Articles Posted in Audit

Published on:

Recent Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) activity demonstrates that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) may soon allow RACs to target skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) with certain levels of Ultra High Therapy Resource Utilization Groups (RUGs). 

Although Ultra High Therapy Resource Utilization Groups are not currently a CMS-approved audit topic, RACs are permitted to audit “test claims” and suggest new audit activity based on the results. In a recent demand letter, the RAC stated that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has found an “overwhelming majority of error in assignments by providers under the RUGs categorization system to Ultra High Therapy RUGs, resulting in overpayments to SNFs.”

These claims arose out of a 2010 OIG report which alleged that 1) SNFs are increasingly billing higher-paying RUGs, 2) for-profit SNFs are more likely than nonprofit SNFs to bill for higher-paying RUGs, and 3) in general, many SNFs maintain questionable billing for therapy services.

Published on:

DCS Healthcare, RAC for Region A, recently added 40 new issues to its CMS-approved issues list for providers in Pennsylvania, Delaware, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont and D.C. A sampling of the newly approved issues is included below. Please visit DCS Healthcare’s website to view the remaining issues.

  • Medical Necessity Review (MNR) for MS-DRG 922 Other Injury, Poisoning and Toxic Effect Diagnosis with MCC. Medicare pays for inpatient hospital services that are medically necessary for the setting billed. Medical documentation will be reviewed to determine that services were medically necessary. This review will be of MS-DRG 922 Other Injury, Poisoning and Toxic Effect Diagnosis with MCC.
  • Medical Necessity Review (MNR) for MS-DRG 464 Wound Debridement and Skin Graft Except Hand, for Musculo-Connective Tissue Disorders with CC. Medicare pays for inpatient hospital services that are medically necessary for the setting billed. Medical documentation will be reviewed to determine that services were medically necessary. This review will be of MS-DRG 464 Wound Debridement and Skin Graft Except Hand, for Musculo-Connective Tissue Disorders with CC.
Published on:

Last week, CMS announced its decision to delay the Recovery Auditor Pre-Payment Review Demonstration Program until further notice. On its website CMS indicated that the delay was due to comments/suggestions received regarding the program and CMS’ commitment to consider the comments carefully. Although it is unclear at this time whether CMS will eventually implement the demonstration program as it was initially announced or make significant changes to the program, CMS confirmed that it will provide at least 30 days notice before the demonstration program begins.

For more information on pre-payment review and strategies to utilize if on pre-payment review, please contact Wachler & Associates attorney at 248-544-0888 or visit www.racattorneys.com.

Published on:

As discussed in earlier posts, hospitals that participate in CMS’ upcoming Part A to Part B Rebilling Demonstration Program will be required to waive their right to appeal claims denied for lack of medical necessity for services provided in the inpatient setting. CMS’ rationale for this “all or nothing” approach is the concern that a participating hospital could appeal the denial of the Part A inpatient claim and at the same time resubmit the claim for Part B reimbursement. As any participating provider that intentionally engages in that type of billing practice would expose themselves to liability for double-billing, it is unrealistic for CMS to anticipate that participation in the demonstration program would encourage this behavior. During the RAC demonstration programs, in which hospitals were afforded the flexibility denied to them for the AB demonstration program, there was no evidence that hospitals tried to “game” the system.

Further, despite CMS’ overreaching concerns that hospitals will take advantage of a more flexible demonstration program that allowed case-by-case appeals, the agency’s concerns do not extend to the likelihood that RACs will take advantage of the demonstration program’s structure. CMS claims that the RACs will not know the hospitals that participate in the demonstration program, and therefore will not have an incentive to deny more claims from those hospitals knowing that they are immune from appeals. However, RACs will very likely know the participants because those hospitals will not submit appeals for the denied inpatient claims and the RACs will receive smaller contingency fees for those denied claims.

