[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
QUALITY CARE FOR SENIORS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 10, 2000
__________
Serial No. 106-188
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
70-277 WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
Carolina ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
BOB BARR, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas
LEE TERRY, Nebraska THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California ------
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho (Independent)
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
David A. Kass, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
Lisa Smith Arafune, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
BOB BARR, Georgia PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas
DOUG OSE, California JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Sharon Pinkerton, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Lisa Wandler, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 10, 2000................................... 1
Statement of:
Altenhof, Lorraine, medicare recipient....................... 6
Altenhof, Patricia, daughter................................. 5
Borror, Kelly L., administrator, Lutheran Homes, Inc., Fort
Wayne, IN.................................................. 33
Collins, Dorothy Burk, Regional Administrator, Health Care
Financing Administration, Department of Health and Human
Services, Region V, Chicago, IL............................ 65
Knapp, Dennis L., president and executive officer, Cameron
Memorial Community Hospital, Angola, IN.................... 26
Miller, Thomas D., president and executive officer, Lutheran
Hospital of Indiana, Fort Wayne, IN........................ 15
Schroeder, Dr. Barbara M., president, Fort Wayne Medical
Society, Fort Wayne, IN.................................... 54
Tobalski, Jim, senior vice president community relations,
Parkview Health System and Parkview Hospital, Fort Wayne,
IN......................................................... 58
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Altenhof, Lorraine, medicare recipient, prepared statement of 8
Borror, Kelly L., administrator, Lutheran Homes, Inc., Fort
Wayne, IN, prepared statement of........................... 35
Collins, Dorothy Burk, Regional Administrator, Health Care
Financing Administration, Department of Health and Human
Services, Region V, Chicago, IL:
Information concerning write-offs........................ 81
Prepared statement of.................................... 67
Knapp, Dennis L., president and executive officer, Cameron
Memorial Community Hospital, Angola, IN, prepared statement
of......................................................... 28
Miller, Thomas D., president and executive officer, Lutheran
Hospital of Indiana, Fort Wayne, IN, prepared statement of. 19
Schroeder, Dr. Barbara M., president, Fort Wayne Medical
Society, Fort Wayne, IN, prepared statement of............. 56
Tobalski, Jim, senior vice president community relations,
Parkview Health System and Parkview Hospital, Fort Wayne,
IN, prepared statement of.................................. 61
QUALITY CARE FOR SENIORS
----------
MONDAY, APRIL 10, 2000
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
Human Resources,
Committee on Government Reform,
Fort Wayne, IN.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., at the
John F. Young Center, 2109 East State Street, Fort Wayne, IN,
Hon. John L. Mica (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Mica and Souder.
Staff present: Sharon Pinkerton, chief counsel; and Lisa
Wandler, clerk.
Mr. Mica. Good morning. I'd like to call this meeting of
the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human
Resources to order. Today's hearing is a congressional field
hearing entitled, ``Quality Care for Seniors. Are HCFA and its
contractors managing health care efficiently and fairly?''
By way of introduction, I'm the chairman of the
subcommittee, John Mica, and I'm pleased to be here this
morning at the invitation of Congressman Souder, who has
probably been one of the most active and effective members of
the Government Reform Committee in the House of
Representatives. I have enjoyed working with him, and we are
conducting this investigation as an oversight hearing in Fort
Wayne at his request this morning.
I'll open the hearing with an opening statement, and then
yield to Mr. Souder. Without objection, the record will be left
open for 2 weeks. That's so ordered. Anyone who would like to
submit testimony for this hearing is welcome to do so
contacting Mr. Souder for this subcommittee, and we will make
your statement part of the official congressional record.
We'll then proceed today with two panels. We have witnesses
in two panels. And there being no other business at this time,
I will proceed with my opening statement.
Today, I'm pleased to convene this hearing to examine the
impact of Health Care Financing Administration, which is also
referred to as HCFA's regulations which they're having on
health care providers and ultimately who needs good health
care, and that is our senior citizens not only in Fort Wayne,
IN, but throughout this country.
Medicare has become one of the most complicated programs
run by the Federal Government. In fact, the Mayo Clinic, a
well-respected medical group, has counted more than 130,000
pages of laws, rules, manuals, instructions, alert notices that
govern the delivery and the payment for health care services.
It's no wonder that senior citizens, health care professionals,
vendors and others who care for our senior citizens and those
in need of health care are tormented by the restrictions under
which they are forced to function. Their hands are tied by what
appear to them as sometimes meaningless and arbitrary red tape.
In 1997, Congress enacted landmark changes to the Medicare
program, which were contained in the Balanced Budget Act. Many
of these changes were designed to provide more beneficiary
choices and to help guarantee the solvency of the Medicare
program well into the 21st century. The good news is that many
of the objectives of that legislation have been accomplished.
Wasteful spending is down, the Medicare program itself is more
secure, and many of our Nation's elderly have expanded
preventative benefits and increased choices for accessing
quality health care.
Also, the Department of Health and Human Services'
Inspector General has reduced the amount of money lost to fraud
as a result of having new tools available to tackle that
problem. However, as we've learned during the past few years,
the Balanced Budget Act has also had some unintended but
nevertheless troubling consequences. In some cases, providers
and hospitals were pressured for more savings than were
originally anticipated under the law. In other cases, HCFA--
again, our Health Care Financing Agency--has failed to act in
the interest of seniors or in accordance with congressional
intent and sometimes sent out confusing messages or response.
Congress has learned about these problems from many
communities, and I applaud Congressman Souder for bringing our
subcommittee here to help evaluate the impact of Federal
regulations on his community. I think he's also doing a service
to the country, because what we see here in Fort Wayne, IN is
no different than what we face in Florida or across our Nation.
As a result of some of the feedback that Congress has
received, Congress passed legislation 4 months ago which we
hope will address some of these problems. Our goal today is to
gather more information and help ensure that your concerns here
in Fort Wayne are considered both by HCFA, the Federal
administering agency, and also by the U.S. Congress. We hope to
do that as Congress decides how best to ensure that our
Nation's citizens have access to quality, affordable health
care.
Today, we'll hear from the entire range of those
individuals and agencies involved in providing health care from
our Federal Government, again HCFA, to the hospitals and other
providers, right down to the patient who is really the major
concern of our health care service system. I'm hopeful that
HCFA will be sensitive to the concerns and issues put forward
today by the providers and also by the patients. If these
concerns can be resolved administratively, HCFA should take
action now. If further refinements are needed to be made by
law, then Congress should act to make them.
With health care of seniors at stake, we need to ensure
that the Medicare Program is working as we intended it to work.
This is certainly an issue which requires the attention and the
oversight of the U.S. Congress and the House of Representatives
and particularly our committee, which is an investigation and
oversight subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives.
I wish to again personally thank Congressman Souder for his
request, for his perseverance in getting to the bottom of this
matter and also making one of the most important things we do
in our Federal Government work, and that's make certain that
our seniors and others who rely on health care can get that
service and have access to that service, and those who are
providing that service know that the rules are set up in a
fashion to make certain that all that is done cost effectively
and efficiently and for the benefit of the patients.
We'll yield at this time for the purpose of an opening
statement from the gentleman from Indiana. Mr. Souder, you're
recognized.
Mr. Souder. I thank Chairman Mica. It's a great sacrifice.
He comes here from Daytona Beach and Orlando----
Mr. Mica. Yes.
Mr. Souder [continuing]. Where the combined----
Mr. Mica. Great sacrifice. It was almost 80 degrees this
weekend and the sun shining.
Mr. Souder. It isn't----
Mr. Mica. Thank you again for the invitation.
Mr. Souder. It isn't always 30 degrees on April 10th, but
it's enough that many of us this time of year visit Florida.
This hearing today really arose out of a series of town
meetings and could prove to be a series of hearings examining
issues and problems related to the Health Care Financing
Administration's Medicare guidance and reimbursement practices
and the impact of those policies on the health care industry
and health care beneficiaries, because I hear from many of my
colleagues similar concerns around the country.
HCFA's responsibility for administering the Medicare
Program is undoubtedly a large and complicated one. With 39.5
million beneficiaries and 870 million claims processed and paid
annually, it is reasonably expected that errors will occur in
processing payment. Additionally, the Balanced Budget Act of
1997 restructured the program immensely to ensure the program's
solvency. As such, the program has certainly experienced
numerous changes. While it is true that the Balanced Budget Act
included provisions to ensure the solvency of the Medicare
program into the 21st century, it is also true that the core
mission of HCFA to assure health care security for
beneficiaries was intended to remain intact. Congress is aware
of the unintended consequences that resulted in the Balanced
Budget Act and the effect it has had on the health care
industry. Those issues are currently being addressed in
Congress, and we passed several measures last year, and several
bills have been introduced to further alleviate the pressures
felt by the health care industry and its recipients as a result
of those consequences because, in fact, when reimbursement or
these questions arise, the hospitals and health care providers
usually do one of two things: They either reduce benefits to
the beneficiaries or shift costs to other families. And that's
been one of the primary ways health costs have been rising in
this country; it is because of the cost shifting that occurs
when the Federal Government doesn't adequately reimburse for
other costs.
We're not here today to contemplate the far-reaching
effects spurred by the Balanced Budget Act; we are here to
discuss the perceived changes of the Medicare policies,
including those that involve diagnostic screening, pre-surgical
testing and reimbursement issues. In February 2000, I held 27
town meetings throughout northeast Indiana. During the course
of those meetings, numerous Medicare patients expressed
concerns about information they had received indicating
Medicare would not cover certain pre-surgical tests. When asked
what a patient should do when his or her doctor ordered a test
for which Medicare ultimately denied payment, I could not
answer. For example, one person said they had started the
testing process. It was now being denied. They didn't have
enough money to finish out the tests. ``What am I supposed to
do?'' She said, ``Mark, what am I supposed to do now?''
Both my mom and mother-in-law are on Medicare, and I feel
the pressures in my own family, as well. When asked why
Medicare would refuse payment for tests a doctor deemed a
necessity, I simply didn't have an answer. I mean, I could
guess, but I wanted to find out what at core was the problem.
Appearances suggested that what a medical professional
perceives as medically necessary does not always coincide with
what HCFA, the Health Care Financing Administration, and its
carriers define as medically necessary. It is my hope that such
appearances will prove to be false.
We are here today to listen to information from a wide
range of health care affiliates from one end of the spectrum to
the other. Our goal is to begin to untangle the confusion
surrounding the Medicare program in northeast Indiana and
define for Medicare recipients the policy issues at hand.
Nobody's assuming any malicious behavior on anybody's part.
HCFA is trying to make very difficult budget decisions as are
health care providers, and we want to make sure there is a fair
process so that everybody is covered in as cost-effective way
as possible.
I'd like to thank the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Mica, for
his efforts in investigating this issue, and I'd also like to
thank those who came and testified today for their valuable
time. Also want to say a last word about my friend, Mr. Mica.
He, like I, was a Senate staffer prior to getting elected to
Congress. He was elected to the House before me, had a number
of years in service there and has been leader in a number of
issues, including health care. But, as our No. 1 leader on our
drug task force in this country on anti-drug abuse, we have
travelled to Columbia and Mexico together many times. We've
been at hearings around this country, and we've worked with
many other issues facing families and children, as well, and I
very much appreciate his national leadership on that. And as we
tackle these difficult health issues in addition to the drug
abuse problems, I hope we can have a similar impact.
I yield back.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Now to proceed with our first panel. Our first panel
consists of Ms. Lorraine Altenhof, and she is a Medicare
recipient. She's accompanied by her daughter, Patty Altenhof.
We also have Thomas D. Miller, who's president and chief
executive officer of Lutheran Hospital of Indiana, Fort Wayne,
IN, and Dennis L. Knapp, another witness. He is president and
chief executive officer of Cameron Memorial Community Hospital
from Angola, IN; and Kelly L. Borror, administrator of Lutheran
Homes in Fort Wayne, IN.
