It includes any act that constitutes fraud under applicable federal or state law. Waste encompasses the over-utilization or inappropriate utilization of services and misuse of resources, and typically is not a criminal or intentional act. Abuse is related to poor fiscal, business or medical practices that increase costs, such as reimbursement for services that are not medically necessary, coding errors, and other mistakes.
An honest mistake should lead to the return of funds to Medicaid. Providers who improperly bill for services and beneficiaries who cause unnecessary costs, risk losing continued eligibility to participate in the Medicaid program and may face criminal and civil monetary penalties. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. Coordinating care along these lines is consistent with the obligations under SEC We are not explicitly proposing that SNPs be accountable for resolving all risks identified in these assessment questions, but SEC Results of the HRAs do not require SNPs to provide housing or food insecurity supports, but having the results means that SNPs would need to consult with enrollees about their unmet social needs, which may include homelessness and housing instability, for example, in developing each enrollee's care plan.
For example, a SNP may make a referral to an appropriate community partner, consistent with the individual's goals and preferences, to assist in meeting these needs. The SNP may also adapt communication methods to fit the individual's circumstances and take steps to maximize access to covered services that may meet the individual's needs and preferences, especially for supplemental benefits that may help with housing instability, food insecurity, or transportation.
By standardizing certain data elements, our proposal would make those data elements available for collection by CMS from the SNPs for all enrollees. While we continue to consider whether, how, and when we would have the SNPs actually report data to CMS, we believe having such information could help us to better understand the prevalence and trends in certain social risk factors across SNPs and further consider ways to support SNPs in promoting better outcomes for their enrollees.
We believe standardizing these data elements could also eventually facilitate better data exchange among SNPs such as when an individual changes SNPs. We understand that some States may separately require that Medicaid managed care plans collect similar information, potentially creating inefficiencies and added assessment burden on dually eligible individuals who are asked similar, but not identical information, in multiple HRAs. We believe that the benefit gained by all SNPs having standardized information about these social risk factors outweighs this potential risk.
These questions build on other work across CMS. Where States are interested in requiring assessment questions, we recommend that States consider conforming to the standardized questions we implement for use under this proposed rule and, for integrated care programs, ensuring that plans do not need to ask the same enrollees similar or redundant questions. However, we also seek input from States about what questions they are using and how we can best minimize assessment burden while ensuring that SNPs and States are capturing actionable information on social risk factors.
We are considering several alternatives to our proposal. We believe these would provide valuable insight but are not proposing to require HRAs to include standardized questions in these areas out of parsimony. We focused on the proposed areas since there is a large evidence base suggesting they have a particularly significant influence on the physical, psychosocial, and functional needs of the enrollees.
Our proposal would not preclude SNPs from asking additional questions related to these areas as long as the minimum standardized questions specified in CMS sub-regulatory guidance pursuant to the regulation are included as part of the HRA.
Housing instability and food insecurity as barriers to health care among low-income Americans. J Gen Intern Med. We considered soliciting comment in this preamble on different examples of questions on housing, food, and transportation other than the examples included above, such as the housing-related questions from the U. However, we believe the benefit of flexibility for SNPs is outweighed by the challenges posed by use of multiple different questions used by different SNPs across the country.
Having different questions that touch on the same topics in different ways would pose difficulties for interoperability, comparability, and reporting on these risk factors. We are considering specifying that the new questions only apply to certain enrollees and not others. For example, we are considering whether the questions on housing insecurity would be relevant for enrollees in congregate housing.
However, because people may move between settings, including from an institutional placement to the community, we believe that such a proposal would add complexity without obvious benefit. Finally, due to the processes associated with developing HRA tools, approval of MOCs, and MOC implementation, we would not enforce this requirement until contract year However, we are also considering whether to have our proposed requirement take effect at a later date, such as contract year , to allow MA organizations more time to work our proposed new questions into their existing SNP HRAs.
We welcome comments on our proposal and these potential alternatives including adding questions regarding health literacy, social isolation, or other areas. We also welcome comments on when CMS would need to issue sub-regulatory guidance providing the specific questions to be included in the HRA to ensure that MA organizations would have sufficient time to incorporate the required questions.