We strongly urge hospitals to participate in the CMS’ December 8 special Open Door Forum (details below). During the Open Door Forum, hospitals should express their dismay with the current structure of the demonstration program, specifically the waiver of any appeal rights for denied inpatient claims. In addition, hospitals must incorporate into their RAC appeals process the effort to obtain Part B payment for inpatient services denied as not medically necessary. Only through a concerted effort by the hospital industry will we convince CMS to modify the current rebilling system.

Published on:

This afternoon, CMS conducted the first special Open Door Forum (ODF) on the Part A to Part B Rebilling Demonstration Program. The ODF involved a brief overview of the Demonstration Program followed by many questions by the ODF participants. Although the ODF provided some clarification on the Demonstration Program, CMS’ answers also gave rise to many concerns regarding the fairness of the Demonstration Program.

One of the most serious concerns is a Demonstration Program participant’s right to appeal a denial of an inpatient claim. According to CMS’ answers from callers’ questions, participation in the Demonstration Program is “all-or-nothing”. This means that if a participant’s claim is denied for lack of medical necessity for services provided in the inpatient setting, the participant’s only option is to resubmit the claim for outpatient reimbursement. Even if the participant disagrees with the contractor’s denial of the inpatient claim, the participant will not be allowed to appeal the inpatient denial. Clearly this limitation has very serious consequences for hospitals because it requires participants to waive all of their due process rights for these claims. First, between the RAC Demonstration Program and Permanent Program we have had success in overturning 90% of short-stay inpatient claims denied for services provided in the wrong setting. Accordingly, requiring a hospital to waive the right to challenge these denials appears to be a high price to pay to participate in the AB Demonstration Program. The limitation highlights the inequity of a system where a provider must choose between either appealing the denial of an inpatient claim, but being unable to rebill the claim for outpatient reimbursement or rebilling the claim for 90% reimbursement of the outpatient claim, but waiving all due process rights.

In a program where RACs are paid through a contingency fee based upon the dollar amount of claims they deny, it is concerning that RACs now have an incentive and unbridled discretion to deny inpatient claims where there will be no right to appeal. During the ODF, CMS insisted that the RACs will not be informed of the hospitals participating in the demonstration program and thus, will not have an incentive to deny more inpatient claims. However, RACs will likely be able to deduce the participants because the participants will not appeal any inpatient claim denials and RACs contingency fee for participants will be different from non-participants. Specifically the contingency fees that RACs will receive as a result of denials from participants will not be the contingency fee of the full inpatient claim or the outpatient claim, but of the difference between the full inpatient claim and outpatient claim. This differential will be unique to program participants. Therefore, it is likely that RACs will know the participants of the Demonstration Program and could target them because of the participants’ inability to appeal denied inpatient claims.

Published on:

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has recently released the Medicare RAC collections data for the last quarter of 2011 fiscal year. Recovery auditors identified $277.1 million in overpayments and $76.6 million in underpayments, for a total claims’ correction of $353.7 million, which was 22 percent higher than the total corrected claims identified in the previous quarter.

CMS also released a supplemental report for the entire 2011 fiscal year. The total identified claim corrections for the fiscal year was $939.4 million in collected overpayments and $141.9 million in returned underpayments. These amounts greatly outnumber the corrected claims identified from 2010 fiscal year.

Currently, CMS’ quarterly reports fail to mention the success rates of appeals, which would decrease the identified claim correction amounts. However, CMS has stated that it will begin to make official appeal rates available in its annual Report to Congress.

Published on:

This week CMS released more information regarding the Part A to Part B Rebilling Demonstration Program. Now available on CMS’ website is the enrollment application for hospitals to complete to seek to participate in the program. The enrollment application includes language which reiterates that participation in the Demonstration Program is based on a first-come first-served process and applications will be classified based on facility size. According to the application, 80 large facilities (300+ Beds), 120 moderate facilities (100-299 Beds), and 180 small facilities (fewer than 100 Beds) will be allowed to participate.

