AdvanceMed, the ZPIC Responsible for Zone 2 and Zone 5 has Reportedly Been Acquired by NCI

(April 10, 2011):  Last week, it was announced that NCI, Inc., one of the nation’s most successful information technology companies had acquired the outstanding capital stock of AdvanceMed Corporation (AdvanceMed), an affiliate of CSC.  While the acquisition went largely unnoticed by the health care provider community, the transaction may, in fact, be quite significant.

           With this acquisition by NCI, a recognized powerhouse in information technology, Medicare and Medicaid providers should expect AdvanceMed’s expertise in data mining and investigations to continue to grow.  Medicare and Medicaid providers have an affirmative obligation to ensure that operations, coding and billing activities fully comply with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.  As AdvanceMed continues to fine-tune its data mining efforts and further expands its ability to conduct “Predictive Modeling,” providers will likely find their actions under the microscope like never before.  It is therefore imperative that all health care providers immediately implement an effective Compliance Plan (if they have not already done so) or further enhance their current compliance efforts.   The purpose of this article is to briefly report on NCI’s recent acquisition of AdvanceMed.  An overview of the current ZPIC environment is also provided.

I.        Background:

          NCI first announced its plans to acquire AdvanceMed last February.  As NCI’s February 25th News Release noted (in part):

“The Obama Administration has emphasized reducing fraud, waste, and abuse in Federal entitlements. AdvanceMed is ideally positioned to support the program integrity initiatives of CMS and other Federal Government agencies. . . We are extremely pleased to have AdvanceMed join NCI and believe that this acquisition will provide NCI an outstanding platform to address this rapidly growing market opportunity.”  (A complete account of NCI’s announcement can be found at the above link). 

          In recent years, AdvanceMed has positioned itself to where it now has multiple contracts with the Federal government.  In addition to serving as a Zone Program Integrity Contractor (ZPIC) for Zone 2 and Zone 5, the contractor also serves as Program Safeguard Contractor (PSC) in areas not yet converted to the ZPIC system of contractor review.  Additionally, the contractor also serves as a Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) contractor.  On the Medicaid side, AdvanceMed also serves as a Medicaid Integrity Contractor (MIC).  While a host of other contractors have been awarded contracts covering other zones and program areas, AdvanceMed’s growth has been undeniably impressive.  As NCI announced as part of April 4^th “News Release” covering the acquisition:

“AdvanceMed is a premier provider of healthcare program integrity services focused on the detection and prevention of fraud, waste, and abuse in healthcare programs, providing investigative services to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Serving CMS since 1999, AdvanceMed has grown rapidly, demonstrating the value and return on investment of the Federal Government’s integrity program activities.

AdvanceMed employs a strong and experienced professional staff, which leverages sophisticated information technology, data mining, and data analytical tools, to provide a full range of investigative services directed to the identification and recovery of inappropriate Medicare and Medicaid funds. AdvanceMed supports healthcare programs in 38 states with a staff of more than 450 professionals, including information specialists, nurses, physicians, statisticians, investigators, and other healthcare professionals.

AdvanceMed has multiple contracts with CMS under the Zone Program Integrity (ZPIC), Program Safeguard (PSC), Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT), and Medicaid Integrity (MIC) programs. All of these programs are executed under cost plus contract vehicles. The largest contracts-ZPIC Zone 5 and ZPIC Zone 2-were awarded in late 2009 and 2010 and have five-year periods of performance.

The acquisition price was $62 million. Included within the price is a recently completed, state-of-the-art data center to support the ZPIC Zone 5 and ZPIC Zone 2 contracts. Additionally, NCI will make a 338(h)(10) election, enabling a tax deduction, which is expected to result in a tax benefit with an estimated net present value of approximately $6 million to $8 million. NCI expects the transaction to be slightly accretive to 2011 earnings.

As of the end of March 2011, AdvanceMed has a revenue backlog of approximately $300 million with approximately $51 million of that amount being currently funded. Revenue for the trailing 12 months ending March 31, 2011, is estimated to be approximately $51 million, all of which was generated from Federal Government contracts, and 99% of the work performed as a prime contractor. NCI’s AdvanceMed 2011 revenue, covering the nine-month period of April 2, 2011, to December 31, 2011, is estimated to be in the range of $43 million to $47 million (the equivalent of $57 million to $63 million on a full 12-month basis), with the midpoint reflecting a full-year growth of approximately 16%. . . “   (A complete account of NCI’s statement can be found at the link indicated above).

II.      Overview of the ZPIC Program:

          The following comments are intended to provide an overview of the ZPIC program and is not focused on any ZPIC in particular.

         Under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA), CMS was required to take a number of steps intended to streamline the claims processing and review process:

•  Using competitive measures, CMS was required to replace the current Medicare Fiscal Intermediaries (Part A) and Carriers (Part B) contractors with Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs).
• After setting up the new MAC regions, CMS created new entities, called Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPICs).
•  These actions were intended to consolidate the existing program integrity efforts.  Over the last 2 — 3 years, ZPICs have been taking over PSC audit and enforcement activities around the country.

           At the time of transition, there were twelve PSCs that had been awarded umbrella contracts by CMS. As these contracts have expired, CMS has transferred the PSCs’ fraud detection and deterrence functions over to ZPICs.   Of the seven ZPIC zones established in the MMA, CMS has awarded contracts for a number of the zones. CMS is still working to issue awards for the final ZPIC zones.  The seven ZPIC zones include the following states and / or territories:

• Zone 1 – CA, NV, American Samoa, Guam, HI and the Mariana Islands.
• Zone 2 – AdvanceMed: AK, WA, OR, MT, ID, WY, UT, AZ, ND, SD, NE, KS, IA, MO.
• Zone 3 – MN, WI, IL, IN, MI, OH and KY.
• Zone 4 – Health Integrity: CO, NM, OK, TX. 
• Zone 5 – AdvanceMed: AL, AR, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA and WV.
• Zone 6 – PA, NY, MD, DC, DE and ME, MA, NJ, CT, RI, NH and VT.
• Zone 7 – SafeGuard Services: FL, PR and VI.

          In many instances, these changes have been more of a “name change” rather than a substantive change in the way claims will be audited. ZPIC responsibilities are generally the same as those currently exercised by PSCs. While ZPIC overpayment review duties have not appreciably changed, the number of civil and criminal referrals appear to be increasing. In our opinion, ZPICs clearly view their role differently than that of their PSC predecessors.  ZPICs clearly view themselves as an integral part of the law enforcement team, despite the fact that they are for-profit contractors.  In consideration of their ability to recommend to CMS that a provider be suspended or have their Medicare number revoked, and / or refer a provider to law enforcement for civil and / or criminal investigation, providers should take these contractors quite seriously.

          Both ZPICs and PSCs have traditionally asserted that unlike their RAC counterparts, they are not “bounty hunters.”  ZPICs are not paid contingency fees like RACs but instead directly by CMS on a contractual basis.  Nevertheless, common sense tells us that if ZPICs aren’t successful at identifying alleged overpayments, the chances of a ZPIC’s contract with CMS being renewed are likely diminished.  Additionally, experience has shown us that despite the fact that ZPICs are expected to adhere to applicable Medicare coverage guidelines, a ZPIC’s interpretation and application of these coverage requirements may greatly differ from your understanding of the same provisions.