Those choices can be complex and, for some, overwhelming. Excludes EGWPs. Our own terminology is complex too. While we have defined terms through rulemaking in SEC Our proposals would lay the groundwork for potential future improvements to Medicare Plan Finder and other communications to help beneficiaries better understand their options for integrated coverage of Medicare and Medicaid benefits. Under the current definition, FIDE SNPs are plans that: i Provide dually eligible individuals access to Medicare and Medicaid benefits under a single entity that holds both an MA contract with CMS and a Medicaid managed care organization MCO contract under section m of the Act with a State Medicaid agency, ii under the capitated Medicaid managed care contract, provide coverage, subject to some limited flexibility for carve-outs, of primary care, acute care, behavioral health, and LTSS, and coverage of nursing facility services for a period of at least days during the plan year; iii coordinate delivery of covered Medicare and Medicaid benefits using aligned care management and specialty care network methods for high-risk beneficiaries; and iv employ policies and procedures approved by CMS and the State to coordinate or integrate beneficiary communication materials, enrollment, communications, grievance and appeals, and quality improvement.
Exclusively aligned enrollment is an important design feature for maximizing integration of care for all the D-SNP's enrollees. It facilitates the use of integrated beneficiary communication materials because all beneficiaries in the D-SNP are also in the companion Medicaid MCO , clarifies overall accountability for outcomes and coordination of care, and makes feasible the requirement effective January 1, that the plan use unified grievance and appeals procedures for both Medicare and Medicaid benefits.
Kruse, R. Lester , et al. State contracting with Medicare Advantage dual eligible special needs plans: Issues and options. We propose to amend the definition of "fully integrated dual eligible special needs plan" at SEC Our proposed change would move FIDE SNPs toward greater integration in the provision of Medicare and Medicaid benefits for dually eligible individuals and make the options available to these beneficiaries simpler to understand.
Ultimately, we believe this change in the definition of a FIDE SNP will help simplify options and provide a better plan experience for dually eligible beneficiaries, as they will be able to receive all their covered Medicare and Medicaid benefits through one organization.
A consequence of this would be that these plans would not qualify for the frailty adjustment, as described in SEC Finally, because the definition of aligned enrollment is specific to full-benefit dually eligible individuals, our proposal would newly preclude partial-benefit dually eligible individuals from enrolling in FIDE SNPs. Like with unaligned enrollees, enrollment of partial-benefit dually eligible individuals, who receive no Medicaid benefits other than coverage of Medicare premiums and--in some cases--Medicare cost-sharing, precludes a D-SNP from clearly communicating the Medicaid benefits available through the FIDE SNP or using unified appeals and grievance procedures for adjudication of both Medicare and Medicaid benefits.
Moving forward, we believe that the benefits to be achieved with FIDE SNPs having exclusively aligned enrollment for Medicare beneficiaries eligible for full Medicaid benefits, as proposed here, and the associated greater levels of integration in the provision and coverage of benefits and plan administration outweigh the potential negative effects for partial-benefit dually eligible individuals, who would be limited to enrollment in HIDE SNPs, coordination-only D-SNPs, other MA plans, or the original Medicare FFS program.
Section a 10 E of the Act directs States to pay providers for Medicare coinsurance and deductibles for dually eligible individuals in the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary QMB program. Section n 2 of the Act permits the State to limit payment for Medicare cost-sharing to the amount necessary to provide a total payment to the provider including Medicare, Medicaid State plan payments, and third-party payments equal to the amount a State would have paid for the service under the Medicaid State plan.
This election means the State pays Medicare cost-sharing for a non-QMB full-benefit dually eligible individual even if the Medicare service is not covered under the Medicaid State plan. Absent such an election by the State, the State would pay the Medicare cost-sharing for non-QMB full-benefit dually eligible individual only if the Medicare service, such as inpatient hospitalization, is also covered under the Medicaid State plan.
For more information about QMB eligibility and benefits, see chapter 1, section 1. A and 1. This is often referred to as the "lesser of" policy. Under the "lesser of" policy, a State caps its payment of Medicare cost-sharing at the Medicaid rate for a particular service. CMS automatically forwards claims under the original Medicare FFS program to State Medicaid agencies and other secondary payers to adjudicate the claims for payment of any Medicare cost-sharing.
This means the providers must submit claims to the MA plan, then determine the responsible State Medicaid agency or Medicaid managed care plan, and then submit another claim to the State Medicaid agency or Medicaid managed care plan for adjudication of the claims for Medicare cost-sharing. One way to alleviate provider burden and streamline claims processing is for the State Medicaid agency to make a capitated payment for Medicaid coverage of Medicare cost-sharing to the MA plan in which a dually eligible individual specifically, a QMB or other dually eligible individual for which the State covers Medicare cost-sharing is enrolled.
