¶ 25. The federal implementing regulation, 42 C.F.R. § 447.15 (2007), is extremely broad: “A State plan must provide that the Medicaid agency must limit participation in the Medicaid program to providers who accept, as payment in full, the amounts paid by the agency plus any deductible, coinsurance or copayment required by the plan to be paid by the individual.” Restrictions similar to those found in 42 C.F.R. § 447.15 (2007) are contained in Wis. Admin. Code § DHS 106.04(3), which provides: A [Medicaid] provider shall accept payments made by the department in accordance with sub. (1) as payment in full for services provided a recipient. A provider may not attempt to impose a charge for an individual procedure or for overhead which is included in the reimbursement for services provided nor may the provider attempt to impose an unauthorized charge or receive payment from a recipient, relative or other person for services provided, or impose direct charges upon a recipient in lieu of obtaining payment under the program, except under any of the following conditions [none of which is relevant to your inquiry.]
¶ 26. Court decisions have interpreted the phrase “any financially responsible . . . representative” in 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(25)(C) (2009) in combination with the requirement in 42 C.F.R. § 447.15 (2007) that a Medicaid provider must “accept, as payment in full, the amounts paid by the [Medicaid] agency” to mean that billing the Medicaid program or accepting payment under the Medicaid program precludes collection of any additional funds from any third party for costs incurred as the result of treating a patient. See, e.g., Evanston Hosp. v. Hauck, 1 F.3d 540, 543 (7th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1091 (1994); Spectrum Health Continuing Care Group v. Bowling, 410 F.3d 304 (6th Cir. 2005); Rehabilitation Ass’n of Virginia, Inc. v. Kozlowski, 42 F.3d 1444, 1447 (4th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 811 (1995); Rybicki v. Hartley, 792 F.2d 260, 261 (1st Cir. 1986); Lizer v. Eagle Air Med. Corp., 308 F. Supp. 2d 1006, 1009 (D. Ariz. 2004); Mallo v. Pub. Health Trust of Dade County, 88 F. Supp. 2d 1376 (S.D. Fla. 2000); Olszewski v. Scripps Health, 69 P.3d 927, 941-42 (Cal. 2003); Dunlap Care Center v. Iowa Dept. of S.S., 353 N.W.2d 389, 394 (Iowa 1984); Pub. Health Trust v. Dade County Sch. Bd., 693 So.2d 562, 566 (Fla. App. 1997); Serafini v. Blake, 213 Cal. Rptr. 207, 209-11 (Cal. App. 1985); Palumbo v. Myers, 197 Cal. Rptr. 214, 222-23 (Cal. App. 1983); Nickel v. W.C.A.B. (Agway Agronomy), 959 A.2d 498, 506-07 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). ¶ 27. The prohibition upon third-party balance billing is stringent. The phrase “payment in full” in 42 C.F.R. § 447.15 (2007) means exactly what it says. Spectrum, 410 F.3d at 318 (italics by the court). 42 C.F.R. § 447.15 (2007) “prevents providers from billing any entity for the difference between their customary charge and the amount paid by Medicaid.” Lizer, 308 F. Supp. 2d at 1009 (italics by the court). ¶ 28. Prior attorney general opinions do not address attempted third-party balance billing in connection with efforts to jointly fund the operation of an entire facility. 77 Op. Att’y Gen. 287 (1988) concluded that what is now 42 C.F.R. § 447.15 (2007) and what is now Wis. Admin. Code § DHS 106.04(3) precluded a county and a visiting nursing home association from entering into a contract under which that county would have been required to reimburse the association the difference between the association’s cost of providing services to the residents of that county who were Medicaid recipients and the Medicaid reimbursement rates paid to the association for providing services to those persons. Such a contract would have enabled the association to “‘impose an unauthorized charge or receive payment from . . . [an]other person for services provided,’” contrary to what is now Wis. Admin. Code § DHS 106.04(3). 77 Op. Att’y Gen. at 290. The county, acting as a purchaser of services, would have been required to “creat[e] a legal obligation to supplement the [Medicaid] amounts paid by the department [now DHS][.]” 77 Op. Att’y Gen. at 290. The opinion noted that the county was free to make independent gifts or grants to the association under what is now Wis. Stat. § 59.53(15). See 77 Op. Att’y Gen. at 288. No direct funding mechanism was proposed or examined in that opinion. The intergovernmental agreement proposed in 73 Op. Att’y Gen. 68 would have authorized direct billing to counties as purchasers of services for the difference between the applicable Medicaid reimbursement rate and the cost of nursing home care provided to residents of those counties. That opinion specifically declined to address the issue of whether direct funding would have been permissible. See 73 Op. Att’y Gen. at 72. ¶ 29. The third-party balance billing issue is complex because the mandatory assessments you describe possess aspects of a direct funding mechanism to defray the cost of operation of the entire facility, but the human services departments of the other counties apparently would also be purchasers of services under Wis. Stat. § 51.42(3)(as)1r. for individual residents who are patients in the specialized unit. The vast majority of those patients would be Medicaid recipients. ¶ 30. Mandatory prospective proportional assessments would not necessarily constitute knowing and willful acceptance of financial remuneration that is “in addition to any amount otherwise required to be paid under a State plan” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1320a7b(d)(2) (2006) or within the meaning of similar language contained in Wis. Stat. § 49.49(4)(a). Mandatory assessments that are unrelated to purchase of services contracts involving Medicaid patients do not involve supplementation. For example, if each of the other counties that voluntarily joined the commission agreed in advance to an assessment of 1% of the annual operating and capital costs necessary to continue to maintain the facility, such assessments would have no relationship to individual purchase of services contracts and involving Medicaid patients and would not violate federal and state prohibitions upon supplementation. Assessments computed with reference to or attributable to purchase of services contracts involving particular Medicaid patients are likely to be considered sham transactions to facilitate third-party balance billing. For example, even if the assessments against the other counties are prospectively computed, they could not be prorated by using either percentages or dollar amounts if the proration depended solely upon the number of each such county’s Medicaid recipients in the facility at the close of the previous fiscal year.
