Tag: Medicare Advantage

Categories
Article

No, You Can’t Just Not Take Medicare: What Every Chiropractor Needs to Know

A growing number of chiropractors are moving away from insurance panels in favor of cash-pay practice models built around direct-pay patient relationships. The appeal is understandable—simplified billing, transparent pricing, and greater clinical autonomy. But this shift has created a widespread compliance problem that many chiropractors do not realize they have: an obligation to Medicare that persists regardless of how they choose to bill.

The assumption among many cash-pay chiropractors is straightforward: “I don’t take Medicare, so Medicare rules don’t apply to me.” That assumption is wrong. If any patient in a chiropractor’s practice is a Medicare beneficiary, the chiropractor is subject to federal Medicare enrollment requirements—regardless of whether the practice bills Medicare, regardless of what services are provided, and regardless of what financial arrangements the patient has agreed to.

Chiropractors Cannot Opt Out of Medicare

Under the Medicare Claims Processing Manual, a defined list of provider types—including physicians, podiatrists, optometrists, and psychologists—are eligible to formally opt out of Medicare and enter into private contracts with beneficiaries. Chiropractors are not among them. They fall squarely within the category of providers for whom opt-out is prohibited. This prohibition derives from the Social Security Act and is not subject to exception or workaround.

No mechanism exists—not ABN forms, not patient waivers, not financial agreements—that allows a chiropractor to circumvent this requirement. There is no “cash practice exception” to Medicare enrollment. The only lawful way to avoid enrollment is to refrain from treating Medicare beneficiaries entirely.

Common Workarounds and Why They Fail

Despite the clarity of the rule, chiropractors routinely attempt workarounds that do not hold up under scrutiny. Some take the position that because they provide only maintenance care—which Medicare does not cover—they are exempt from enrollment. Others rely on the fact that they offer only non-covered services such as exams, x-rays, shockwave therapy, or extremity adjustments, reasoning that if Medicare would not pay for the service, the enrollment requirement does not attach. A third common approach involves having patients sign an Advance Beneficiary Notice and then collecting cash for all services, treating the ABN as though it functions as a private contract.

None of these approaches satisfy the law. The Medicare enrollment obligation is triggered by the treatment of Medicare beneficiaries—not by whether a particular service is covered. The nature of the service is irrelevant. If the patient is a Medicare beneficiary, the provider must be enrolled.

Enforcement Consequences

Treating Medicare beneficiaries without proper enrollment constitutes a violation of federal Medicare regulations. CMS and the Office of Inspector General actively enforce these requirements, and the consequences are substantial: financial sanctions, audit exposure, exclusion from federal healthcare programs, and in serious cases, criminal prosecution. These are not theoretical risks. They are the documented outcomes of non-compliance, and they apply to providers who may have genuinely believed they were operating within the rules.

The Compliant Path: Non-Participating Enrollment

Chiropractors who prefer a cash-oriented practice model have a clear, lawful option: enroll in Medicare as a non-participating (non-PAR) provider. Under this arrangement, the chiropractor does not accept assignment. Instead, the chiropractor collects the full “limiting charge”—115% of the non-PAR fee schedule amount—directly from the patient at the time of service. The chiropractor then submits a non-assigned claim to Medicare. Medicare reimburses the patient directly for its portion, and the chiropractor has already been paid in full.

To illustrate, consider a 98941 (spinal manipulation, three to four regions) under the 2026 Texas locality 99 fee schedule. A participating provider accepts $37.61, with the patient responsible for 20% coinsurance of $7.52. A non-PAR provider collects $41.09—the full limiting charge—from the patient upfront. Medicare then reimburses the patient $30.08 (80% of the PAR rate after the deductible), resulting in a net out-of-pocket cost to the patient of approximately $11.01. The difference to the patient is roughly $3.50 per visit. The chiropractor receives payment at the time of service, and the arrangement is fully compliant.

A related question arises for chiropractors who perform only non-covered services, such as spinal decompression. Even in that scenario, enrollment is required. The chiropractor is not necessarily obligated to submit claims for non-covered services, but the underlying enrollment obligation remains. The type of service provided does not eliminate the need to enroll.

