Advertisement

May 25, 2013

American Hospital Association Suggests Substantial Changes to ACO Rules

The American Hospital Association (AHA) submitted its comments regarding CMS’ ACO proposed rule requesting “substantial changes” to “restore balance to the risk versus reward equation.” The AHA’s suggestions, outlined in a June 1 letter to CMS, were accompanied by a second letter to CMS and OIG regarding the ACO fraud and abuse waivers and a third letter to the DOJ, FTC, and HHS regarding antitrust enforcement policy.

ACO Rule – Citing “continued barriers to clinical integration,” the AHA suggested changes regarding shared savings, quality measures, and operational flexibility. The AHA urged CMS to allow all ACOs to share in first-dollar savings, reduce the number of initial quality measures, and assign beneficiaries prospectively.

Fraud and Abuse Waivers – In its letter to CMS and OIG regarding fraud and abuse waivers, the AHA wrote that the proposal “will provide little practical value” to potential applicants. According to the AHA, the Stark regime, premised on keeping providers at arm’s length, does not fit the ACO program, which is premised on integration and occasional in-kind contributions from participants. As such, the AHA stated that the Stark exceptions do not contemplate the exchange of value of ACO collaboration. Instead, the AHA suggested creation of a waiver covering ACO activities from formation through end of participation in the ACO program.

Antitrust Enforcement Policy – Calling the regulations applicable to the antitrust laws “deeply disappointing” and lacking in “actual guidance to aid the hospital field in moving forward with clinically integrated organizations,” the AHA outlined its concerns. The AHA commented that CMS lacks authority to issue antitrust regulations or delegate to the DOJ or FTC the authority to block certain ACOs. The AHA wrote that the proposed rule “transforms antitrust enforcement into a regulatory scheme.” The AHA also cited the burdensome cost and time commitment required to conduct the sophisticated ACO antitrust analysis and suggested that the mandatory review threshold is too low. Instead, the AHA suggested that antitrust regulations should be restored to its role of “creat[ing] or maintain[ing] the conditions of a competitive marketplace.”

The letters are available via the AHA website.

©2013 von Briesen & Roper, s.c

About the Author

Meghan O’Connor is a member of the Health Care Practice Group. Her practice focuses on general health law including managed care and provider contracting, risk management, and regulatory compliance.

Prior to joining von Briesen, Meghan worked for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services where she consulted with states regarding federal health law, regulation and policy, evaluating managed care contracts and conducting compliance reviews.

414-287-1586

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.