Skip to Main Content

insightsarticles

The CARES Act and telehealth services for FQHCs

03.31.20

Read this if you are a director, manager, or administrator at a Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) or Rural Health Clinic (RHC).

The latest COVID-19 bill, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act included enhancing Medicare telehealth services for FQHCs and RHCs. This legislation waives the Section 1834(m) restriction on FQHCs and RHCs that prohibits them from serving as distant sites. This means during the COVID-19 State of Emergency, FQHCs and RHCs will be able to serve as distant sites to provide telehealth services to patients in their homes and other eligible locations. The legislation will reimburse FQHCs and RHCs at a rate that is similar to payment for comparable telehealth services under the physician fee schedule (Medicare Part B). FQHCs and RHCs will not be paid the Medicare PPS rate for these services.

Currently, Medicare, unlike many Medicaid programs and commercial payers, still requires the video component for telehealth. Effective immediately, the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services will exercise its enforcement discretion and will not impose penalties for noncompliance with the regulatory requirements under the HIPAA Rules against covered health care providers in connection with the good faith provision of telehealth during the COVID-19 State of Emergency. Providers who want to use audio or video communication technology to provide telehealth during the COVID-19 State of Emergency can use any non-public facing remote communication product that is available to communicate with patients. Examples of acceptable platforms (non-public facing) include Apple FaceTime, Google G Suite Hangouts Meet, and Skype for Business.

We would also like to remind you of the ability to bill for virtual communication services. Virtual communication services are a brief, non-face-to-face check-in with a patient via communication technology, to assess whether the patient's condition necessitates an office visit. The call must be initiated by the patient and to be billable, the call must be between the patient and a physician, nurse practitioner, physician assistant, certified nurse midwife, clinical psychologist, or clinical social worker. If the discussion is conducted by a nurse, health educator, or other clinical personnel, it is not billable as a virtual communication service. There is no video component required for virtual communication services. The check-in cannot relate to a visit with the patient during the previous seven days or result in a visit with the patient within the next 24 hours (or next available appointment). Read the FAQs from Medicare on the virtual communication services.

We continue to be here to support you. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to reach out to any of us. 

Related Professionals

Read this if your facility or organization has received provider relief funds.

The rules over the use of the provider relief funds (PRF) have been in a constant state of flux since the funds started to show up in your bank accounts back in April. Here is a summary of where we are as of November 30, 2020 with allowable uses of the funds.
 
The most recent Post-Payment Notice of Reporting Requirements is dated November 2, 2020. In accordance with the notice, PRF may be used for two purposes:

  1. Healthcare-related expenses attributable to coronavirus that another source has not reimbursed and is not obligated to reimburse
  2. Lost revenue, up to the amount of the difference between 2019 and 2020 actual patient care revenue

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has issued FAQs as recently as November 18, 2020.  The FAQs include the following clarifications on the allowable uses:

Healthcare related expenses attributable to the coronavirus

  1. PRF may be used for the marginal increased expenses or incremental expenses related to coronavirus.
  2. Expenses cannot be reimbursed by another source or another source cannot be obligated to reimburse the expense.
  3. Other sources include, but are not limited to, direct patient billing, commercial insurance, Medicare/Medicaid/Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or other funds received from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Provider Relief Fund COVID-19 Claims Reimbursement to Health Care Providers and Facilities for Testing, Treatment, and Vaccine Administration for the Uninsured, and the Small Business Administration (SBA) and Department of Treasury’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). This would also include any state and federal grants received as a result of the coronavirus.
  4. Providers should apply reasonable assumptions when estimating the portion of costs that are reimbursed from other sources.
  5. The examples in the FAQs for increased cost of an office visit and patient billing seem to point to only supplemental coronavirus related reimbursement needing to be offset against the increased expense.
  6. PRF may be used for the full cost of equipment or facility projects if the purchase was directly related to preventing, preparing for and responding to the coronavirus; however, if you claim the full cost, you cannot also claim the depreciation for any items capitalized.
  7. PRF cannot be used to pay salaries at a rate in excess of Executive Level II which is currently set at $197,300.

