Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

The Latest CMS Guidance: HIPAA Edition

Client Alert

The Latest CMS Guidance: HIPAA Edition

Healthcare worker holding an iPad with HIPAA Compliance

What are the HIPAA Administrative Simplification Regulations?

The HIPAA Administrative Simplification Regulations—encompassing 45 CFR Part 160, Part 162, and Part 164—require HIPAA covered entities to adopt standards for transactions involving the electronic exchange of health care data. The HIPAA Administrative Simplification Regulations include four standards covering transactions, identifiers, code sets, and operating rules. In addition to complying with the HIPAA Administrative Simplification Regulations, HIPAA covered entities must also comply with the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules.

The purpose of these regulations is to save time and money by moving away from the burdensome paperwork system used for billing, storing patient information, and organizing claims data. By switching to electronic transactions, healthcare organizations can reduce the paperwork burden, receive payments faster, easily obtain patient information, and quickly, check the status of claims.

CMS has recently put out updated guidance for healthcare providers and plans clarifying these HIPAA regulations.

Covered Entities, Listen Up!

HHS defines a transaction as an electronic exchange of information between two parties to carry out financial or administrative activities related to healthcare. HIPAA requires covered entities to conduct standard transactions with one another. Conducting a transaction as a “standard transaction” includes compliance with the set data standard and affiliated operating rules, code sets, and unique identifiers for the particular transaction. HHS has adopted standards for Health Care Claims or Equivalent Encounter Information (45 CFR § 162.1101-1102), Eligibility for a Health Plan (45 CFR § 162.1201-1203), Referral Certification and Authorization (45 CFR § 162.1301-1302), Health Care Claim Status (45 CFR §162.1401-1403), Enrollment or Disenrollment in a Health Plan (45 CFR § 162.1501-1502), Health Care Electronic Funds Transfer and Remittance Advice (45 CFR § 162.1601-1603), Health Plan Premium Payments, Coordination of Benefits (45 CFR § 162.1701-1702), and Medicaid Pharmacy Subrogation Transactions (45 CFR § 162.1901-1902). 

Specific parameters for covered entities also exist. For example, if a covered entity uses a business associate to conduct any portion of a transaction for which a standard has been adopted, the covered entity must require their business associate to comply with that standard. Simply put, the inclusion of a business associate in a transaction does not relieve a covered entity of its responsibility to comply with HIPAA because a business associate is acting on behalf of a covered entity.

Additionally, there are specific parameters for covered entities entering into trading partner agreements. Trading partner agreements are agreements related to the exchange of information in electronic transactions between each party to the agreement. For example, it is standard for a trading partner agreement to set out the duties and responsibilities of each party to the agreement in conducting a standard transaction. Importantly, a covered entity cannot enter into a trading partner agreement that would: (a) change the definition, data condition, or use of a data element or segment in an adopted standard or operating rule; (b) add any data elements or segments to the maximum defined data set; (c) use any code or data elements marked “not used” or that are not in a standard; or (d) change the meaning or intent of a standard.

General Provisions for Health Care Providers and Health Plans, Explained

If a health care provider chooses to use a DDE platform—a direct data entry platform like a provider portal—offered by a health plan to conduct a transaction for which a standard has been adopted, the provider must use the applicable data content and condition requirements of the standard. However, there is an exception for providers that negates their requirement to follow standard formatting protocols when using a DDE platform.

However, a health plan must always conduct a transaction using an adopted standard if requested. They may use a paper-based or manual method, a DDE portal, or an electronic funds transfer. Of note, there are no exceptions to this requirement. This means that a health plan must comply with a provider’s request to conduct a transaction as a standard transaction regardless of the provider’s affiliation, or lack of, with the plan. There are also key prohibitions for health plans. Mainly, a health plan cannot:

Delay or reject a transaction because the transaction is a standard transaction. For example, the plan cannot provide incentives that discourage the use of standard transactions;

Reject a standard transaction just because the health plan does not use some or all of the data elements, such as coordination of benefits data elements; or

Offer an incentive for a health care provider to conduct a transaction using a DDE exception.

