Predictive Modeling: The Latest Advances in Sophisticated Data Mining Techniques are Enabling ZPICs and Law Enforcement to Identify Fraud Sooner and Prevent it from Continuing

(April 15, 2011):  Over the last decade, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and its contractors (Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPICs), Program Safeguard Contractors (PSCs) and Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs)),  have steadily assembled an extensive database of the coding and billing practices of Medicare providers around the country.  Analyzing this data, contractors have been able to identify the profile of a ”typical” provider for each specialty.  With this information, Medicare contractors are better able to identify changes in the coding and / or billing habits of a particular provider.   Providers whose billing practices are significantly different from those of their peers may also be easily identified.  The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the government’s current use of  “data mining”  and “predictive modeling”  techniques.

I.         Introduction:

            CMS’ computerized database of claims and services billed to the Medicare program covers a comprehensive record of the bills submitted by health care providers for payment.  Over the years, Medicare contractors and law enforcement have steadily refined their ability to analyze this enormous amount of quantitative data.  In addition to assisting with the government’s efforts to estimate future growth in the size of the Medicare program, this database has enabled  Medicare contractors and law enforcement to employ highly sophisticated data mining techniques, thereby identifying (1) health care providers whose current coding and billing actions appear to have deviated from their prior practices, and (2)  Medicare providers whose coding and / or billing actions are significantly different from those of their peers.  Typical factors considered when using data mining techniques for targeting purposes have included, but are not limited to:

• A Medicare provider’s specific area of practice.
• A Medicare provider’s practice location.
• The types and frequency of health care services or supplies billed to Medicare.
• The relative size of a provider’s practice, clinic or health care related organization (based on the number of Medicare billing providers employed).  

            Through an examination of these factors or data elements, Medicare contractors and law enforcement have been able to identify health care providers whose coding and / or billing practices make them “outliers” when their actions are compared to similarly-situated Medicare providers.  Once a health care provider has been identified as an “outlier,” further action may be taken. 

       Typical “data mining” actions taken by ZPICs, PSCs,, RACs and / or law enforcement have historically included:

• An unannounced site visit by the ZPIC or PSC to the Medicare provider’s practice location.
• Sending a request for supporting documentation related to a limited number of claims (often less than 10, this type of review is generally referred to as a “Probe Audit”).
• Sending a request for supporting documentation related to 30 claims or more (these claims are often then used by the ZPIC or PSC as a “sample” in order to calculate an alleged overpayment based on extrapolated damages).    
• Sending a demand letter for an alleged overpayment based on an “automated” review of the data conducted by a RAC or ZPIC.
• Using “data mining” to identify outlier’s whose billing practices warrant to initiation of an investigation by law enforcement. 

II.         The Use of “Data Mining” to Identify Post-Payment Improper Practices:

            While Medicare contractors such as RACs, PSCs and ZPICs long utilized post-payment data mining to identify providers who appear (based on their assessment of the data) to have likely engaged in improper billing activities, the regular use of data mining by the Department of Justice to identify criminal targets is a fairly recent practice.  As Lanny A. Breuer, Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) Criminal Division indicated last August:

“In 2007, the Criminal Division of the Justice Department refocused our approach to investigating and prosecuting health care fraud cases. Our investigative approach is now data driven: put simply, our analysts and agents review Medicare billing data from across the country; identify patterns of unusual billing conduct; and then deploy our “Strike Force” teams of investigators and prosecutors to those hotspots to investigate, make arrests, and prosecute. And as criminals become more creative and sophisticated, we intend to use our most aggressive investigative techniques to be right at their heels.” (emphasis added).

            As law enforcement has readily acknowledged, post-payment billing data is being effectively utilized to “identify patterns of unusual billing conduct.”   Using data mining as a targeting tool, the government is able to quickly focus its investigative and audit resources on specific providers whose coding / billing practices fall outside the scope of what would normally be expected.    

III.        The Use of Predictive Modeling to Minimize Wrongdoing:

            While identifying improper billing practices after-the-fact has proven enormously helpful, law enforcement has also taken  steps to identify problem providers much sooner in the process, thereby minimizing the amount of improper billing that may be submitted to Medicare for payment.  As HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius stated on March 15, 2011, during the joint HHS / DOJ “Detroit Fraud Prevention Summit,” HHS is moving away from the “old pay and chase model.”  According to Secretary Sebelius:

“. . . Instead of the old ‘pay and chase’ model, we’re getting proactive.

Late last year we issued a solicitation for state-of-the-art analytic tools to help predict and identify fraudulent claims as soon as they are submitted, so we can stop payment before it goes out the door.

These are the same type of predictive modeling tools that banks and insurance companies use to identify potential fraud before it occurs. They are how your credit card company can raise the alarm if they see a dozen flat-screen televisions charged to your card in one day. . ..” (emphasis added).