¶ 31. The proposed assessments you describe are hybrid assessments that do not fit solely within either one of these two categories. Certain aspects appear to be unrelated to purchase of services contracts involving Medicaid patients. The proposed assessments apparently would defray all costs necessary to operate the specialized unit. Such costs apparently include both operating and capital costs, and would encompass items such as utilities, insurance, repairs, taxes, certain capital improvements, and any other expenses that the commission anticipates would be incurred in the next fiscal year. While a substantial portion of the proposed assessments would defray deficits to be generated from treating Medicaid patients for whom the counties are responsible under Wis. Stat. § 51.42, those costs are necessarily a component part of all costs that must be incurred in order to operate a nursing home. Other aspects of the proposed assessments appear to be more closely attributable to purchase of services contracts involving particular Medicaid patients. You advise that the proposed assessments against the other counties are intended to take into consideration the expenses to be incurred by the commission that are associated with that county’s residents, and that each such county is likely to have a substantial number of residents who are Medicaid recipients. You provide no specific examples of how this would be done. The more closely such hybrid assessments are computed with reference to or attributable to purchase of services contracts involving particular Medicaid recipients, the more likely a trier of fact would consider such assessments to be sham transactions used as a device to facilitate third-party balance billing. Whether a hybrid assessment constitutes a disguised form of third-party balance billing necessarily requires a highly fact-specific determination. Such determinations could vary from year to year and from assessment to assessment. An opinion of the Attorney General is not an appropriate vehicle for such fact-specific determinations. See 77 Op. Att’y Gen. Preface No. 3.C. ¶ 32. Other requirements that do not directly involve the manner in which the proposed assessments are computed may also be attributable to purchase of services contracts involving particular Medicaid patients. The proposed requirement that a county that withdraws or is expelled from the commission must agree to continue to pay assessments while any of its residents remain in the facility could be attributable to purchase of services contracts involving particular Medicaid patients. Additional requirements that involve financial considerations cannot be imposed upon a human services department that has entered into such a contract for care of an individual Medicaid recipient. Although I understand that any requirement involving a county’s removal of its residents would be conditioned upon compliance with federal and state law, various federal and state statutes and regulations prohibit the transfer or removal of a patient from a nursing home that is capable of providing appropriate treatment unless the patient or guardian consents to the transfer or removal. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395i-3(c)(2) and 1396r(c)(2) (2006); 42 C.F.R. § 483.12 (2007); Wis. Stat. §§ 49.498(4) and 50.09(1)(j); Wis. Admin. Code § DHS 132.53. Even if there are limited circumstances under Wis. Stat. § 51.35 in which these provisions would be inapplicable to the human services departments of the other counties, patient removal is not a direct funding mechanism. Any patient removal requirement would also relate directly to any Medicaid patient with respect to whom a county human services department has entered into an individual contract under Wis. Stat. § 51.42(3)(as)1r. CONCLUSION
¶ 33. I therefore conclude that counties may enter into joint agreements to collectively furnish and fund nursing home services if the agreements do not violate federal and state Medicaid statutes and regulations prohibiting supplementation. Assessments resulting from such agreements that are computed without reference to and that are not attributable to purchase of services contracts involving particular Medicaid patients would not be considered supplementation. Assessments that are computed with reference to or are attributable to purchase of services contracts involving particular Medicaid patients are not permissible. The validity of hybrid assessments that do not fit solely within either one of those two categories must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Sincerely,
J.B. Van Hollen
Attorney General
/misc/oag/recent/oag4_09
true
oag
/misc/oag/recent/oag4_09/_110
oag/BodyStart
oag/BodyStart
section
true