When the State contract with the MA plan includes capitated payment for Medicaid coverage of Medicare cost-sharing, the provider submits one claim to the MA plan, and the MA plan adjudicates the claim for Medicare coverage of services and for Medicaid payment of Medicare cost-sharing without the provider submitting separate claims to the MA plan and the proper Medicaid entity that is, State Medicaid agency or Medicaid managed care plan.
Additionally, this arrangement reduces other potential obstacles, including determining the proper Medicaid entity to bill for Medicare cost-sharing, determining a beneficiary's applicable coverage of Medicare cost-sharing for example, in States that pay Medicare cost-sharing for Medicare beneficiaries eligible for full Medicaid benefits who are not QMBs , and the potential for improper QMB billing.
We propose to specify in SEC We intend this revision to encompass all cost-sharing, whether it is in the form of coinsurance, copayments, or deductibles, for Medicare Part A and Part B benefits covered by the D-SNP.
Medicare covers most primary care and acute care services and Medicare is always the primary payer for any Medicare-covered services with Medicaid covering any Medicare cost-sharing in such cases. This is especially true when capitation for Medicare cost-sharing is combined with a requirement for exclusively aligned enrollment as proposed in section II.
This proposal furthers the level of integration required for FIDE SNPs in a way that we believe would achieve those improved experiences. The State Medicaid agency will continue to pay the Medicare Parts A and B premiums on behalf of dually eligible beneficiaries in accordance with [Sec. Therefore, we propose to specifically exclude payment of Medicare premiums as a coverage requirement for dually eligible beneficiaries enrolled in FIDE SNPs.
We considered proposing a requirement that all D-SNPs have a contract with States for capitation for Medicare cost-sharing. In States that have capitated payment arrangements with Medicaid managed care plans to cover Medicaid primary and acute services and behavioral health, such coverage typically requires the Medicaid managed care plan to cover Medicare cost-sharing when Medicare covers the service.
That means, when enrollment is not aligned between a D-SNP and the Medicaid managed care plan, the result is not a streamlined payment process for the provider. A contract with the D-SNP for capitated coverage of Medicare cost-sharing--and a carve-out of Medicare cost-sharing coverage from the Medicaid managed care contract--can put Medicare coverage of services and Medicaid coverage of Medicare cost-sharing under a single entity, but could be a complicated process for States to implement.
For States without Medicaid managed care programs for dually eligible individuals, contracting with capitation payments with D-SNPs for coverage of Medicare cost-sharing can be a more straightforward process. We solicit feedback on the feasibility, implementation, estimated time to enact, and impact of requiring capitated Medicare cost-sharing for all D-SNPs to inform future rulemaking.
We chose not to propose a requirement at this time to allow more time for us to consider the operational challenges for States. That definition provided that a FIDE SNP must have a capitated contract with a State Medicaid agency that includes coverage of specified primary, acute, and long-term care benefits and services, consistent with State policy. We explained then that the term "consistent with State policy" recognizes the variability in the degree and extent to which Medicaid services are covered from one State to the next 76 FR Despite this discussion in the final rule that FIDE SNPs would provide all primary, acute, and long-term care services and benefits covered by the State Medicaid program, we did not operationalize review of State Medicaid agency contracts in that way.
But, consistent with how we were operationalizing this definition, we explained that our amendment would allow plans to meet the FIDE SNP definition even where the State excluded Medicaid behavioral health services from the capitated contract.
Our proposal would revise paragraph 2 of the existing definition into paragraphs 2 i through v , with each of the new paragraphs addressing specific coverage requirements.
We believe the proposed requirements described in this section strike the appropriate balance between flexibility for variations in State Medicaid policy and our goal of achieving full integration in FIDE SNPs. In addition, as discussed more fully in section II. Primary and acute care benefits for dually eligible beneficiaries are generally covered by Medicare as the primary payer rather than Medicaid.
Our proposal here means that all primary and acute care services, including the Medicare cost-sharing covered by the State Medicaid program as discussed earlier in section II. We seek comment on whether we should allow for specific carve-outs of some of these benefits and services.