I don't believe you've testified before our subcommittee or
before our Government Reform Committee before, this is an
investigations and oversight subcommittee of the House of
Representatives. In that capacity, we do swear in our witnesses
and in just a moment, I'll ask you to stand and be sworn.
Additionally, we try to limit your oral presentation before
the subcommittee to, approximately, 5 minutes. We'll wind the
clock on you here and ask you to try to summarize around 5
minutes. You can, upon request, submit an entire statement,
which will be printed and part of the official record of this
congressional hearing. At a simple request, we will grant that.
And, as I said, we're leaving the record open of this
hearing for 2 weeks. We cannot possibly hear everyone who would
like to speak in this hearing, but we do allow submission of
testimony upon a request to the committee or Mr. Souder at this
point to be made part of the record.
So those are some of the ground rules for our hearing
today. We'll proceed first by having you stand and be sworn.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Mica. Since the answer is in the affirmative, we'll let
the record reflect. I'm pleased this morning to welcome both
Lorraine Altenhof and her daughter, Patty Altenhof. I
understand we're going to have one of you provide testimony and
the other available for questioning. You're recognized.
Ms. Lorraine Altenhof. How should I----
Mr. Mica. However you'd like to proceed. Just recognize
yourself for the record.
STATEMENT OF PATRICIA ALTENHOF, DAUGHTER
Ms. Patricia Altenhof. My name is Patricia Altenhof, and
this is a letter my mother received from Parkview Hospital
right before she was scheduled for surgery. The letter reads:
Dear Medicare Recipient: Changes to Medicare occur
frequently and they can be confusing. This letter describes one
of these changes. We hope this explanation helps.
Medicare has always had a regulation that it will only pay
for what is medically necessary. Its definition of this term is
``a service that is ordered by a physician for the diagnosis or
treatment of an illness or disease.'' Medicare recently changed
this interpretation on what tests they will cover, now
disallowing any service that is considered a screening that is
not specifically identified by Medicare as a screening for
which it will pay. Among screenings that Medicare does allow
are the mammogram and Pap test for women and PSA prostatic test
for men.
Screenings considered not covered by Medicare include pre-
surgical testing (the tests that hospitals or ambulatory
surgery center does before your surgery). The anesthesiologist
must have the pre-surgical test results to know how you will
tolerate general anesthesia; many potential problems are
identified as a result of this testing; however, Medicare does
not define this testing as a covered service.
Medicare's decision is very narrow and does not take into
account such issues as family history for a disease or exposure
to certain elements that cause a disease. Therefore, even
though Medicare deems that a test is not covered, that test may
still be very necessary from your physician's point of view.
Nonetheless, if the test is not covered under Medicare's
definition, they will not pay, despite the fact that your
doctor ordered the test.
When your physician orders a test for which Medicare will
not pay, he or she has a sound medical reasoning for
investigating a possible health hazard that could cause
problems for you. If this is the case, you are still
responsible for any charges resulting from such tests. At the
time of service, you will be asked to sign a document which
notes that this information has been explained to you and that
you take financial responsibility for the service being
provided for which Medicare does not pay. In addition, Medicare
will not allow hospital or health care facilities to provide
these services free of charge.
Hospitals and laboratories work closely with your doctor to
ensure that Medicare covers every test possible. However, there
will be times when you will be required to pay for these
services since Medicare does not cover them.
STATEMENT OF LORRAINE ALTENHOF, MEDICARE RECIPIENT
Ms. Lorraine Altenhof. As soon as I received that letter--
--
Mr. Mica. Could you identify yourself again----
Ms. Lorraine Altenhof. Alright, I'm Lorraine Altenhof.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Ms. Lorraine Altenhof. And this letter came to me about 2
or 3 weeks before my surgery was scheduled. I was operated on
March 1st, and I had subclavian bypass and carotid artery. And
when I called Medicare, the girl there told me that the doctors
and hospitals should not use the word ``pre-op.'' She said if
they would just use the word ``diagnosis,'' Medicare will pay
it. So I said OK.
So I called the Parkview Hospital, and I talked to a gal
there. And she said, ``We can't.'' I told her what the girl at
Medicare told me, and she said, ``Well, we can't do that.
They'll get us on fraud.'' I told it to my doctor, Dr. Sanford,
and he said the same thing. He said, ``We can't do that'' and
``They would get us on fraud.''
So at the Parkview, when I talked to this gal, she told me
that, in the past, if Medicare didn't pay for something, the
hospital would write it off and take the loss. But now she's
telling me that Medicare's saying that the patient must pay it.
And I said, ``Well, how much money are we talking about?'' And
she said, ``From $200 to $250 for those tests.'' And I said,
``Well, what if you don't have the money to pay for it?'' She
said, ``Well, I don't know what to tell you.''
And I don't understand why Medicare has the right to tell a
hospital whether or not they want to write something off for a
Medicare patient. What right does Medicare tell them they can't
do that? I don't understand that. And I was really very upset.
And, so far, all I've received from my--I have supplement
insurance with Medicare, and all I've received so far is one
statement, and on it was an $11.07 charge that Medicare did not
pay. So I called my supplement insurance company and asked them
what that charge was for, and she said it was for a chest x-
ray, which I had to have a chest x-ray, a blood test and an
EKG.
Now, I don't want anybody operating on me without that
test. And I don't understand why, if they're calling it a
screening, why it should--why can't they change the word? Why
use it as a screening? Those are necessary. You don't want a
doctor operating on you without that. So, anyway, I just wanted
to come here and say those things, because I don't understand.
And then the girl at Medicare also told me that ``Congress
makes the rules,'' she told me, and ``We have to do what
Congress says.'' That's what I was told. And those are her
exact words.
Mr. Mica. But----
Ms. Lorraine Altenhof. And----
Mr. Mica. If you had something else to add, go right ahead.
Ms. Lorraine Altenhof. No.
Mr. Mica. Well, we appreciate your testimony. We appreciate
your also coming forward to our congressional subcommittee to
provide us with your personal experience. What we're going to
do is hear from these other individuals, and then we'll come
back and we'll ask questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lorraine Altenhof follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.007
Mr. Mica. At this time, I'm going to Thomas D. Miller,
president and chief executive officer of Lutheran Hospital of
Indiana. You're recognized, Mr. Miller.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS D. MILLER, PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
LUTHERAN HOSPITAL OF INDIANA, FORT WAYNE, IN
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Chairman Mica and Congressman
Souder, for taking time out. Chairman Mica, if it's 80 degrees
in Florida, I would suggest that it's minus 10 degrees in
health care today in hospitals. And let me tell you that I
appreciate you folks doing quality care for seniors, but let me
give you an overview of what hospitals see from Medicare.
Medicare spending for the last 3 years has been flat while
Medicare senior population has grown by 3\1/2\ percent a year
and inflation has grown by 2.6 percent. Part A, which is the
Hospital Trust Fund, spending fell by 4.4 percent last year and
4.5 percent in the first quarter of fiscal year 2000. Congress
intended on saving $103 billion for 1998 through 2000 through
the Balanced Budget Act, but, due to dramatic cuts and
regulation changes, has determined that they now saved $227
billion, twice as much as what was intended.
Since November 22nd, the day Congress recessed, Medicare
spending projections have dropped by another $62 billion for
fiscal year 2000 to 2004. The additional cuts in the program
have been done without a single vote. Hospitals are faced today
with an unprecedented struggle to stay viable.
For background purposes, Medicare represents the single
largest payer for hospitals throughout the country. In Indiana,
46 percent of the patients discharged are Medicare patients,
and when you look at the illnesses of those Medicare patients,
roughly 60 percent of the revenues that go through hospitals.
This is according to the Indiana Hospital Association. Also,
according to that, Medicare only reimburses hospitals in
Indiana 82.1 percent of our costs. Not of our charges; of our
costs. When combined with the additional cuts that were not
included into these numbers, you can understand that a crisis
has developed. Medicare is our largest payer, but has become
our most unreliable. Policy and regulation changes are ongoing
without concern for a hospital's ability to implement changes
or without regard to the quality of care for our seniors. The
concern only appears to be money. The current regulations have
shown a unique ability to be successful in this practice.
Two recent changes that occurred involving Outpatient
Perspective Payment System, which I'll refer to as APC, and the
encouraged use of Advanced Beneficiary Notification that Mrs.
Altenhof has mentioned. APCs are a new and unique way to
reimburse hospitals for outpatient services. HCFA's indicated
for years that these changes were coming and that they would be
in effect July of this year. Unfortunately, until this past
week, they didn't publish the guidelines that they've been
working on for over 10 years. It appears that HCFA is
interested in meeting a deadline here of July 1st more than
whether hospitals can adjust to the new payment methodology. It
is interesting that HCFA is implementing these changes when the
intermediaries have indicated that they cannot pay the hospital
under this system due to lack of time. If the interest is to
further place hospitals in a position where incorrect bills are
sent so that the term ``fraud'' can be used, the current
practice with APC will be successful. I would suggest a focus
should be placed upon making the infrastructure changes that
need to take place before regulations are changed.
One hears regularly that there is rampant fraud in health
care and it's costing the government billions of dollars. Using
the APCs as an example, the problem is not as much a problem of
hospitals billing accurately, as it is a problem of changing
regulations and processes that the hospital can't adjust to. It
is merely impossible to accurately implement a total outpatient
reimbursement methodology within 90 days of last week when the
total information systems have to be installed at our hospital
that haven't even been written yet because the guidelines were
just established.
In regard to the Advanced Beneficiary Notifications, this
change has taken place over the last few months, and it
involves outpatient tests that HCFA determines to be not
medically necessary or screening and as such are not covered
under Medicare. Just so that you understand the regulations,
Medicare holds the provider liable for non-coverage of services
if it is determined that the provider either, one, had the
actual knowledge of the non-covered services of a particular
case or, two, could reasonably have expected to have such
knowledge. In general, providers should have known a policy or
rule if the policy or rule is in a Federal Regulation, Medicare
manual or in other publications.
This statement is being used to hold providers accountable
for all regulations and a reasonable interpretation of the
regulations by HCFA before they bill. One can already see how
easy it is for HCFA to make a policy for which compliance is so
difficult, specifically APCs where 1,000 pages in the initial
regulations of which hospitals have to communicate to
physicians and all of our billing staff the accuracy of all
aspects of 1,000 pages.
Regarding ABNs, the local Medical Review Policy provided
guidance on whether or not it is covered and under what
clinical circumstances considered reasonable, necessary and
appropriate for the diagnosis and treatment of illness or
injury. Providers who knowingly bill services as covered that
are--I'm using the word that is in the manual--clearly not
covered are, according to the local Medical Review Policy,
considered to be knowingly submitting a false claim. They may
be subject to civil monetary penalties of $10,000 per claim.
The word that is more disturbing in the regulations is the
use of the word ``clearly.'' I personally find very little in
regulations that are clear. With this as a basis, the following
was issued in December 1999, Part A news,
Providers are encouraged to provide their patients with an
Advanced Beneficiary Notification or Hospital-Issued Notice of
Non-Coverage when the services rendered may be reduced or
denied as part of a reasonable--or, as denied as not reasonable
or necessary. Providing an ABN or Hospital-Issued Notice of
Non-Coverage protects you from liability.
To understand the ramifications of the above, one must
understand how tests are ordered. First, the problems are
generally outpatient tests. HCFA and intermediaries are holding
hospitals responsible for determining the medical necessity of
tests. However, 100 percent of the time, hospital is only
completing a test ordered by a physician. In the case of most
hospital outpatient tests, we receive blood samples, urine or
other specimens with an order for the test to be performed and
a stated diagnosis or symptom from the physician's office. We
do not see the patient or generally interpret or enter the
physician--or, excuse me--interrupt the physician at his office
to question his written order. We perform over 600,000 lab
tests a year.
