“Utilizing the CoP program is an unnecessary burden for enhancing hospital use of these feeds,” wrote Jason Joseph, chief information officer for Spectrum Health.

CMS’s assertion that the ADT data requirement would impose minimal, one-time costs on hospitals was challenged by the College of Health Information Management Executives (CHIME) and the Association for Executives in Health Information Technology (AEHIT).

“We believe CMS has significantly underestimated the complexity of meeting this mandate, and we do not agree with the agency’s estimation that this should require little effort and be a one-time cost,” CHIME and AEHIT wrote to CMS.

The groups urged CMS at a minimum to give hospitals three years to prepare before the requirement takes effect.

The hospital advocacy group Premier recommended that CMS instead use existing policy levers to establish a system of event notifications and that it work to improve existing infrastructure in support of health data exchange.

About the Author

Rich Daly, HFMA senior writer/editor,

is based in the Washington, D.C., office. Follow Rich on Twitter: @rdalyhealthcare

Sign up for a free guest account and get access to five free articles every month.

Advertisements

Related Articles | Compliance

Blog | Patient Financial Communications

CMS makes templates available to help with aspects of the new surprise billing regulations

CMS has published templates and resources that can guide healthcare providers in implementing some of the surprise-billing requirements that take effect in January.

News | Coronavirus

Court injunction stops federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers from being implemented as scheduled

A federal judge has halted implementation of a new rule that would require all on-site staff in hospitals and most other healthcare settings to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

News | Medicare Payment and Reimbursement

CMS finalizes changes to the price transparency penalty, inpatient-only list and more for 2022

Medicare policies affecting price transparency, the inpatient-only list and more will take effect Jan. 1 after CMS published its 2022 final rule for hospital outpatient departments and ambulatory surgical centers.

News | Coronavirus

CMS finalizes vaccination requirements for hospitals and most other healthcare settings

If hospital staff aren’t fully vaccinated by Jan. 4, their organization will be deemed noncompliant with Medicare and Medicaid regulations, according to a new rule handed down Thursday by CMS.