Medicare Advantage Considerations

The same enrollment requirement applies to Medicare Advantage patients: a chiropractor must be enrolled in Original Medicare (Part B) before treating them. One practical distinction exists, however. If a Medicare Advantage patient carries an HMO plan with no out-of-network benefits and the chiropractor is not in-network, there are no benefits to bill. In that situation, the chiropractor must still be enrolled in Medicare, but may treat the patient on a cash basis because no billable benefit exists. Proper practice requires verifying benefits in advance, confirming zero out-of-network coverage, and documenting that verification.

For Medicare Advantage PPO plans that include out-of-network benefits, the chiropractor may be required to submit claims as a non-PAR provider. As a practical matter, however, the majority of Medicare Advantage enrollees carry HMO plans, making the cash arrangement the more common scenario.

Conclusion

A cash-pay practice model and Medicare compliance are not mutually exclusive. The non-PAR enrollment pathway allows chiropractors to collect payment at the time of service, maintain the direct-pay relationship they value, and operate within the boundaries of federal law. The process is not burdensome, and it closely mirrors the financial workflow most cash practices already follow.

What chiropractors cannot do is ignore the requirement. Treating Medicare beneficiaries without enrollment is a federal compliance violation with serious consequences—consequences that are entirely avoidable through a straightforward enrollment process.

Three Takeaways

  1. Chiropractors cannot opt out of Medicare. Unlike physicians and certain other provider types, chiropractors are explicitly prohibited from opting out under the Medicare Claims Processing Manual. No waiver, ABN form, or patient agreement can change this. If you treat Medicare beneficiaries, you must be enrolled.
  2. Non-PAR enrollment supports a cash-focused practice within the law. By enrolling as a non-participating provider, chiropractors can collect the full limiting charge at the time of service and, for covered services, submit a non-assigned claim while Medicare reimburses the patient directly. For non-covered services, enrollment is still required, but claims need not be submitted unless the patient requests it or a secondary policy requires it.
  3. The cost of non-compliance far exceeds the burden of enrollment. Treating Medicare beneficiaries without enrollment exposes a chiropractor to federal audits, financial penalties, program exclusion, and potential criminal liability. The enrollment process is straightforward, and the non-PAR model aligns naturally with how most cash-pay practices already operate.
Categories
Health Law Highlights

Fifth Circuit Grants Motion Relating to New CMA Compensation Rule

Summary of article from Troutman Amin, LLP, by John H. Henson:

On July 3, 2024, the US District Court of Northern Texas issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order in the combined cases challenging new CMS rules regarding compensation for Medicare Advantage and Part D plans. The court found the compensation changes to be arbitrary and capricious, granting a partial stay on these rules but allowing the consent requirement for sharing beneficiary data to proceed. The decision highlights the court’s scrutiny of the CMS rulemaking process and indicates a substantial likelihood of the plaintiffs’ success on the merits. However, the consent requirement remains in effect, necessitating prior express written consent for data sharing between third-party marketing organizations. This ruling does not impact the FCC’s 1:1 consent requirement, which remains distinct and unaffected.

Categories
Highlight

OIG Testimony Puts a Spotlight on Clinical Documentation and Payer Risk

Summary of article from Ankura, by Emily Petersen:

In a recent testimony, the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), highlighted issues surrounding risk adjustment in Medicare Advantage (MA) and proposed stricter rules for diagnoses used in risk adjustment calculations. She underscored the issue of rising improper payments within Medicare and Medicaid, emphasizing the need for increased oversight and enforcement. Significant vulnerabilities in the MA risk adjustment process and challenges in Medicaid Managed Care were also discussed, with a call for organizations to review their medical records and ensure the accuracy of diagnosis codes. Furthermore, systemic weaknesses such as eligibility determination errors and duplicate payments were pointed out, requiring urgent attention. Lastly, Grimm emphasized the need for increased investment in oversight and enforcement to combat fraud, waste, and abuse in healthcare programs.

Categories
Health Law Highlights

Humana Can Challenge Medicare Clawback Rule

Summary of article from Reuters, by Brendan Pierson:

Humana can proceed with its lawsuit against a Biden administration rule that enables Medicare to reclaim overcharges from insurers. The rule, established in January 2023, permits the government to recoup payments to Medicare Advantage plans when audits reveal charges for diagnoses not present in patients’ medical records. The Biden administration believes this could help recover around $4.7 billion over a decade. Humana argues the rule is “arbitrary and capricious,” with potential unforeseen consequences for Medicare Advantage organizations and beneficiaries. The judge rejected the administration’s request to dismiss the case, stating that the perceived risk of future harm was enough to establish standing.