Based on the information above, if the test ordered does
not meet the medical necessity as defined by HCFA for the
specific tests and the hospital bills, this is considered a
fraudulent claim. Because of the magnitude of the volume and
the reality that hospitals are not in a position to question
doctors' orders for tests that they believe are important, we
perform the tests and send the results to the patient. It is
this practice that is coming under specific focus by the
intermediary under the umbrella of medical necessity. Recent
software changes at Lutheran now match the symptom and
diagnosis for the tests ordered; however, the ability to do
errant claims is prevalent throughout the system.
The hospitals are in a no-win situation. The physician
writes an order but doesn't have the knowledge or time to know
what tests were ordered or approved for a specific diagnosis.
The hospital has no computer systems to determine medical
necessity before the tests are performed, and not doing a test
that a physician orders could be harmful to the patient. Local
hospitals are working hard to overcome these issues, but HCFA
is holding them accountable today for a system that is not
manageable. If we don't do the tests and we send the results to
the physician before billing determines that it may not be
medically necessary, so we don't bill them to avoid a fraud
charge, then we are found guilty of an anti-kickback statute. A
New Jersey hospital which offers free care to patients is
coming under significant pressure because they provide free
care to patients because they might be inducing referrals from
physicians. This is truly a catch 22.
To understand the scope of the situation we're dealing
with, we believe that 30 to 40 percent of our lab tests may
fall into this category that don't meet the medical necessity,
and that's 30 to 40 percent of 600,000 tests. The problems
don't relate just to laboratory tests but to pre-admission
testing and diagnoses. The only safeguards that a hospital has
according to the guidelines were published in the Part A news
providing ``An ABN protects you from liability.''
Today, Medicare is viewed by many as nothing but bad
insurance. It is every hospitals most unreliable payer.
Hospitals face threats of civil penalties and anti-kickback
statues. The HCFA appears accountable to no one and are only
interested in cutting cost. I learned today that 70 percent of
the budget surplus is due to reductions in Medicare and
Medicaid spending. Also, 1999 was the first time that the
actual dollars paid for health care went down as compared to
the prior year even though the population has increased by 3.4
percent for the elderly.
HCFA's approach has not been to improve the system or to
help hospitals, seniors or doctors comply. They say nothing has
changed. Perhaps that's the problem. Health care is changing
dramatically, and if we're living under regulations that have
not been updated, simplified or computerized, then we're bound
for failure. I believe HCFA has made compliance difficult.
Based on current regulations, providing ABNs to Medicare
patients is our only remedy available to us. Many procedures
that have been paid for by Medicare in the past will now be
paid for by those who don't have the resources--our seniors.
HCFA may use the term that these procedures are not
medically necessary, but, in reality, hospitals are not in a
position to know because they don't see the patient and they
don't practice medicine. We have, in the past, relied on the
knowledge of physicians to determine the best course of patient
care. It appears that in the future, we must be only concerned
about meeting a regulation that has not changed for decades.
There is no doubt that the system is broken.
I hope that you will be able to fix this problem. I hate
implying that everything is related to antiquated rules and
money, but in the case where 80 percent of the hospitals in the
country can't even cover the cost on a Medicare patient and
rules are written in a way that they cannot be administered,
then it is the only conclusion that can be reached.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify and your interest
in solving----
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.014
Mr. Mica. We'll now hear from Dennis L. Knapp, who's
president and chief executive officer of Cameron Memorial
Community Hospital in Angola, IN. You're recognized, sir.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS L. KNAPP, PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
CAMERON MEMORIAL COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, ANGOLA, IN
Mr. Knapp. Thank you, Chairman Mica. I'll try not to cover
some of the same ground that Mr. Miller covered, although we
all deal with the same problems. As a preface to my statement,
we are a small, 61-bed hospital located about an hour overland
trip to any large tertiary facility. So ours is an issue of
providing services to about 40,000 people in a rural county.
We deal a lot with allocation of resources and the most
efficient use of those resources, and Medicare has made this
very complex for us to do. Since we do sit in the northeast
corner of Indiana, we also get patients from Ohio and Michigan,
and the local Medical Review Policies vary from fiscal
intermediary to fiscal intermediary. So we deal with not only
fiscal intermediaries from Indiana but fiscal intermediaries
from Ohio and from Michigan. And if you would think that it
would be very easy to come up with a software program that
could look at a patient's requested examination and determine
whether it was appropriate for payment under the Medicare
system, however, these policies are made at the local level
through the local fiscal intermediaries. Thus, something that
may be covered in Michigan may not be covered in Indiana and
vice versa, making it very complex for us.
Included in my testimony is 13 pages of codes for a chest
x-ray. Each one of those codes is for a different condition,
and, of course, to code any x-ray that was coming through our
institution erroneously through those 13 pages of code would be
considered a fraudulent charge. And with the stepped-up
enforcement of the fraudulent-going system, I think we're all
concerned about that.
We also deal a lot with program conflicts. Right now, our
small institution has 794 laboratory tests, 781 radiology tests
that we have to determine whether an Advanced Beneficiary
Notice is needed each time that patient comes through for one
of those tests prior to us doing the test. And, again, remember
this has to be done on a manual basis since no software exists
at this time due to lack of standardization of the policies to
perform this. That totals 1,575 procedures, which then have to
be looked through and compared with about 74,000 diagnoses to
determine whether the billing is appropriate for that
particular patient.
Other areas we deal with in program conflicts is that,
again, we are encouraged to secure an ABN up front if that's
necessary. When a patient comes through our emergency services,
we always opt on the safe side and perform the emergency care
first, as required by the Emergency Medical Treatment And Labor
Act [EMTALA]. And, so, the emergency service is always
performed first at the risk possibly of not getting any
reimbursement for the procedures that you're performing on the
patient or lacking the protection of an ABN. So, in that area,
the program is actually conflictual with itself.
Mr. Miller discussed patient concern over pre-operative
screenings. That, too, has come to us. Quite recently in the
face of this, I reviewed a chart where a lady was in for a
surgical procedure, and had she not had the pre-surgical
screenings, most notably the chest x-ray, we would not have
seen that she had a partially collapsed lung, an enlarged heart
and a broken rib, and she would have went to surgery, anyway,
or chose not to have the procedure.
The many Medicare recipients come to us to ask, ``What do I
do?'' And, right now, we have no good answer for them. We have
to say that, ``Yes, you should, for your patient--for your
safety and your good health, have these screening procedures
performed prior to your procedures; however, we also have to
notify you that they'll be at your cost.'' And patients are
very confused by this. The HCFA has not communicated this well
to patients, and a lot of the seniors just plain don't have the
resources to cover these pre-testing procedures.
And, also, as Mr. Miller said, with the new APCs that are
coming across----
Mr. Miller. APC.
Mr. Knapp. APCs that are coming into implementation July
1st, we are going to lack the ability to efficiently bill those
procedures. The implementation time is just not enough. In the
last year, we've purchased almost $1 million worth of computer
equipment to upgrade our computer systems only to be faced with
purchasing more software when and if it becomes available to
provide these services. We realize that being in a rural
hospital setting, we are allowed up to 2 years leniency, I
guess, from being impacted by APCs, but, at the same time, we
have to go ahead and bill as if they were in effect.
We are hoping for clarification from HCFA in the future
regarding these areas, and we are most certainly asking for
clarification as far as to do pre-operative screening for
patients. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Knapp follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.019
Mr. Mica. Our last witness on this panel is Kelly L.
Borror, and she is the administrator of Lutheran Homes in Fort
Wayne, IN. Welcome, and you're recognized.
STATEMENT OF KELLY L. BORROR, ADMINISTRATOR, LUTHERAN HOMES,
INC., FORT WAYNE, IN
Ms. Borror. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Souder,
for inviting me to participate in this panel. I am honored to
be selected to give testimony today.
In the current system of Federal oversight for nursing
facilities, the State survey agency has been given the
authority by HCFA to evaluate facility adherence to the law,
cite deficiencies and even impose sanctions. The State agency
is responsible for informal dispute resolution and also the
appeals process. In short, under the current system, the State
survey agency acts as the judge, the jury and the enforcer. We
are concerned about the deficiencies that are considered actual
harm. Minor isolated incidents are resulting in severe
enforcement penalties. If facilities are cited for actual harm
on consecutive surveys, they are subject to immediate fines up
to $10,000. There is survey team subjectivity regarding
interpretation of the regulations. Some teams evaluate
compliance based on outcome, others base it on potential
outcome, and still others focus almost entirely on the process
itself. Survey inconsistency is viewed as the largest problem
for providers in long-term care in northeast Indiana.
HCFA conducted an extensive training campaign for nursing
home inspectors to help States enforce Federal requirements
more effectively and consistently; however, by not conducting
training sessions that included both the inspector and the
provider, discrepancies in interpretation continue. An annual
survey cycle may extend as long as 6 months before a facility
is found to be in full compliance. New deficiencies or followup
surveys extend the survey and create the possibility for
additional sanctions.
It is our desire to have HCFA require States to contract
with outside entities to review the cited deficiencies, scope
and severity, recommended sanctions and to independently
conduct informal dispute resolution. It is, furthermore, our
desire for HCFA to train inspectors and providers at the same
time; to utilize sanctions to assist providers; to encourage a
team approach during survey; and to expedite a survey process.
Providers are currently struggling with the Prospective
Payment System known as PPS to survive; there are many, many
hidden costs. We are accountable for all expenses which are
incurred within the resident's plan of care. Cost constraints
and containment are affecting quality services, such as
transportation and mobile x-ray to name two. The decreases in
available ancillary service results in increased outpatient
admissions to hospitals, increased transportation costs and
increased expenses to providers. It is greatly appreciated that
the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 was passed; however,
it is felt the revision did not go far enough, specifically
with the non-therapy ancillary costs that are involved.
In a Prospective Payment System based strictly on average
payments, some residents will have costs that far exceed the
average. These are known as outliners. HCFA has created other
outliner provisions for hospital, home health and hospital
outpatient services for expensive cases. It is time that long-
term care providers have an outliner provision. It is our
desire to meet individual care needs, whether known or unknown
at the time of an admission to a nursing facility; for HCFA to
provide PPS billing training to ancillary vendors; for HCFA to
re-evaluate ancillary reimbursement; and, finally, to require
HCFA to develop an outliner provision for skilled nursing
facilities.
Staffing issues in nursing facilities remain the priority
from everyone's viewpoint. Currently, with the reimbursement
restrictions, facilities are tied to low-end salaries due to
the PPS system. This is especially true in reference to
reimbursement for our cognitively impaired residents, such as
Alzheimers. Facilities across the country are experiencing a
nursing staff crisis. In view of the shortage, it becomes
imperative that facilities have the option of training
individuals who are not certified or not licensed. Permitting
individuals to be trained to perform certain tasks can offer
partial relief to the shortage and additional individual
attention to residents.
Currently, the area where training non-nursing assistance
is most needed is assistance with eating. It is our desire for
HCFA to revise cognitively impaired payment classifications
specifically related to Alzheimer/dementia population. It is
further a desire to request the additional language submitted
in my prepared statement to be added to the Medicare and
Medicaid statutes to give the facilities flexibility to use
non-nursing staff to assist residents with eating.
Mr. Chairman, please note, due to the time restraint, I did
not cover Full Federal Rate Reimbursement Option or
Consolidated Part B Implementation this is currently posing,
although there are many complex issues associated with long-
term care, as well as acute care, and I request you admit my
full written statement and encourage the committee to review
that.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, your entire statement will be
made part of the record.
Ms. Borror. Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide
information. Facilities are struggling with survey process,
reimbursement issues and a lack of available staff, and it is
time for HCFA, State regulators and providers to work together
toward quality care for seniors. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Borror follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.029
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony. I thank all of our
witnesses. I'd like to proceed with a few questions. First of
all, Mrs. Altenhof, did you get your medical procedure?