Lost revenues attributable to the coronavirus

  1. Lost revenues attributable to coronavirus are calculated based upon a calendar year comparison of 2019 to 2020 actual revenue/net charges from patient care (prior to netting with expenses).
  2. Any unexpended PRF at 12/31/20 is then eligible for use through June 30, 2021 and calculated lost revenues in 2021 are compared to January to June 2019.
  3. Reported patient care revenue is net of uncollectible patient service revenue recognized as bad debts and includes 340B contract pharmacy revenue.
  4. This comparison is cumulative, for example, if your net income improves in Q4, it will reduce lost revenues from Q2.
  5. Retroactive cost report settlements or other payments received that are not related to care provided in 2019 or 2020 can be excluded from the calculation.

Whether you are tracking expenses or lost revenues, the accounting treatment for both is to be consistent with your normal basis of accounting (cash or accrual).
 
As a reminder, the first reporting period (through December 31, 2020) is due February 15, 2021. The reporting portal is supposed to open January 15, 2021. Any unexpended PRF at December 31, 2020 can be used from January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021, with final reporting due July 31, 2021.

The guidance continues to change rapidly and new FAQs are issued each week. Please check back here for any updates, or contact Mary Dowes for more information.

Article
Provider relief funds: Allowable uses 

Read this if you are an administrator, manager, or director at a Rural Health Clinic (RHC) or Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC).

The following outlines key due dates related to various CARES Act funding streams that you may have received. Updated as of April 27, 2020.

1. Round two of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) was just signed last week. If you have not applied and plan to do so, please do so ASAP as the funds are likely to be exhausted quickly.
2. Your 12-month budget for the CARES Act funding is due on May 8, 2020. As you prepare your budget, please consider the following:
a. If you were lucky enough to get approved for PPP loans, use these funds first to pay for salaries and wages as they are for eight weeks only.
b. We encourage including federal grant expenses in all budget categories to enable you to take advantage of the flexibility HRSA has provided you by allowing reclassifications between budget categories up to the lesser of 25% of the federal award or $250,000 without asking for prior approval. If you wish to reclassify amounts to a budget category which didn’t previously have federal funds budgeted, you will have to submit a budget revision to HRSA for approval. This guidance applies to your base 330 grant as well. 
c. Remember, if an employee is paid more than $197,300 (Executive II salary level as of January 1, 2020), you can only charge $197,300 to any HRSA grant. This salary limitation does not apply to consultants or contracted employees.
d. Use of these funds is very likely to undergo audits, similar to the ARRA funding a number of years ago, therefore make sure you properly track how you use these funds (audit trail).
e. Have your personnel policies been modified for consistency with any new practices you’ve implemented as a result of the public health emergency (for example, hazard pay, family and sick leave and remote working)?

Click here for a list of HRSA’s examples of the allowable uses of the CARES Act funding.    
 
3. The initial distribution you received on April 20, 2020 from the CARES Act Provider Relief Fund has an attestation due on May 10, 2020. There are various provisions governing the use of the funds and we suggest you consider the ability to use these funds to offset lost earnings so you do not have to complete with the other funding programs you have received.

Article
CARES Act funding deadlines: Update for FQHCs and RHCs

Read this if you are an administrator, manager, or director at a Rural Health Clinic (RHC) or Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC).

CMS just released an article outlining new and expanded flexibilities for RHCs and FQHCs during the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE). The article includes the following information:

  • Payment rate for telehealth services
  • How to bill for telehealth services
  • Expanded virtual communications services

Payment for telehealth health services during the PHE (from January 27, 2020 through the end of the PHE) is $92. Billing for telehealth is segmented into two periods:

  1. January 27, 2020 – June 30, 2020, bill using the 95 modifier
  2. July 1, 2020 – end of PHE, bill using code G2025

The article further outlines that for telehealth services billed through June 30, they will be paid at the PPS rate. The claims will then be automatically reprocessed in July and a recoupment will occur for the difference between the $92 and your PPS rate. 