           In recent years, ZPICs have been aggressively pursuing a wide variety of actions, including but not limited to:

• Pre-Payment Audit.  After conducting a probe audit of a provider’s Medicare claims, the ZPIC may place a provider on “Pre-payment Audit” (also commonly referred to as “Pre-Payment Review”).  Unlike a post-payment audit, there is no administrative appeals process that may be utilized by a provider for relief.  Having said that, there are strategies that may be utilized by a provider which may assist in keeping the time period on pre-payment review at a minimum.
• Post-Payment Audit.  Audits conducted by ZPICs primarily involve Medicare claims that have already been paid by the government.  After reviewing these claims, it is not uncommon for a ZPIC to find that the audited provider has been overpaid.  Having said that, the ZPICs we have dealt with appear to apply a strict application of the coverage requirements, regardless of whether a provider’s deviation from the rules is “de minimus” in nature.  In doing so, it is not unusual to find that a provider has failed to fully comply with each and every requirement.  Depending on the nature of the initial sample drawn, a ZPIC may extrapolate the damages in a case, significantly increasing the alleged overpayment.  In doing so, the ZPIC is effectively claiming that the “sample” of claims audited are representative of the universe of claims at issue in an audit.
• Suspension.  While the number of suspension actions taken by ZPICs has steadily increased in recent years,  Medicare providers should expect to see this number continue to grow.  Under the Affordable Care Act (often informally referred to as the “Health Care Reform” Act), CMS’ suspension authority has greatly expanded.   
• Revocation.  As with suspensions, we have seen a sharp increase in the number of Medicare revocation actions taken over the last year. The reasons for revocation have varied but have typically been associated with alleged violations of their participation agreement. In some cases, the ZPIC contractors found that the provider has moved addresses and did not properly notified Medicare. In other cases, a provider was alleged to have been uncooperative during a site visit. Finally, there were a number of instances where the provider allegedly did not meet the “core” requirements necessary for their facility to remain certified.
• Referrals for Civil and Criminal Enforcement.  ZPICs are actively referring providers to HHS-OIG (which can in turn refer the case to the U.S. Department of Justice for possible civil and / or criminal enforcement) when a case appears to entail more that a mere overpayment. However, just because a referral is made doesn’t mean that it will prosecuted. In many instances, HHS-OIG (and / or DOJ) will decline to open a case due to a variety of reasons, such as lack of evidence, insufficient damages, etc.).

 III.        Steps Providers Can Take Now, Before They are Subjected to a ZPIC Audit:

          In responding to a ZPIC audit, it is important to remember that although they may not technically be “bounty hunters,” it is arguably to their benefit to find that an overpayment has occurred. These overpayments are often based on overlapping “technical” (such as an incorrect place of service code) and “substantive” (such as lack of medical necessity) reasons for denial. In recent years, the level of expertise exercised by ZPICs is often quite high — noting multiple reasons for denial and concern.

          Unfortunately, the reality is that most (if not all) Medicare providers will find themselves the subject of a ZPIC, CERT, RAC or other type of claims audit at some point in the future.  In our opinion, the single most effective step you can take to prepare for a contractor audit is to ensure that your organization has implemented and is adhering to an effective Compliance Plan.  A comprehensive assessment of an organization’s coding and billing practices is one element of an effective plan.  Several general points to consider also include:

Keep in mind your experiences with PSCs and other contractors.  The lessons you have learned responding to PSC, CERT and RAC audits can be invaluable when appealing ZPIC overpayments.  As you will recall, the appeals rules to be followed are virtually the same.

Monitor HHS-OIG’s Work Plan.  While often cryptic, it can be invaluable in identifying areas of government concern.  Are any of the services or procedures your organization currently provides a focus of HHS-OIG’s audit or investigative?

Keep an eye on RAC activities.  Review the service-specific findings set out in annual RAC reports.  Review targeted areas carefully to ascertain whether claims meet Medicare’s coding and medical necessity policies.

You never realize how bad your documentation is until your facility is audited. While many providers start out “over-documenting” services (to the extent that there is such a thing), a provider’s documentation practices often become more relaxed as time goes on – especially when the provider has not been audited for an extended period of time.  In such situations, both physicians and their staff may fail to fully document the services provided.  Moreover, the care taken to ensure that all supporting documentation has been properly secured may have also lapsed over the years.

Review your documentation.  Imagine you are an outside third-party reviewer.  Can an outsider fully appreciate the patient’s clinical status and the medical necessity of treatment?  Are the notes legible and written is a clear fashion?  Compare your E/M services to the 1995 or 1997 Evaluation and Management (E/M) Guidelines – have you fully and completely documented the services you provided?  If dealing with skilled services, have you fully listed and discussed both the need for skilled services and the specific skilled services provided?

IV.        Closing Thoughts:

          Imagine a ZPIC hands you a claims analysis rife with alleged errors, an indecipherable list of statistical formulas, 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, particularly the use of formulas and application of the RAT-STATS program when selecting a statistical sample and extrapolating the alleged damages based on the sample.  To be clear, not all statistical extrapolations will be flawed.  Denpending on the steps taken by the ZPIC’s statistician,  to the Over the years, we have challenged the extrapolation of damages conducted by Medicare contractors around the country, including tens of thousands of claims. Regardless of whether you are a Skilled Nursing Facility providing skilled nursing and skilled therapy services, an M.D. or D.O. providing E/M services, a Home Health company or a Durable Medical Equipment (DME) company, it is imperative that you work with experienced legal counsel and statistical experts to analyze the actions take by a ZPIC.

Liles Parker attorneys and staff have extensive experience representing a wide range of Medicare providers in audits by ZPICs, PSCs and other contractors.  Should you have questions regarding an inquiry from a ZPIC, PSC or RAC that you have received, please feel free to give us a call for a complimentary consultation.  We can be reached at:  1 (800) 475-1906.

 

 

 

 

Report by HHS-OIG Likely Precedes an Increase in ZPIC Audits of Skilled Nursing Facilities — Providers Should Prepare to be Audited and Compliance Officers are Well Advised to Review their Practices and Take Corrective Steps

(April 1, 2011):

I.        Background:

The Prospective Payment System (PPS) under which Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs) are reimbursed by Medicare has long been criticized by many concerned with “benefit integrity” and curbing waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare program. Critics argue that because the SNF reimbursement rate is prospective in nature and largely commensurate with the extent of skilled services provided to a beneficiary, SNFs will be more likely to provide unnecessary or unreasonable services for beneficiaries, thus increasing their reimbursement rates. For example, simply increasing the number of minutes of therapy a beneficiary receives (or providing a second or third therapy modality) could upgrade the Resource Utilization Group (RUG) to which the patient has been assigned, thereby resulting in a substantially higher reimbursement rate for the provider. This concern has prompted increased scrutiny of SNF billing practices.