            While post-payment claims data analyses will likely play a role in identifying overpayments, the government is serious about stopping health care fraud as soon possible in the process.  While the government cannot “predict” wrongdoing before it happens, based on a complex analysis of various factors, it can effectively identify wrongdoers so quickly that the amount of improper claims paid by the government can be dramatically reduced. 

IV:       Provider Concerns:  

            Many providers are concerned that the government’s heavy reliance on predictive measures such as data mining to identify targets may subject a provider to an unjustified audit or investigation.  Moreover, there is a concern that data mining might create an unwarranted presumption that a Medicare provider has engaged in improper billing practices.  Unfortunately, even if ultimately shown to be incorrect, a provider can spend an enormous amount of money defending itself in connection with a post-payment claims audit.  Providers placed on pre-payment review as a result of data mining can be especially hard-hit.  It is not at all unusaul for providers to remain on pre-payment review for six to twelve months (or even longer).  During this time period, cash-flow is interrupted and many providers find it almost impossible to remain in business.

V.        How to Avoid Being a Target: 

            In today’s environment of sophisticated data mining, it is essential that Medicare providers have a clear picture of how their coding and billing practices compare to those of their peers.  To be clear, both Medicare contractors and law enforcement recognize that a provider’s practices may differ in one aspect or another from those of their peers.  Moreover, those differences can result in billing practices which might make a provider appear to be an “outlier.”   There are a number of companies who publish benchmarking charts which make it relatively easy for a physician or other provider to compare their billing practices to that of their peers. 

            To be clear, just because a provider’s coding and billing practices differ from those of their peers (in the same specialty area), does not necessarily mean that a provider’s practices are improper. In recent years, we have seen providers who were targeted by a PSC or ZPIC precisely because their utilization rates of certain codes exceeded those of their peers.   In at least one case, we found that a provider was recognized as an “expert” by his peers and often received highly-complex referrals by other Medicare providers. As a result, the number of highly complex Evaluation and Management (E/M) reviews conducted exceeded those of similarly-situated providers.  Having said that, if a provider were to find that its billing practices did not match of its peers, it could conceivably find that its understanding of the coding requirements was incorrect and that remedial training was immediately needed.

         In either case, the bottom line is clear – all providers have an obligation to try and ensure that services billed to Medicare meet applicable statutory and regulatory requirements governing coverage and medical necessity.  If your organization is subjected to an audit, it is essential that you determine whether your billing practices fully comply with the rules.  If so, you must be prepared to explain to Medicare contractors or law enforcement why the anomalies identified through data mining or predictive modeling are not evidence of fraud or overpayment.  Providers facing this situation should work with experienced legal counsel to ensure that the arguments to be presented fully address the government’s concerns.  Failure to do so may result in an expansion of the government’s audit.

Liles Parker attorneys and staff have extensive experience representing health care providers in connection with Medicare contractor audits and / or investigations.  Should you find that your organization is facing a ZPIC, PSC or RAC audit, please give us a call for a complimentary consultation regarding your case.  You may contact us at: 1 (800) 475-1906.         

 

Top Ten Health Care Compliance Risks for 2011.

(December 31, 2010):  In case you missed it, Congress, President Obama and the healthcare regulators had a banner year with respect to regulatory activism in 2010.  Over the next several weeks we will be releasing a series of articles on our website addressing these dramatic changes and the compliance risks they present for your practice, clinic or health care business in 2011:

Compliance Risk Number 1:  Increased “HEAT” Activity and Enforcement:  Perhaps the greatest risk to consider in 2011 is the increase in targeted health care fraud enforcement efforts by the government’s Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT).  These teams are comprised of top level law enforcement and professional staff from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and their various operating divisions.  HEAT team initiatives have been extraordinarily successful in coordinating multi-agency efforts to both prevent health care fraud and enforce current anti-fraud initiatives.

As DOJ noted in September 2010, over the previous Fiscal Year, DOJ (including its 94 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices), HHS’ Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG), and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), jointly accomplished the following:

• Filed charges against more than 800 defendants.
• Obtained 583 criminal convictions.
• Opened 886 new civil health care fraud matters.
• Obtained 337 civil administrative actions against parties committing health care fraud.
• Through these efforts, more than $2.5 billion was recovered as a result of the criminal, civil and administrative actions handled by these joint agencies. 

President Obama’s FY 2011 budget request includes an additional $60.2 million in funding for the HEAT program. These funds will be used to establish additional teams and further fund existing investigations. Now, more than ever, it is imperative that you ensure that your Compliance Plan is both up-to-date and fully implemented.  Medicare providers are obligated to adhere to statutory and regulatory requirements and the government’s HEAT teams are aggressively investigating providers who fail to comply with the law.