It will be important for you to keep track of the telehealth visits paid at your PPS rate and what the recoupment by Medicare will be so that when it occurs you will not be caught unawares.

Virtual communication services have been expanded to include digital evaluation and management services. Online digital evaluation and management services are non-face-to-face, patient initiated, digital communications using a secure patient portal. 

Additionally, the payment rate for these services will be $24.76 beginning March 1, 2020 through the end of the PHE instead of the CY 2020 rate of $13.53, and should bill using code G0071. 

Consider how the medical records component of your system interfaces with the billing component to ensure you capture these services for billing.

The full article can be accessed here: MLN Matters Special Edition Article 20016.
 

Article
CMS expands flexibility for RHCs and FQHCs

The Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020, which provides $8.3 billion in emergency funding for federal agencies to respond to the COVID-19 outbreak, has earmarked $100 million for FQHCs to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the COVID-19 national emergency. Pre-award costs will be supported by this funding and may date back to January 20, 2020. We recommend tracking your expenditures related to the coronavirus to the best of your ability. This may be helpful or necessary in providing your organization much needed financial relief.  

As a reminder, FQHCs cannot bill Medicare for telehealth services under the PPS rate. Telehealth can be billed to Medicare under Part B with the FQHC as an originating site and reimbursement is approximately $26. If you do not have home visits on Form 5, be sure to add home visits to 5C as soon as possible.

Amidst rapid hourly changes in contending with the coronavirus and its far-reaching impacts, we are sharing some HRSA and CMS guidance that may be helpful to you: 

Here is a link to HRSA FAQs related to COVID-19

Although we are working remotely, we are available to support you. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to reach out to any of us.

Article
COVID-19 emergency funding for FQHCs: What you need to know

Read this if you are a director or manager at a Health and Human Services agency in charge of modernizing your state's Health and Human Services systems. 

When states start to look at outdated Health and Human Services systems like Eligibility Systems or Medicaid Enterprise Systems, they spend a lot of time on strategic planning efforts and addressing technology deficiencies that set the direction for their agencies. While they pay a lot of attention to the technology aspects of the work, they often overlook others. Here are three to pay attention to: 

  1. Business process improvement
  2. Organization development
  3. Organizational change management

Including these important steps in strategic planning often improves the likelihood of an implementation of Health and Human Service systems that provide the fully intended value or benefit to the citizen they help serve. When planning major system improvements, agencies need to have the courage to ask other critical questions that, when answered, will help guarantee greater success upon implementation of modernized system.

Don’t forget, it’s not only about new technology—it’s about gaining efficiencies in your business processes, structuring your organization in a manner that supports business process improvements, and helping the people in your organization and external stakeholders accept change.  

Business process improvement 

When thinking about improving business processes, a major consideration is to identify what processes can be improved to save time and money, and deliver services to those in need faster. When organizations experience inefficiencies in their business processes, more often than not the underlying processes and systems are at fault, not the people. Determining which processes require improvement can be challenging. However, analyzing your business processes is a key factor in strategic planning, understanding the challenges in existing processes and their underlying causes, and developing solutions to eliminate or mitigate those causes are essential to business process improvement.

Once you pinpoint areas of process improvement, you can move forward with reviewing your organization, classifying needs for potential organization development, and begin developing requirements for the change your organization needs.

Organization development

An ideal organizational structure fully aligns with the mission, vision, values, goals, and strategy of an organization. One question to ask when considering the need for organization development is, “What does your organization need to look like to support your state’s to-be vision?” Answering this question can provide a roadmap that helps you achieve:

  1. Improved outcomes for vulnerable populations, such as those receiving Medicaid, TANF, SNAP, or other Health and Human Services benefits 
  2. Positive impacts on social determinants of health in the state
  3. Significant cost savings through a more leveraged workforce and consolidated offices with related fixed expenses—and turning focus to organizational change management

Organization development does not stop at reviewing an organization’s structure. It should include reviewing job design, cultural changes, training systems, team design, and human resource systems. Organizational change is inherent in organization development, which involves integration of a change management strategy. When working through organization development, consideration of the need for organizational change should be included in both resource development and as part of the cultural shift.