We welcome specific examples of primary and acute care benefits that are either currently carved out of FIDE SNP capitated contracts with State Medicaid agencies or should be carved out and request that comments include the reason for the existing and proposed future carve-outs. We recognize that Medicaid NEMT is a critical service for dually eligible individuals to access primary and acute care services.
Such contracting might provide these plans with useful tools to facilitate access to care for their members and make it easier for States to coordinate Medicaid NEMT with overlapping services provided by D-SNPs as Medicare supplemental benefits.
We propose to require that, effective beginning in , each FIDE SNP must cover additional Medicaid benefits to the full extent that those benefits are covered by the State Medicaid program.
Those benefits we are proposing to add are home health services, as defined in SEC We believe that FIDE SNPs should be required to cover the Medicaid home health and DME benefits because home health and DME are critical services for dually eligible individuals, necessitate coordination due to being covered by both the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and are not clearly captured under other parts of the existing definition.
However, we propose that this change in the scope of required coverage by FIDE SNPs would not apply until in case there are other circumstances of which we are not aware that would necessitate additional time to adapt to our proposal.
Behavioral health needs are extensive among dually eligible individuals. Nearly one-third of individuals who are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid have been diagnosed with a serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depressive disorder, a rate almost three times higher than for non-dually eligible Medicare beneficiaries.
We propose the date to allow time for MA organizations and States to adapt to our proposal. First, it better comports with a common understanding of being "fully integrated"--the term used in sections a 1 B iv and f 8 D i II of the Act--because of the importance of behavioral health services for dually eligible individuals.
Absent coverage of Medicaid behavioral health services, a FIDE SNP would be less able to effectively coordinate overlapping behavioral health services covered by Medicare and Medicaid and would have an incentive to steer beneficiaries toward Medicaid-covered services for which it is not financially responsible. Coverage of Medicaid behavioral health services also facilitates integrating behavioral health and physical health services, which can result in improved outcomes for dually eligible beneficiaries.
This would reduce confusion among stakeholders. As proposed, SEC Under the proposal, the permissible carve-outs would be limited to a minority of beneficiaries eligible to enroll in the D-SNP and use Medicaid behavioral health services or constitute a small part of the total scope of behavioral health services for which Medicaid is generally the primary payer.
While the statute generally describes the increased level of integration that is required by referring to coverage of behavioral health or LTSS or both, we believe that exceeding that minimum standard is an appropriate goal for FIDE SNPs. While section a 1 B iv does not specify coverage of behavioral health services, it does not exclude coverage of behavioral health services either given that the section speaks generally to FIDE SNPs having fully integrated contracts with States for Medicaid benefits.
As discussed earlier in this section, behavioral health services are critical for dually eligible individuals and benefit from coordination with Medicare services and, we believe, coverage of Medicaid behavioral health benefits by a D-SNP is key to achieving fully integrated status.
As currently defined at SEC Later in this section, we describe in more detail our proposal to require the capitated contract applies in the entire service area for the D-SNP. In both definitions, we propose that coverage of the full scope of the specified categories of Medicaid benefits is subject to an exception that may be permitted by CMS under SEC We propose to codify at SEC As discussed in section II.
We believe that codifying these policies would improve transparency for stakeholders and allow us to better enforce our policies to limit benefit carve-outs. While we generally favor integration and worry that Medicaid benefit carve-outs work against integration, we believe our proposal strikes a balance between the current realities of State managed care policy, applicable statutory provisions, and our implementation of those statutory provisions toward the goal of raising the bar on integration.
Examples of permissible LTSS carve-outs for FIDE SNPs that apply to a minority of full-benefit dually eligible LTSS users may include services specifically limited to individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities, individuals with traumatic brain injury, or children.
We would not, however, expect to approve carve-outs for LTSS services for a specific population--for example, individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities--if enrollment in the FIDE SNP was limited to individuals with those disabilities. For example, personal emergency response systems or home modifications may be important supports for participants in a Medicaid home and community-based waiver program.
However, those specific services would rarely constitute the preponderance of an enrolled dually eligible individual's care plan because most individuals receiving such services also receive other types of in-home supports, such as personal care services.
In contrast, we would not expect to approve carve-outs of in-home personal care or related services provided to older adults or people with disabilities even if such services were limited to individuals meeting a nursing home level of care.