II.         Questionable Billing Practices by Skilled Nursing Facilities:

              The Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS-OIG) recently released a report last December 2010 entitled “Questionable Billing Practices by Skilled Nursing Facilities” (Report No. OEI-02-09-00202). The three chief objectives of this report were to:

 Ascertain the extent to which billing practices by Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs) changed between 2006 and 2008;

Determine the extent to which billing varied by type of SNF ownership in 2008; and

Identify SNFs that engaged in questionable billing practices in 2008.

             HHS-OIG analyzed all Part A SNF claim line items from 2006 and 2008, including the types of RUGs billed by SNF, beneficiary characteristics, and the average length of stay in the SNF for each beneficiary. OIG specifically focused on SNFs that billed frequently for higher paying RUGs (or “therapy RUGs”), namely those falling under the “Rehabilitation” or “Rehabilitation Plus Extensive Services” categories.  Based on the data it reviewed, HHS-OIG reached several conclusions regarding the billing practices of SNFs between 2006 and 2008, most notably:

The percentage of “Ultra High” therapy RUG placements (corresponding with the highest possible reimbursement rates) increased substantially between 2006 and 2008, while RUG assignment rates for all other categories decreased or remained static. This increase in “Ultra High” therapy RUG billing represented approximately $5 billion in additional Medicare payments to SNFs between 2006 and 2008.

For-profit SNFs were more likely than non-profit or government SNFs to bill for higher paying RUGs.

Three quarters of all SNFs had up to 39% placement rates in “Ultra High” therapy RUGs.

             HHS-OIG then outlined several recommendations based on its conclusions, one of which entailed increased oversight of SNFs that bill for higher paying RUGs:

CMS should instruct its contractors to monitor the SNFs billing for higher paying RUGs using the indictors discussed in this report. Specifically, the contractors should determine for each SNF: (1) the percentage of RUGs for ultra high therapy; (2) the percentage of RUGs with high ADL scores, and (3) the average length of stay. CMS should develop thresholds for each of these measures and instruct contractors to conduct additional reviews of SNFs that exceed them. If SNFs from a particular chain frequently exceed these thresholds, then additional reviews should be conducted of the other SNFs in that chain.

Contractors should use this information to target their efforts to more effectively identify and prevent inappropriate billing. Contractors could conduct medical reviews of a sample of claims from SNFs that exceed these thresholds. Contractors could use their findings to recover inappropriate payments, to place certain SNFs on prepayment review, and to initiate fraud investigations. (emphasis added).

            In response to this recommendation, the director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) remarked,                                      

The CMS concurs….We will use the results of this review to determine whether additional safeguards, including thresholds, shall be put in place by the Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) to target their efforts to identify and prevent inappropriate billing…CMS will share the HHS-OIG report and any additional claims information with the appropriate Medicare contractors to consider the issues identified in this report when prioritizing their medical review strategies and other interventions. (emphasis added).

             The message to Medicare contractors is thus crystal clear: SNFs, especially those that have a significant placement rate for “Ultra High” therapy RUGs- should be increasingly targeted for audits. Meanwhile, OIG has shown no signs of relenting in its scrutiny of SNFs, noting in its 2011 Work Plan that:

We will review the extent to which payments to SNFs meet Medicare coverage requirements… We will conduct a medical review to determine whether claims were medically necessary, sufficiently documented, and coded correctly during calendar year (CY) 2009.

            Providers should ensure that their medical records and documentation satisfy applicable regulations and that they have an effective compliance plan in place to deter future audits. Otherwise, SNFs targeted for review could face the imposition of prepayment review status, payment bans, or civil monetary penalties (CMPs).

 III.        Areas of Focus by Medicare Contractors:

             Based on the concerns raised by HHS-OIG, Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPICs), MACs, other Medicare contractors conducting audits of SNFs are likely to focus on the following issues:  

Proper RUG Placement: SNF care must be provided at the appropriate level. This means that all services are necessary and reasonable and information entered on all Minimum Data Sets (MDS) for each beneficiary is complete and accurate. Contractors will closely scrutinize all RUG assignments, particularly those falling under the “Ultra High” therapy category.

Necessity and Reasonableness of Therapy Care: All therapy services must be consistent with the nature and severity of the beneficiary’s illness or injury. In many instances, contractors may question the therapy modalities provided to a beneficiary, the amount of therapy a beneficiary receives, or even the activities in which a beneficiary participates during therapy.

Provision of Skilled Care: All care provided by an SNF must be “skilled,” meaning that it can only be safely or effective provided by technical or professional personnel, such as nurses or therapists. Contractors will often conclude that skilled care is not supported by documentation that is vague, generic, or repetitive.

             Providers should review their medical documentation and related policies to ensure that, at a minimum, all of the elements and requirements discussed above are adequately addressed. There are also a number of additional steps providers can take to limit their liability in any future audits.

 IV.        Recommendations for Providers:

1.           Tailor Each Care Plan to the Beneficiary’s Individual Needs: As discussed above, care provided by an SNF must be necessary and reasonable, meaning that it is consistent with the beneficiary’s illness or injury. This is essentially a principle of proportionality. Providers should ensure that all RUG classifications and care plans created for beneficiaries- especially therapy care plans- are tailored to the beneficiary’s individual needs and designed to address the beneficiary’s functional deficits. Contractors will be on the look out for RUG assignments or care plans that provide for overly extensive services or excessive treatment modalities.

2.          Maintain Detailed Medical Records: SNFs must provide beneficiaries with “skilled” care, so all documentation should be sufficiently detailed to reflect the technical or specialized knowledge of the SNF staff. SNFs should also amply document all activities related to management and evaluation of beneficiary care plans, observation and assessment of beneficiaries’ medical conditions, any beneficiary education services regarding self-care, or any therapeutic exercises conducted with the beneficiary.

3.          Ensure that the MDS is Consistent with the Beneficiary’s Clinical Record: The first document a contractor will scrutinize when it questions a RUG placement will be the MDS. Contractors will often argue that the information coded on the MDS is inconsistent with the clinical record. Providers should thus ensure that all data entered on every MDS is supported by the corresponding clinical record. A more robust record will make it much harder for a contractor to successfully challenge a RUG classification.

4.          Consult Qualified Counsel: The consequences of an audit can be financially devastating to a provider. In light of increased scrutiny from Medicare contractors and the overall complexity of the medical review process, providers should consult qualified counsel if they have concerns regarding the sufficiency of their medical documentation or a potential audit. Counsel can assist providers with designing and implementing a comprehensive compliance plan or, if necessary, effectively responding to an audit initiated by a Medicare contractor.  Liles Parker attorneys and staff have extensive experience handling both (a) administrative appeals of denied claims in post-payment audits by ZPICs and PSCs, and (b) working with therapy and other providers to devise effective compliance plans and provisions designed to assist these providers in meeting their statutory, regulatory and administrative obligations under the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

          In our opinion, Medicare contractors (including ZPICs, PSCs and RACs), acting at the direction of CMS and HSS-OIG, will continue to expand their audit efforts against SNFs, particularly those with a significant number of beneficiaries assigned to “Ultra High” therapy RUGs. Accordingly, SNFs should review the quality and sufficiency of their documentation and implement comprehensive compliance efforts to deter potential audits.  Therefore, it is imperative that affected providers immediately take steps to assess their current practices and take remedial steps to correct any deficiencies identified.

