Master the upcoming ICD-10 code and IPPS changes! Prepare your team for the upcoming changes taking effect on October 1. Discover the benefits of IPPSPalooza and how it can drive your success. Click here >
The GAO performs a study on telehealth.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) provides Congress, the heads of executive agencies, and the public with timely, fact-based, nonpartisan information that can be used to improve government and save taxpayers billions of dollars.
For example, the GAO recently determined that from March 2020 to February 2021, a total of 32.5 million services were delivered via telehealth – versus 2.1 million services the prior year. But Medicaid hasn’t collected or assessed data on the quality of care that beneficiaries received via telehealth services.
Per the GAO, Medicaid officials from all six selected states – including Arizona, California, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee – said expanding telehealth supported beneficiaries’ access to care, but also identified some limitations. Officials reported making or considering post-pandemic telehealth modifications.
What was interesting from this GAO study was that they reported that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) “does not collect, assess, or report information about any effect delivering services via telehealth has on the ‘quality of care’ Medicaid beneficiaries receive, and has no plans to do so.” Why is that? From someone who is a proponent of telehealth, as long as it shows that it’s more than a convenient way to deliver healthcare, but also a medically necessary and efficient way to take care of patients (and not just another waste of government spending), its use should be encouraged. This should have been a top priority for CMS.
The GAO further stated that collecting this data is important, given concerns GAO has raised about the quality of care provided via telehealth. It would also be consistent with how CMS has encouraged states to use data on quality of care to identify disparities in healthcare and target opportunities for improvement to advance health equity.
Why did the GAO perform this study?
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act includes a provision for the GAO to report on the federal response to the pandemic. In addition, the GAO was asked to examine the use of Medicaid flexibilities in response to COVID-19. This report describes selected states’ telehealth use before and during the pandemic, as well as their experiences with and plans for telehealth. It also evaluates, among other things, CMS’s telehealth oversight of quality of services.
You have to ask the question: “How can you expand telehealth in the Medicaid program if you don’t have all of the data to show it is safe, effective, and accessible – and the quality of care is comparable to an in-person patient visit?” You can’t.
So, the GAO is making two recommendations to CMS: to collect and analyze information about the effect delivering services via telehealth has on the quality of care Medicaid beneficiaries receive, and to determine any next steps based on the results of the analysis.
Does CMS have to follow their recommendations?
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
| Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services | The Administrator of CMS should collect and analyze the information needed to assess the effect delivering services via telehealth has on the quality of care Medicaid beneficiaries receive. (Recommendation 1) | Open When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information. |
| Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services | The Administrator of CMS should determine, based on the results of its initial assessment, whether further assessments of the effect delivering services via telehealth has on the quality of care Medicaid beneficiaries receive are warranted, for the purposes of developing guidance to assist states in making telehealth coverage and payment decisions. (Recommendation 2) | Open When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information. |
Only time will tell.
References:
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104700
https://www.gao.gov/about/what-gao-does
Just as the role of physician advisors has come to the forefront of the healthcare world over the last decade and a half, so too
CMS is requiring states to pause disenrollments as greater scrutiny is placed on the health insurance programs that cover the nation’s most vulnerable populations. Citing
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
The CMS Two-Midnight Rule and short-stay audits are here to stay, impacting inpatient and outpatient admissions, ASC procedures, and Medicare Parts C & D. New for 2024, the Two-Midnight Rule applies to Medicare Advantage patients, requiring differentiation between Medicare plans affecting Case Managers, Utilization Review, and operational processes and knowledge of a vital distinction between these patients that influences post-discharge medical reviews and compliance risk. Join Michael G. Calahan for a comprehensive webcast covering federal laws for all admission processes. Gain the knowledge needed to navigate audits effectively and optimize patient access points, personnel, and compliance strategies. Learn Two-Midnight Rule essentials, Medicare Advantage implications, and compliance best practices. Discover operational insights for short-stay admissions, outpatient observation, and the ever-changing Inpatient-Only Listing.
A massive task lies ahead! Now’s the time to start preparing your case management and utilization review teams for successful implementation of changes contained in the 2024 IPPS, OPPS and MPFS rules.
Gain clarity on billing, patient notifications, and discharge appeal rights in social admissions. Join our webcast for essential insights and strategies to navigate this complex landscape, ensuring financial stability and optimal patient care.
Dr. Ronald Hirsch provides tried-and-true strategies and insight into outpatient in hospital bed stays including determining the applicable definition, who uses it, and when and how to bill for this circumstance, solidified with concrete case examples and expert insight.
Explore comprehensive guidelines and best practices for secondary diagnosis coding in our illuminating webcast. Delve into the intricacies of accurately assigning secondary diagnosis codes to ensure precise medical documentation. Learn how to navigate complex scenarios and adhere to coding regulations while enhancing coding proficiency. Our expert-led webcast covers essential insights, including documentation requirements, sequencing strategies, and industry updates. Elevate your coding skills and stay current with the latest coding advancements so you can determine the correct DRG assignment to optimize reimbursement, support medical decision-making, and maintain compliance.
Enhance your inpatient coding precision and revenue with Principal Diagnosis Coding: Mastering Selection and Sequencing. Join our expert-led webcast to conquer the challenges of principal diagnosis selection and sequencing. We’ll decode the intricacies of ICD-10-CM guidelines, equipping you with a clear grasp of the rules and the official UHDDS principal diagnosis definition. Uncover the crucial role of coding conventions, master the sequencing of related conditions, and confidently tackle cases with equally valid principal diagnoses.
Only ICD10monitor delivers what you need: updates on must-know changes associated with the FY24 Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) Final Rule, including new ICD-10-CM/PCS codes, plus insights, analysis and answers to questions from the country’s most respected subject matter experts.
This third session in our 2024 IPPS Summit will feature a review of FY24 changes to the MS-DRG methodology and new technology add-on payments (NTAPs), presented by senior healthcare consultant Laurie Johnson, with bonus insights and analysis from two acclaimed subject matter experts
Copyright © 2023 ICD10monitor. Powered by MedLearn Media.
