Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

CMS to Once Again Reprocess Outpatient Clinic Claims

Client Alert

Overview:

The Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) Rule was passed in November 2018, which was intended to prevent the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) from paying more for services rendered in outpatient settings than what they paid for the same services rendered in physician offices that are simply owned by hospitals or health systems.[1]

The Rule set payment rates for these services at “excepted” off-campus provider-based departments (those facilities that were excepted from reimbursement reductions under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015) at the same rate for non-excepted provider-based departments (PBDs) pursuant to the Physician Fee Schedule (PFS). However, in 2019, the reimbursement rate for services at these excepted facilities was set at 70%, and in 2020, just 40%.[2]  

The American Hospital Association (AHA) then sued CMS in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2019 over the reimbursement reductions, and the Court ruled in favor of the AHA. As a result of the decision, CMS reprocessed the 2019 claims at the full 100% rate.[3]

Reprocessing Claims:

In 2020, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. Pursuant to the reversal, starting November 1, 2021, CMS will once again begin reprocessing claims at excepted PBDs for outpatient claims to ensure that the services are reimbursed at the 70% rate for services rendered between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2019.[4]

Conclusion:

As a result, excepted PBD providers will now have to refund the difference in coinsurance either to patients or insurers who paid an increased amount in cost-sharing when reimbursement was set at 100%, to reflect the reduction.[5]

CMS notes that providers do not need to take any other action as they reprocess claims.[6]  But providers should be aware of this reprocessing.

If you have any questions about how reprocessing will work or questions regarding issuing refunds, please contact Healthcare and Hospital Law Member Amanda Waesch at alwaesch@bmdllc.com. Special thanks to Rachel Stermer for her assistance in this client alert.

[1] CMS, Outpatient Clinic Visit Services at Excepted Off-Campus Provider-Based Departments: Payment Update, (Sept. 9, 2021) https://www.cms.gov/outreach-and-educationoutreachffsprovpartprogprovider-partnership-email-archive/2021-09-09-mlnc#_Toc82072549.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.


Parental Consent May Soon Be Required for Minor Mental Health Services in Ohio

HB 172 proposes repealing a provision in Ohio law that allows minors age 14 and older to consent to limited outpatient mental health services without parental involvement. The bill would require parental consent for all such care and remove related language from other sections of the Ohio Revised Code.

Community Behavioral Health Providers - Supervisor Pricing Changes Begin July 1 [Corrected Date]

Effective June 16, community behavioral health providers wishing to receive reimbursement at the supervisor rate must add the HP or HT Modifier to fee-for-service (FFS) claims. Find out about the new guidelines.

CMS Rescinds EMTALA Guidance for Emergency Abortions

On June 3, 2025, CMS withdrew its 2022 guidance on emergency abortion care under EMTALA, eliminating federal protection for providers in states with abortion restrictions. This policy change could significantly impact how hospitals handle emergency care involving pregnancy complications.

Supreme Court Eliminates Higher Burden for Majority-Group Plaintiffs in Title VII Claims

In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that all Title VII plaintiffs, whether from majority or minority groups, must meet the same evidentiary standard. The decision eliminates the “background circumstances rule” and reinforces equal treatment in workplace discrimination claims.

Understanding Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews: A Critical Guide for Immigrants Facing Removal

In his latest article, Immigration Attorney and former Immigration Judge Rob Ratliff offers a clear breakdown of Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews—key procedures for noncitizens seeking protection from persecution or torture. Citing Judge Brian Murphy’s recent ruling on unlawful deportations to South Sudan, Ratliff connects these critical legal standards to current judicial developments. Read the full article at www.removal-defense.com.