Liles Parker attorneys and staff have extensive experience representing Medicare providers in post-payment audits of skilled therapy (PT, ST and OT claims) and related skilled nursing services claims by ZPICs and other contractors.  Should you have questions regarding this article or the defense of post-payment audits, please give us a call for complimentary consultation.  We can be reached at 1 (800) 475-1906. 

 

 

The ZPIC Audit and Appeals Process

(March 25, 2011) – Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPICs) have established themselves as the preeminent audit tool of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), surpassing both Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs) and Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) Benefit Integrity units.

RAC and ZPIC appeals follow the same general procedures, but it is important to learn these procedures regardless of whether you engage counsel. Timeframes, both for recoupment and filing appeals, are very strict, and you should ensure that you meet these deadlines.

For more information, please review the Liles Parker “ZPIC Audit and Appeals Process” Chart. Click here: ZPIC Audit and Appeal Process Chart

Post-Payment Audits Conducted by Medicare Contractors: An Overview of the CERT Audit Process

(March 12, 2011):  Health care providers around the country are finding their practices and clinics subjected to Medicare post-payment audits by Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPICs), Program Safeguard Contractors (PSCs) and Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) Contractors.  While all post-payment audits should be taken seriously, there are real differences between both the contractors and the post-payment audits they are conducting.  This is the first of three articles examining these differences.  Starting with the CERT audit program, we will be examining each of the Medicare contractors conducting post-payment audits and review of provider claims for services and devices.   

Historical Background of the CERT Audit Program:

With the passage of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 (P.L.104 -191), the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (OIG) initiated work in an effort to estimate the improper payment error rate of Medicare Fee-For-Service (FFS) claims.  From 1996 through 2002, OIG continued to manage this program. In 2002, the “Improper Payments Information Act” (IPIA) was enacted. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) subsequently began working with the OIG in 2003, and worked to further refine the estimated Medicare FFS error rate so that the program would comply with the requirements of the IPIA.  These efforts became known as the “Comprehensive Error Rate Testing” (CERT) program.[1]  Unlike early efforts, the CERT program does not only estimate a national improper payments error rate for Medicare FFS claims.  As Timothy Hill, OIG’s Chief Financial Officer testified before the Senate, the CERT program examines a number of essential aspects of the overall error rate of Medicare FFS claims:

“Contractor-specific improper payment rates – which measure the accuracy of our claims processors.

Provider-type specific improper payment rates – which measure how well the providers who care for our beneficiaries are preparing and submitting claims to the program; and

Other management related information – which provides insight into payment errors by region and reason.”[2]

Notably, the CERT program was designed to provide a comprehensive assessment of the improper payments being made to specific types of Medicare providers, along with the improper payment decisions being made by various Medicare contractors.  In doing so, the CERT program was set up to serve as an integral management tool to be used by CMS. Once problem areas were identified, CMS was able to monitor specific problem areas (and in some cases, specific Medicare contractors making erroneous payment decisions) so that corrective action could be taken.

CERT Contractors:

CMS has selected private contractors to administer the CERT program.  There are two basic types of CERT contractors, a “CERT Review Contractor” (CRC) and a “CERT Documentation Contractor” (CDC).  As an initial step, the CRC will first select random samples of claims from each Medicare claims processing contractor.  The CDC will then take the list of claims selected by the CRC and request the relevant documentation related to these claims from the health care provider who provided, billed and was paid for the services.  Once received, the CDC then forwards the documentation to the CRC. 

A.        Livanta – CDC.

CMS has awarded the CDC contract to a private company named “Livanta, LLC” (Livanta), located in Annapolis Junction, Maryland. Notably, Livanta has also been awarded the “Statistical Contractor” (SC) portion of the Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) program.  The PERM program is designed to measure improper payments in both the Medicaid program and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).  

Focusing on Livanta’s duties as CDC, the contractor typically proceeds as follows when completed its duties as a CERT contractor: 

• Once a provider has been identified, the CDC will contact the provider regarding the audit.  In a number of cases, the CDC will first call the provider by telephone and then follow-up with a fax or written request for the documents sought. 
• If a provider has not forwarded the documents requested to the CDC by day 30, both telephone and written follow-ups are made by the CDC to the provider.   
• If the records are not received by day 45, the CDC will again both call and fax or write the provider to ascertain the status of the requested documentation. 
• If the requested documentation still has been received by day 60, a letter is sent to the provider again inquiring on the status of the missing documents. 
• If no documentation is received by day 76, the claims associated with the missing documentation is denied and scored as an “error” based on the missing documentation.

B.        AdvanceMed – CRC.

Once the CDC has requested and received the claims documentation from the provider, it is forwarded to the “CERT Review Contractor” (CRC).  CMS has awarded the contract to serve as CRC to AdvanceMed. As CRC, AdvanceMed must carefully review the documentation received and determine whether the services qualify for coverage and payment.  The CRC then compares its assessment to that of the Medicare contractor who originally reviewed and paid the claims (the contractor is typically a Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) who is responsible for review of the Part A or Part B claims).  If the CRC finds that the Medicare contractor incorrectly billed, paid or processed the services at issue, the claim is noted to be an “error”

Sample CERT Program Results From the Fourth Quarter of 2010:

Each quarter, Highmark Medicare Services (Highmark) reports on the most recent “errors” identified by the CERT contractor in connection with the CERT program audit.  During the Fourth Quarter of 2010, 508 CERT errors were found in connection with the Part A claims reviewed.   The 508 errors can be broken down as follows: 

• 311 errors were due to “insufficient documentation.”  Notably,   a majority of the errors in this category were because the medical record “did not contain a valid physician’s signature” or because a diagnostic test performed “did not contain a valid physician’s order” or an identification of the provider who rendered the service.
• 132 errors were due to “lack of medical necessity” based on the medical documentation submitted.
• 37 errors were due to “incorrect coding” (primarily related to laboratory testing).
• 10 errors were due to “invasive procedures that were assessed  to be without medically necessity.”
• 9 errors were due to an “incorrect procedure code” used when billing the service.
• 6 errors were the result of “billing for services that were not rendered.”
• 2 errors were due to “other errors.”
• 1 error was due to an “incorrect discharge code being used.”  

In addition to the Part A errors identified, a separate error report covering Part B claims is also detailed on Highmark’s website. [3] 

 Responding to a CERT Audit Request for Documents:

Should you receive a CERT audit request for documents from a CDC, it is important to keep in mind that your practice or clinic is not being accused of fraud or wrongdoing.  Fundamentally, a CERT audit is primarily designed to identify deficiencies and mistakes made by Medicare contractors.  As Compliance Officer, upon receipt of a CERT audit request, you should carefully review the request and take steps to assemble a complete set of documentation covering the specific claims at issue.  As Highmark also notes, when dealing with notes that are difficult to decipher, it is recommended that a transcription of the notes be made and submitted with the documentation.  

Appealing CERT Denials:

The results of a CERT audit are likely to be set out in Medicare’s electronic Fiscal Intermediary Standard System (FISS) computer system.  It is imperative that you monitor the status of the claims selected for CERT review.  If the CRC finds that one of more of your paid claims did not qualify for coverage and payment you will have to decide whether or not you agree with the denial decision that has been issued.  Should you dispute the denial, you will need to file for administrative appeal within the standard, established timeframes.   CERT denials are appealed in the same manner as any other claims denial would be appealed.