Ms. Lorraine Altenhof. [Nods head.]
Mr. Mica. You did.
Ms. Lorraine Altenhof. Yeah. You mean the testing?
Mr. Mica. Well, the whole works.
Ms. Lorraine Altenhof. Oh, yeah. They operated on me on
March 1st.
Mr. Mica. OK.
Ms. Lorraine Altenhof. And I have----
Mr. Mica. What about payment?
Ms. Lorraine Altenhof. So far, I've just received one
statement, and it came from my supplement insurance, stating
that Medicare did not pay a charge of $11.07. So I called the
insurance company, and they told me it was for a chest x-ray,
which amazed me, because I'm sure a chest x-ray costs more than
that. So is it possible that the hospital could be writing it
off?
Mr. Mica. Well, we can ask that question, but that's the
only charge that you've----
Ms. Lorraine Altenhof. So far.
Mr. Mica [continuing]. Incurred? And that would be covered
by your supplemental?
Ms. Lorraine Altenhof. Only if Medicare pays my
supplemental insurance pays.
Mr. Mica. All right. OK.
Ms. Lorraine Altenhof. If Medicare----
Mr. Mica. It would not----
Ms. Lorraine Altenhof [continuing]. Doesn't pay, neither
will my insurance.
Mr. Mica. All right. Obviously, you had a difficult
experience, and I'm sure it caused you additional pain and
suffering in addition to your medical procedure.
Ms. Lorraine Altenhof. Yeah. They were two major surgeries.
Mr. Mica. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Lorraine Altenhof. But again, I was only in 2 days, and
they asked me if I wanted to go home.
Mr. Miller. Yeah.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Mr. Miller, it's almost getting to the
point where this is so frustrating dealing with trying to
straighten out a program that produces 140,000 pages of
regulations and compliances. It becomes almost impossible, and
one of the things Congress has tried to do since we've
attempted to reform the Medicare Payment System is to cut down
on some of the fraudulent billing, some of the extra
procedures, sometimes medically unnecessary procedures, that
were not done often by legitimate operators, but trying to sort
through this and create a system. Congress really sets the
general parameters, and then we let the agencies set the rules.
Is there any way you can see us ever correcting this, other
than just coming back time and again and trying to do this
patchwork approach to fixing?
Mr. Miller. Well, just to note, first of all, that Medicare
is one of the unique insurers that doesn't actually communicate
to the beneficiaries what services are covered or not covered.
All other insurers that hospitals deal with, it's the insurance
company's responsibility to determine whether a test is
medically necessary or not, and, if not, they then allow for
the hospital to bill the individual for that care.
Medicare requires the hospitals to determine in advance
without communicating to the seniors what is medically
necessary or not. Medicare has not taken the responsibility to
educate physicians; they hold the hospitals responsible for
educating physicians. The hospitals are caught in a catch 22.
Perhaps, the first suggestion would have to be to take the same
approach as every other insurer in the country and begin
communicating to physicians and patients what is or what is not
covered and allow for those items that are not covered to be
billed by the providers as opposed to sending Advanced
Beneficiary Notifications, making patients then choose maybe
not to have a procedure that is medically necessary. And in
Mrs. Altenhof's standpoint, she might have chose not to have
that procedure because of the $300 or $500. That is a very
difficult situation.
The other thing is that Medicare and HCFA would indicate
that the standards, the guidelines, the rules have not changed
since 1960. My suggestion, it's time for a total overhaul. Wish
I could give you what the right answer is, and I don't profess
to be the best policymaker in health care, but I know 1,000
pages of additional regulations last week on outpatient payment
is not the way to go, and a 90-day implementation process.
Interpretations of new policies like the Advanced Beneficiary
Notification, where the only intent is to reduce the payment to
providers at a time when providers are already receiving less
than their cost just causes conflicts between hospitals and the
patients.
I think it's a very difficult situation. I wish I had an
easy answer.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Knapp, you described 13 pages of coding for a
chest x-ray, and how can a hospital comply with those kinds of
regulations? Is it becoming impossible or difficult to make
certain that you're in compliance?
Mr. Knapp. It's very difficult. Over the last----
Mr. Mica. If you'd like to pull that up----
Mr. Knapp. Oh. I'm sorry.
Mr. Mica. We can catch you.
Mr. Knapp. Over the last 2 years, most hospitals have had
to develop a complete corporate compliance program to avoid
HCFA implementing much of the--they come in and find a
deficiency. In a full corporate compliance program, their
responsibility is to develop policies and procedures to make
sure that things are appropriate.
In our institution, we've had to bring in our audit team
and do a complete review of our charge master to make sure all
codes, all edits--all the procedures that, through their audit,
we would lessen the probability of any kind of fraudulent
billing occurring. And, of course, that all costs a lot of
money and pushes up our health care cost overall.
Mr. Mica. So you're sort of caught in a difficult position
between being charged with fraud or not covering yourself as
far as liability, if something happens with a patient.
Mr. Knapp. That's very true.
Mr. Mica. In surgery and if a test is not done or some
procedure is not done; then you face, I think, liability
problems.
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Mr. Mica. And I think that the pressure has been, from
Congress, to try to eliminate fraud and eliminate unnecessary
tests or diagnoses, but by the same token, you must cover
yourself as far as liability, and that becomes a big cost and
also a big factor in health care today; is that correct?
Mr. Knapp. That's true.
Mr. Mica. Ms. Borror, you talked about a system of possible
independent evaluations and trying to get someone to
independently make a determination, I guess, where there's a
conflict either in payment or services. Is that correct?
Ms. Borror. I think you're referring to the survey
process----
Mr. Mica. Right.
Ms. Borror. With independent review. Basically, what we go
through right now is the survey--the survey agency is empowered
by HCFA, comes out and surveys the facility. They determine
what citations need to be or found as far as deficiencies, and
then they also determine what sanction is going to be implied
or imposed.
Mr. Mica. But you were recommending a system that changed
that?
Ms. Borror. Correct.
Mr. Mica. Can you elaborate a little bit?
Ms. Borror. Right now, they are doing the appeals process,
as well. If we could have an outside entity that would oversee
what the survey results were and----
Mr. Mica. Who would appoint that--also HCFA, or----
Ms. Borror. I do not know who would end up appointing that.
And it would be nice for HCFA to state that that is required by
the State survey agencies to have outside review rather than to
be appointed by HCFA or not, but----
Mr. Mica. All right. But, again, you're calling for some
type of a change in the evaluation system?
Ms. Borror. Correct.
Mr. Mica. All right. You're also having problems complying
with HCFA regulations, and if they impose some of these
additional APC, I guess, rules----
Ms. Borror. Uh-huh.
Mr. Mica [continuing]. By July, that gives you 90 days to
comply. Would you have difficulties?
Ms. Borror. The way APC affects us is with outpatient
services that we need to use for ancillary services under the
Prospective Payment System. And when we try to utilize services
in-house--we've attempted to work out something with an acute
care facility here in town, trying to bring services in-house
which they would need to bill out patient wise. And, at this
point in time, their reimbursement fees are not such they can
even offer the service to us, which then results in us sending
the patient into the hospital for maybe a service that could
have been done at the nursing facility.
And under the Prospective Payment System, we are
accountable for our--all charges. We are given one set lump sum
of money and whatever that individual needs, rather it was a
part of their plan of care at the hospital or rather it was
something that developed beforehand or afterward becomes a part
of that person's plan of care under Medicare, then the nursing
facility has no other alternative but to provide that to meet
the resident's needs, and that is at our expense. So the
Payment System itself does not cover generally an individual's
needs at that point in time.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. I yield at this time to the gentleman
from Indiana, Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. One thing, just in general, which is true for
the second panel, as well, but we may have additional written
questions in this 2-week period, and if any of you have
additional things you'd like to get into the record that we can
ask HCFA either in Chicago or Washington to respond to, or
answer in future hearings. This is just scratching the surface,
as you well know, particularly because we've combined so many
different things in this hearing.
Before we restructured the committee system after
Congressman Hastert became Speaker, he was the chair of the
committee that had the drug policy. We restructured, moved
Human Services from a different subcommittee into the one that
Mr. Mica now chairs. We had seven hearings that I attended on
Medicare and Medicaid fraud before we passed the Balanced
Budget Act, and in each one, we'd go through just a little
subsection of this. So I know it's a massive subject.
There are a couple of things I wanted to get on the record
and see where we might follow through: one, with Mr. Knapp. You
referred to the difference in Michigan and with patients from
different areas. Is it because of State clearances that there
are differences? Is it because they go through a different HCFA
regional office?
Mr. Knapp. The payment usually comes from a fiscal
intermediary, which is--in Michigan, it can be Travellers, it
can be Blue Cross. There's a couple fiscal intermediaries up
there. But the local Medical Review Policies for payment are
made at the fiscal intermediary level; therefore, there's no
Federal standardization of those. Standardization across the
United States would certainly help.
Mr. Souder. One of the things we found earlier on is that
even in trying to track ``fraud,'' the regional system
computers couldn't even talk to each other in the Federal
Government.
Mr. Knapp. That's true.
Mr. Souder. And I was trying to see whether we had much of
that in the Midwest or where exactly the lines were. What
percentage of the patients that come through are from Indiana
in your case?
Mr. Knapp. Of the Medicare patients, probably 60 percent.
Mr. Souder. So 40 percent.
Mr. Knapp. Yeah. We're located in the very northeastern
corner of the State, so we get people from both Ohio and
Michigan.
Mr. Souder. Now, in the Lutheran system, with your other
hospitals outside of Allen County, as well, do you know what
your percentage runs?
Mr. Miller. Just to quote a number, I would guess for
Medicare patients, probably 80 to 85 percent are local and 15
percent may be outside.
Mr. Souder. What other unique questions would apply to your
situation? I saw in your written testimony, Mr. Knapp, you
referred to even what kind of medications you'd have in supply
in a rural hospital an hour away from any major city--South
Bend or Fort Wayne or Lansing. You would have to supply
questions on urgent needs. Does that mean you would have
different types or have to do substitutions that wouldn't
necessarily be under the guidelines?
Mr. Knapp. Yes. In my testimony, I used the example of a
drug that dissolves blood clots, and I use it because it's a
very expensive drug, first of all.
Mr. Souder. Uh-huh.
Mr. Knapp. I think hospitals are put in the position many
times of having to have these resources on hand and a quantity
of these resources and have a lot of capital, so to speak,
sitting on the shelf and not knowing if they're ever going to
get at least their cost back out of them.
Again, because of our position in the county being an hour
away from a major tertiary facility, we're forced sometimes to
keep many things available that normally we wouldn't use on a
frequent basis. And so, we have to tie up a lot of our money
that way. Overall, I think right now we're getting about 41
cents on the $1 reimbursement for Medicare. So, again, we have
to tie up resources for use on Medicare patients, and----
Mr. Souder. Could you----
Mr. Knapp [continuing]. And we're glad to do that.
Mr. Souder. Forty-one cents on the dollar; could you
explain that?
Mr. Knapp. On the $1 of charge. And, again, it's an overall
number for Medicare.
Mr. Souder. And how do you make up the gap difference?
Mr. Knapp. You mentioned earlier the process of cost
shifting, and that, of course, has led to a--I think one of our
major problems in health care expenses in that hospitals are
forced to keep their rates at what the market will bear. There
may be other insurance companies out there willing, obviously,
to pay more than Medicare is willing to pay. And, so, you have
to keep raising your charges and consider the Medicare
shortfall as a contractual deficit for the hospital in order to
make up for that shortfall through other insurers.
Mr. Souder. Mrs. Altenhof referred to another thing that's
a byproduct. That is that you can squeeze services to some
degree, for example, the length of time somebody's in the
hospital, because if you're losing money on that individual,
there's no incentive to keep them there any longer than is the
absolute minimum. You are certainly not going to put somebody
out who's at health risk----
Mr. Knapp. Oh, no.
