Newsroom

This post has been archived and contains information that may be out of date.

In a Dec. 28, 2017, memo to state survey agency directors, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) clarified that texting patient information is permissible if a secure texting platform is used. However, texting physician or other practitioner orders is not allowed. The CMS memo reminds hospitals to comply with health information privacy laws as well as documentation and record retention requirements, emphasizing the need to:

Use secure, encrypted systems and platforms to minimize the risk of exposing patient information. Implement policies and procedures to routinely assess the security and integrity of the texting systems and platforms.

The memo cites CMS record retention requirements. However, California providers and Medicaid providers must comply with longer record retention periods. CHA’s annual Hospital Compliance Seminar, to be held Feb. 6 in Pasadena and Feb. 21 in Sacramento, will cover this and other timely topics related to changes in state and federal law.

This post has been archived and contains information that may be out of date.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reminds providers that, as of Jan. 2, they must use the QualityNet Secure Portal for calendar year 2017 attestation under the Electronic Health Record Incentive Program. This change, which also applies to future reporting periods, is intended to streamline the attestation process by migrating it to the system already used for clinical quality measure reporting. Medicaid-eligible hospitals should contact their state Medicaid agencies for specific information on how to attest. Dually eligible hospitals and critical access hospitals will register and attest for Medicare on the QualityNet portal and update and submit registration information in the Registration and Attestation System. Questions should be directed to the QualityNet Help Desk at qnetsupport@hcqis.org or (866) 288-8912.

This post has been archived and contains information that may be out of date.

Assembly Bill 940 (Chapter 274, Statutes of 2017) took effect Jan. 1, requiring long-term care facilities to notify their local ombudsman of facility-initiated transfers or discharges, regardless of whether the resident agrees with the facility’s decision. Failure to notify the ombudsman in a timely fashion will constitute a class B violation, which may result in a penalty of $100-$2,000. Facilities are not required to notify the ombudsman of resident-initiated transfers. More information is available in the attached All Facilities Letter 17-27.

This post has been archived and contains information that may be out of date.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will host a call on Jan. 9 from 10:30 to 11:30 a.m. (PT) to discuss recently announced changes to the low-volume appeals settlement process. As previously reported in CHA News, the agency is attempting to streamline settlement options by allowing eligible providers and suppliers with a low volume of pending Medicare Part A and B claim appeals to utilize a new settlement option. Having a low volume of pending appeals is defined as fewer than 500 appeals with a total billed amount of $9,000 or less per appeal, at the third and fourth appeal levels combined.

The Jan. 9 call will share details of the new option and explain how the process will work. Speakers will discuss who is eligible and which pending appeals may be settled, but will not include a question and answer session. Instead, questions may be submitted in advance of the call to MedicareSettlementFAQs@cms.hhs.gov. Registration is available online; for more information about the program, visit the low-volume appeals initiative web page.

This post has been archived and contains information that may be out of date.

The California Department of Health Care Services has shared with CHA new standards it will apply to the Medi-Cal Electronic Health Record Incentive Program both retroactively and moving forward.

This post has been archived and contains information that may be out of date.

Last week, CHA submitted the attached comment letter on a moratorium on new gas service connections to commercial and industrial consumers, proposed by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Following a series of risk assessments addressing the availability of natural gas pipelines in Southern California, the agency proposed to limit increased demand for natural gas to ensure reliability for existing customers. Numerous mitigation measures are currently under consideration, including this proposed moratorium. In the letter, CHA asserts the moratorium could disrupt vital health care services and will adversely impact patient access to care during the moratorium period (Jan. 11 to March 31).

In addition, CHA notes that the proposal lacks an analysis of how the moratorium will affect the health care delivery system and its services, current and planned hospital construction projects and other critical services — particularly during a time of seasonal flu outbreak in which demand on the health care delivery system surges. More information about the moratorium is available in the attached press release.

This post has been archived and contains information that may be out of date.

Covered California has extended to Jan. 19 the plan selection deadline for coverage beginning Feb. 1. Changes made after Jan. 19 will delay the applicant’s coverage start date to March 1. Open enrollment closes Jan. 31; after that date, only consumers who have experienced a qualifying life event will be eligible to apply for coverage. More information is available in an email Covered California sent to consumers Jan. 5.

This post has been archived and contains information that may be out of date.

On Jan. 17, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma  joined a public webcast hosted by the American Hospital Association to preview administration efforts to reduce regulatory burden on hospitals. 

A replay of the webcast is available. If you had previously registered, hit “Click here to login” at the bottom of the page. Enter your email address and click “Submit.” You will then be taken to the replay.

If you did not register, fill out the required fields at the top of the page. Once you click “Submit” you will be redirected to the replay.

This post has been archived and contains information that may be out of date.

The insurance industry hates it because it would ding its profits. Democratic leaders fear it could kill passage of health care reform. But reports of the death of the public option have been greatly exaggerated. Poll after poll shows that Americans want to be able to choose a public insurance plan, and for good reason.

This post has been archived and contains information that may be out of date.

On Dec. 29, a federal district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the American Hospital Association and others seeking to prevent the payment cuts to hospitals participating in the 340B Drug Pricing Program. The payment cuts consequently became effective Jan. 1, reducing Medicare payments by nearly 30 percent, or $1.6 billion, to certain hospitals for outpatient drugs purchased under the 340B program. CHA and 32 other state and regional hospital associations had submitted an amicus (friend of the court) brief supporting the plaintiffs’ claims.

The lawsuit argues that the 340B provisions of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ outpatient prospective payment system final rule violate the law and, therefore, should be set aside under the Administrative Procedure Act as unlawful and exceeding the Health and Human Services Secretary’s statutory authority. The judge dismissed the case without ruling on the merits and instead held that he lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiffs did not exhaust their administrative remedies by first presenting the Department of Health and Human Services with a concrete claim for reimbursement.