Region B RAC CGI Announces that it will Begin Review of Eighteen Projects that Involve Medical Necessity

(August 25, 2010): CGI Technologies and Solutions, Inc., (CGI), has announced it will immediately begin reviews on 18 newly approved projects that involve the medical necessity of selected inpatient DRG payments.  A complete list of the “issues” currently being examined by CGI can be found on its website. http://racb.cgi.com/Issues.aspx

Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs), such as CGI, contract with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to perform post-payment reviews of Medicare claims to find overpayments and underpayments in return for a percentage (from 9 percent to 12.5 percent) of the amounts recovered. Put simply, they eat only what they kill.  CGI was awarded responsibility for handling Region B audits.  CGI’s contingency fee contract award dollar amount is 12.50% according to CMS.  Issues where CGI will be examining “medical necessity” requirements, include certain procedures related to:

• Chest Pain
• Other Circulatory System Diagnoses
• Other Vascular Procedures
• Syncope & Collapse
• Red Blood Cell Disorders
• Atherosclerosis
• Heart Failure & Shock
• Esophagitis, Gastroenteritis & Misc Digestive Disorders
• Musculoskeletal Disorders
• Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
• Respiratory
• Nutritional and Metabolic Disorders
• Kidney & Urinary Tract Infections
• GI Disorders
• Percutaneous Cardiovascular Procedures
• Renal Failure
• Nervous System Disorders and
• Cardiac Arrhythmia & Conduction Disorders.

 As CGI’s website discusses, when asked “What utilization criteria will CGI be using to review for medical necessity?” in its FAQ section, CGI states, “CGI will utilize the rules for National Coverage Determinations (NCD), Local Coverage Determinations (LCD), HCPCS, ICD-9 (ICD-10 when implemented and appropriate) and CCI that were in effect on the date of service.” 

 A continuing concern of 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.

 Should you have questions regarding the RAC process, you may contact us for a complimentary consultation.  We can be reached at 1 (800) 475-1906.

 

ZPICs and PSCs Are Requiring Strict Adherance With CMS Medicare Signature Rules When Conducting Medical Reviews

(August 4, 2010): Earlier this year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued updated guidance, Change Request (CR) 6698, to be used by Medicare contractors (including Medicare Administrative Contractors, affiliated contractors, CERT contractors, ZPICs and PSCs) when conducting claims reviews of medical documentation submitted by Medicare providers.

 CMS reportedly issued this guidance to “clarify and update” various sections of the Program Integrity Manual.  Importantly, this guidance is not intended to supplant any existing specific requirements that may be contained in LCDs or other CMS manuals which may address specific signature requirements (such as signature and timeliness requirements which must be made in connection with Treatment Plans or Plans of Care prepared by CMHCs when providing partial hospitalization program care).

 Several examples of the strict approach that CR 6698 requires include:

•  For medical review purposes, Medicare requires that services provided / ordered be authenticated by the author.  The method used shall be a hand written or an electronic signature.  Stamp signatures are not acceptable. 

Our comments:  Despite the fact that “stamp signatures” have been problematic for years, we are still seeing cases where a provider has continued to use a stamp of his signature on orders and at the end of record entries. Get rid of signature stamps in your office or clinic!  Contractors that may be looking for an excuse to deny your claims will readily do so if your have used a stamp instead of documenting your signature by hand. 

•  If there are other reasons for denial, unrelated to signature requirements, the reviewer shall not proceed to signature authorization.  If the criteria in the relevant Medicare policy cannot be met but for a key piece of medical documentation which contains a missing or illegible assessment, the reviewer shall proceed to the signature assessment. 

 Our comments:  This requirement reinforces the fact that Medicare reviewers are required to assess the adequacy of medical documentation (and presumably of medical necessity), separate and apart from their review of the signature itself.  Once they determine that the medical documentation is otherwise acceptable for coverage purposes, then they will assess whether the signature meets applicable requirements.

•  If the signature is missing from an order, ACs, MACs, PSCs, ZPICs and CERT shall disregard the order during the review of the claim.