Mr. Souder [continuing]. But that's the kind of things that
are occurring.
Mr. Knapp. In the early 1980's, we made the conscious
effort to induct the outpatient technology to take care of as
much outpatient work as we could in the inpatient setting. And
we've reduced our average length of stay to about 2 days.
Again, that was a small general hospital. And then, last year,
we saw 77,000 outpatients through a 60-bed hospital.
Mr. Souder. Ms. Borror, I wanted to put a couple of things
in the record as to the home health care area and then the
long-term care nursing home area. And, again, we're just
scratching the surface a little bit today. I wanted to clarify
a couple of things.
My understanding--and Mr. Mica asked a variation of this
question--is that, based on what you chose to stress here, you
felt that the clearance process was a bigger problem than a lot
of other things currently, taking 6 months and then constantly
re-evaluating, that you're taking so much time filling out
forms that you weren't able to provide care.
Ms. Borror. Correct.
Mr. Souder. Is that----
Ms. Borror. This is correct. It wasn't that way until about
1\1/2\ years or so ago with a lot of the changes in regulation
and the imposition of fines and sanctions. In 1997, Indiana
imposed $77,000. In the third quarter, by 1999, there was over
$400,000 in fines imposed. So there's a drastic difference, and
this money goes to the Indiana General Fund. And that comes as
a result of the survey process. And the longer a survey takes
in a building, the greater the possibility for sanctions to be
enforced and applied on a facility.
Mr. Souder. In the small church I grew up in out in the
Grabill area, once a month, we would go up and have a church
service at the nursing homes up in Butler. Much of my life, I
went to Butler on Sunday. In addition, we have large homes in
Warren, Avilla and Swiss Village, in Berne--all over this
district. I've also been in the Golden Years Homestead, where
my grandma was and at Cedars, where my father-in-law was before
they both passed away over the last few years. Clearly,
everybody here is concerned about the quality of nursing care.
Nobody's arguing that there aren't problems. I've also heard
from the nursing home providers that one of the big
difficulties is staffing questions and how to adequately meet
the staffing needs.
Do you have anything you'd like to put into the record
today related to that and how we might look at addressing that
and what pressures you're facing?
Ms. Borror. I think right now, the staffing issue, there's
a tremendous shortage, not only for long-term care, but also
with acute care, and I'm sure these gentlemen can attest to
that.
When we look at staffing, unfortunately, we cannot pay the
same salary rates as a hospital or an acute care system. Our
rates that we receive from Medicare are quite a bit lower than
even a hospital transitional care unit, specifically with the
full Federal transition into reimbursement right now. The
certain task-performed training would be a great assistance to
individuals, specifically when we're looking at nutrition and
we can only have a certified or a licensed person do any
feeding or assistance with feeding at mealtime. To be able to
train other individuals who are not licensed or certified would
assist us in meeting some additional staffing needs and quality
care needs for residents and having availability of
individuals.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. Mr. Miller, I wanted to thank you
personally, as well as Dr. Schroeder and others and Jim
Tobalski and the many from Parkview that have come in and tried
to overall clarify. I'd like to put this into the record,
because it's a frustration with the administration on the
unfairness of the fraud question.
Clearly, we have to track the fraud, and we've made some
attempts to say in Congress you're innocent until proven
guilty. There's an assumption that there is a maliciousness
which the word ``fraud'' implies as opposed to the lack of
clarity. And, with all due respect, we'll get into this in the
second panel. It's difficult with the cost pressures for HCFA
to make lots of different changes and to do all those. But,
that said, we ought to acknowledge that difficulty, and this
whole question of fraud has been disturbing.
Here in Fort Wayne, we've seen newspaper headlines where,
in fact, hospitals here have been accused of fraud where, in
the end, most of even the things that were in question were
resolved in the hospital's favor. And, at the same time, the
only things that weren't were marginal decisions, but because
of the headlining in the Fort Wayne newspapers, the implication
was that there was fraud practiced, or at least alleged, by the
Federal Government inside our district when, in the end, there
was none. There wasn't a single case. There were a couple of
cases that were these questionable judgments. And I appreciate
you're bringing those kind of things out, because too many
times, people say, ``Oh, the Federal Government is having all
this fraud'' or ``Hospitals are practicing fraud'' when, in
fact, we can see these are very difficult decisions by you all
and by the doctors, and the number of classifications are just
amazing. So I thank you for that.
I wanted to ask a technical followup on Ms. Altenhof's
situation. How long in her case where she comes in, how long
until you get a clear definitive decision from Medicare as to
whether it's covered or not covered?
Mr. Miller. I don't know her individual situation, but----
Mr. Souder. Right.
Mr. Miller [continuing]. Generally for Medicare--and the
reason why she probably hasn't received a bill is just because
of the timing. For someone who had surgery in March, which is
less than 30 days, she looks great, so the health care system
is working. But I would guess that 60 days is a reasonable
timeframe. Generally between 60 and 90 days, we should know
exactly what was paid or what wasn't. But Medicare's unique.
Medicare's the only insurer who pays first and then questions
later. Sometimes----
Ms. Lorraine Altenhof. Yes.
Mr. Miller [continuing]. A year later, sometimes 3 years
later. Most insurers make the determination and then you
appeal. They pay and then, if they determine 2 years later they
shouldn't have, they charge you with fraud and ask for, you
know, $10,000 per incident over and over and over again
multiple denominators of that number. So it's a unique
situation that, in her case, I'm sure they're going to pay
first and then--they don't even have the systems in place--you
mentioned the differences between different intermediaries to
look through it, and they'll be doing that over the next few
years, and we'll come back, I suspect, in this case maybe to
indicate that that was a fraudulent billing.
Mr. Souder. One of the things that, after you hear the full
testimony today--and if you have additional questions you'd
like us to submit or additional comments--I appreciate you
clarifying that, because one of the undoubted difficulties is
that I can see how unintended consequences occur. For example,
one of the things we heard in our oversight hearing 5 years ago
was that Medicare was the slowest payer. So most likely what we
did or I assume we'll hear, was that we forced them to pay
first and question later, because we were hearing from
providers that they weren't getting paid fast enough.
The problem here, to me, appears that at the crux of what
you said is the lack of clarity at the beginning that every
other provider does. Now, I'm sure--and I do want to
acknowledge this for the record--that part of this is that
Congress makes some of these rules and the biggest thing we've
done here is we haven't actually made the rules; for the most
part, what we've done is restricted the budget. And then
there's an interpretation, as Mr. Miller said and others, and
this is our dilemma that we're working through. I remember
traveling throughout northeast Indiana saying we were going to
reduce the Medicare growth from 10 to 7 percent. And, in fact,
it has only grown by about 2.5 percent. Now, I and other
Members of Congress are going all around the country talking
about surpluses. Well, as we heard, a big chunk of that surplus
is because we've saved costs in Medicare because HCFA has made
difficult rulings, not Congress making the rulings, and that
way, all the politicians can talk about a surplus, but we're
the bad guys that made the rulings. So what we've done last
year, we came in with about 8 or 10 billion at the tail end to
try to relieve some of the pressure.
And, clearly, some of these things are cost-driven, but
even if they're cost-driven and what we're--what we need to
sort through is how much of this is cost pressure, how much of
this is just not good business practices? If other insurance
companies can do it and give the guidelines in advance, can the
government do that? How do we have to put into that kind of
infrastructure? How much of these were arbitrary decisions that
need to be relooked at? How much of this is, in fact, cost? And
we're all going to have to share in part of that, whether it's
hospitals, whether it's in patient preplanning, whether it's in
the Federal Government trying to put more dollars in if, in
fact, we don't have enough knowledge.
Any other comments any of you want to make? You can make
written requests, too.
Ms. Lorraine Altenhof. I just wanted to tell you that my
daughter, Patty, is a nurse at Marcell Nursing Home, and they
have the same problem the lady down here was talking about with
the shortage of nurses there, right?
Ms. Patricia Altenhof. Uh-huh.
Ms. Lorraine Altenhof. Terrible.
Mr. Souder. And we have a strong nursing training program
in this market, yet I still hear it everywhere----
Ms. Patricia Altenhof. Yes.
Mr. Souder [continuing]. That there is this tremendous
shortage, and we're going to have to look for creative ways to
address it.
Mr. Miller. Just one other thing. You mentioned what can be
done. Let me offer one suggestion. The determination of medical
necessity shouldn't be different for seniors as it is for non-
seniors, and the billing process shouldn't require within
hospitals 10 or 11 or 12 different processes to bill. Perhaps,
within 5 years, the determination of what's medically necessary
can be consistent among outpayers and perhaps one billing
system could be put in place that would allow us to bill
consistently between all providers.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Well, I think we're going to recess
here for about 7 minutes. We'll reconvene at 10:20, and then,
at that time, I'll call forward our second panel. This hearing
is in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Mica. I would like to stay on schedule today, and I
just checked. There will be votes scheduled on time today, but
let me call the subcommittee back to order in this hearing on
the quality care question for seniors.
I'm pleased at this time to welcome our second panel. Our
second panel consists of Dr. Barbara Schroeder. She is the
president of the Fort Wayne Medical Society here in Fort Wayne,
IN. We also have Dorothy Burk Collins, and she is the Regional
Administrator for the Health Care Financing Administration,
Department of Health and Human Services from Region Five
located in Chicago. We also have Jim Tobalski, and he is the
senior vice president of Community Relations for Parkview
Health Systems and Parkview Health Hospital here in Fort Wayne,
IN.
Again, let me inform our witnesses this is an
investigations and oversight subcommittee of the U.S. House of
Representatives. In that regard, we do swear in our witnesses,
which I'll do in just a moment. Also, if you have a lengthy
statement or documentation you'd like to be made part of the
record, upon request, that will be submitted and part of the
complete record of this hearing.
At this time, if you'd please stand and be sworn. Raise
your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Mica. Witnesses have answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Yes.
Mr. Souder. I think I should have said this in the first
panel, too. You now join all the--everybody from Craig
Livingstone, Nussbaum, and John Podesta, and all of this is the
same committee that's done all the investigations on all the
White House investigations and so on. And, actually, some
people who got sworn in later found out that they should have
stuck with what they said.
Mr. Mica. Yes. We have one of the more difficult tasks in
Congress, particularly in the House. We're the investigative
panel, and it is an important responsibility, and it does
provide an opportunity to help us make our system of government
work and be responsive. It's an important task.
Mr. Souder. That is unless you lost your e-mails. We're
having Charles Ruff this week.
Mr. Mica. We do have a vast array of witnesses, but we're
pleased to welcome these three witnesses from this local
community and Chicago to testify before us today. In that
regard, I'll recognize Dr. Barbara M. Schroeder, president of
the Fort Wayne Medical Society. Welcome, Dr. Schroeder, and
you're recognized.
STATEMENT OF DR. BARBARA M. SCHROEDER, PRESIDENT, FORT WAYNE
MEDICAL SOCIETY, FORT WAYNE, IN
Dr. Schroeder. Thank you. I'd like to begin just by saying
thanks for giving us the opportunity to speak. I'm very much a
neophyte in terms of the government. And seeing this process
gives me a little bit more faith that legislators really do
want to hear all sides of the issue.
The core issue that I'm going to address is pre-operative
tests as being screening tests. And it's my view that pre-
operative tests are not in the same category as general
screening tests. In my mind, a screening test is one that's
done on a large segment of the population, looking randomly for
a disease whereas pre-operative testing is done specifically to
see if there's a reason that the person shouldn't have surgery
or if they should be somehow investigated further to see when
an abnormal test has come forward.