Comparison of CERT and ZPIC / PSC Post-Payment Audits:

As reflected above, CERT audits are fundamentally different from ZPIC and PSC audits, both in terms of fundamental purpose and in terms of likely financial liability.  At its core, a CERT audit is really an attempt by CMS to learn whether or not its contractors (typically MACs) are properly assessing and processing claims submitted by Medicare providers for review and payment.  If a CERT contractor finds that a provider’s claims should not have been paid, it primarily reflects on the MAC, not necessarily the provider.  Having said that, claims denied by a CERT contractor should still be appealed if the provider believes that the claims do, in fact, qualify for coverage and payment.  While denied claims will still contribute to a provider’s overall error rate (possibly increasing the likelihood that a provider could be subjected to later audits), damages associated with CERT audits are not typically extrapolated.  As a result, the overall damages associated with CERT audits are relatively modest, especially when compared to the potential damages alleged in ZPIC and PSC “big-box” cases.  Additionally, unlike ZPIC and PSC audits, most CERT audits are solely concerned with the coverage and payment of the particular claims under review.  In contrast, ZPIC and PSC post-payment audits can lead to suspension, revocation or even referral to OIG or DOJ in cases where fraud may be evident.

Despite the limited scope of liability inherent in CERT audits, it is imperative that Medicare providers diligently work to respond to requests for documentation in a timely fashion.  Notably, other contractors (including ZPIC, PSC and RAC auditors) may review CERT audit findings for targeting purposes.  The bottom line is fairly simple — if you owe money to the Medicare program, pay it back.  If not, you should challenge unwarranted denials of claims by CERT auditors. 

Liles Parker attorneys represent health care providers around the country in connection with post-payment audits and reviews by Medicare contractors.  Should your practice, clinic or company be subjected to a post-payment audit, give us a call for a complimentary consultation.  We can be reached at: 1 (800) 475-1906.    

Texas Providers Should Expect Sharp Increase in Post-Payment Audits of E/M Claims Billed to Medicare.

(March 8, 2011):  In February 2011, TrailBlazer Health Enterprises (TrailBlazer) reported the results of “widespread” probe reviews the contractor conducted of  CPT Codes 99211–99215 related to Evaluation and Management (E/M) claims billed for dates of service 01/01/10 through 06/30/10.

Overall Results of TrailBlazer’s Probe Review:

The probe reviews conducted included the examination of 100 claims submitted by selected providers in Texas, Colorado, New Mexico and Oklahoma, along with 100 claims submitted by Virginia providers.  Overall, TrailBlazer found that most of the E/M claims billed should not have been paid.  In fact, the contractor found that very few of the E/M services billed to Medicare by Texas health care providers met the documentation requirements to qualify for coverage and payment.  As TrailBlazer’s report reflects:

The error rate for Texas / Colorado / New Mexico / Oklahoma health care providers was 91.32 %.

The error rate for Virginia health care providers was 51.43%.

Types of Errors Found by TrailBlazer:

TrailBlazer found the following problems when evaluating the documentation supporting the E/M services at issue:

“Documentation did not support Medicare’s requirements for the Evaluation and Management (E/M) service to be considered medically reasonable and necessary: 

Inappropriate billing of an E/M service when only providing a non-covered service (e.g., acupuncture).

The chief complaint was absent, ambiguous or not addressed in the history, exam or Medical Decision-Making (MDM).

The chief complaint indicated the reason for the encounter was for administration of a medication, to have labs drawn or to receive the results for labs. None of these situations requires an E/M service.

In the absence of an acute problem, the frequency of E/M services billed per beneficiary for CPT codes 99212–99215 exceeded documented needs for management of stable, chronic conditions.

Documentation for the patient encounter did not provide a complete picture of the patient evaluation and management over time or the nature of the presenting problem. 

Documentation of an exam was absent from the patient’s medical record.

Documentation of MDM was absent from the patient’s medical record.

The requested documentation was not received.

The documentation did not support the use of the 25 modifier (no significant, separately identifiable E/M service was documented):

Documentation did not support a separate or any E/M services rendered.

Inappropriate billing of E/M services with physician attendance and supervision of hyperbaric oxygen therapy, intravenous infusions and various physical therapy services.”

In addition to these observations, TrailBlazer has outlined a number of other findings in its 02/08/11 report. 

 Recommendations for Texas Providers:

In light of TrailBlazer’s probe review findings, (91.23% error rate), the ZPIC assigned to this jurisdiction (Health Integrity) will likely be conducting widespread post-payment audits of Texas providers billing E/M services to Medicare.  It is imperative that Texas providers examine their E/M documentation practices to ensure that claims are being billed properly.

Additionally, providers billing E/M services to Medicare should examine their current Compliance Plans and verify that this issue is included as a “risk area” to be regularly reviewed by the practice or clinic.

Liles Parker attorneys have extensive experience representing health care providers in connection with post-payment audits and in compliance matters.  Should you have questions regarding these issues, give us a call for a complimentary consultation.  We can be reached at: 1 (800) 475-1906.

Are Medicare ALJ’s Truly Independent Fact Finders, Free From the Informal Pressures of CMS and its ZPIC / PSC / RAC / QIC Contractors?

(February 20, 2011):  Over the years, we have represented a wide variety of health care providers in the administrative appeals process.  Our duties have regularly included representation before Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) presiding out of the Western, Southern, Midwestern and Mid-Atlantic Field Offices of the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals.  (OMHA). 

In the course of our work, we have routinely been asked by our health care provider clients for our opinion regarding the “independence” of ALJs from the pressures exerted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and its contractors (including, but not limited to the Qualified Independent Contractors (QICs), Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPICs) and Program Safeguard Contractors (PSCs)).  The purpose of this brief article is to examine this issue in more detail.

Background:  As many of you will recall, prior to the passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA), Medicare administrative appeals were heard by Judges working for the Social Security Administration’s (SSA’s) Office of Hearings and Appeals.  For much of that time, the SSA was an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).  In 1994, the SSA was officially separated from HHS and was made an independent agency.  Although the SSA was no longer part of HHS, its Judges continued to hear Medicare administrative appeals.

Despite the fact that SSA used to a part of HHS (and for a short period was independent of HHS), in our opinion, SSA Judges were generally thought to be “independent” adjudicators of the facts, not impacted by, or bowing to, the effects of outside agency pressures.

With the enactment of the MMA, the responsibility for hearing Medicare administrative appeals was transferred over to HHS, with OMHA reporting solely to the Secretary, HHS.  In doing so, the OMHA was placed completely outside of CMS’ organizational structure, ostensibly free from any agency pressures that CMS might informally care to exert.  This also placed the OMHA independent of the various contractors working for CMS.  As a review of the Congressional Record reflects, the issue of independence was carefully considered by Congress and the separation of the OMHA from CMS was consistent with their concerns. (See Congressional Record, V. 149, Pt. 22, November 20, 2003 to November 23, 2003, Page 30400). As set out in the June 23, 2005 issuance of the Federal Register (70 Fed.Reg. 36386), titled “Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals; Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority,” the OMHA is under the direction of a Chief Administrative Law Judge who reports directly to the Secretary, HHS.  This organizational structure was specifically intended to meet the “independence” requirements of the Section 931(b)(2) of the MMA. 