In addition to the enrollment application, CMS published a 14-page document which outlines some of the Demonstration Program’s details. The document, which may have been released in anticipation of the upcoming Open Door Forums, includes four requirements that participating providers must follow: (1) Not file an appeal; (2) Not bill the beneficiary more than any Part A inpatient deductible already collected from the beneficiary; (3) Refund to the beneficiary the difference between any Part A deductible/coinsurance and Part B deductible/coinsurance; (4) Not bill observation services (G0378). The requirement that participants do not file an appeal still evokes questions, specifically whether the bar on filing an appeal prevents participants from appealing a medical necessity determination for inpatient services if they volunteer for the demonstration program.

For more information on the AB Demonstration Program or assistance with determining a hospital’s eligibility to participate in the program, please contact a Wachler & Associates attorney at 248-544-0888.

Published on:

Recently, the Department of Health and Human Service’s Office of Inspector General released a report which found that the workload data used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to oversee its Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPICs) were inaccurate and lacked uniformity.

The study was conducted by collecting and reviewing ZPICs’ workload data related to investigations, case referrals, requests for information, and administrative actions between February 1, 2009 and October 31, 2009. The OIG only reviewed the information of the ZPICs for Zones 4 and 7 because they were the only ZPICs who had completed a full contract year at the time the study was conducted.

According to the OIG, one of the study’s major objectives was to describe the extent of ZPICs’ program integrity activities during the first year of operation. However, this objective went unachieved due to the inaccuracies and lack of uniformity which stemmed from system issues in CMS’s Analysis, Reporting, and Tracking System (CMS ARTS), ZPIC reporting errors, ZPICs’ interpretations of workload definitions, and inconsistencies in requests for information reports. The OIG also identified a number of issues inhibiting CMS from successfully overseeing ZPIC activities. The OIG has stressed that it is important that these issues are corrected so that CMS can properly analyze the ZPICs effectiveness and compare the ZPICs to their predecessors (Program Safeguard Contractors). The OIG has made a number of recommendations to CMS, which include that CMS:

Published on:

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently announced it will release a national provider Comparative Billing Report (CBR) addressing Nerve Conduction Studies on December 6, 2011.

The CBRs are produced by Safeguard Services under contract with CMS and will provide comparative data to help show how these individual providers compare to other providers within the same field. These comparative studies are designed to help providers review their coding and billing practices and utilization patterns, and take proactive compliance measures. Providers should view CBRs as a tool, rather than a warning, as a way to aid them in properly complying with Medicare billing rules. It is also important to understand that CBRs do not contain patient or case-specific data, but rather only summary billing information as a method of ensuring privacy.

If you are a recipient of a CBR for Nerve Conduction Studies, or are among the other provider types that have been identified to receive CBRs (i.e. physical therapists, chiropractors, ambulance, hospice, podiatry, ordering DME and sleep studies), please contact a Wachler & Associates attorney at 248-544-0888 to discuss evaluating the CBR analysis and development of an appropriate compliance plan that will reduce audit risks.

Published on:

On Friday, November 18, CMS released a Q&A about the Part A to Part B Rebilling Demonstration Program. Although the Q&A does not answer many of the questions that arose from the Fact Sheet released on November 15, it does give insight into when those answers could be provided. CMS will hold two special Open Door Forums, one on November 30, 2011 and another on December 8, 2011. Both will be conducted at 2pm EST.

In addition, the Q&A announced that enrollment for the Demonstration Program will begin on December 12, 2011 at 2pm EST and some hospital facilities will be ineligible to participate in the program. For instance, facilities that receive periodic interim payments from CMS and do not participate in Medicare, will not be able to participate. In addition, psychiatric hospitals paid under the Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities Prospective Payment System, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities, Long-Term Care Hospitals, cancer hospitals, Critical Access Hospitals, and children’s hospitals all are ineligible to participate.

Finally, the Q&A provided an email for additional questions regarding the Demonstration Program to be sent to CMS. This email is ABRebillingDemo@cms.hhs.gov.

Contact Information