As you know, Congress has excluded from coverage
examinations that are performed for a purpose other than the
treatment or diagnosis of a specific illness, symptom,
complaint or injury, except for certain approved screening
tests, and these are published in the code of Federal
Regulations. In the February and March 1999 issue of our
Regional Medicare Update, a clarification regarding pre-
operative testing was published, and it stated that screening
services other than those named by law as exceptions are not
covered and will be denied in accordance with Section 1826 of
the Social Security Act. And this clarification superseded all
prior policy publications regarding screening procedures, such
as pre-operative tests, chest x-rays, etc.
A further word on this was published in January 2000, and
this stated that pre-operative tests ordered routinely are
considered screening services and are not reimbursable by the
Medicare program. And, again, I would argue that certain
routine tests are necessary for the treatment of an illness,
and I'm certain that many physicians, anesthesiologists in
particular, might have varying opinions on what is actually
necessary for the surgery and what is not. And that, I think,
is partly the problem; it's not totally clear all the time
what's necessary to safely do a surgery.
I've attached with my testimony some guidelines that were
circulated to Parkview staff physicians as a guideline for all
certifications as to what pre-operative tests would be
necessary for anyone undergoing surgery independent of whether
or not they have a sign or a symptom related to that particular
test. For example, an electrocardiogram within a year is
recommended by the Parkview anesthesiologists for anyone over
65 who's undergoing any kind of a surgery, even a local, and
this is recommended even if the person doesn't have chest pain,
doesn't have a heart history, no high blood pressure. Why is
that? Because the stress of surgery on a 65-year-old heart is
significant, and the likelihood of heart problems even in the
absence of symptom is high enough that the most basic of good
medical care would warrant that an EKG be done. And this allows
the physician to check for any heart disease and also for
knowing a baseline when you do put the person through surgery
in case they have any chest pain or problems during the
surgery.
Another example is the ordering of a hemoglobin within 30
days of a surgery if significant blood loss is anticipated. The
person doesn't have any signs or symptoms that would otherwise
qualify the ordering of a hemoglobin under the Medicare testing
guideline, and, yet, to do a surgery where you anticipate major
blood loss without a hemoglobin is something that no prudent
surgeon would do, and that's kind of the basis of my argument
that it's not a screening test; it's a test to prepare the
person for surgery.
The challenge, of course, is to determine which tests are
necessary to surgically treat a disease and which are not. And,
as I stated earlier, physicians will differ on what they feel
is medically necessary to get a person ready for surgery. Few
people would argue, for example, that you need a cholesterol
for a cataract surgery. I mean, there are some things which are
clear. So I believe that simple guidelines could be developed,
such as those included in this testimony that I've submitted,
which would allow for the coverage of necessary pre-operative
testing.
In summary, then, I think that the HCFA and Congress have
three options: One is to continue to designate all tests done
prior to surgery that do not have associated signs and symptoms
as screening, and to deny coverage as thus. And the fact that
seniors have and will continue to object to this is the source
of this hearing. The result of continuing this practice is that
some seniors will refuse to have the testing based on their
lack of ability to pay for it and morbidity and perhaps
mortality will result.
The second option would be to leave the pre-operative
testing up to physicians and let us decide what's medically
necessary. This might require some further legislative
clarification that specifically excludes pre-operative testing
from screening testing. The third option would be to develop
some specific guidelines such as those that I've attached which
would protect Medicare from indiscriminate pre-operative
testing and help guide physicians as to what is truly medically
necessary to perform the surgery. Another option within this
category would be to state legislatively that certain tests
ordered pre-operatively do not require signs and symptoms to be
covered, such as EKGs, hemoglobins, electrolytes or a serum
glucose.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak.
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Schroeder follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.047
Mr. Mica. I'm going to call on Jim Tobalski next. He is a
senior vice president of community relations for Parkview
Health System and Parkview Hospital. You are recognized, sir.
STATEMENT OF JIM TOBALSKI, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT COMMUNITY
RELATIONS, PARKVIEW HEALTH SYSTEM AND PARKVIEW HOSPITAL, FORT
WAYNE, IN
Mr. Tobalski. Thank you, and thanks to Chairman Mica and
Congressman Souder for this opportunity. A lot has been said
today about the Balanced Budget Act and its impact on hospitals
across the Nation and a lot of the unintentional impact. I did
want at least to try to provide something much more personal
and specific about the Balanced Budget Act. For the Parkview
Health System, which is Parkview Hospital, Whitley Hospital and
Huntington Hospital, the Balanced Budget Act will reduce our
reimbursement over a 5-year period by $47.7 million. That at
least provides, I think, an example at a much more local level.
Even with the Balanced Budget Refinement Act, that reduction
will still be about $40 million over 5 years. So at least you
have some context as to the change.
While we're concerned about the reimbursement cuts, we're
equally concerned about how increasingly complicated it is to
be a health care provider in the Medicare Program. Each one of
our health care staff is proud to provide health care to our
community seniors. It is becoming increasingly more difficult,
though, and we believe that our mission to care for seniors in
the future will be jeopardized unless we can truly reform
Medicare and improve and simplify the program, and we've got
several suggestions.
Quite simply, Medicare is just too complex, and there
doesn't seem to be any relief in sight, even with the passing
of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act,
which Congress had intended to reduce the administrative costs
and burdens associated with health care. I'd like to go over
one example, because I think it's at the heart of
administrative simplification.
There are, approximately, 300 different medical procedures
that Medicare might require health care providers to obtain an
Advanced Beneficiary Notice [ABN] which was mentioned earlier,
where we must notify a Medicare recipient in advance that the
service is not covered by Medicare and they may be responsible
for payment. However, before a hospital or health care provider
can determine whether or not an ABN is required, we need to
match those 300 different procedures with, approximately,
14,000 different diagnoses. Certain procedures, with certain
diagnoses, require an ABN. The same procedures with different
diagnoses will not require an ABN.
To compound that, there are Federal regulations often that
conflict with one another. The ABN requirement also applies to
services received through the emergency room, yet the Emergency
Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act [EMTALA] states that
health care providers cannot delay treatment to get financial
information from patients. The dilemma for Parkview and other
hospitals is not how to proceed with treatment. We're going to
do what's best for the patient; we're going to treat first and
worry about finances later. We're still left with a conflict,
though, where one law requires us to obtain an ABN before
providing treatment while another law requires us to provide
treatment before obtaining an ABN. Now, as a community
hospital, we will always choose to provide emergency care
first, yet we will be faced with the situation of not complying
with the ABN requirement and then risk the loss of
reimbursement for the care provided.
Earlier, there was discussion also about education for
senior citizens, and I think it's important, so I'd like to
repeat this in my testimony. Senior citizens just do not
receive enough information from Medicare to help guide them
through the system. It's a very complex process for health care
providers and I think equally, if not more, complex for older
adults. Many seniors turn to health care providers for answers
and clarifications, but that's a very frustrating process for
both seniors and health care providers, because there are often
far too many gray areas in interpretation which only Medicare
can truly clarify, not health care providers and not seniors.
We recently attempted to proactively inform senior citizens
about a change in pre-surgical testing covered by Medicare. I
won't go over that in detail. We sent out 30,000 letters to
current and past Medicare patients. I have made a mental note,
if we're going to do that again, to hand-deliver a copy of one
of those letters to Congressman Souder, especially if he plans
on holding town hall meetings in his district before we do
that.
While this topic is very, very complex, we still wanted to
attempt to provide education to recipients, like Mrs. Altenhof,
who you've heard from earlier. We feel it's better for Medicare
recipients to learn about changes in advance of them arriving
at the hospital, where it's a more frustrating a time to learn
about changes or new interpretations of rules and regulations.
Everybody would benefit from more education--seniors, hospitals
and the Medicare program itself.
Another key area is just having an adequate enough time to
implement changes from new laws and new legislations and new
regulations. Mr. Miller covered earlier the whole Ambulatory
Payment Classification. I know it's probably not possible to
enter a prop into my testimony, but these are the new
regulations, explanations and addendums. I think it comes out
to, with the addendums, approximately, 1,300 pages just for the
new Ambulatory Payment Classification, and we have until July
1st to have this system in place if we are going to comply with
all the new rules and regulations.
One other key area is written verification. We often ask
Medicare to verify if we're interpreting the rules correctly;
it seems like a very reasonable thing to do. Medicare is
typically hesitant to provide answers in writing when we try to
clarify them. A written response to providers would help with
consistency, it would help with compliance and it would, to me,
even more importantly help with overall trust and relationship-
building, which really needs to take place within the entire
system.
Last, while Parkview and I are not experts in the funding
of government agencies, we believe that the Health Care
Financing Administration is underfunded. We are sure that it
would probably take additional resources for HCFA to play a
role in improving and simplifying the administration of the
program, and Ms. Collins has not asked me to present this
testimony today.
A recent report indicated that in the past 20 years, the
number of Medicare beneficiaries has gone up 50 percent. Of
course, the complexity of new policy directives and rules are
even more mind-boggling, yet HCFA's work force--in this study,
it was indicated it is now smaller than it was two decades ago.
If Congress wants this program to be effective, they should at
least consider the resources that HCFA may need to meet the
tremendous challenges of simplifying the program.
I don't think it's too naive to suggest that health care
providers and the Medicare program can become better partners,
which we really are not right now with all the skepticism
that's involved. We could accomplish a lot on administrative
simplification and making billing practice smoother if there
was more of a partnership relationship. Right now, the current
environment is one of skepticism and mistrust really on both
sides. That's really the only way senior citizens will best be
served is when Medicare and health care providers work together
to provide benefits to our Nation's older adults.
Again, thanks for this opportunity to provide you with this
feedback today.
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tobalski follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.033
Mr. Mica. We'll now hear from Dorothy Burk Collins. She's
the Regional Administrator for HCFA, the Health Care Financing
Administration, with HHS for Region 5 located in Chicago.
Welcome, and you're recognized.
STATEMENT OF DOROTHY BURK COLLINS, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR,
HEALTH CARE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES, REGION V, CHICAGO, IL
Ms. Collins. Chairman Mica, Congressman Souder, thank you
for inviting me to be here today with you and your constituents
to discuss our efforts to improve Medicare guidance to
hospitals and other providers. I appreciate this opportunity to
hear firsthand from you and from others here about your needs
and concerns.
Assuring and enhancing access to quality care is a high
priority for us. We want to help hospitals and physicians
provide all the care their patients need that we, by law, can
cover, and we are taking a number of steps to help providers
understand Medicare policy and procedures. We're also working
to increase our oversight of the private insurance companies
that, by law, process Medicare claims. We want our guidance to
be clear so providers and contractors understand and can follow
the rules. This isn't always easy since the laws governing
Medicare are complex and extensive. We have, therefore,
initiated a wide range of educational activities targeted
specifically to hospitals and other providers.
For example, we are airing satellite broadcasts to hundreds
of sites across the country on topics of interest to providers,
such as resident training, as well as other health initiatives.
We are developing computer-based training modules for providers
on topics such as proper claim submission and Medicare
Secondary Payer rules. And we maintain the Health Care
Financing Administration Web site, www.hcfa.gov to provide up-
to-date, easily accessible material for hospitals on a wide
variety of issues, including interactive courses on proper
filing and documentation of claims. And we are enhancing our
toll-free customer service lines at all Medicare intermediaries
to provide answers to questions hospitals and other providers
may have. Also, for our contractors, we are developing report
cards that will rate and rank their performance. We are
requiring them to report regularly to us on payment and coding
policy changes. We are evaluating local coverage policies that
contractors, by law, can establish in areas where there is no
national policy so that we can better determine where national
policy is needed and where there are issues or concerns about
contractors' local policies.
We want to work together with all parties, including
beneficiaries, providers and contractors. Only by working
together can we develop effective solutions so patients can get
the care they need and providers can get the fair treatment
they deserve to the greatest extent the law will allow.
