Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Provider Relief Funds – Continued Confusion Regarding Reporting Requirements and Lost Revenues

Client Alert
January 15, 2021

WARNING: Take a deep breath before you read this! And then pat yourself on the back for your continued resilience and ability to adapt and pivot during this unprecedented time! 2021 is seeming to prove to be a continuation of 2020 with one constant – change and uncertainty. In Fall 2020, HHS issued multiple rounds of guidance and FAQs regarding the reporting requirements for the Provider Relief Funds, the most recently published notice being November 2, 2020 and December 11, 2020. Specifically, the reporting portal for the use of the funds in 2020 was scheduled to open on January 15, 2021. Although there was much speculation as to whether this would occur. And, as of the date of this article, the portal was not opened.

The aggregate HHS guidance regarding the reporting requirements basically required providers to report (1) expenses attributable to COVID, and (2) lost revenues attributable to COVID. While those in the healthcare industry would generally agree that expenses attributable to COVID have been predictably defined by HHS, controversy continues to surround the definition of lost revenues attributable to COVID. Under the most recent guidance that we have available, lost revenues is defined as the year-over-year net change in patient care revenues from 2019 to 2020 plus additional assistance received in 2020 (including all PPP, EIDL, and other federal, state, and local assistance). Of course, this changed from guidance issues in early Fall 2020 and June 2020. 

On December 27, 2020, the Federal Appropriations Act was signed into law. While this is largely hailed as a COVID-19 relief package that served as a follow up to the Paycheck Protection Program, it did contain some changes to the Provider Relief Funds and the calculation of lost revenues. 

Providers received Phase 1 funds through automatic payments electronically deposited in their accounts based on 2019 Medicare fee-for-service payments. During Phase 1, providers had the option to apply for additional funds to supplement lost revenue, up to 2% of 2019 total collections by submitting additional practice information – including lost revenues. Providers could use a reasonable accounting methodology to calculate lost revenues where such methodologies included the difference between the provider’s 2020 budget and actual 2020 revenues or comparison of current revenues to previous revenues for the same time period. 

The definition of lost revenues was further revised in September 2020, steering away from a “reasonable accounting methodology” and moving towards a year-over-year analysis. And then finally settling on the definition contained in the November 2, 2020 guidance with a year-over-year analysis of revenues from patient care, but adding back in other assistance received in 2020. The guidance did not include any allowances for material changes in the provider’s business such as the addition or loss of providers, locations, or service lines. 

Through the new legislation, Congress appears to be sending a message back to HHS to revise the definition of lost revenues to allow providers to use a “reasonable accounting methodology” instead of a “one-size fits all” calculation. It will also be interesting to see whether HHS will exclude the additional assistance received in 2020 from the calculation.

HHS did update the FAQs on January 12, 2021 after the Federal Appropriations Act was passed, but these updates did not address the lost revenue calculations. So we anticipate that the portal will not open as anticipated and that additional changes will be forthcoming.  As a next step, providers should continue to be on the lookout for additional updates regarding the Provider Relief Funds. Providers should also continue to gather information related to expenses, revenues, and additional assistance received in 2020 in anticipation of reporting requirements. We can definitely count on one thing – CHANGE!   

If you have any questions, please contact BMD Healthcare and Hospital Law Member Amanda Waesch at alwaesch@bmdllc.com or 330-253-9185.

Provider Relief FundHealthcare LawBMD Healthcare & Hospital Law GroupAmanda L. WaeschCOVID-19 Relief
Client Alert

Supreme Court Issues Major False Claims Act Decision

June 5, 2023Client Alert

Telehealth Flexibility Updates: HIPAA, DEA, and CMS

May 12, 2023The Covid-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) officially ended on May 11, 2023. But what does that mean for telehealth, a field that expanded exponentially during the PHE? Fortunately, many of the flexibilities will remain intact, at least temporarily. This client alert presents a brief overview of the timelines that providers need to follow, but for a more comprehensive review of telehealth flexibilities and when they will endClient Alert, Multimedia

WEBINAR SERIES RECAP | Ending the Public Health Emergency + Post-Pandemic Check-Up

May 10, 2023Some may take the position that the rest of the country already returned to a new “normal” following the COVID-19 pandemic.  But healthcare providers continue to implement COVID protocols and navigate the ever-changing healthcare regulations at both the federal and state levels.  It is important for healthcare providers to take time for a “Healthcare Check-Up” with the start of 2023 and the ending of the Public Health Emergency (“PHE”).Client Alert

Sharp Rise in False Claims Act Cases - Navigating the FCA Waters

May 5, 2023Recently, on April 18, 2023, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the FCA’s scienter, or mental state, requirement. To prove violation of the FCA, the statute requires that a defendant “knowingly” file false claims for payment. The term “knowingly” is defined within the statute to mean a person that acts with actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, or reckless disregard. Circuit courts are split on how to interpret and apply the knowledge element of the FCA, and based on the Supreme Court’s decision, there will be a large impact on healthcare defendants and their businesses as well as anyone who contracts with, or receives money from, a federal program. A broader interpretation of the FCA would unnecessarily target and stifle healthcare, and other businesses, for simple errors in daily operations. This goes against the intended application of the FCA, which was to prevent fraudulent activity.Client Alert

Areas of Opportunity in Columbus: Highlights from the Columbus Opportunity Summit

May 5, 2023On April 27, 2023 Columbus Business First held its annual Columbus Opportunity Summit, bringing together business and economic development leaders to provide an update on how Central Ohio is preparing for expected growth in the coming years, an issue heightened by the arrival of Intel at its 1,000 acre site in Licking County, just outside of Columbus. The site will be home to two new chip factories with room to grow to a total of eight factories and is a $20 Billion investment.
Older posts