Organizational change management

Diverging from the norm can be an intimidating prospect for many people. Within your organization, you likely have diverse team members who have different perspectives about change. Some team members will be willing to accept change easily, some will see the positive outcomes from change, but have reservations about learning a new way of approaching their jobs, and there will be others who are completely resistant to change. 

Successful organizational change management happens by allowing team members to understand why the organization needs to change. Leaders can help staff gain this understanding by explaining the urgency for change that might include:

  • Aging technology: Outdated systems sometimes have difficulty transmitting data or completing simple automated tasks.
  • Outdated processes: “Because we’ve always done it this way” is a red flag, and a good reason to examine processes and possibly help alleviate stressors created by day-to-day tasks. It might also allow your organization to take care of some vital projects that had been neglected because before there wasn’t time to address them as a result of outdated processes taking longer than necessary.
  • Barriers to efficiency: Duplicative processes caused by lack of communication between departments within the organization, refusal to change, or lack of training can all lead to less efficiency.

To help remove stakeholder resistance to change and increase excitement (and adoption) around new initiatives, you must make constant communication and training an integral component of your strategic plan. 

Investing in business process improvement, organization development, and organizational change management will help your state obtain the intended value and benefits from technology investments and most importantly, better serve citizens in need. 

Does your organization have interest in learning more about how to help obtain the fully intended value and benefits from your technology investments? Contact our Health and Human Services consulting team to talk about how you can incorporate business process improvement, organization development, and organizational change management activities into your strategic planning efforts.

Article
People and processes: Planning health and human services IT systems modernization to improve outcomes

CYSHCN programs have new care coordination standards―how does your agency measure up?

On October 15, 2020, the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) released new care coordination standards for Children and Youth with Special Health Care Needs (CYSHCN) programs. The National Care Coordination Standards supplement the National Standards for Systems of Care, helping to ensure that children and youth with special health care needs receive the high-quality care coordination needed to address their specific health conditions.

The standards also set requirements for screening, identification, and assessment, a comprehensive shared plan of care, coordinated team-based communication, development of child and family empowerment skills, a well-trained care coordination workforce, and smooth care transitions. 

What do the standards mean for CYSHCN programs

The National Care Coordination Standards are more than guidelines for CYSHCN programs; aligning with the standards can lead to operational efficiencies, greater program capacity, and improved health outcomes. The standards can serve as a lens for continuous improvement, highlighting where programs can make changes that reduce the burden on care coordinators and program administrators.

However, striving to meet the standards can be challenging for many programs—as the standards develop and evolve over time, many programs struggle to keep up with the work required to update processes and retrain staff. Assessing a CYSHCN program’s processes and procedures takes time and resources that many state agencies do not have available. Despite the challenge, when state agencies are the most strapped is often when making change is the most needed. A shrinking public health workforce and growing population of CYSHCN means smooth processes are essential. To take steps towards National Care Coordination Standards alignment, BerryDunn recommends the following approach: 

A proven methodology for national standards alignment

There are many ways you can align with the standards. Here are three areas to focus on that can help you guide your agency to successful alignment. 

  1. Know your program
    It can be easy for processes to deteriorate over time. Process mapping is an effective way to shed light on current work flows and begin to determine holes in the processes. Conducting fact-finding sessions to map out exactly how your program functions can help pinpoint areas of strength―and areas where there is room for improvement.
  2. Compare to the national standards
    Identify the gaps with a cross-walk of your program’s current procedures with the National Care Coordination Standards. We assess your alignment through a gap analysis of the process, highlighting how your program lines up with the new standards.
  3. Adopt the changes and reap the benefits
    Process redesign can help implement the standards, and even small adjustments to processes can lead to better outcomes. Additionally, you can deploy proven change management methodologies programs that ease staff into new processes to produce real results.