Relatedly, the coordination of benefits and code sets are also regulated. If a health plan receives a standard transaction and coordinates benefits with another health plan or payer, then the health plan must store the coordination of benefits data it needs to forward the standard transaction to the other health plan or payer. Simply put, even if the initial receiving health plan does not need the coordination of benefits information, that information is required to process the transaction and the information must still be stored for transmission to the subsequent health plan or payer. Additionally, a health plan must accept and process any standard transaction that contains valid codes, and it must keep code sets for the current billing and appeals periods open to processing.

Sidebar: What are Standard Unique Health Identifiers for Health Care Providers?

A covered health care provider is a health care provider that transmits any health information in electronic form in connection with a transaction for which a standard has been adopted. A covered health care provider must obtain a National Provider Identifier (NPI) from the National Provider System (NPS) and use an NPI on all standard transactions that require its health care provider identifier. Likewise, a covered health care provider must give its NPI to any requesting entity so that they can identify the health care provider in a standard transaction. Of note, a covered health care provider must also require its business associates to use the provider’s NPI. Further, when a covered health care provider is an organization—for example, a corporation or partnership—it must require all individual prescribers it works with to both obtain an NPI and share the NPI upon request with any entity for use in a standard transaction.

If you have any questions about any of the new CMS Guidance and how it may impact your practice, please reach out to your local BMD Healthcare Attorney, Daphne L. Kackloudis at dlkackloudis@bmdllc.com or Ashley Watson at abwatson@bmdllc.com.

 


New York, Kansas, Massachusetts, and Delaware Become the latest States to Adopt Full Practice Authority for Nurse Practitioners

While the COVID-19 pandemic certainly created many obstacles and hardships, it also created many opportunities to try doing things differently. This can be seen in the instant rise of remote work opportunities, telehealth visits, and virtual meetings. Many States took the challenges of the pandemic and turned them into an opportunity to adjust the regulations governing licensed professionals, including for advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs).

Explosive Growth in Pot of Gold Opportunity for Bank (and Other) Cannabis Lenders Driving Erosion of the Barriers

Our original article on bank lending to the cannabis industry anticipated that the convergence of interest between banks and the cannabis industry would draw more and larger banks to the industry. Banks were awash in liquidity with limited deployment options, while bankable cannabis businesses had rapidly growing needs for more and lower cost credit. Since then, the pot of gold opportunity for banks to lend into the cannabis industry has grown exponentially due to a combination of market constraints on equity causing a dramatic shift to debt and the ever-increasing capital needs of one of the country’s fastest growing industries. At the same time, hurdles to entry of new banks are being systematically cleared as the yellow brick road to the cannabis industry’s access to the financial markets is being paved, brick by brick, by the progressively increasing number and size of banks that are now entering the market.

2021 EEOC Charge Statistics: Retaliation & Impact of Remote Work

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released its detailed information on workplace discrimination charges it received in 2021. Unsurprisingly, for the second year in a row, the total number of charges decreased as COVID-19 either shut down workplaces or disconnected employees from each other. In 2021, the agency received a total of approximately 61,000 workplace discrimination charges - the fewest in 25 years by a wide margin. For reference, the agency received over 67,000 charges in 2020, and averaged almost 90,000 charges per year over the previous 10 years.

Ohio’s Managed Care Overhaul Delayed – New Implementation Timeline

At the direction of Governor Mike DeWine, the Ohio Department of Medicaid (ODM) launched the Medicaid Managed Care Procurement process in 2019. ODM’s stated vision for the procurement was to focus on people and not just the business of managed care. This is the first structural change to Ohio’s managed care system since the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) approval of Ohio’s Medicaid program in 2005. Initially, all of the new managed care programs were supposed to be implemented starting on July 1, 2022. However, ODM Director Maureen Corcoran recently confirmed that this date will be pushed back for several managed care-related programs.

Laboratory Specimen Collection Arrangements with Contract Hospitals - OIG Advisory Opinion 22-09

On April 28, 2022, the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) published an Advisory Opinion[1] in which it evaluated a proposed arrangement where a network of clinical laboratories (the “Requestor”) would compensate hospitals (each a “Contract Hospital”) for specimen collection, processing, and handling services (“Collection Services”) for laboratory tests furnished by the Requestor (the “Proposed Arrangement”). The OIG concluded that the Proposed Arrangement would generate prohibited remuneration under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) if the requisite intent were present. This is due to both the possibility that the proposed per-patient-encounter fee would be used to induce or reward referrals to Requestor and the associated risk of improperly steering patients to Requestor.