Compliance Risk Number 2:  Zone Program Integrity Contractor (ZPIC) / Program SafeGuard Contractor (PSC) / Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) Audits of Medicare Claims:  As you already know, private contractor reviews of Medicare claims are big business – one ZPIC was awarded a five-year contract worth over $100 million.  In 2011, we  should expect to see:

• The number of ZPIC / PSC / RAC audits of Physician Practices, Home Health Agencies, Hospice Companies, DME Suppliers and Chiropractic Clinics will greatly increase in 2011.
• The reliance of both contractors and the government on data mining will continue to grow.  Providers targeted will likely be based on utilization rates, prescribing practices and billing / coding profiles.
• An increase in the number of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearings in where ZPIC representatives choose to attend the hearing as a “participant.”  In these hearings, the ZPIC representative will likely aggressively oppose any arguments in support of payment that you present.

Are you ready for an unannounced / unanticipated site visit or audit?  When is the last time that you have conducted an internal review of your billing / coding practices?  Are you aware of the hidden dangers when conducting these reviews?  In 2011, your Compliance Officer may very well be your most important non-clinical staff member.  Physicians and other providers should work with their Compliance Officer to better prepare for the unexpected audit or investigation.

Compliance Risk Number 3: Electronic Medical Records: Unfortunately, some early adopters of Electronic Medical Records (EMR) software are now having to respond to “cloning” and / or “carry over” concerns raised by ZPICs and Program SafeGuard Contractors (PSCs).  In a number of cases, these audits appear to be the result (at least in part) of inadequately designed software programs which generate progress notes and other types of medical records that do not adequately require the provider to document individualized observations.  Instead, the information gathered is often sparse and similar for each of the patients treated.  Take care before converting your practice or clinic to an EMR system.  Include your Compliance Officer in the selection and review process.

Compliance Risk Number 4:  Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI) Issues:  Under the Health Care Reform legislation passed last March. PQRI was changed from a voluntary “bonus” program to one in which penalties will be assessed if a provider does not properly participate.  As of 2015, the penalty will be 1.5% and will increase to 2.0% in 2016 and subsequent years. Additionally, questions about the use of PQRI date in “Program Integrity” targeting remain unanswered.  Once again, it is essential that your Compliance Officer provide guidance to your staff regarding this program and its potential impact.

Compliance Risk Number 5:  Medicaid Integrity Contractors (MICs)  and Medicaid Recovery Audit Contractors (MDRACs):  In recent months, we have seen a marked increase in the number of MIC inquiries and audits initiated in southern States.  Notably, the information and documentation requested has often been substantial.  Medicaid providers must now also contend with MDRACs.  As a result of health care reform, MDRACs are now mandatory in every State and are may initiate reviews and audits as soon as March 2011.   Compliance Officers should review their current risk areas and ensure that Medicaid coding and billing activities are actively monitored to better ensure statutory / regulatory adhereance.

Compliance Risk Number 6:  HIPAA / HITECH Privacy Violations:  Failure to comply with HIPAA can result in civil and / or criminal penalties. (42 USC § 1320d-5).

• Civil Penalties – A large retail drug store company was recently fined $2.25 million for failure to properly dispose of protected information.
• Criminal Penalties – Earlier this year, a physician in Los Angeles, CA, was sentenced to four months in prison after admitting he improperly accessed individual health information.

As of mid-2010, there had been 93 breaches affecting 500 or more individuals.  The total number of individuals whose information was disclosed as a result of these breaches was estimated at over 2.5 million.  Out of the 93 breaches, 87 involved breach of hard copy or electronic protected health information (about 1/4 involved paper records and 3/4 involved electronic records. The vast majority of the 93 breaches involved theft or loss of the records.  Many of these thefts could have been avoided with appropriate security.  The government is serious about privacy and your practice, and in 2011 you will likely see increased HIPAA / HITECH enforcement.  Your clinic or health care business must take appropriate steps to prevent improper disclosures of health information. 

Compliance Risk Number 7:  Increased Number of Qui Tams Based on Overpayments:  Section 6402 of the recent Health Care Reform legislation requires that all Medicare providers, (a) return and report any Medicare overpayment, and (b) explain, in writing, the reason for the overpayment.

This law creates a minefield for physicians and other Medicare providers.  First, providers have only 60 days to comply with the reporting and refund requirement from the date on which the overpayment was identified or, if applicable, the date any corresponding cost report is due, whichever is later.  Of course, the legislation does not actually explain what it means to “identify” an overpayment.

From a “risk” standpoint, this change is enormous.  Disgruntled employees try to file a Qui Tam         (“whistleblower”) lawsuit based on a provider’s failure to return one or more Medicare overpayments to the program in a timely fashion.  While the government may ultimately choose not to intervene in a False Claims Act case based on such allegations, a provider could spend a significant amount defending the case.  Providers should ensure that billing personnel understand the importance of returning any overpayments identified as quickly as possible.   

Compliance Risk Number 8:  Third-Party Payor Actions:  Third-party (non-Federal)  payors are participating in Health Care Fraud Working Group meetings with DOJ and other Federal agents.  Over the last year, we have seen an increase in the number of “copycat” audits initiated by third-party payor “Special Investigative Units” (SIUs).  Once the government has announced the results of a significant audit, the third-party payor considers the services at issue and reviews whether it may have also been wrongly billed for such services.  If so, their SIU opens a new investigation against the provider.