Meeting national standards doesn’t have to be complicated. Our team partners with state public health agencies, helping to meet best practices without adding additional burden to program staff. We can help you take the moving pieces and complex tasks and funnel them into a streamlined process that gives your state’s children and youth the best care coordination. 

Article
Using process redesign to align with new CYSHCN standards

The American Public Health Association annual conference’s thematic focus on preventing violence provided an illustration of the extent of the overwhelming demands on state public health agencies right now. Not only do you need to face the daily challenges of responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, you also need to address ongoing, complex issues like violence prevention.

The sheer breadth of sessions available at APHA shows the broad scope of public health’s reach and the need for multi-level, multi-sector interventions, all with a shrinking public health workforce. The conference’s sessions painted clear pictures of the critical public health issues our country currently faces, but did not showcase many solutions, perhaps leaving state health agency leaders wondering how to tackle these taxing demands coming from every direction with no end in sight.

BerryDunn has a suggestion: practice organizational self-care! It might seem antithetical to focus maxed-out resources on strengthening systems and infrastructure right now, but state public health agencies have little choice. You have to be healthy yourself in order to effectively protect the public’s health. Organizational health is driven by high-functioning systems, from disease surveillance and case investigation to performance management, and quality improvement to data-informed decision-making.  

State health agencies can use COVID-19 funding to support organizational self-care, prioritizing three areas: workforce, technology, and processes. Leveraging this funding to build organizational capacity can increase human resources, replace legacy data systems, and purchase equipment and supplies. 

  1. Funding new positions with COVID sources can create upward paths for existing staff as well as expanding the workforce
  2. Assessing the current functioning of public health data systems identifies and clarifies gaps that can be addressed by adopting new technology platforms, which can also be done with COVID funding.
  3. Examining the processes used for major functions like surveillance or case investigation can eliminate unproductive steps and introduce efficiencies. 

So what now? Where to start? BerryDunn brings expertise in process analysis and redesign, an accreditation readiness tool, and an approach to data systems planning and procurement―all of which are paths forward toward organizational self-care. 

  1. Process analysis and redesign can be applied to data systems or other areas of focus to prioritize incremental changes. Conduct process redesign on a broad or narrow scale to improve efficiency and effectiveness of your projects. 

  2. Accreditation readiness provides a lens to examine state health agency operations against best practices to focus development in areas with the most significant gaps. Evaluate gaps in your agency’s readiness for Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB) review and track every piece of documentation needed to meet PHAB standards.
  3. Data system planning and procurement assistance incorporates process analysis to assess your current system functioning, define your desired future state, and address the gaps, and then find, source, and implement faster, more effective systems. 

Pursuing any of these three paths allows state health agency leaders to engage in organizational self-care in a realistic, productive manner so that the agency can meet the seemingly unceasing demands for public health action now and into the future.

Article
Three paths to organizational self-care for state public health agency survival

Read this if your agency is planning to procure a services vendor.

In our previous article, we looked at three primary areas we, or a potential vendor, consider when responding to a request for services. In this follow-up, we look at additional factors that influence the decision-making process on whether a potential vendor decides to respond to a request for services.

  • Relationship with this state/entity―Is this a state or client that we have worked with before? Do we understand their business and their needs?

    A continuing relationship allows us to understand the client’s culture and enables us to perform effectively and efficiently. By establishing a good relationship, we can assure the client that we can perform the services as outlined and at a fair cost.
  • Terms and conditions, performance bonds, or service level agreements―Are any of these items unacceptable? If there are concerns, can we request exceptions or negotiate with the state?

    When we review a request for services our legal and executive teams assess the risk of agreeing to the state’s terms and compare them against our existing contract language. States might consider requesting vendors provide exceptions to terms and conditions in their bid response to open the door for negotiations. Not allowing exceptions can result in vendors assuming that all terms are non-negotiable and may limit the amount of vendor bid responses received or increase the cost of the proposal.

    The inclusion of well-defined service level agreements (SLAs) in requests for proposals (RFPs) can be an effective way to manage resulting contracts. However, SLAs with undefined or punitive performance standards, compliance calculations, and remedies can also cause a vendor to consider whether to submit a bid response.

