California Medicaid Agency Proposes Significant Restrictions on FQHC and RHC Reimbursement

13 March 2018 Health Care Law Today Blog
Authors: Adam J. Hepworth Anil Shankar Diane Ung

California’s Medicaid agency has posted draft language of a new state plan amendment (SPA) that would make major changes to federally qualified health center (FQHC) and Rural Health Clinic (RHC) reimbursement.  Public comments may be made on the proposal until 5 PM on March 23, 2018.  Following review of public comments, the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) may make revisions to the SPA before submitting it to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for approval.  If approved, the SPA would be retroactive to January 1, 2018.

Here are five of the most noteworthy changes:

1. Imposition of Productivity Standards

The draft SPA would apply a minimum productivity standard to the calculation of the prospective payment system (PPS) rate for FQHC or RHC reimbursement under Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program.  The proposed productivity standard requires physicians to document 3,200 visits per year and applicable allied health professionals like physician assistants and nurse practitioners to document 2,600 visits per year.  Unless an FQHC or RHC could demonstrate that circumstances justify an exception, DHCS would be required to reduce the clinic’s PPS rate if it failed to meet minimum visit requirements in a rate-setting fiscal year.  The draft SPA provides little detail on how the productivity standards are actually determined and how they would be applied, as well as the types of documentation that would be deemed satisfactory to support the relevant calculations and exception requests.

2. New Barriers to Receiving an Updated Per-Visit Rate

If approved in its current form, the draft SPA would make it more difficult for FQHCs and RHCs to apply for and receive a new prospective payment system (PPS) rate.  Federal Medicaid law requires PPS rates to be “adjusted to take into account any increase or decrease in the scope of [covered] services” furnished by the center or clinic.  States generally implement this requirement by establishing a methodology whereby FQHCs or RHCs are entitled to the calculation of a new PPS rate if they demonstrate a change in scope of service.

The draft SPA proposes a number of amendments that would restrict this process.  For example, it provides that in most circumstances a change based on the addition of a new service performed by new professional staff only qualifies the clinic or center for an updated PPS rate if there are no current professional staff who are licensed to perform the service.  It also provides that changes in ownership, the addition or reduction of staff members to or from an existing service, changes in office hours, and increases in the number of encounters are not qualifying changes.  The FQHC or RHC would be unable to submit a change in scope of service request until the change has been in place for a full fiscal year.

3. Limitations on Reimbursement for Services Outside the “Four Walls” of the FQHC or RHC

The draft SPA would also curtail the ability of an FQHC or RHC to be paid by Medi-Cal for services that take place outside the primary location of the clinic or center.  In most instances, the draft SPA limits reimbursement for such instances when the FQHC or RHC provides services to an “established” patient who is unable to travel to the FQHC or RHC.  An established patient would be defined as someone who has had his or her medical records created during a visit within the four walls of the FQHC or RHC within three years of the offsite visit or who was assigned to FQHC or RHC by a managed care plan pursuant to a primary care provider agreement.  In certain other circumstances, reimbursement may also be provided to some permanently homebound patients.  The draft SPA would also require that services furnished outside the primary location of the clinic or center be based on a written individualized treatment plan and pursuant to written policies approved by the FQHC or RHC Board of Directors.  The draft SPA would also apply restrictions to the treatment of homeless individuals outside the the four walls of the FQHC or RHC.

4. Clarification of Billing for Telehealth and Telehealth Store and Forward Services

The draft SPA proposes new language to address the circumstances when an FQHC or RHC may bill its PPS rate for telehealth encounters or telehealth store and forward services.  The policies expressed in the draft SPA appear to modify past guidance on this issue issued by California telehealth organizations that consulted with DHCS.  For example, the draft SPA would not recognize the ability of an FQHC or RHC to bill its PPS rate when a patient uses technology to “virtually enter” the FQHC or RHC.  It would recognize the ability of an FQHC or RHC to bill its PPS rate when a provider located at a distant site sees a patient located at the FQHC or RHC, provided certain requirements are met (including a contract between the FQHC/RHC and the distant site that compensates the provider at the distant site).

5. New Authority to Bill Marriage and Family Therapist Visits

The draft SPA would add marriage and family therapists to the list of health care professionals who may bill for a face-to-face encounter with a patient, presumably to implement recent state law changes.  To bill for marriage and family therapist visits, the proposed SPA would require the FQHC to submit a mandatory change-in-scope-of-service request after the new services have been provided for a full fiscal year, which appears to be more narrow in scope than the process described in state law.

These proposed changes represent a significant restructuring of how reimbursement rates for FQHCs and RHCs are calculated and updated in the Medi-Cal program.  They represent a general state tightening of options for rate adjustments otherwise afforded by law to FQHCs, which could significantly impact FQHCs and RHCs and the special populations they serve.  Many of the proposed provisions also do not reflect current service delivery practices and standards that FQHCs and RHCs have found necessary for specific populations, such as homeless individuals and other itinerant medically underserved populations. The current invitation for public comment is the best opportunity to provide feedback to DHCS before the changes are officially proposed to CMS.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

California Statute Offers Dramatic Change to Independent Contractor, Franchise-Franchisee Relationships
20 September 2019
Legal News: Distribution & Franchise
AI Ouch! AI Job Interview Law Starting in 2020!
20 September 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.