|MGMA has published the following alert:
Congress repeals SGR!
|In a significant victory for physician group practices and MGMA, late this evening the Senate voted (92-8) to approve the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act, H.R. 2. This legislation, which passed the House of Representatives on March 26, permanently repeals the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula. President Obama publicly stated that he will sign the bill into law.
Permanent repeal of the SGR has been a top priority of MGMA’s advocacy efforts. We thank our members for their critical grassroots support in getting this legislation passed.
MGMA president and chief executive officer Halee Fischer-Wright, MD, MMM, FAAP, released the following statement:
“This is a historic day–the dark cloud over physician group practices has been lifted. The Senate vote to permanently repeal the SGR returns stability to physicians and Medicare patients alike. MGMA congratulates Congress on this momentous, bipartisan achievement.”
Western PA may now be ready for Narrow network contracting. Attached is the ACMS March 2015 Bulletin article for further information.
|March 27, 2015 – Special Alert|
|Historic SGR repeal passes in House|
|Today, the House of Representatives passed the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act, H.R. 2, by a vote of 392–37. This legislation permanently repeals the SGR and returns stability to physicians and Medicare patients.
MGMA President and CEO Halee Fischer-Wright released the following statement:
“The House of Representatives has voted to remove the dark cloud of financial uncertainty over physician group practices. Medicare innovation has been hampered far too long by the SGR. The Senate is one vote away from returning stability to patients and physicians in Medicare. MGMA urges the Senate to immediately vote to repeal the SGR.”
MGMA has worked tirelessly over the years urging Congress to permanently repeal the SGR and put an end to temporary short-term patches. MGMA members have lent their own critical support to the effort, engaging in years of influential grassroots campaigns.
Attention now turns to the Senate, which must also pass the legislation before the current patch expires on March 31 to avoid an automatic 21% cut to physician payments. Make your voice heard! Urge your Senators to repeal the SGR now.
Very interesting reading for those in the privacy and security space – http://www.verizonenterprise.com/DBIR/2014/.
The Ohio State Medical Board has proposed new telehealth prescribing regulations, which are predicated upon whether the drug is a controlled or not a controlled substance.
For non-controlled substances, physicians may prescribe or dispense medication to a person on whom the physician has never previously conducted a medical evaluation only if the physician completes and document a medical evaluation and collects a relevant clinical history that “conforms to minimal standards of care consistent with an evaluation that was completed in a face-to-face interaction” using real time telehealth technology.
For controlled substances, physicians may dispense or prescribe only in the following situations:
- On-call or cross coverage arrangements with another physician.
- Consulting with another physician or healthcare provider.
- As a medical director or hospice physician to a patient enrolled in hospice program.
- Persons for in-patients or residents of institutional facilities.
Danielle Dietrich, an attorney in Tucker Arensberg’s Pittsburgh office, recently prepared the below:
On January 15, 2015, the Pennsylvania Superior Court in Bair v. Manor Care of Elizabethtown, PA, LLC 2015 Pa. Super. 9 (2015) ruled that a nursing home arbitration agreement was not enforceable when the facility did not sign the agreement.
M. Sylvia Bair commenced this action for wrongful death and survival in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County as Executrix of the Estate of Martha A. Edwards against Manor Care, alleging that neglect and abuse of Ms. Edwards by Manor Care lead to her death.
Manor Care filed preliminary objections seeking to have the case referred to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement executed by Ms. Bair on behalf of Ms. Edwards upon her admission to Manor Care. However, no Manor Care representative completed or signed the arbitration agreement on behalf of the entity. The trial court overruled Manor Care’s preliminary objections, permitting the litigation to move forward in the state court. Manor Care appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
The “Voluntary Arbitration Agreement” at issue contained blanks on the first page for the insertion of the names of the contracting parties and the date. Those blanks were not completed. The agreement also failed to attach a brochure to which it referred and incorporated into the agreement. There were also signature lines for the Patient, the Patient’s legal representative and for the Center Representative. The Center Representative did not sign the agreement.
Manor Care argued that the mere presentation of the form constituted an offer to arbitrate. By signing the agreement, they argued, Ms. Bair accepted the offer.
Ms. Bair argued that the form does not indicate who the parties are and that the form was “facially devoid of essential terms” and was therefore unenforceable.
The Superior Court found that by failing to affix its signature, Manor Care did not consent to arbitrate, as there was no mutual assent. It found that the nursing home could not enforce the arbitration agreement.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a Bill late last week, which will take effect as of January 1, expanding telehealth coverage in New York. This law does three things which are on the leading edge of telehealth coverage:
- First, it requires commercial insurance and medical assistance to provide telehealth coverage, which provision is often referred to as “parity legislation” by telehealth providers.
- Second, in defining the originating site for telehealth coverage, it does not exclude a patient’s home. Rather, the new law defines the originating site as “a site at which a patient is located at the time healthcare services are provided to him or her by means of telemedicine or telehealth”. There is no exclusion for a patient’s home.
- Third, it defines telehealth technology as “information and communications technologies consisting of telephones, remote patient monitoring devices or other electronic means which facilitate this assessment, diagnosis, consultation, treatment, education, care management and self management” without specifying that the technology must be either synchronous or asynchronous, thereby allowing the providers and insurers to choose any technology which they believe permits appropriate delivery of care.
On December 6, 2014, the Pennsylvania Department of Health posted the allowable charges for Medical Records for 2015. See attached.