 Our comments:  This requirement can be extremely harsh, especially when considering the fact that many claims depend on an initial order by a referring or ordering physician.  If in the absence of such an order, the claim will be denied, it becomes readily apparent that providers must be especially diligent in their review of orders to ensure that each one is properly signed.

 These examples represent only a few of the many examples and changes highlighted in CR 6698.  We strongly recommend that you review these changes with each of the providers in your practice or clinic to ensure that everyone is aware of how CMS expects its contractors to proceed when conducting medical reviews.

 Should you have any questions regarding these changes, 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.

 

 

 

President Obama enacts the “Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act”

(July 22, 2010): Earlier today, President Obams enacted the “Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act,” thereby further increasing the likelihood that health care providers and others may be subjected to private sector audits of payments made by the government.

While the full impact of this legislation is not yet known, its passage is yet another indication that the government will be expanding its use of “private sector auditors” to “find and recapture government overpayments.”

As President Obama stated:

Today, the House took another critical step toward increased fiscal responsibility by passing the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act.  This bipartisan legislation will help save taxpayer dollars by reining in wasteful overpayments from the federal government to individuals, organizations and contractors – the kind of unacceptable accounting mistakes that cost taxpayers $98 billion in 2009.  This bill also puts in place more rigorous thresholds for when programs must be scrutinized for payment errors and expands the authority of Federal agencies to use private sector auditors to find and recapture government overpayments.  And it dramatically increases transparency and accountability in government spending – in short, it changes business-as-usual in Washington.

I believe that we have a special responsibility to be wise stewards of Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars.  That’s why last November I issued an Executive Order to curb improper payments by boosting transparency, holding agencies accountable, and creating strong incentives for compliance.  And it’s why this March I signed an order calling on all federal agencies to launch tough audits to recover some of the money lost to improper payments last year.  I applaud the House for passing legislation today that supports these goals and I hope that the Senate will take swift action to send a bill to my desk as soon as possible.”

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.

With ZPICs, PSCs, and RACs Fighting Most Challenges to Their Extrapolation, Experience Counts

(July 20, 2010): In recent years, we have seen agents for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) increasingly rely on statistical extrapolation estimates when assessing claims overpayments. In early cases, attorneys successfully invalidated countless extrapolations by identifying relatively basic reasons for why the calculations were inconsistent with accepted statistical principles and practices.  Now, however, providers should expect for ZPICs and PSCs (and soon, RACs) to send a team of statisticians and attorneys to vigorously oppose most (if not all) hearings challenging the validity of the extrapolation calculation.

Regardless of whether you are providing Partial Hospitalization, Evaluation and Management (E/M), Home Health, Physical Therapy, Surgical, or other services, should your practice or clinic find that it is facing an extrapolated Medicare audit, it is strongly recommended that you engage qualified, experienced counsel to represent you as early in the process as possible.  Your legal counsel can then engage an expert statistician to assess the contractor’s actions and assist with the attorney’s efforts to have the extrapolation thrown out by either the Qualified Independent Contractor (QIC) or the Administrative Law Judge hearing your case.

Before you engage counsel, you should consider asking the following questions:

• Has the attorney ever handled large, complex contractor audits before? Some firms will happily take your case, despite the fact that they have little or no experience in this area of health law. Don’t pay for your attorneys to learn how to handle a case. While every case is different, an experienced firm will have developed a number of arguments and defenses that may be readily used in your case without having to conduct costly, extensive legal research.
• Can the firm provide client references who are willing to speak with you about the quality of work performed on their Medicare statistical extrapolation case?
• Who will be working on your case? Will it be an inexperienced Associate attorney or one of the partners who has actually fought and won a multitude of Medicare overpayment claims and cases where the damages have been extrapolated by the contractors?
• What are the credentials of the attorneys and paralegals who will be working on your case? Have they ever worked on the side of the government? One of our attorneys served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for many years, ultimately being selected to serve as the First National Health Care Fraud Coordinator for the Department of Justice, Executive Office for U. S. Attorneys. In addition to a law degree, he also holds a Master’s in Health Care Administration. To fully appreciate the challenges faced by health care providers, you need an attorney who understands both the legal constraints and the practical business risks faced by health care providers.