Categories
Health Law Highlights

CMS Finalizes its Proposal to Advance Interoperability and Improve Prior Authorization Processes

From Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, by Gianfranco Spinelli and Krysten Thomas:

  • Final Rule Issued by CMS: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a final rule titled “CMS Interoperability and Prior Authorization” on January 17, 2024, which aims to advance interoperability and improve prior authorization processes. This rule impacts Medicare Advantage organizations, state Medicaid and CHIP agencies, Medicaid and CHIP managed care plans, and plans on the Affordable Care Act exchanges, as well as MIPS eligible clinicians, and eligible hospitals and critical access hospitals.
  • Patient Access API: The final rule requires Impacted Payers to provide patients access to certain information, including claims, cost sharing data, encounter data, and a set of clinical data accessible via health applications. The implementation of this requirement is set for January 1, 2027, which is a change from the original proposed date of January 1, 2026.
  • Provider Access API and Payer-to-Payer API: The rule mandates Impacted Payers to build and maintain a Provider Access API for data sharing with in-network providers. It also requires a Payer-to-Payer API to ensure patients can maintain continuity of care and have uninterrupted access to their health data. Both these requirements are to be implemented by January 1, 2027.
  • Prior Authorization API and Process Improvements: CMS finalized the proposal to require Impacted Payers to build and maintain a Prior Authorization API, which is to be implemented by January 1, 2027. The rule also shortens the time frames for prior authorization decisions and requires Impacted Payers to provide a specific reason for denied decisions. These requirements are to be complied with by January 1, 2026.
  • Public Reporting and Electronic Prior Authorization Measure: The final rule requires Impacted Payers to publicly report certain prior authorization metrics, with the initial set of metrics to be reported by March 31, 2026. It also mandates MIPS eligible clinicians, eligible hospitals, and CAHs to report the number of prior authorizations for medical items and services requested electronically from a Prior Authorization API.
Categories
Health Law Highlights

What Cigna’s FCA Settlement Means for Other Medicare Advantage Plans

From HealthPayerIntelligence, Victoria Bailey:

  • Cigna’s recent brush with False Claims Act violations serves as a reminder that Medicare Advantage organizations should be routinely assessing their risk and compliance activities.
  • The United States alleged that Cigna submitted inaccurate and untruthful patient diagnosis data to receive additional payments from CMS and did not withdraw the inaccurate data or repay CMS.
  • Cigna submitted the diagnoses to CMS even though they were not supported by information documented on the vendors’ forms, nor were they reported to Cigna by other healthcare providers who saw the patient during the year the home visits occurred.
  • Medicare Advantage is a top priority for the government when it comes to detecting fraud.
  • Medicare Advantage plans should focus on risk mitigation assessments to avoid similar situations:
    • ensure your documentation looks good. Make sure if you’re doing these retrospective reviews of patient charts, you’re not just adding codes, but also making sure that if any of the codes needed to be downgraded, you’re deleting those extra codes
    • look at their data and imagine how it would appear to an objective third party. Plans should ensure they are identifying the correct codes and that any in-home assessments are complete.
    • conduct annual risk assessments and other monitoring.
  • All Medicare Advantage organizations would benefit from proactively assessing their data on a routine basis. Some organizations may be able to monitor their documentation and conduct risk adjustments with their current staff. However, partnering with outside companies may be helpful for others.
Categories
Health Law Highlights

Congress Eyeing Broker Payments Behind Booming Medicare Sales

From Bloomberg Law, by John Tozzi:

  • About 31 million people – more than half of Medicare enrollees – opt to get their coverage through private plans known as Medicare Advantage.
  • Lawmakers are examining the payments made by health insurers to brokers who sell their Medicare plans, concerned that the payments may be steering seniors to some plans over others.
  • Federal rules limit the commissions Medicare plans can pay brokers, but some companies may be skirting these rules by offering extra payments that can sometimes double brokers’ compensation, influencing them to push plans that pay the most.
  • A report from the Senate Finance Committee last year described deceptive marketing tactics, “fraudulent sales practices,” and instances of people being enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans without knowing it.
  • The large, publicly traded online brokers report revenue from both commissions and other sources, such as “volume-based bonuses” for meeting sales targets and “marketing development funds” for certain customers.