Medicare is a complex program; we've heard a lot about that
here today. As you know, medicine itself is complex, and on any
given day, someone will disagree with a decision or feel we
were not responsive enough. We have been working hard to
improve our service to beneficiaries and providers. We want to
continue working to improve. We will continue to closely
monitor how laws and regulations governing our programs affect
beneficiaries and providers. We want to hear from you about
problems that Medicare providers and beneficiaries may be
having. We will continue to examine our own regulations and
policies to make adjustments where we can under law to ensure
that beneficiaries continue to have access to the quality care
that they deserve.
I thank you again for inviting me. I look forward to
hearing from you, working with you, and I am happy to answer
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Collins follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.042
Mr. Mica. Well, thank you. You've heard, Ms. Collins, some
of the problems that have surrounded trying to comply with HCFA
regulations. Part of the problem is that Congress, of course,
has altered some of the laws relating to operation of HCFA, and
I think with good intent. But the agency is responsible for
trying to put into place the regulations that make the system
work.
We heard concerns about new guidelines coming out, I guess
in July, in 90 days and then the problems of compliance. We
heard a previous witness testify they had to spend $1 million,
I think, on software and computer equipment for compliance
reasons. And it appears that we have some problems in trying to
define what's eligible for payment.
How do we best resolve that?
Ms. Collins. I think we share a goal that all hospitals and
providers under Medicare be fully informed about Medicare rules
and regulations. Meeting that goal is a challenge because of
the breadth and scope of the program. We are taking steps to
improve our efforts here. Increasing our educational outreach
efforts to providers and beneficiaries is definitely a focus of
our organization. I think communication and providing good
information goes a long way to meeting that objective.
Mr. Mica. Well, one of the complaints we heard, too, we had
someone who has been through the system, so to speak--a
Medicare recipient--and then we had others testify that
Medicare does not provide seniors even basic information about
their benefits and what's covered. Is that correct?
Ms. Collins. I think we can always improve the information
that we provide to the Medicare beneficiaries. As you may be
aware, most recently, the Medicare handbook used to be given
when beneficiaries first joined Medicare and then they were
lucky if they got an update every so often. Now, the Medicare
handbook is provided to beneficiaries on an annual basis as a
basic step in making sure that beneficiaries understand their
Medicare program.
Also, there are a variety of options available to Medicare
beneficiaries now and there are choices for how they receive
their Medicare benefits through managed care organizations, or
other choices. So, there is an increased effort on the part of
HCFA to provide information to Medicare beneficiaries at the
local level, and, again, we are working very hard to increase
that effort--use of our toll-free telephone lines and other
services to try to inform Medicare beneficiaries.
Mr. Mica. What about on-line computer access?
Ms. Collins. Medicare maintains a Website www.Medicare.gov.
The Website is specifically focused on providing Medicare
information to Medicare beneficiaries and their
representatives. The site is kept up-to-date with a full range
of information about coverage and benefits to Medicare
beneficiaries. Although use of the Internet by seniors and
everyone else is increasing, there is nothing like that
personal contact. So there is a 1-800 number for beneficiaries
and also increased effort with local organizations to provide
information on a personal level.
Mr. Mica. One of the questions and topics of conversation
in this hearing has been the question of coverage for pre-
surgical testing. Has HCFA changed or reinterpreted its
policies regarding coverage of these services? And, if so, why
and where are we in this matter?
Ms. Collins. Health Care Financing Administration has not
issued anything specific regarding a national policy on this
particular issue. Pre-operative testing is paid for, is part of
the diagnosis-related group for an inpatient surgery, and pre-
operative testing for outpatient surgery is covered when it is
medically necessary, meaning that there are signs and symptoms
that justify the tests.
I think there's been some confusion about this, and I've
heard a great deal about this here today and will seek to
followup on this to make sure there is a clear understanding of
this, because I think that there has been some confusion
regarding outpatient billing. The rules require outpatient
billing to be based on the final diagnosis. Sometimes the
initial screening may not actually match up with that final
diagnosis and it may appear that there isn't a reason for that
initial test. Providers can put on the claim codes for symptoms
that could justify that initial test.
Again, we would be happy to facilitate discussions here in
Fort Wayne and throughout the State to try to make sure that
there is a good understanding of the requirements and to clear
up this issue.
Mr. Mica. Well, one of the questions that's arisen, too, is
is HCFA redefining what's medically necessary, and if they're
doing so on an overall basis or as it may refer to individual
health problems. What's the status of the definition of
``medically necessary'' and how do health care providers and
patients and others find out what ``medically necessary,'' is
defined as today by HCFA? And then is there a process--is this
something that is changing, and then how do we get that word
out so that both the providers and the beneficiaries know
what's acceptable under the term ``medically necessary?''
Ms. Collins. Health Care Financing has not recently issued
any changes to the definition of ``medical necessity,'' but
that does not mean that there isn't active discussion going on
about that and that there are differences of opinion about that
across the country. In fact, I became aware that the American
Medical Association, at one of their meetings just last week
that the definition of ``medical necessity'' and ``screening''
was a topic of great discussion, and they issued proposals
related to that.
I think that this is something that is under discussion,
but no changes have been made nationally. Where there is no
national policy, local medical review policy can be developed
by the local intermediary, and after it is discussed with
groups in the State, medical societies and others, to make
decisions on medical necessity for certain procedures.
Mr. Mica. There's also concern today about the absence of a
formal appeals process for coverage decisions. What can we do
to improve that process? And maybe you've heard some of the
suggestions that were put forward.
Ms. Collins. Are you referring to Ms. Borror's testimony?
Mr. Mica. Right.
Ms. Collins. I think her concern was the appeal of survey
findings from a State survey while an enforcement action is
still being determined and still under the control of the
agency that did that survey in the first place. There's a
process called an ``Informal Dispute Resolution Process,'' and
how that is conducted by each State survey agency is at the
option of the State under our requirements.
Some States do use independent entities to conduct that
review. I believe here in Indiana the State agency itself
conducts that review. There also is an independent body,
through an administrative law judge process, through hearings
and appeals, that would provide a fully independent process for
review of any survey citations that led to enforcement actions
that the nursing home would want to appeal.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. The light that keeps going on and off above
your head is a new thing that the Department of Justice has put
in for our hearings. It's kind of to test your heart rate to
see if you're answering----
Let me start with Ms. Collins, and I want to come back to
Dr. Schroeder and Mr. Tobalski.
Parkview Hospital received two newsletters via your
carrier, Administar, one dated March 1999 and another January
2000 that refers to ``Coverage Policy Clarification Screening
and Pre-operative Services and Pre-operative Testing, a
Reminder.''
Can you clarify or are you familiar with those two
newsletters? And that certainly gives the impression that there
were changes.
Ms. Collins. I would like to discuss those. I became aware
of them late last week and I would like to discuss this in more
detail with Parkview Hospital, with the intermediary and others
to clear this up. I'm not a technical expert in this area, but
I think there is confusion about routine screening--say like a
cholesterol screening pre-operatively versus pre-op testing
that may be entirely appropriate for a particular surgery I
believe that that was the intent of the clarification that our
intermediary issued. And I want to be sure that there's a good
understanding about pre-operative testing that it's appropriate
to assure safe and effective treatment for the beneficiary.
That is, indeed, covered. But, as you know, routine screenings
are specifically excluded by law from Medicare coverage, except
certain preventive tests have recently been added for coverage.
Mr. Souder. Well, first let me say that I appreciate your
commitment to work with Parkview directly in clarifying, and
I'm looking forward to that and hearing the resolution. I do
want to pursue this a little bit further, because just a few
minutes ago in response to Mr. Mica, you said that certain
tests could be justified if they were directly related. And I
have a followup that related to something Dr. Schroeder said
earlier.
But one of the concerns that was also expressed this
morning and that I've had to deal with as a Congressman is a
fact that ``could justify'' means if, in fact, they submitted
them under what we heard earlier was a ``Oh. Well, this should
go as part of the operation and not as a diagnostic test'' and
could justify means that if it's put in under diagnostic but
found to be inappropriate, then they get cited for fraud.
And Parkview and other hospitals in this region have had
that very thing happen, because, in fact, in your testimony--
and this is something we've tried to address--you talk about
your anti-fraud efforts, and we certainly have put a lot of
pressure on it to try to address fraud, and we realize our
efforts to reduce fraud, wastes and abuse have brought some of
this on. But I think it would be fair to say that while you
have discovered fraud, much of what usually gets mulched down--
what we found is fraud, waste, abuse and lots of confusion. And
that, in fact, the danger here is that it could be justified.
If you were a hospital administrator, wouldn't you be erring on
the side of not submitting rather than being cited for fraud
and having a whole legal process develop with that? And have we
not put the burden of proof, in fact, where it leads to denial
of services as opposed to being responsive to the patient?
Ms. Collins. Let me respond to that by saying that I think
that if I were a hospital administrator and coming from my
perspective as an administrator of the program benefit, that
the needs and the concerns of the beneficiary are always first,
and, certainly, you want to operate within the parameters of
the law. But providing good quality care to that patient is the
priority.
Mr. Souder. It's the priority, but you go broke. And we've
had a number of hospitals in this region financially not be
able to make it, look at consolidations, and, in fact, Parkview
and Lutheran have absorbed the administration of those
hospitals, because a lot of the smaller hospitals have, in
fact, tried to meet the medical needs of their people and
can't. And, now, what we have are our remaining large hospital
systems in this district coming to me and saying, ``We can't,
long-term, meet this unless we can figure this out--there's
only so much cost shifting we can do.''
Now, Dr. Schroeder raised another point, and that was is
that she said, as I understood it--and correct me if I'm
wrong--that some tests may not be necessary? As I understood
Ms. Collins' testimony, that if there was a direct reason
related to this test to have the pre-screening diagnostic
tests, it would or could be justified. Doesn't necessarily mean
it would, but it possibly could be justified. And, most likely,
if it were directly related, it would be a medical necessity.
But, as I understood you to say in your testimony, there
are some things with the heart that people at a certain age,
particularly if they've had any pattern of heart problems, that
you would do that test even if you normally wouldn't do it as a
diagnostic test or have any indication; is that correct?
Dr. Schroeder. That's exactly it. That, pre-operatively,
there may be situations where you want the results of a test
even though they have no signs or symptoms. For an outpatient
surgery, you want to know that that's OK before you do the
surgery. That's the prudent thing to do.
Mr. Souder. And, Ms. Collins, are you saying that, either
because of something that Congress has done or that HCFA has
interpreted or a carrier has interpreted, that a test on
somebody of an age who is at risk of a heart problem wouldn't
be allowed testing?
Ms. Collins. There is no national policy saying that EKGs
are or are not required pre-operatively across the board for
any patient 65 years or older. The local fiscal intermediary
here in Indiana, Administar Federal, has issued local Medical
Review Policies related to the coverage of EKGs pre-
operatively, and that policy was developed after a full review
and comment here in the State, but, obviously, there is still
concern regarding that.
And I would like to followup on that and see if we can have
further discussions to try to reach a better consensus about
what is appropriate pre-operatively.
Mr. Souder. So what I understand is that--I'm not sure I
fully understood this before is that when we heard several
times today that other insurers have to clearly say what is
covered, and Medicare does not as much, although certainly
there's a large attempt, but are you telling me that a decision
like a question I just asked will depend by State?
Ms. Collins. Where there is no national policy regarding
certain medical review decisions on determination of medical
necessity, yes, the local intermediary, based on a local
practice by physicians and providers in that State can make
local policy.
Mr. Souder. So in Cameron Hospital in Angola where 40
percent of the people coming in are from other States and
they're in the corner of northeast Indiana, or Parkview which
gets a lot of Ohio traffic in through here, or even Lutheran
and their system that gets, Mr. Miller estimated, 15 percent--
how do they function?