In several of the cases we have handled, the alleged error rate has exceeded 90%.  With the resulting alleged damages often in the millions of dollars, few providers are in a position to merely pay such an overpayment.  Instead, they need experienced counsel to aggressively fight to have this overpayment overturned.  When defending these cases, it is essential that you challenge both the denial of claims and the extrapolation itself.

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.

 

South Texas Medicare Providers are Under the ZPIC Microscope

(July 16, 2010):  If there were ever any doubts that ZPICs are going to make their presence known in South Texas now that they have replaced PSCs,those doubts can be put to rest.  Health Integrity LLC, the Zone 4 contractor, is proving to be an active and aggressive auditor of physician practices, physical therapy services, home health care, and other types of Medicare covered treatment in the region.

Even in a nationwide environment of intensifying oversight, Medicare providers in South Texas are under particularly close scrutiny.  According to a study by the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, updated as recently as May 12, 2010, “even after price adjustment, Miami and McAllen Texas are the highest cost regions in the country.” (Emphasis added).  And don’t forget that ZPICs are essentially being “graded” based on the amount of overpayments recovered, along with the number of enforcement actions handled and referred to law enforcement.

As many Medicare providers in South Texas can attest, the folks at Health Integrity (Zone 4 – ZPIC) are becoming a familiar sight in their offices and clinics — reportedly conducting extensive on-site audits with little if any notice.  To their credit, most providers have reported that Health Integrity’s representatives have been reasonable in their requests when conducting an on-site review, typically taking a sample of certain records and asking that the remaining records be sent within a reasonable amount of time after the visit.  Nevertheless, providers should take care when responding to the ZPIC’s requests for information.  While a provider may have an obligation to cooperate with the ZPIC, you should contact your counsel to ensure that your rights are protected while still fully meeting your obligations as a Medicare participant.

Moreover, we have found that ZPICs are increasingly placing home health providers (and others) on pre-payment review.  This can effectively delay a provider’s cash flow up to six months (and in some cases even longer).  Given the GAO’s recommendation last month that CMS put more emphasis on automated pre-payment review, we expect to see this trend continuing precipitously upward.

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.

Providers Should Exercise Caution When Handling Overpayments — More Than Likely, You Can’t Keep It, Even if the Payor Doesn’t Want it Back!

(July 15, 2010): Since the May 2009 passage of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (FERA) and subsequent enactment of the PPACA, we’ve heard a lot about how the government looks at Medicare overpayments and how providers should handle them.  Two major misconceptions seem to underlie the public response to provisions clarifying that failure to timely refund Medicare overpayments can result in False Claims Act (FCA) liability.

I.          Historical Overview of the “Overpayment” Issue

Prior to the clarification and statutory reinforcement of the “overpayment” issue provided by PPACA, a number of providers have mistakenly believed that in the absence of a direct demand for repayment, an identified overpayment would belong to the provider.  Notably, this issue is not new.  In fact, the recent enacted provisions have merely reinforced the government’s long-standing position that a provider has a responsibility to voluntarily refund Medicare overpayments without an overpayment determination being made by the government.

As you will recall, the agreement to return any overpayments is fundamental to a provider’s eligibility to participate in the Medicare program.  Section 1866(a)(1)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 1395cc) requires participating providers to furnish information about payments made to them and to refund any monies incorrectly paid.  Implemented in 2006, the Medicare Credit Balance Report (CMS-838) is designed to ensure timely compliance with this obligation.

Secondly, PPACA Section 6402 echoes the requirements of CMS’ 2002 proposed rule that providers “must, within 60 days of identifying or learning of the excess payment, return the overpayment to the appropriate intermediary and carrier, at the correct address, and notify the intermediary and carrier, in writing, of the reason for the overpayment.”  (67 Fed. Reg. 3662 (January 25, 2002)).  A conservative reading of that proposed rule arguably suggested that HHS-OIG’s voluntary disclosure protocol may not be “voluntary” after all but a mandatory repayment may be required.  Thus, the government has long sought to clarify when, not if, overpayment refunds would be required.

Despite the publicity resulting from PPACA and its FCA implications, it is important to remember that this issue was addressed over a decade ago.  As set out in the 1998 holding in United States v. Yale University School of Medicine, Civil Action No. 3:97CV02023 (D.Conn.), the government intervened in a qui tam and obtained $1.2 million settlement based on alleged FCA violations for failing to return credit balances.  In summary, providers who fail to promptly (within 60 days of identification) return an overpayment to the government do so at their own peril.

II.         Handling Non-Federal Overpayments

As an aside, even if the overpayment at issue is not owed to a Federal payor (such as Medicare or Medicaid), it is imperative to remember that virtually no overpayments belong to a provider.  In the case of non-Federal payors (such as a private insurance company), we are aware of numerous instances where the non-Federal payor has notified the provider that due to the administrative burden of applying an overpayment to a beneficiary’s account (typically due to the complexity of the payment history), the non-Federal payor has chosen to either “waive” collection of an overpayment or not to cash a check sent by the provider.  This also regularly occurs when the identified overpayment is under a certain amount (such as $25.00).  When faced with such a situation, a provider must review applicable State law to ascertain how an overpayment must be handled.  For instance, in Texas, Title 6 of the Property Code requires businesses and other entities holding unclaimed property to turn the property over to the Texas Comptroller’s Office after the appropriate abandonment period has expired.  As in most States, violation of these escheat laws can subject a provider to various penalties.

III.        Conclusion

The lesson to be learned here is quite clear – regardless of who the payor is, an overpayment can rarely, if ever, properly be retained by a provider, regardless of the amount in controversy.  A provider must carefully examine both Federal and State statutes when faced with this issue.  The best practice is to return an overpayment to the payor (Federal, State, or private patient), regardless of the amount, upon identification.  Should a provider be unable to identify who is owed an overpayment or cannot locate a valid address to return the overpayment (due to a variety of factors), your State’s escheat law must be considered.

This can be a complicated issue, especially when a large overpayment has been identified and it is owed to a Federal payor.  While time is of the essence, it is strongly recommended that you contact your legal counsel as soon as it appears that a potential large or complicated Federal overpayment has been found.  Your attorney can help guide you through this complex process.

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 our other attorneys at 1 (800) 475-1906.

HHS / CMS Issues Final “Meaningful Use” Objectives for Electronic Health Records (EHRs). Providers Should Exercise Extreme Caution Before Converting to an EHR System.

(July 14, 2010):Yesterday, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued its final regulations concerning what it means for eligible Medicare and Medicaid providers to be “meaningful users” of certified electronic health record (EHRs) technology in 2011 and 2012.  We are cautiously optimistic that HHS’ approach will allow small providers the flexibility they need to participate in the program if they choose but, as detailed below, are not convinced that CMS contractors are ready for the technology.

The rules support the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH), which authorized incentive payments through Medicare and Medicaid to clinicians and hospitals when they use EHRs privately and securely to achieve specified improvements in care delivery.  According to HHS, the incentives could be as much as $44,000 (through Medicare) and $63,750 (through Medicaid) per clinician. Subsequent rules will govern later phases of the ten year program.

The meaningful use objectives for 2011-12 are categorized in two tiers – core and menu objectives.  The first set of “core” objectives comprises basic items essential to creating any medical record, such as:

• Recording patient demographics;
• Maintaining active medication list; and
• Generating and transmitting permissible prescriptions electronically.

The second “menu” set is comprised of 10 additional important activities from which providers will choose any 5 to implement in the first two years.  They include:

• Implementing drug formularies;
• Incorporating clinical laboratory test results into EHRs as structured data; and
• Sending reminders to patients (per patient preference) for preventative and follow-up care.

For most of the core and menu items, the regulations also specify rates at which providers must use the functions to be considered meaningful users and how to report clinical quality measures.

HHS is establishing a nationwide network of Regional Extension Centers to assist providers in adopting and using certified EHR technology.  The full 864 page rule is available at http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2010-17207_PI.pdf

While the concept of EHR and electronic medical records (EMR) may sound great, a number of our clients have already experienced the dark side of EHR / EMR.  Unfortunately, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have completely disregarded (or remained completely ignorant of) the fact that a number of early adopters of this technology have found that Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) and Program SafeGuard Contractors (PSCs) (now being replaced by Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPICs)) appear to be inexperienced in their review of medical records that have been generated with the assistance of EMR / EHR software programs. 

In some cases, the Medicare contractors have mistakenly alleged that the records documenting the care provided are overly similar – erroneously concluding that the records were “copied” or “cloned.”  Every software program is different.  Nevertheless, many of the programs utilize “drop-down” menus that offer providers a number of different options for documenting their observations, the patient’s symptoms, or clinical findings.  While such an approach may facilitate the completion of an evaluation, progress notes, or other clinical service, it also inadvertently leads to “similar” wording or phrases among classes of documents generated.  When a significantly number of these clinical documents are reviewed by a Medicare contractor, in some cases the contractor has incorrectly concluded that instead of documenting individualized observations, these EMR / EHR-generated medical records are mere “copies” or “clones” of other medical records.  In reaching such a conclusion, PSCs / ZPICs have denied claims and then extrapolated the alleged damages to the universe of claims at issue.

Thus, providers should exercise extreme care before transitioning over to an EMR / EHR system.  Every effort should be made to ensure that your observations are individualized to the greatest extent possible.  Prior to choosing a software program, a provider should test the program with a significant number of claims to ensure that the end product generated by the program does not leave a third party reviewer with an incorrect picture of the care provided.

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.

Don’t Take ZPIC or RAC Extrapolation Calculations at Face Value – Can Their Results Be Readily Reproduced?

(July 14, 2010): Imagine a ZPIC, PSC, or RAC handing you a claim analysis rife with alleged errors, an indecipherable list of statistical formulae, and an extrapolated recovery demand that will cripple your practice or clinic.  What steps should you take to analyze their work?  Based on our experience, providers can and should carefully assess the contractor’s actions, use of formulas and application of the RAT-STAT program when selecting a statistical sample and extrapolating the alleged damages based on the sample pulled.  Over the years, we have challenged the extrapolation of damages conducted by Medicare contractors around the country, covering tens of thousands of claims.  Regardless of whether you are providing Partial Hospitalization, Evaluation and Management, Home Health, Physical Therapy, Surgical or other services, it is imperative that you work with experienced legal counsel and statistical experts to analyze the statistical sampling and extrapolation steps taken by the contractor. Should you succeed in invalidating the extrapolation, the whole games changes.  The question is – “How can you go about fighting an extrapolation calculation?”

One method is to show that the contractor’s auditor failed to identify a Statistically Valid Random Sample (SVRT).  Among the first steps is you should take is to retain experienced legal counsel to review the Medicare contractor’s actions.  Notably, there are a multitude of legal arguments which may be asserted (depending on the specific facts in your case).  Our firm has worked with several outstanding statistical experts over the years, each of which has a proven track record of analyzing the contractor’s actions and identifying any flaws made by the ZPIC or PSC when extrapolating damages.

Notably, Section 3.10.4.2 of CMS’ Medicare Program Integrity Manual establishes that the contractor is obligated to fully document the statistical methods an auditor employs:

“The PSC or ZPIC BI [Benefit Integrity] unit or the contractor MR [Medical Review] unit shall identify the source of the random numbers used to select the individual sampling units. The PSC or ZPIC BI unit or the contractor MR unit shall also document the program and its algorithm or table that is used; this documentation becomes part of the record of the sampling and must be available for review.” (emphasis added)

“The PSC or ZPIC BI units or the contractor MR units shall document all steps taken in the random selection process exactly as done to ensure that the necessary information is available for anyone attempting to replicate the sample selection.” (emphasis added)