    RFPs for states that require performance bonds may result in significantly fewer proposals submitted, as the cost of a performance bond may make the total cost of the project too high to be successfully completed. If not required by law that vendors obtain performance bonds, states may want to explore other effective contractual protections that are more impactful than performance bonds, such as SLAs, warranties, and acceptance criteria.
  • Mandatory requirements―Are we able to meet the mandatory requirements? Does the cost of meeting these requirements keep us in a competitive range?

    Understanding the dichotomy between mandatory requirements and terms and conditions can be challenging, because in essence, mandatory requirements are non-negotiable terms and conditions. A state may consider organizing mandatory requirements into categories (e.g., system requirements, project requirements, state and federal regulations). This can help potential vendors determine whether all of the mandatory requirements are truly non-negotiable. Typically, vendors are prepared to meet all regulatory requirements, but not necessarily all project requirements.
  • Onsite/offsite requirements―Can we meet the onsite/offsite requirements? Do we already have nearby resources available? Are any location requirements negotiable?

    Onsite/offsite requirements have a direct impact on the project cost. Factors include accessibility of the onsite location, frequency of required onsite participation, and what positions/roles are required to be onsite or local. These requirements can make the resource pool much smaller when RFPs require staff to be located in the state office or require full-time onsite presence. And as a result, we may decide not to respond to the RFP.

    If the state specifies an onsite presence for general positions (e.g., project managers and business analysts), but is more flexible on onsite requirements for technical niche roles, the state may receive more responses to their request for services and/or more qualified consultants.
  • Due date of the proposal―Do we have the available proposal staff and subject matter experts to complete a quality proposal in the time given?

    We consider several factors when looking at the due date, including scope, the amount of work necessary to complete a quality response, and the proposal’s due date. A proposal with a very short due date that requires significant work presents a challenge and may result in less quality responses received.
  • Vendor available staffing―Do we have qualified staff available for this project? Do we need to work with subcontractors to get a complete team?

    We evaluate when the work is scheduled to begin to ensure we have the ability to provide qualified staff and obtain agreements with subcontractors. Overly strict qualifications that narrow the pool of qualified staff can affect whether we are able to respond. A state might consider whether key staff really needs a specific certification or skill or, instead, the proven ability to do the required work.

    For example, technical staff may not have worked on this particular type of project, but on a similar one with easily transferable skills. We have several long-term relationships with our subcontractors and find they can be an integral part of the services we propose. If carefully managed and vetted, we feel subcontractors can be an added value for the states.
  • Required certifications (e.g., Project Management Professional® (PMP®), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) certification)―Does our staff have the required certifications that are needed to complete this project?

    Many projects requests require specific certifications. On a small project, maybe other certifications can help ensure that we have the skills required for a successful project. Smaller vendors, particularly, might not have PMP®-certified staff and so may be prohibited from proposing on a project that they could perform with high quality.
  • Project timeline―Is the timeline to complete the project reasonable and is our staff available during the timeframe needed for each position for the length of the project?

    A realistic and reasonable timeline is critical for the success of a project. This is a factor we consider as we identify any clear or potential risks. A qualified vendor will not provide a proposal response to an unrealistic project timeline, without requesting either to negotiate the contract or requesting a change order later in the project. If the timeline is unrealistic, the state also runs the risk that the vendor will create many change requests, leading to a higher cost.

Other things we consider when responding to a request for services include: is there a reasonable published budget, what are the minority/women-owned business (M/WBE) requirements, and are these new services that we are interested in and do they fit within our company's overall business objectives?

Every vendor may have their own checklist and/or process that they go through before making a decision to propose on new services. We are aware that states and their agencies want a wide-variety of high-quality responses from which to choose. Understanding the key areas that a proposer evaluates may help states provide requirements that lead to more high-quality and better value proposals. If you would like to learn more about our process, or have specific questions, please contact the Medicaid Consulting team.

Article
What vendors want: Other factors that influence vendors when considering responding to a request for services