Non-Contracted Ambulance Services Can Be "Emergency Services" Subject to State Medicaid Rate Cap Payment by Medicaid MCOs
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.07.08
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") has issued an opinion letter clarifying the definition of "provider of emergency services" as it relates to non-contracted ambulance service providers. Section 1932(b)(2)(D) of the Social Security Act, which imposes limits on Medicaid managed care organization ("MCO") payments for emergency services provided by non-contracted providers, requires that non-contracted providers of emergency services "accept as payment in full no more than the amounts . . . that it could collect if the beneficiary received medical assistance under this title." CMS Opinion Letter 9-25-08 to Robert Roth, Crowell & Moring LLP.
According to the CMS opinion letter, while ambulance transportation would not always be an emergency service, it is an emergency service when it is furnished by a qualified provider and is "needed to evaluate or stabilize an emergency medical condition." CMS offered the example of when "a provider responds to an accident, determines that an emergency condition exists, and transports the patient to the emergency department." To the contrary, when a patient is and remains stable, an ambulance transport will not be deemed an "emergency" service.
CMS concluded the term "provider of emergency services" does not address ambulance services categorically, so it elected to read the language in favor of the inclusion of emergency ambulance services. Furthermore, as a policy matter, CMS indicated it has always sought to ensure that Medicaid recipients have appropriate access to medical care. Therefore, CMS found it would be inconsistent with that policy to exclude emergency ambulance services from the definition of "provider of emergency services."
Under the CMS guidance, for emergency ambulance services provided by a non-contracted provider, the ambulance provider is required to accept payment at the rate that would apply under the state Medicaid program, outside the MCO context.
Insights
Client Alert | 8 min read | 06.30.25
AI Companies Prevail in Path-Breaking Decisions on Fair Use
Last week, artificial intelligence companies won two significant copyright infringement lawsuits brought by copyright holders, marking an important milestone in the development of the law around AI. These decisions – Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta (decided on June 23 and 25, 2025, respectively), along with a February 2025 decision in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence – suggest that AI companies have plausible defenses to the intellectual property claims that have dogged them since generative AI technologies became widely available several years ago. Whether AI companies can, in all cases, successfully assert that their use of copyrighted content is “fair” will depend on their circumstances and further development of the law by the courts and Congress.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.30.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.26.25
FDA Targets Gene Editing Clinical Trials in China and other “Hostile Countries”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.26.25