What Can You Expect:

In terms of functional authority, ALJs are comparable in many respects, to that of an Article III Judge, who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.  While ALJ’s are not Article III Judges, it has been our experience that they are strongly independent, adjudicating over Medicare proceedings in a formal, professional fashion, similar to what you would expect to encounter in a Federal District Court proceeding.

Pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 405.1026, ALJs cannot even conduct a hearing if they are prejudiced or partial to any party, or if they have an interest in the matter pending for resolution.  To date, we have not seen an ALJ that has been “prejudiced or partial to any party.”

To be clear, health care providers do not always prevail — every case stands or falls based on its merits.  Moreover, just because you have experienced a positive outcome with a particular ALJ on one occasion does not mean that you should expect a similar result when you are next in front of the same judge.  ALJs are trained to weigh the facts and the evidence.  While in past years it was rare for CMS or its contractors to participate in a hearing, it is now commonplace for representatives of the Zone Program Integrity Contractor (ZPIC) or the Program Safeguard Contractor (PSC) to now attend the hearing and seek to provide support for their initial denial actions.  As a result, the job of ALJ is now more complicated than ever.

In summary, the current administrative appeals system has been specifically designed to insulate ALJs from the actual and / or implied pressures which could conceivably be exerted by CMS and its various contractors.  When appearing before an ALJ, it is important to remember that the process has become significantly more complicated now that CMS contractors are now regularly attending and participating in the process.  In light of these changes, it is recommended that you engage experienced legal counsel to represent your interests in an ALJ hearing.  Although the system and its Judges are set up to provide a fair opportunity for you to present your case and be heard, it is much more difficult to prevail when up to three representatives of the ZPIC (a lawyer, a statistician and a clinician) are also participating in the proceedings, providing support and explanations for their prior Medicare claim denial decisions.

Liles Parker attorneys have extensive experience representing a wide variety of Part A and Part B providers in the administrative appeals process, including the ALJ hearing stage.  Please feel free to contact us for a complimentary consultation.  We can be reached at 1 (800) 475-1906.

 

 

 

 

ZPICs and PSCs Will Now Be on the Lookout for “Date Stamps” Used by Home Health and Hospice Providers.

(February 19, 2011):  While the use of “signature” stamps has been prohibited for quite some time, a wide variety of health care providers have continued to use “date” stamps or some other method of memorializing when a document was signed by an ordering or treating physician.  While the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has not announced a total ban on such practices, they have recently prohibited home health and hospice agencies from continuing to use “date” stamps.

 Background:      Late last year, CMS notified its Medicare contractors that physicians must sign and date hospice certifications and home health plans of care, verbal orders, and certifications.  A number of Medicare contractors then notified hospice and home health providers of this change, noting that it would become effective for all documents signed on or after January 1, 2011.

 Basis for this Requirement:   Characterized by at least one Medicare contractor as a “clarification,” this change was based on the following CMS references:

 Home Health

Medicare General Information, Eligibility and Entitlement Manual (Pub. 100-01), Chapter 4, section 30.1 which states: ”The attending physician signs and dates the POC/certification prior to the claim being submitted for payment.”

The manual requirement is also addressed in 42 CFR 424.22(D)2 effective 1/11/11, and states “The certification of need for home health services must be obtained at the time the plan of care is established or as soon thereafter as possible and must be signed and dated by the physician who establishes the plan.”  The instructions for recertification are found in the same Part and restates that it “must be signed and dated by the physician who reviews the plan of care.”  

Hospice

 Medicare General Information, Eligibility and Entitlement Manual (Pub. 100-01), Chapter 4, section 60 states:  “Certification statements must be dated and signed by the physician.”

 The manual requirement is also addressed in 42 CFR 418.22(b)(5) effective 1/11/11 and states: “All certifications are recertifications must be signed and dated by the physician(s).”

Other Considerations:

 In reviewing this clarification, it is somewhat confusing (if not inconsistent) in light of CMS’ recent guidance in the Federal Register titled “Medicare Program; Home Health Prospective Payment System Rate Update for Calendar Year 2011; Changes in Certification Requirements for Home Health Agencies and Hospices; Final Rule.”  As the Final Rules reflect, the use of “date stamps” was expressly addressed at approximately the same time CMS sent out its clarification to Medicare contractors.  As the Final Rule reflects:

 Comment: A commenter recommended that CMS continue to accept the hospice date stamp on POCs returned to the agency by physicians who forget or fail to date their signature on this document.

Response: At this time, there is nothing to preclude a hospice from using a date stamp if a physician fails to date his or her signature on the POC.

To be clear, technically the clarification guidance is not inconsistent with CMS’ response in the Final Rule.  When discussing the change for hospices, the clarification focused on certifications and recertifications while the Final Rule focused on plans of care.  Nevertheless, from a compliance standpoint, the message is quite clear – “date stamps” should not be used.   

Compliance Recommendations:

From a compliance standpoint, it is imperative that both physicians and staff are educated and understand that “date stamps” are no longer acceptable.  Although CMS’ clarification was directed at home health and hospice providers, the best practice would be for all providers to discontinue the use of date stamps in connection with all documents, not merely those documents identified above. Like signature stamps, the use of date stamps will likely ultimately be prohibited for all Medicare providers.

It is equally important to recognize that orders, certifications, recertifications and plans of care and other documents must be signed in a timely fashion. They should not be backdated or signed by anyone other than the physician responsible for ordering the certification or establishing the plan of care.

If a home health or hospice provider receives a signed order or certification from a physician who has not dated the document, it should immediately be sent back to him to be properly dated.  

From a “program integrity” standpoint, Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPICs) and Program Safeguard Contractors (PSCs) will now be including this issue in its list of technical audit issues.  Health care providers should add this issue to their list of compliance “risks.” 

Liles Parker attorneys represent home health and hospice providers in connection with ZPIC audits, compliance counseling and business transactions.  Should you have questions, please feel free contact us for a free consultation.  We can be reached at 1 (800) 475-1906.    

  

Be Prepared — ZPIC, PSC and QIC Representatives Are Increasing their Participation in Appeal Hearings, Personally Presenting Their Rationale for Denying Your Medicare Claims to the ALJ.

(February 12, 2011):  Over the last year, we have noted an important trend when representing Medicare providers in post-payment overpayment cases at the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) level of appeal.   Medicare contractors are actively attending and participating in many ALJ hearings.  The virtual “Courtroom” where ALJ hearings are typically held (most ALJ hearings are now held by teleconference or video-teleconference — few are conducted in person) are no longer attended by only a provider, its attorney and the Judge.   Instead, it is now relatively crowded, requiring the scheduling of experts and the testimony of various clinical specialists — representing not only the provider, but also one or more government Medicare contractors.  Although mostly limited to “big-box” cases where the amount at issue ranges from $100,000 to several million dollars, we have even had Medicare contractors attend ALJ hearings involving alleged overpayments of only a few thousand dollars.