Compliance Risk Number 9:  Employee Screening:  With the expansion of the permissive exclusion authorities, more and more individuals will ultimately be excluded from Medicare.  As we have seen, HHS-OIG is actively reviewing whether Medicare providers have employed individuals who have been excluded.  In one recent case, HHS-OIG announced that it had assessed significant civil monetary penalties against a health care provider that employed seven individuals who the provider “knew or should have known” had been excluded from participation in Federal health care programs. These individuals were alleged to have furnished items and services for which the provider was paid by Federal health care programs.  All providers should periodically screen their staff against the HHS-OIG and GSA databases to ensure that their employees have not been excluded from participation in Federal Health Benefits Programs.

Compliance Risk Number 10:  Payment Suspension Actions:  Last, but not least, we expect the number of payment suspension actions to increase in 2011.  In late 2010, Medicare contractors recommended to CMS that this extraordinary step be taken against providers in connection with a wide variety of alleged infractions.  Reasons given for suspending a provider’s Medicare number included, but were not limited to: (1) the provider failed to properly notify Medicare of a change in location, (2) the provider allegedly engaged in improper billing practices, and (3) the provider failed to fully cooperate during a site visit.

As each of these compliance risks reflect, health care providers are expected to fully comply with a wide myriad of Medicare and Medicaid statutory and regulatory requirements.  Moreover, the failure to meet these obligations can subject a provider to penalties ranging from suspension from the program to criminal prosecution.  Providers must take compliance seriously if they hope to thrive in 2011.

Liles Parker attorneys provide health law guidance and advice to health care providers around the country.  Our attorneys have extensive experience working on compliance related matters and defending providers in connection with Medicare audits and investigations.  Should you have questions regarding these and other issues, give us a call for a free consultation.  We can be reached at 1 (800) 475-1906.

 

Employee Screening Practices are Under Scrutiny by HHS-OIG. Employers Found to be in Violation are Being Fined.

(December 11, 2010): Earlier this week, HHS-OIG announced that it had assessed significant civil monetary penalties against a health care provider that employed seven individuals who the provider “knew or should have known” had been excluded from participation in Federal health care programs. These individuals were alleged to have furnished items and services for which the provider was paid by Federal health care programs.

The provider paid $376,432 to resolve these allegations. As Lewis Morris, Chief Counsel to the Office of Inspector General stated:

“Providers self-disclosing such violations will ultimately pay lower settlement amounts. . . But in cases initiated by the government — such as this one — providers will, as a matter of course, be required to pay more to resolve the matter.”

As Mr. Morris further noted:

“This case illustrates yet again that OIG will pursue CMPs when providers have employed an excluded person for the furnishing of items or services paid for by Federal health care programs,”

Notably, this matter was referred to HHS-OIG for investigation by the State Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU).

Lessons to be Learned:

This case illustrates a number of important lessons for all health care providers who participate in Federal Health Benefits Program, regardless of size. These lessons include:

Screening employees is easy and quick: It takes very little effort for a provider to screen current and prospective employees against HHS-OIG list of excluded parties and GSA’ s list of parties who have been debarred from participation in Federal contracts. Notably, the failure to screen employees can be quite costly.

No mention of actual fraud or overpayment was mentioned in this case – Nevertheless, the employment of excluded individuals was found to be quite serious by HHS-OIG:   HHS-OIG won’t hesitate to pursue civil monetary penalties against a provider who employs excluded individuals, despite the fact that no mention is made of any wrongful billings. Regular screenings of your employees should be made to ensure that none of your employees have been excluded from participation.

The government is serious about self-disclosing problems: HHS-OIG’s Chief Counsel went out of his way to point out that provider’s who self-disclose will ultimately pay a lower amount of damages to the government. While we recognize the government’s preference in this regard, should you identify a problem, you should contact legal counsel before making a self-disclosure. HHS-OIG’s voluntary disclosure protocol has a number of requirements that should be fully assessed prior to deciding to make a disclosure under the program. To be clear, if you owe money to the government, you must pay it back. The issue to be resolved is how to go about returning any monies to which you are not entitled. Depending on the circumstances, a provider may be better off working with their Medicare Administrative Contractor to resolve a problem. In other cases, HHS-OIG’s protocol may be the best option. Every situation is different and should be carefully assessed before action is taken.

Federal and State law enforcement teams are coordinating their actions and findings: Notably, these violations were first identified by a State MFCU who then contacted HHS-OIG. Similarly, we are seeing State Medical Boards advising ZPICs of actions they are taking against licensed health care providers. In several cases, the State Medical Board found that the provider was either not providing adequate supervision over subordinate Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants. The ZPIC has then used this as a basis to argue that the claims did not qualify for Medicare coverage.

In summary, health care providers should continually be reviewing their compliance efforts to ensure that basic mistakes such as the ones in this case (failure to properly screen employees) do not occur.