Ms. Collins. The local Medical Review Policy applies within
the State where the service is provided. If the intermediary in
Ohio has a different policy in this area, it would not apply
here in Indiana.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Tobalski, could you explain a little bit--I
alluded to a few things there. Could you explain a little bit
how what you've heard now from Ms. Collins and some
clarification and willingness to work through it and how you
came to your decision and what might have precipitated some of
that?
Mr. Tobalski. Sure. We received the bulletins that you
referred to earlier from Medicare, from HCFA and their fiscal
intermediary that indicated that pre-operative testing would be
considered a routine screening unless appropriate signs and
symptoms were documented in the medical record. We asked for a
clarification of that, and the clarification we were given is
that a patient, for instance, with heart disease and/or
diabetes would be a patient that a surgeon typically would have
a concern over before operating, before putting them under
general anesthesia.
And, of course, I'm reciting this from conversations that
I've had with clinical people, and I, myself, am not a care
provider. But that those people would have to have symptoms
present for us to be able to do pre-surgical testing for that
to be covered. Minus symptoms, the tests would not be covered.
Yet I think most surgeons would tell you that pre-surgical
screening is very important for patients with chronic
conditions and/or other diseases whether or not symptoms are
present at a given time in a person's medical history.
We felt there really was only one thing to do with that new
interpretation. That was to change the way we were
communicating policies and to proactively educate Medicare
recipients on a very complicated topic. These are difficult
enough topics for health care providers to sift through let
alone Medicare recipients and/or seniors. And, so, we
proactively sent out information to a large group of seniors in
advance to try to get them more familiar with the new
interpretation, because we felt they had a right to know.
Mr. Souder. Dr. Schroeder, do you want to add anything at
this point?
Dr. Schroeder. Well, again, I think that the issue is best
clarified, perhaps, by an example, and since I'm an
ophthalmologist, most of my surgeries don't involve a huge
amount of blood loss, but let's say a dacryocystorhinotomy,
which is a surgery to open up a canal into the nose when the
tears don't drain. And, usually, there's not a lot of blood
loss, but there certainly can be. It's an outpatient procedure,
and especially if you were going to do it on someone who's 70,
you'd want to know in advance if they were anemic. They may not
be dizzy; they may not be pale; they may not have any symptoms
or signs of anemia. And if you'd link the diagnosis of a nasal
lacrimal duct obstruction, or tears that don't drain, with
obtaining a CBC, then it would be kicked out as being not
medically necessary.
But my point is that no prudent surgeon would do some
surgeries without--now, you people might argue about what is or
isn't medically necessary. Maybe someone would say, ``I'm so
good, I never have blood loss. I don't need to check the CBC.''
But you see the point is that it's not linked as medically
necessary by the diagnosis, and, yet, it's certainly not a
screening test in the sense of screening massively for anemia,
and that, I think, is the problem.
Mr. Souder. I would appreciate it, Ms. Collins, if you can
look at the list that Dr. Schroeder gave, and if we can--I
mean, this type of stuff isn't going to go away. We're likely
to continue to have these kinds of discussions as long as
there's a Medicare program, but to the degree that we can
refine.
I also had a few other questions. One of the things also
that came up is that hospitals can no longer write off as a
loss outstanding bills. Could you explain that?
Ms. Collins. I took that as a note, and I just don't feel
prepared to answer that question. I'd be happy to followup with
a written response to that.
[The information referred to follows:]
As an incentive to hospitals to collect cost sharing and
not cost-shift onto private pay patients, Medicare shares bad
debts with hospitals. The Balanced Budget Act phased in a
reduction in the amount of bad debt shared by Medicare.
Currently, Medicare pays 55 percent of hospitals' bad debts
attributable to unpaid Medicare beneficiary deductibles and
coinsurance.
Mr. Souder. OK. We'll keep the record open, because we
heard it several times. Do you have an additional comment with
that, Mr. Tobalski?
Mr. Tobalski. No. The interpretation for us is very clear.
We cannot write off charges to Medicare patients, because it is
viewed as an inducement to get Medicare patients to come to our
institution or to our providers, and that is clearly illegal to
do.
Mr. Souder. Is that a relatively new regulation?
Mr. Tobalski. No. I think that's been in place. I think
that regulation's been in place for a while. I'm not an expert
on this as far as how long that has been in place, but it does
exist.
Mr. Souder. Could you explain a little bit, Ms. Collins,
why hospitals would be held responsible for determining the
medical necessity, and is it possible to clarify this more? If
other insurance companies can clarify their guidelines, why is
it, then, so difficult for Medicare to do this?
Ms. Collins. I don't know that it's more difficult for us
than other insurance companies, but I think we have an
obligation to try to make our rules and instructions more
clear, so providers can better understand what is and is not
covered. I don't have a new answer for that, other than our
efforts to provide better information, to have discussions
about this, to be sure that there's an understanding so that
there is consensus about these issues and to keep the conflicts
or legitimate differences of opinion to a minimum.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Tobalski, this stack of--well, first of
all, let me ask Ms. Collins. We heard several times about the
new regulations that just came out last week. Is HCFA going to
ask Congress to delay the implementation? I don't think it
seems reasonable that they're going to be able to get their
systems.
Ms. Collins. The information I have is that we will meet
the July 1st date for implementation of outpatient Prospective
Payment System. The initial implementation of this had been
delayed. There was a previous implementation date, but our
efforts to ensure our Y2K compliance delayed implementation.
The information I have is we are standing firm on this July 1st
date.
Mr. Souder. The July 1st implementation date--is that when
you're going to be ready or when you expect the hospitals to be
ready?
Ms. Collins. That is when billing will begin under the new
system.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Tobalski, how are you--how is Parkview and
your system going to try to prepare and figure out how not to,
A; get caught in fraud? B; make sure that patients know what
they're going to have to cover and what you're going to cover
by July 1st?
Mr. Tobalski. Well, we're going to work very, very hard.
Our two biggest concerns are that almost all health care
providers are going to have to find a software solution for
this and find vendors who can provide the software solution. We
have to implement that software solution, train staff, and,
basically, our biggest concern is we will not have a software
system in place that will produce a bill that the intermediary
will accept and then pay.
That's not going to change the health care that we provide
the patients, of course, but the amount of time that we have to
adapt is extremely short and we are extremely skeptical of how
ready we will be. If our only alternative is to be as ready as
we can be, then that's obviously what we're proceeding on.
We had staff reviewing these documents this weekend, since
they are now available. And that will be the very large task of
some of our finance and patient accounting staff over the next
2 months.
Mr. Souder. Ms. Collins, given the fact that Mr. Tobalski
raised for you the concern about HCFA's staff and the ability
to respond and to work with these things--and, undoubtedly, we
are under tremendous cost pressures, because we were told by
the Medicare Commission multiple times that it's going broke
initially by 2002, which is why everybody has been pushing so
hard on this to try to preserve and save Medicare, but one of
the things that's hard for me to understand with my business
background is why, when something like this was going, it
wouldn't be built into the lead time in a plan that there would
be software to help providers reach the ability to cope with
something like this, particularly if you're facing lawsuits
afterwards?
A natural business reaction would be to put up a protective
shield that in effect, tells people, ``We're not going to cover
you. We'll cover you if we can.'' Then if, indeed, they can't
write off the bad errors as a loss, we kind of caught them
every which direction.
Was there any discussion inside HCFA about making sure
there was software before you had a lead time?
Ms. Collins. I'm unaware of anything related to software
development related to this, so I can't answer your question
specifically.
Mr. Souder. OK. Well, we'll pursue these things at the
Washington level, too, I'm sure. Are there any other comments
or questions that anyone on the panel has?
Mr. Tobalski. I'd like to make one short comment.
Mr. Souder. Uh-huh.
Mr. Tobalski. Earlier, on the other panel, there was
mention of hospitals and corporate compliance programs. I
wanted to make sure that each of you understood that hospitals
and health care providers developing comprehensive corporate
compliance programs are a good thing. We should be doing that.
You should expect us to do that. The difference is, I've worked
in hospitals now for about 25 years--four different hospitals--
and I don't think I've ever really looked across the desk or
across the nurses' station at a nurse, at a physician, at an
accountant, at an administrator who had fraud in their eyes.
And corporate compliance programs really should be built on the
assumption that we're doing things proactively, we're doing
them right, we want to comply and with some level of
cooperation between Medicare, the government and providers in
developing these programs.
I think the current environment is not like that, like I
mentioned earlier. Providers are really viewed as people who
are abusing the system, and there just are way too many health
care providers and physicians and hospitals that are trying to
comply to the best of their ability, and the implication that
somehow we're trying to get something out of the system that
we're not entitled to is really insulting, to people who have
worked in the profession for a long time or for just a short
period of time.
So I do just want to again reinforce the commitment that
health care providers and that Parkview Hospital have toward
corporate compliance. It is important.
Mr. Souder. I do want to say, for the record, and in
defense of the administration that we've had some whoppers in
front of our committee. We had a firm out West with $1 billion
in long-term health care, and, yet, they were still in the
system because nobody else would provide some of that health
care, and they had taken advantage of that. I saw on 20/20 or
60 Minutes where they had this lab in Los Angeles.
But, to me, as a business person, part of what I don't
understand is why they had millions of dollars going through a
little office where they didn't see any patients and just one
walk-through and why there would be an assumption that a long-
serving hospital or a doctor who had been doing this for a
career would be in the category of the exceptional. Is what
you're trying to address there, that when you look for fraud,
you assume past precedents might lead to the word ``fraud''
here? Most of what we've been dealing with is confusion, and
that's really what's upsetting.
Also, I would like to thank Mr. Mica again. I know we're
running really tight on time, but I thank him for coming in,
for Sharon and Lisa for their work, for Elizabeth Rogers on my
staff and Mary Honegger with working on the hearing. State
Representative Gloria Goeglein has been here the whole time.
She's been a crusader for seniors' rights in the legislature
and making sure that all health care, including mental health,
is well-covered in our district, and I appreciate her very
much.
I'd also ask, for the record, that the charge that Mr.
Miller presented and the other statements that weren't in the
record in full be put into the record.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered. Also, Mr.
Tobalski, you had presented 1,300 pages. Would you identify
that again? What is it?
Mr. Tobalski. These are the regulations, explanations and
addendums for the Ambulatory Patient Classification.
Mr. Mica. And you're----
Mr. Tobalski. Payment Classification.
Mr. Mica. And you're providing them to the subcommittee?
Mr. Tobalski. Well, I bought them as a prop. If you would
like them.
Mr. Mica. Well, they're----
Mr. Tobalski. I had not brought them with the intent you
would take them back. And one of your staffers, I think, is
encouraging me to keep them.
Mr. Mica. OK.
Mr. Tobalski. And to not submit these into the record.
Mr. Mica. All right. Well, that is a request, but we will
refer to those in the record, and they are available, I'm sure,
as public record.
Mr. Souder. I'd also like to thank Ms. Collins for doing a
schedule shift to be here with us today. Because of the
tightness of the congressional schedule, we don't have the
option of the other days during the week. And I appreciate very
much your accompanying.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. As I announced at the beginning of the
hearing and with the consent of Mr. Souder and the minority, we
will leave the record open for a period of 2 weeks. Additional
questions may be submitted to all of the witnesses who appeared
before us today. We'd ask their compliance with providing that
information, material and responses in a prompt fashion to the
subcommittee.
Mr. Souder, anything further at this point? Again, I'd like
to thank Mr. Souder for requesting this hearing. We try, at
least under the period in which Mr. Souder and I've been in the
majority, to not conduct all of the congressional business in
Washington but to take it out into the country and hear from
the people who are directly affected by our Federal programs.
We do have a responsibility to make certain that taxpayer
dollars are properly expended and also programs that are
authorized and funded by Congress operate efficiently and with
the full intent of Congress. So this hearing will go a long way
toward trying to make a very important program work and
function as intended by Congress.
There being no further business come before the Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources Subcommittee of the
House of Representatives, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0277.045