This “sea change” in how the government and its contractors view their role in working to help ensure that alleged overpayments stay in place demands that providers reconsider their decision to represent themselves in ALJ appeals hearings.  While many health care providers feel comfortable handling an ALJ hearing on their own when the only parties on the teleconference or on the video-teleconference are the Judge and the Medicare providers themselves, it is a completely different situation when one or more contractors elects to participate in the hearing and present their denial reasons to the ALJ.  The purpose of this article to examine this trend and discuss a number of considerations that Medicare providers should be taking into account when deciding whether or not to represent themselves at ALJ hearing, without an attorney. 

I.          Rights / limitations of a ZPIC or other contractor when acting as a “participant” in an ALJ hearing.

Pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 405.1010, both representatives from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and its contractors may participate in an ALJ hearing.  Moreover, an ALJ may request that CMS or its contractors participate in a hearing.  As the regulatory provisions provide:

“(a) An ALJ may request, but may not require, CMS and/or one or more of its contractors to participate in any proceedings before the ALJ, including the oral hearing, if any. CMS and/or one or more of its contractors may also elect to participate in the hearing process.

(b) If CMS or one or more of its contractors elects to participate, it advises the ALJ, the appellant, and all other parties identified in the notice of hearing of its intent to participate no later than 10 calendar days after receiving the notice of hearing.

(c) Participation may include filing position papers or providing testimony to clarify factual or policy issues in a case, but it does not include calling witnesses or cross-examining the witnesses of a party to the hearing. (emphasis added).

(d) When CMS or its contractor participates in an ALJ hearing, the agency or its contractor may not be called as a witness during the hearing.

(e) CMS or its contractor must submit any position papers within the time frame designated by the ALJ.

(f) The ALJ cannot draw any adverse inferences if CMS or a contractor decides not to participate in any proceedings before an ALJ, including the hearing.”

While ZPICs and other contractors may not “cross-examine” a Medicare provider or its witnesses during an ALJ hearing, contractors have easily worked around this regulatory obstacle.  Rather than confront a provider directly, a contractor will merely point out their concerns or make a specific point to the Judge.  The presiding ALJ will often then merely ask the provider the same questions first raised by the ZPIC.  As a result, a Medicare contractor never has to cross-examine the provider but his points and questions are still ultimately answered.  For instance, the following very simple exchange might occur during an ALJ hearing:

“ALJ:  I would like to hear the Medicare contractor’s views regarding the medical necessity of this E/M claim.

ZPIC:  Your honor, the 1997 E/M Guidelines clearly reflect the types of situations which would qualify as “High Complexity.”  We don’t believe that the facts here represented that level of complexity.  Additionally, the physician is now alleging that the patient suffered from multiple serious co-morbities which complicated the medical decision-making required.  Where is there proof that the patient had these conditions?

ALJ:  Dr. Smith, can you point out where these medical conditions are documented in the medical records submitted?”

In most instances, a provider should expect the ZPIC’s challenge to be much more pointed that the example cited above.  In any event, the bottom line is simple, under the current rules, it remains quite easy for a ZPIC to point out weaknesses in the provider’s case.  ALJ’s are seeking to determine the facts and decide whether the claims at issue qualify for coverage and payment.  When a ZPIC raises a concern, most ALJ’s will want to follow-up with the provider in order to obtain an answer regarding the points raised.  

Over the last year, we have also seen a marked  increase in the number of cases where a ZPIC has chosen to file a post-hearing brief with the Court.  This can be especially problematic for providers who choose to represent themselves at hearing because the ZPICs have used this as an opportunity to present new evidence and/or new arguments that were never introduced at lower levels of the case or at ALJ hearing.  As a result, the provider is often placed in the position of trying to respond to new arguments, never before presented by the ZPIC or other contractors, at the last minute in the ALJ hearing process.

II.          Who will show up from the ZPIC’s or PSC’s office?

Medicare providers should keep in mind that both ZPICs and Program Safeguard Contractors (PSCs) are quite sophisticated and are becoming more and more active in the ALJ hearing process, often replying to arguments presented to the Judge by a Medicare provider.  Moreover, it is not uncommon for a ZPIC to send as many as three professionals to participate in an ALJ hearing — all of whom may ultimately defend the ZPIC’s initial denial of the provider’s Medicare claims.  One of the ZPIC representatives very well may be an attorney.  A ZPIC contractor against whom we regularly litigate often sends a licensed attorney to respond to pro-provider arguments that the claims qualify for payment because they were not reopened in a timely fashion or that even if the claims do not meet all of the applicable coverage requirements, any overpayment would still qualify for “waiver.”  The ZPIC’s attorney may also respond to a number of limited arguments presented by a provider when trying to get a statistical extrapolation declared invalid by an ALJ.   It has been our experience that the ZPIC’s attorney is typically polished, smart and prepared.  When facing an unrepresented physician, the ZPIC’s lawyer would likely easily address any non-medical arguments presented by a Medicare provider.  A second ZPIC or PSC representative likely to participate in an ALJ hearing is the contractor’s statistician.  He is responsible for defending the legitimacy of the statistical sampling and extrapololation methodology employed by the ZPIC or PSC when extrapolating the damages in a case.  While a significant number of physicians and other health care providers are knowledgeable in statistics and mathematics, few know or understand the regulatory requirements which must be met before a contractor may engage in statistical sampling and seek to extrapolate damages.  As a result, few unrepresented providers have been able to convince an ALJ that an extrapolation is invalid.  While the additional cost of engaging a statistical expert to review a ZPICs extrapolation actions can be costly, it is likely required if a provider hopes to have a reasonable chance of challenging an extrapolation.   Finally, it is quite common for a ZPIC to send a third representative (typically a Registered Nurse) to provide clinical testimony in support of the ZPIC’s decision not to cover and pay certain claims, often citing the ZPIC’s own unique interpretation of LCD and LMRP requirements (an interpetation withwhich we often disagree).  Overall, an unrepresented provider is often unprepared to address and respond to the many legal, statistical and clinical arguments presented by the various ZPIC participants in an ALJ hearing.

While ZPIC and PSC representatives are now regularly participating in ALJ hearings, they are not the only contractors who are prepared to rise to the challenge.   Representatives of the Qualified Independent Contractor (QIC) have also been participating in some ALJ hearings.   In cases we are aware of, the QIC representative has been an attorney working for the contractor.  Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a clinician working for the QIC from attending the ALJ hearing and presenting the QIC’s arguments why certain claims did not qualify for coverage and payment.  Additionally, in at least one fairly recent case we handled on behalf of a provider, a Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) clinical reviewer chose to participate in the ALJ hearing.  