Our attorneys represent health care providers around the country in connection with compliance issues.   Please feel free to contact us for a complimentary consultation.  We can be reached at: 1 (800) 475-1906.

Health Care Reform- The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) And Its Implications on Health Care Providers

(September 14, 2010): As one of the most controversial provisions in the recently enacted health care reform legislation, Congress created the IPAB – a board that is independent from Congress and the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) as a mechanism to control Medicare – and potentially all – health care expenditures. Specifically, beginning January 2015, for any year in which the Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“Chief Actuary”) projects that the increase in per capita Medicare expenditures will exceed a defined target level, the IPAB is to develop a detailed proposal to scale back Medicare expenditures for that year. With limited exceptions, unlike the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee, these “recommendations” become binding unless Congress affirmatively acts in an expedited fashion and with a super majority vote to prevent them from becoming law. Additionally, the IPAB is to make non-binding recommendations on controlling expenditures for non-Federal health care programs.

The IPAB provision was developed because the administration and certain members of Congress were concerned that Congress did not have the political will to impose fiscal discipline upon itself. The IPAB has the potential to be a significant player in controlling health care costs overall. However, because some believe that it usurps Congress’ authority, it is also extremely controversial. Complicating the process is the fact that certain provider classes, such as hospitals, are exempted from cost reductions in the IPAB process during the early years, thus placing greater pressure to reduce expenditures for other provider and payor classes. This provision, coupled with a number of incentives in the health reform legislation to change the manner in which providers deliver care, will place strong incentives for the health care community to develop new methods to constrain cost increases without adversely affecting care. These include such mechanisms as coordinating care through such vehicles as Accountable Care Organizations and Medical Homes, bundling of services, and enhanced methods of disease management for high cost patients, as well the use of electronic medical records and more frequent use of email between practitioners and their patients.

Health care entities seeking advice on strategies for adapting to the new health care reform legislation should contact Michael Cook at (202) 298-8750. Also, Mr. Cook has authored a more detailed article on the IPAB and its likely impact on health care entities that is scheduled to be published in October issue of the American Health Lawyers Association Journal on Health and Life Sciences Law. Once that article is published, this website will include an abstract and a link to the article. Additionally, Mr. Cook will be presenting at the Healthcare Reform: Dealing with Hurdles and Building up Success Conference, sponsored by GTCbio, on November 8 and 9, 2010, in Washington, DC.

Liles Parker attorneys represent health care providers in connection with a wide variety of health care projects.  Michael Cook has extensive experience as a health lawyer and is a nationally-recognized attorney.  For more information, please contact Mr. Cook.  He can be e-mailed at: mcook@lilesparker.com  Alternatively, call Mr. Cook for a complimentary consultation at: 1 (800) 475-1906.

The AHA Expresses its Concerns with Recent False Claims Act Actions

(September 11, 2010):  The American Hospital Association (AHA) has expressed its concern that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and its law enforcement partner, the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG) may be overreaching in its use of the False Claims Act. As set out in the AHA’s letter dated September 7, 2010:

  “The AHA is concerned that aggressive FCA investigations are being initiated upon the discovery of evidence of a mistake or overutilization, making FCA enforcement through negotiated “settlement” a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

 Citing a “kyphoplasty” initiative current being pursued by at least one U.S. Attorney’s Office, the AHA stated:

 “. . . notwithstanding the fact that kyphoplasty claims have long been subject to changing and ambiguous regulations and guidelines, the kyphoplasty initiative appears to observers to rely on data mining to establish a presumption that hospitals are liable for “knowing” violations of the civil FCA and subject to treble damages and penalties. Targets of the initiative have received letters disconcertingly similar to letters written prior to the issuance of the original “Holder Memo” in 1998 (Guidance on the Use of False Claims Act in Civil Health Care Matters).” (emphasis added).

 As the AHA noted, the threat of an FCA action, and its accompanying liability, forces hospitals to incur specialized legal counsel and outside forensic accountants in order to defend the hospital’s interests.  As a result, some hospitals elect to settle the allegations rather than litigate the issues.  In recent years, our law firm has noted a significant shift in the government’s reliance on data-mining in its development of administrative, civil and even criminal cases.  We share the AHA’s concerns in the regard.  The over-reliance on data mining in the targeting of defendants may lead to a presumption of guilt before any examination of the medical records and association documentation has occurred.  Notably, Robert W. Liles, a Managing Partner at Liles Parker was instrumental in the drafting and implementation of the “Holder Memo.”  A number of our attorneys have extensive experience working on False Claims Act cases.

A number of Liles Parker attorneys have extensive experience handling False Claims Act cases, including those brought under the Act’s Qui Tam provisions (commonly referred to as its “whistleblower”provisions).  Should you have questions regarding the False Claims Act, give us a call for a complimentary consultation.  We can be reached at: 1 (800) 475-1906.

HHS-OIG Issues Report on Improper Claims for Nonemergency Transportation Services Provided to Medicaid Beneficiaries in Texas

(September 6, 2010):  HHS-OIG recently issued its report examining nonemergency medical transportation costs reimbursed by Medicaid.  Pursuant to 42 CFR § 431.53, Texas and other States are required to ensure that Medicaid patients have transportation to medical facilities and providers to obtain covered Medicaid services.  In Texas, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission has contracted with the Texas Department of Transportation to administer this nonemergency medical transportation program. The Department of Transportation has subcontracted with various private transportation providers to provide these services.

 Upon audit, HHS-OIG found that one transportation provider had allegedly provided nonemergency transportation services for which the Texas Health and Human Services Commission had improperly claimed reimbursement by Medicaid.

 As set out in HHS-OIG’s report, Nonemergency Medical Transportation Costs in the State of Texas, 35 of the 100 sampled nonemergency transportation claims sampled were found by the auditors to be unallowable or partially unallowable.  Reasons for denial included:

•  Nonemergency transportation was allegedly provided by drivers who did not have a criminal background check or who had a prohibited criminal history on file with the subcontractor.
• The Medicaid beneficiary allegedly cancelled the transportation request in advance of the trip or was a “no-show” at the origination address.
• The Medicaid beneficiary allegedly did not receive a Medicaid-covered health care service on the transportation date.
• The Medicaid claims were paid at a premium rate applicable for transportation between two counties when the transportation was actually provided within the same county.

 In light of these findings, we recommend that providers review their practices to ensure that these and other specific risk areas regularly encountered in the provision of nonemergency transportation services are incorporated in their Compliance Plan and assessed as part of the provider’s recurring compliance review activities.  In this heightened enforcement environment it is essential that ambulance and nonemergency transportation providers continue to take steps to ensure that all applicable statutory and regulatory provisions are met.

Liles Parker attorneys have represented both ambulance and non-emergency transportation providers reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid.  Should your transportation company be audited, give us a call. For a free consultation call:  1 (800) 475-1906.

HHS-ONC Names EHR “Authorized Testing and Certification Bodies”

(September 1, 2010):  Earlier this week, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), an organization within the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has announced named two entities as “Authorized Testing and Certification Bodies.”  They include:

• The Certification Commission for Health Information Technology (CCHIT), Chicago, Illinois, and  Drummond Group Inc. (DGI), Austin, Texas.

These entities are the first technology review bodies that have been authorized to test and certify electronic health record (EHR) systems for compliance with the standards and certification criteria that were issued by HHS earlier this year

As HHS’ Press Release reflects:

Certification of EHRs is part of a broad initiative undertaken by Congress and President Obama under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, which was part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009.  HITECH created new incentive payment programs to help health providers as they transition from paper-based medical records to EHRs.  Incentive payments totaling as much as $27 billion may be made under the program.  Individual physicians and other eligible professionals can receive up to $44,000 through Medicare and almost $64,000 through Medicaid.  Hospitals can receive millions.

To qualify for the incentive payments, providers must not only adopt, but also demonstrate meaningful use of, certified EHR systems.  The law envisions that defined meaningful use requirements will help ensure that the patient and provider benefits of EHRs are realized.  Initial meaningful use criteria were defined in a final rule issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on July 28.”

With these appointments, EHR vendors will be able to have their programs certified as meeting criteria to support the “Meaningful Use” which are now required.

Should you have questions regarding these or other health law issues, you should contact your attorney or feel free to call one of the attorneys at Liles Parker.  For a free initial consultation, call: 1 (800) 475-1906.

 

 

Health Data Insights Begins Medical Necessity Reviews

(August 30, 2010): Introduction:

Health Data Insights (HDI), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) responsible for auditing health care providers in Region D, has announced it will immediately begin reviews on previously approved projects which involve the medical necessity of selected inpatient DRG payments.  A complete list of the medical necessity “issues” currently being examined by HDI can be found on its Website. 

 

Scope of Responsibility:

RACs, such as HDI, contract with the CMS to perform post-payment reviews of Medicare claims to find overpayments (and theoretically, underpayments in return for a percentage (from 9 percent to 12.5 percent) of the amounts recovered. Put simply, they “eat what they kill.” HDI was awarded responsibility for handling Region D audits.  Region D consists of 17 States and 3 U.S. territories (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Iowa, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, Guam, American Samoa and Northern Marianas).  HDI’s contingency fee contract award dollar amount is 9.49% according to CMS.  The 29 DRGs where HDI will be examining “medical necessity” requirements, include certain procedures related to:

• Nervous System Disorders
• Respiratory
• Cardiac Procedures
• Cardiovascular Diseases
• Cardiovascular, Other
• Gastrointestinal Disorders
• Musculoskeletal Disorders
• Endocine, Nutritional & Metabolism Disorders
• Kidney & Urinary Tract Disorders, and
• Blood & Immunological Disorders

Provider Concerns:

A continuing concern of health care providers is that the RAC determinations of medical necessity will be performed by personnel with little, if any, specific knowledge of the specific claims at issue. Given the RAC business model, providers remain worried that audits will not reflect a fair and reasonable application of applicable coverage requirements. This is especially worrisome in light of the fact that approximately 41 percent of overpayments in the demonstration project were due to medical necessity determinations.

Audit and Appeal Considerations:

As set out CMS’ June 2010 reported entitled “The Medicare Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) Program — Update to the Evaluation of the 3-Year Demonstration,” as of 03/09/10, the cumulative number of claims with overpayment determinations identified by RACs has grown to 598,238.  Notably, only 76,073 of these overpayments were appealed by health care providers.  Of the claims appealed, over half were decided in favor of the health care provider.  Interestingly, HDI had one of the highest number of claims denials overturned on appeal, in favor of the appealing provider. Four basic steps to be taken when preparing for a RAC audit include:

(1)               Monitor issues of interest to the government and its contractors.  Are the services you provide currently under scrutiny by RACs and other Medicare contractors?  You should keep abreast of current enforcement initiatives and mistakes made by other providers.  Learn from their mistakes. 

(2)               Know where your current weaknesses are and fix them.  This typically requires that you conduct an internal audit of your coding, billing and operational practices.  Take care when engaging an outside “consultant.”  We have seen numerous cases where the consultant conducts an internal assessment and identifies multiple problems with the provider’s prior and current practices. Unfortunately, few consultants consider the fact that their adverse report to the provider will likely not be privileged.  As a result, if the provider is ever investigated, the report could easily serve as a roadmap for the government. Prior to conducting an internal audit – call your attorney!   

(3)               Know your rights. If your practice is audited, know your rights both during the audit and once the audit results are issued by the contractor.  There is a fine line between exercising your rights as a provider and being perceived by a contractor as refusing to cooperate in their review.  You should immediately call your attorney to clarify which actions must be taken if your practice is subjected to a site visit by a Medicare contractor.  The best practice would be for you to call your attorney today and discuss how you should respond in the event of a site visit.  CMS takes allegations of non-cooperation very seriously.  Should the contractor argue that you refused to cooperate in their efforts, you could find the action taken by the contractor is to seek a revocation of your Medicare number.  This is an especially sensitive issue.

(4)               Have a firm understanding of how the Medicare appeals process works.  Depending on the amount in controversy, you may choose to handle Medicare claims denials internally.  As the use of data-mining increases, Medicare contractor reliance on provider profiling will continue to increase.  While mere errors or mistakes should be returned to the government (or not appealed is properly denied by the contractor), should you find that claims were improperly denied, we recommend that you appeal such denials. RACs and other Medicare contractors will likely focus on providers with high error rates. 

While every case is different, health care providers should consider the following when faced with a RAC audit:

The scope of RAC audits is expanding.  In the past, hospitals and other “low-hanging fruit” were the focus of HDI and other RACs around the country.  As a result, some physicians, small practice groups, clinics and other smaller providers have grown complacent in their compliance efforts.  This is a mistake, as more issues are identified and approved, the RACs will be expanded the scope of their reviews.  Now is the time to get your practice in order.

ZPICs and PSCs continue to represent a greater danger to small physician practices and health care provider groups. Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPICs) and Program SafeGuard Contractors (PSCs) are not subject to the time, audit and service scope limitations imposed on RACs.  The implementation of effective compliance efforts will help reduce the likelihood of liability should the practice be audited by a ZPIC, PSC or RAC.

Beware of “canned” consultant solutions.  As a search on Google will readily attest, consulting firms around the country are touting the latest RAC audit “tool” or audit response “template.”   We recommend that you exercise caution when retaining any organization that “guarantees” results or seeks to dissuade you from engaging legal counsel support.  

Retain experienced health care counsel. Under the current appeal structure, there is a significant likelihood that your case will eventually be heard by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).  Importantly, ALJs are lawyers — not typically clinicians.  In defending your case, it is strongly recommended that you retain legal counsel, regardless of whether you ultimately decide to work with a consultant or employ a clinician as an expert witness.  Legal counsel will be best situated to understand and argue the various legal arguments which may prove essential in winning your case.

While RACs have not represented much of a threat to individual physicians and small practice groups in the past, the future is likely to be quite different.  Physicians must already contend with audits by ZPICs, PSCs, Medicaid Integrity Contractors (MICs), Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) investigators and Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) contractors.  The expansion of the RAC program will further increase the need for statutory and regulatory compliance.  Physicians and small practice groups and organizations should avoid the misconception that their limited size and / or relative billings will keep them “off the radar,” thereby limiting their chances of being audited.

ZPICs and PSCs are continuing to rely statistical sampling in an effort to extrapolate damages:

In our practice, we have seen a marked increase in the number of solo physicians and small providers groups who have been subjected to pre-payment and post-payment audits of their Medicare billings. 

In the case of post-payment reviews, the vast majority of Medicare audits we have worked on have included the statistical extrapolation of damages by ZPICs and PSCs.  We expect RACs to follw suit as the number of their audits increase.  In defending a post-payment audit, it is essential that you examine the statistical methodology utilized and identify any flaws in the contractor’s approach.  We have successfully convinced both Qualified Independent Contractors (QICs) and ALJs to invalidate statistical extrapolations based on mistakes in the process committed by the ZPIC or PSC.  Arguments can be legal and / or methodology-based.  In many cases, it is necessary to engage the assistance of a qualified statistical expert.  Should you succeed – be ready to defend this decision before the Medicare Appeals Counsel (MAC).  Over the past year, practically every invalidation of the statistical extrapolation of damages was appealed to the MAC by the Administrative QIC (AdQIC). 

Summary:

Health care providers must be proactive in their efforts to better comply with applicable Medicare coding and billing practices.  Should your practice be placed on pre-payment audit or have its post-payment Medicare claims reviewed, we recommend that you immediately contact your health care attorney for assistance.

Should you have questions regarding RAC, ZPIC or PSC audit processes, you may contact us for a complimentary consultation.  We can be reached at 1 (800) 475-1906.

 

States Are Taking Aim at Home Health Providers

(July 19, 2010): Home health care providers are in the crosshairs again.  On July 15, HHS granted Florida a waiver of the anti-data mining provisions of federal Medicaid program regulations that will allow its Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) to begin seeking out reasons to investigate home health and other providers for fraud.  While Florida is the first and currently the only state to obtain a waiver of this type, if Florida’s pilot program “succeeds”, the other 49 MFCUs could soon be doing the same thing.

MFCU “strike forces” are designed to investigate referred cases of fraud.  They are prohibited by 42 CFR §1007.19(e)(2) from receiving federal funding for conducting analysis to independently identify Medicaid fraud.  In their formal July 7^th request, the Florida Attorney General and Florida Agency for Health Care Administration Secretary requested an expedited waiver of those protections.

The pilot program, intended to be effective January 1, 2011, will allow the state MFCU to use data mining to “identify situations in which a question of fraud may exist, including the screening of claims, analyses of patterns of practice, or routine verification with recipients of whether services billed by providers were actually received.”  The Florida officials’ request makes a point of calling out home health providers in justifying this expansion of the MFCU’s powers, declaring that:

“[S]ome services such as durable medical equipment and home health are frequent targets of fraudulent activity…” and

“areas of particular concern that the demonstration would address include …home and community based waivers, payments to assisted living facilities, and home health services.” (Emphasis added).

We are greatly concerned by the continued targeting of home health providers by state and Federal officials.  Given the explicit program goals of increasing the number of leads and cases, the number of arrests and convictions, the number of overpayment and abuse referrals, and the recovery of funds and then serving as a model for other states, this program warrants close monitoring.

Should you have any questions regarding these issues, don’t hesitate to contact us.  For a complementary consultation, you may call Robert W. Liles or one of our other attorneys at 1 (800) 475-1906.

 

Medicare Fraud Strike Force Operation Leads to Charges against 94 Defendants, including 4 in South Texas

(July 17, 2010): Yesterday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced charges against 94 physicians, medical assistants, and health care company owners and executives in connection with alleged false Medicare claims amounting to more than $251 million.  24 defendants from Miami account for approximately $103 million of that amount.  Four defendants were charged in Houston for their alleged roles in a $3 million scheme to submit fraudulent claims for durable medical equipment (DME).  Other arrests were made in Baton Rouge, Brooklyn, and Detroit.

The offenses charged include conspiracy to defraud the Medicare program, criminal false claims, violations of the anti-kickback statutes, and money laundering.  The charges are based on a variety of fraud schemes, including physical therapy and occupational therapy schemes, home health care schemes, HIV infusion fraud schemes and durable medical equipment (DME) schemes.

Announcing the arrests, Attorney General Eric Holder said, “With today’s arrests, we’re putting would-be criminals on notice: Health care fraud is no longer a safe bet.  It’s no longer easy money.  If you choose to engage in health care fraud, you will be found; you will be stopped; and you will be brought to justice.”

The operation was conducted by the joint DOJ-HHS Medicare Fraud Strike Force, multi-agency teams of federal, state, and local investigators designed to combat Medicare fraud through the use of Medicare data analysis techniques and an increased focus on community policing.  Strike Force teams are operating in seven cities in the United States: the five aforementioned cities, Los Angeles, and Tampa.  AG Holder noted that the ongoing Strike Force initiative in South Florida has resulted in the indictments of 810 organizations and individuals since March 2007 and uncovered $1.85 billion in improperly billed claims.

The Strike Forces are a part of Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT), which is made up of top level law enforcement and professional staff from the DOJ and HHS and their operating divisions.  HEAT is dedicated to joint efforts across government to both prevent fraud and enforce current anti-fraud laws around the country.

Should you have any questions regarding these issues, don’t hesitate to contact us.  For a complementary consultation, you may call Robert W. Liles or one  of our other attorneys at 1 (800) 475-1906.

Next Page »