A behavioral health services carve-out would be of limited scope if such service: 1 Applies primarily to a minority of the full-benefit dually eligible users of behavioral health services eligible to enroll in the HIDE SNP; or 2 constitutes a small part of the total scope of behavioral health services provided to the majority of beneficiaries eligible to enroll in the HIDE SNP.
We specify that only a small part of the Medicaid behavioral health services may be carved out in order to ensure that the innovative services that many Medicaid programs provide to individuals with severe and moderate mental illness are covered through the D-SNP or the affiliated Medicaid managed care plan.
We believe that level of integrated coverage is a minimum standard for a D-SNP to be considered highly or fully integrated. Examples of permissible carve-outs that apply to primarily a minority of full-benefit dually eligible users of such services who are eligible to enroll in the HIDE SNP include school-based services for individuals under 21 years of age and court-mandated services.
Examples of permissible carve-outs that constitute a small part of the total scope of Medicaid behavioral health services include inpatient psychiatric facilities and other residential services, such as payment of Medicare cost-sharing or coverage of days not covered by Medicare; substance abuse treatment, such as payment of Medicare cost-sharing or coverage of services not covered by Medicare; services provided by a Federal Qualified Health Center or Rural Health Clinic ; and Medicaid-covered prescription drugs for treatment of behavioral health conditions.
We seek comment on whether we have struck the right balance in permitting such carve-outs, including for the examples cited previously. We intend to administer this proposed regulation consistent with our current policy and therefore anticipate little disruption to occur because of this proposed change. Service area alignment also better comports with the minimum Medicare-Medicaid integration standards established by section b of the BBA of , which amended section of the Act and is codified at SEC Currently, under SEC These proposed changes to SEC Where the overlap in the service areas for the separate MA D-SNP contract and the Medicaid capitated contract is small, the opportunity for Medicare-Medicaid integration is similarly limited as only enrollees in that overlapping area have the potential to receive benefits from an integrated plan with both MA and Medicaid managed care plan contracts under a single parent organization.
Our proposal would not limit the service area of the companion Medicaid plan to that of the D-SNP service area. States, in their contracting arrangements for Medicaid managed care programs, may wish to limit the service areas of the affiliated Medicaid managed care plans, but we recognize that States have other policy objectives better met with larger service areas in their Medicaid managed care programs.
Therefore, we believe some HIDE SNPs have only met the D-SNP integration requirements for a fraction of their enrollment due to the unintended gap in integration that is created by a lack of service area alignment. If finalized, an MA organization impacted by our proposal would have several options. Second, the MA organization can request to crosswalk enrollees using the crosswalk exception currently at SEC These options all require the MA organization to collaborate with the State Medicaid agency.
We seek comment on whether this proposal would likely result in additional, unintended disruption for current HIDE SNP membership, particularly if such unintended disruption is for more than the initial year of transition. We are not proposing either of these alternative approaches because we believe these alternatives create greater operational complexity in the case of establishing a minimum percentage overlap and would fail to help us achieve our objectives of clarifying options for beneficiaries and creating better coordination of Medicare and Medicaid benefits for all enrollees of the FIDE SNP or HIDE SNP compared to current practice.
We seek comment on these alternatives, including input on what an appropriate percentage threshold of overlap in the services areas should be, whether an attestation process would provide the necessary level of oversight, and whether the status quo, with a clarification in the regulation text, creates a sufficient level of integration for FIDE SNPs and HIDE SNPs.
We are interested in comments on whether the alternatives create sufficient improvements in coordination of the Medicare and Medicaid benefits compared to current practice or if the alternatives would adequately address the policy goals outlined in this proposal.
Implementing regulations are codified at SEC For example, to develop products that integrate Medicare and Medicaid coverage, several states--including Arizona , Hawaii , Idaho , Massachusetts , Minnesota , New Jersey , Pennsylvania , and Tennessee --operate Medicaid managed care programs for dually eligible individuals in which the State requires that the Medicaid MCOs serving dually eligible individuals offer a companion D-SNP product.
These States also require specific care coordination or data sharing activities in their contracts with D-SNPs. We propose addressing such opportunities in this section of this proposed rule. We propose a new paragraph e at SEC We do not believe that proposed paragraph e 1 , in and of itself, creates or limits opportunities already available to States to contract with D-SNPs. The primary purpose of proposed paragraph e 1 is to establish a pathway for States with parameters for how CMS will work with the State when the State wishes to require D-SNPs with exclusively aligned enrollment in that State to operate under D-SNP-only MA contracts and use specific integrated enrollee materials.