ZPIC and PSC statisticians must be able show their work to the extent that a reviewer can attempt to “replicate” their actions and determine whether or not the steps taken were consistent with accepted principles and practices of statistical sampling.  The failure of a ZPIC or PSC statistician to fully and properly document his actions may serve as the basis for seeking to invalidate the extrapolation. The calculation of a valid statistical sample and the extrapolation of damages by ZPIC and PSC statistician is a highly complex process. After handling many extrapolated damages cases, we have found that few ZPIC or PSC statisticians fully meet their obligations to document the steps taken and / or conduct the process in a proper fashion, consistent with accepted statistical sampling procedures.  Should your practice or clinic find that it is facing an extrapolated Medicare audit, it is strongly recommended that you engage qualified, experienced counsel to represent you in the process.  Your legal counsel can then engage a qualified statistician to assess the contractor’s actions.

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.

Can ZPICs Use Minimal Reviews to Maximize Recoupment? Maybe. . . Maybe Not. . .

(July 12, 2010): A ZPIC’s use of extrapolation can be a surefire way of destroying a provider’s practice.  We’ve known it for years and yet the government’s passion for statistical sampling only seems to be growing.  This makes it essential for providers to involve experienced counsel as soon as possible after the audit has been conducted.  Over the last decade, Liles Parker attorneys have noted a marked increase in the prevalence of extrapolated damages.  Rather than assume that the contractor’s calculations are correct, we have aggresively challenged their use of statistical sampling in Medicare overpayment audits.

“Extrapolation” is the process of using statistical sampling in a review to calculate and project (extrapolate) alleged overpayments made in connection with Medicare claims.  Basically, ZPICs seek out errors in an alleged “statistically relevant sample” of the provider’s Medicare claims and then calculate and apply the “error rate” to the entire universe of claims covering a given period of time.  This long-standing practice allows ZPICs to grossly inflate the monetary demands on their audit targets while avoiding actually reviewing each of the Medicare claims in the universe for which they are seeking recoupment or offset.

The practice dates back twenty years to a decision by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to authorize the use of statistical sampling in lieu of engaging in onerous claim-by-claim reviews.   In Chaves County Home Health Services v. Sullivan, 931 F.2d 914 (D.C. Cir. 1991), the district court upheld extrapolation as being within the Secretary’s discretion.

In 2003, after years of protest, physicians groups and others succeeded in convincing Congress to place some limitations on the use of extrapolation.  Under Section 935 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA), before an auditor can employ extrapolation, there must be either a determination of a sustained or high level of payment error, or documentation that educational intervention has failed to correct the payment error.  While this keeps the door to challenging an extrapolation open, ZPICs and PSCs now regularly participate in ALJ hearings in order to defend their use of statistical sampling.

Over the years, Liles Parker has worked with a number of the best statisticians in the country, challenging the extrapolation and having it invalidated at either the Qualified Independent Contractor (QIC) level or at hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).  If your practice or clinic is audited by a ZPIC, PSC or RAC,we strongly recommend that you engage experienced legal counsel to represent your interests during this complex process.

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.

ACA Creates a Minefield for Medicare Providers Who Fail to Promptly Return Overpayments

(July 9, 2010): Does the failure to promptly return a Medicare overpayment really warrant liability under the False Claims Act (FCA)?  Congress thinks so.  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as the “Affordable Care Act” or “ACA”) creates an obligation under the FCA whereby a Medicare provider who fails to timely report and refund an overpayment may be subject to substantial penalties and damages.

Section 6402 of the ACA requires Medicare providers, including physicians and partial hospitalization providers, among others, to a) return and report any 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 ACA does not actually explain what it means to “identify” an overpayment.

Nonetheless, the ACA makes this reporting and repayment requirement an “obligation” under the FCA.  Pursuant to the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 (FERA) amendments to the FCA, an individual or entity may be liable if he or it “knowingly conceals or knowingly and improperly avoids or decreases an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government.”  Thus, providers who fail to meet their 60 day “obligation” may be subject to monetary penalties of up to $11,000 per claim, and treble damages.

Several Liles Parker attorneys have worked former Federal and / or State prosecutors.  Our attorneys have extensive experience working on False Claims Act cases.  Should you have any questions, 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.

« Previous Page — Next Page »