Obtaining Reimbursement from Medicaid
This article disucsses Medicaid. Specifically, the before, during and after process of applying for a reimbursement.
November 12, 2024 at 04:10 PM
7 minute read
Medicaid Reimbursement
Individuals commonly incur medical expenses before their Medicaid application is filed. They also incur costs after it is filed and before services begin. They also may incur expenses if Medicaid delays or incorrectly denied the application Many elder law practitioners are so focused on getting their client’s Medicaid application approved that they may lose sight of the fact that reimbursement for those expenses is possible. Payment for paid medical expenses is authorized for three distinct periods; pre-application, post-application and agency delay or error. Each time period has its own distinct requirements. In this article, we discuss the relevant law which applies to Medicaid reimbursement in the different periods and practical tips for the successful completion of such an application,.
PRE-APPLICATION
Reimbursement may be requested for medical care, services and supplies paid for in the three month period before the month of the Medicaid application. The pre-application period starts on the first day of the third month prior to the month of application. The applicant must have met the Medicaid eligibility standards during the month in which reimbursement is sought.
Medicaid has agreements with certain healthcare entities called “Medicaid enrolled providers” and may have negotiated favorable fees with them. Non-Medicaid enrolled providers may charge higher fees. In the past, Medicaid rejected reimbursement requests for services from non-Medicaid enrolled providers. Carroll v. DeBuono, 998 F. Supp. 190 (N.D.N.Y. 1998), a federal district court case, and Seittelman v. Sabol, 91 N.Y.2d 618 (1998), a New York State Court of Appeals case, invalidated that requirement. Now, during the pre-application period, reimbursement can be approved for services provided by non-Medicaid enrolled providers.
Clients should not expect to be reimbursed dollar for dollar. Reimbursement, even for services by non-Medicaid enrolled providers, will be limited to the amount that Medicaid would have paid and not the out-of-pocket amount that the applicant actually paid. In addition, reimbursement is reduced by any surplus monthly budgeted by Medicaid.
POST-APPLICATION
This period begins on the date of the Medicaid application and ends on the date of receipt of the Medicaid card. Reimbursement in this post-application period is limited to Medicaid enrolled providers. Medicaid applicants must be notified in writing of this restriction. Applicants must also be informed that any approved reimbursement is limited to the Medicaid rate. The following language in the Medicaid application itself contains the required notifications:
“I understand that reimbursement of medically necessary covered medical care, services and supplies will only be available if obtained from Medicaid enrolled providers and that reimbursement is limited to no more than the Medicaid rate or fee in effect at the time of service, even if I paid more.”
DELAY OR ERROR ON THE PART OF THE AGENCY
In the case of error or delay on the part of the Medicaid agency, reimbursement is not restricted to Medicaid enrolled providers and is not restricted to the Medicaid rate. The agency is required to determine eligibility within a specific time frame. Unless the applicant is a minor, pregnant, or seeking Medicaid benefits due to disability, the application must be processed within 45 days. Delays in processing are common. Bills incurred after the 45th day from the date of application may be reimbursable.
If the agency denies the application and then reverses its incorrect determination or is reversed at fair hearing or court order, the medical costs incurred may be reimbursable. Reimbursement here is not restricted to the Medicaid rate. As a general rule, out of pocket expenditures that do not exceed 110 percent of the Medicaid rate are always reasonable and may be fully reimbursed. Out-of-pocket expenditures that exceed 110 percent of the Medicaid rate may also be reasonable under particular circumstances and may be fully reimbursed.
PRACTICAL STEPS IN FILING FOR REIMBURSEMENT
The request for pre-application reimbursement must be made at the time of the
initial application. That request is made by answering “Yes” to the following question on the Medicaid application “Does anyone applying have paid or unpaid medical or prescription bills for this month or the three months before this month?”
If the applicant dies before the application process is complete, Medicaid will
deny reimbursement on the ground that it cannot establish financial eligibility or how many hours of care were appropriate.
The most common type of medical expenses for which reimbursement can be requested are expenses for home attendants. An applicant who has been found financially eligible must undergo medical assessments to determine the number of hours that will be provided. The entire medical assessments process may take as long as three months, during which time the home care services would have to be paid for privately.
The key to a successful applicant is to provide Medicaid with adequate
documentation. Medicaid is only permitted to provide reimbursement to an amount equivalent to the level of services which are approved by the medical assessment.
For example, If the applicant was paying privately for twelve hour per day of home care services, but the assessment determines that the applicant is only entitled to receive six hours of home care services, then reimbursement will only be provided for six hours per day.
The application for reimbursement of home care expenses must include supporting documentation.
● A copy of the plan of care which was issued by the medical assessment which indicates the amount of services to be provided to the applicant as well as the specific tasks for which assistance is to be provided.
● A copy of the plan of care which was prepared by the licensed home care agency that the applicant paid privately. This plan of care must indicate the tasks provided to the applicant by home attendants as well as the number of hours of services that were provided to the applicant by this agency. If Medicaid sees that the licensed home care agency was providing coverage to the applicant for specific services or timeframes that were not included in the plan of care which was approved by the medical assessment, the reimbursement request will be denied.
● Detailed time records which indicate the specific dates and times in which the applicant was receiving home care services during the period of time for which reimbursement is being requested, as well as the names of the specific individuals who were providing these services during specified times each day should be included. The number of hours of services which the applicant received each day during that time period must match the number of hours that were approved by the medical assessment.
● Detailed records of all payments to the home care agency for services rendered on behalf of the applicant, which indicate the amounts paid, copies of either cancelled checks or credit card receipts, all invoices which were issued by the home care agency, the specific dates of services which correspond to each payment, and proof that the person who is requesting reimbursement was indeed the payor of these funds.
● It would be prudent to prepare a spreadsheet which links dates of services provided, names of home attendants for specific hours on each date, hourly rates of payment, invoices from the home care agency, payments to the home care agency, and sources of payment. Without proper documentation, the reimbursement request will be denied.
CONCLUSION
Complete legal advice to a Medicaid applicant must include a discussion of potential reimbursement issues. Clients should be advised that the family may be required to pay privately for home care services for a few months while awaiting financial and medical approval of home care services by the Medicaid Program. Accordingly, clients should be advised to save appropriate documentation during that time period (copies of invoices, cancelled checks, and plans of care) so that these documents can be readily available for a reimbursement application.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDecision of the Day: Attorney in Social Security Case Awarded Fees, But Must Pay Client Refund Under Equal Access to Justice Act
The Changing Landscape of NY Courts' Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Corporations
14 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'No Finer Work': New York City Council Confirms Next Corporation Counsel
- 2Here’s What Litigators Want For Christmas
- 3Reported Refusal to Officiate Gay Wedding Prompts Review by NY Judicial Misconduct Watchdog
- 4Frozen-Potato Producers Face Profiteering Allegations in Surge of Antitrust Class Actions
- 5CooperSurgical Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250