Therefore, proposed paragraphs e 2 and 3 describe steps CMS would take when the conditions of proposed paragraph e 1 are met. Special needs plans, including D-SNPs, are currently included as separate plans, also known as "plan benefit packages PBPs ," under the same contract number along with any other MA plans of the same product type for example, health maintenance organization HMO , preferred provider organization PPO , etc.
MA organizations may offer multiple PBPs under the same contract number, and the plans under these contracts may have service areas in multiple States or regions. PBPs under one contract number may have very different benefit packages and serve different populations. MA organizations report medical loss ratios and certain quality measures--including many Star Ratings measures--at the contract level, which does not allow for differentiation of PBPs that are D-SNPs.
Currently, [Sec. Except under our existing authority in SEC If necessary, under [Sec. Therefore, we are proposing to codify a pathway where if a State requires an MA organization to establish a contract that only includes one or more D-SNPs with exclusively aligned enrollment within a State, the MA organization may apply for such a contract using the existing MA application process.
We do not anticipate this proposal would create a large volume of new contracts, because most States do not meet the prerequisite of requiring exclusively aligned enrollment, and--among those that do--some D-SNPs are already in D-SNP-only contracts.
The proposed language at SEC States may want to consider this implication when contemplating whether to establish D-SNP-only contracts, particularly if a State wishes to further limit D-SNP-only contracts based on regions within the State.
Where States choose to use this opportunity, it would have several benefits. First, it would provide the State and the public with greater transparency on the quality ratings for the D-SNP, reflecting outcomes and experiences specific to dually eligible individuals in the State.
Second, it would improve transparency on financial experiences related to furnishing Medicare and Medicaid benefits because the contract's medical loss ratio would reflect Medicare financial experience specific to dually eligible individuals in the State that are enrolled in a companion Medicaid MCO as well as the D-SNP because this proposal is limited to D-SNPs with exclusively aligned enrollment.
Exclusively aligned enrollment, as defined in SEC As described at SEC We describe at proposed SEC We will provide States with additional information on timelines and procedures in sub-regulatory guidance; we may also address our recommendations for best practices and identify considerations for States that are considering this. We would expect the following steps--which are consistent with current timeframes and procedures for submission of applications, bids and other required materials to CMS--to be taken if a State sought to include these requirements for the plan year:.
Establishing D-SNP-specific contracts creates some new challenges. CMS would have added administrative burden to oversee a larger number of contracts.
We believe these costs are modest relative to the benefits. We solicit comments on other consequences that would flow from our proposal, both in terms of benefits for the MA organizations, States, and dually eligible individuals and potential unforeseen difficulties for these stakeholders.
Finally, to avoid any significant beneficiary disruption, we propose a new crosswalk exception to allow MA sponsors to seamlessly move D-SNP members into any D-SNP-only contract created under this proposal.
To add this new crosswalk exception, we propose redesignating the existing paragraph c 4 into new paragraphs c 4 i and ii in SEC Under this proposal, the processes used for other crosswalk exceptions for example, the notice to CMS and CMS' review and approval of the crosswalk exception would apply to this new crosswalk exception.
We seek comment on this new proposed crosswalk exception and whether any additional beneficiary protections should apply. Communicating information to enrollees and potential enrollees is an important function of MA plans, Part D plans, and Medicaid managed care plans--and D-SNPs with exclusively aligned enrollment must comply with all of those rules. Under this proposal, the applicable Medicaid managed care and MA requirements and standards would continue to apply to the integrated materials.
As background, we discuss in this section some of the requirements for mandatory communications materials in the MA and Medicaid programs. See [Sec. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Houston, has worked with the hospital and federal officials to maintain the Medicare contract. She said she is sending letters to the president and has spoken to his staff regarding the hospital, its role in the community, and the importance of its Medicare and Medicaid contracts.
Although its agreement with Medicare was terminated, the hospital system may continue to provide services for the community, including COVID testing, vaccinations and outpatient services, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. United Memorial also could contract with other local hospitals to provide them additional beds during the public health emergency. By Joey Guerra. Most Popular. Lifestyle Lifestyle RodeoHouston See the full lineup here.
New Rice livestream raises concerns amid streaking tradition.
0コメント