III.          What are the differences between a “party” to a hearing and a “participant” in a hearing?

As 42 C.F.R. § 405.1010(c) reflects, there are significant differences between a “party” to an ALJ hearing and a “participant” in an ALJ hearing.   As we previously discussed, a “participant”  does not have the right to call witnesses or cross-examine parties or their witnesses.  Additionlly, participants do not have the right to object to the issues described in the ALJ’s “Notice of Hearing.”  As CMS has argued, these elements are “cornerstones” of the adversarial process.  In the absence of these cornerstones, a proceeding is not considered to be adversarial, even though multiple Medicare contractor representatives may participate in an ALJ hearing.  As a result, since the proceeding was not adversarial in nature, a provider will be precluded from seeking to have its attorney’s fees paid under the “Equal Access to Justice Act,” even though it ultimately prevailed at hearing.   While perhaps technically correct, the idea that ALJ hearings are truly “non-adversarial” when Medicare contractors choose to join as a “participant” is flatly untrue.   ZPIC lawyers, clinical reviewers and expert statisticians have proven themselves to be highly capable and effective when arguing their positions, despite the fact that their role in the hearing was considered to be “non-adversarial” in nature.  To their credit, even though both sides may be passionate about their position on the issues, all of the ALJs we have practiced before have kept a strict rein on the proceedings. 

IV.          Depending on the specifics of a case, many providers would be better off engaging experienced legal counsel to represent their interests in an ALJ appeal.

When faced with an administrative overpayment case that is highly complex, involves a significant alleged overpayment or is based on a statistical extrapolation of damages, we recommend that a Medicare provider retain experienced legal counsel to represent the provider’s interests.  While it is possible for an experienced attorney to step in and handle a case at a later level of administrative appeal (such as the QIC and ALJ levels), it becomes more and more difficult to do so in an effective fashion as the case progresses.  We have seen a number of cases where a provider has failed to properly establish the record in a case and important supportive documentation stood the chance of not being admitted in the record because the provider failed to introduce it at lower levels of appeal.  An experienced attorney can help ensure that the record is properly constructed and no important legal defenses or payment arguments have been left out of the case.  Additionally, legal counsel will be able to assess the coverage requirements, identify possible holes in the provider’s case and work with the provider to identify witnesses and obtain supportive evidence to hopefully fill any gaps in the provider’s case. 

V.          Conclusion.

As a final point, it essential to remember that the trier of fact, the ALJ responsible for presiding over the provider’s case, is a lawyer, not a clinician.  Arguably, an experienced health law attorney– rather than a clinician — is uniquely trained to analyze the legal issues presented, organize the provider’s facts and present the relevant evidence to the ALJ (another attorney).  Having said that, an experienced attorney is no substitute for a qualified clinician who can directly address the clinical profiles of the beneficiaries and the medical necessity issues presented. Together, a supporting clinician and a skilled attorney can be a formidable team when arguing a Medicare provider’s case.  Moreover, this team is best equipped to respond to any arguments raised by participating ZPIC representatives during the overpayment hearing.

Liles Parker attorneys in the Firm’s Health Law Practice have extensive experience representing health care providers around the country in ZPIC, PSC and RAC overpayment appeals cases .  Should you have any questions about your case or the overpayment appeals process, please feel free to call us for a complimentary consultation.   We can be reached at 1 (800) 475-1906.

Richard Pecore, Esq. Joins the Firm as Senior Counsel

(February 7, 2011): Liles Parker is pleased to announce that Richard Pecore has joined the Firm’s Health Law practice as Senior Counsel.  Mr. Pecore is a licensed Texas attorney and has worked on a variety of health care related matters and cases over the years.  Mr. Pecore has extensive civil litigation experience and will be representing Firm clients in “big-box” overpayment cases brought by Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs), Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPICs) and Program Safeguard Contractors (PSCs).  In recent years, Mr. Pecore has represented virtually hundreds of clients in health care related cases, conducting legal research, handling depositions and representing clients in contentious hearings.  As Managing Partner Robert W. Liles stated:

“We are thrilled to have Richard join our Health Law practice.  His litigation skills and experience will allow the Firm to further expand its representation of health care providers around the country, with an emphasis on cases in South Texas.”

At this time, Mr. Pecore will be working out of the Firm’s Washington and San Antonio offices.  Should you have any questions or would like to speak with Mr. Pecore about his legal services, please call our Washington office at (202) 298-8750.  Alternatively, you may e-mail Richard at rpecore@lilesparker.com. 

Welcome to the team, Richard!

2011. . . The Year of Compliance — Avoiding ZPIC Initiated Medicare Suspension Actions

(January 11, 2011): As you recall at the end of 2010 we identified the “Top Ten Health Care Compliance Risks for 2011.”  The purpose of this and subsequent articles is to analyze two of those risks; Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPICs) and Payment Suspension Actions. Over the next few days we will be discussing these two risk areas in depth.

I. Overview:

As discussed in our “Top Ten” article, we anticipate that Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPICs) will ratchet up their use of provider suspension actions in 2011.  At the close of 2010, there already appeared to be an increase in the use of suspension actions by ZPICs in South Texas and in other areas of the country.  In many instances, these actions were the result of sophisticated data mining techniques by ZPICs.  While cases are initiated in a variety of ways (including, but not limited to whistleblower complaints, anonymous reports to the government’s fraud hotline, etc.), data mining is a key tool relied on by ZPICs and government agencies for targeting purposes. 

After analyzing the data, ZPICs often send out requests for information or conduct site visits of health care provider facilities.  These requests and / or site visits can result in medical reviews, demands for alleged overpayments, or lead to referrals to one or more government investigative agencies (such as the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG), the State Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) and / or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)). Since established, ZPICs have clearly met their goal of developing “innovative data analysis methodologies for detecting and preventing Medicare fraud and abuse.”  Rather than pursuing merely administrative overpayment cases, over the last six months, we have noted an increase in the number of cases referred to law enforcement for fraud investigation.  While seven ZPIC zones have been identified, only three companies have been awarded ZPIC contracts at this time.  Where ZPIC contracts remain pending, Program SafeGuard Contractors (PSC) are typically still operating and are conducting essentially the same duties as their ZPIC counterparts.  The seven ZPIC zones include:  

• Zone 1- CA, NV, American Samoa, Guam, HI and the Mariana Islands.
• Zone 2 includes; AK, WA, OR, MT, ID, WY, UT, AZ, ND, SD, NE, KS, IA, MO.
• Zone 3-MN, WI, IL, IN, MI, OH and KY.
• Zone 4-CO, NM, OK, TX.
• Zone 5- AL, AR, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA and WV
• Zone 6- PA, NY, MD, DC, DE and ME, MA, NJ, CT, RI, NH and VT.
• Zone 7- FL, PR and VI

The following map reflects zones where the ZPIC contractor is currently operating.  Each of the ZPICs listed below are actively sending out requests for information and / or conducting site visits.  In a number of instances, the ZPICs have been noted to be suspending providers from the Medicare program based on variety of alleged statutory and / regulatory violations.

ZPICs have been very active in their site visits which have brought about Medicare suspension actions. In some cases, these site visits have resulted in allegations of “fraud or willful misrepresentation” with ZPIC’s contacting of CMS for approval to place the provider on payment suspension.  In our next article, we will be examining the primary reasons cited by CMS when placing a provider on payment suspension status.

Liles Parker attorneys have extensive experience representing health care providers in ZPIC initiated actions.  Should your Physician Practice, Home Health Agency, Hospice Company, Physical / Occupational / Speech Therapy Clinic, Ambulance Company, Community Mental Health Center, Pain Clinic or other provider entity be audited by a ZPIC, give us a call for a free consultation.  We can be reached at: 1 (800) 475-1906.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »