Articles Posted in Compliance

Published on:

by

According to data from the Pharmacy Audit Assistance Service (PAAS) National, the Covid-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) has negatively affected pharmacies navigating audits by Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBM). PBMs are companies who are primarily responsible for developing and maintaining drug formularies, contracting with pharmacies, negotiating discounts and rebates with drug manufacturers, and processing and paying prescription drug claims. PBMs manage prescription drug benefits on behalf of health insurers, Medicare Part D drug plans, large employers, and other payers. PBMs routinely conduct audits on member pharmacies in order to monitor pharmacies’ performance and identify alleged improper payments made to the pharmacies. However, PBMs have been criticized for overstepping those audit functions by utilizing audits as a source of revenue for themselves at the expense of independent pharmacies and patients.

In response to the PHE, many state insurance agencies and PBMs themselves suspended in-person audits in 2020 and shifted to virtual audits. The virtual nature of a PBM audit means pharmacies are responsible for a greater workload because they must complete tasks that would normally be completed by a PBM during a field audit. For example, pharmacies must locate, organize, and deliver hundreds of pages of documents and records in compliance with PBMs’ standards, while managing the day-to-day pharmacy operations. Although virtual PBM audits allows benefit managers to review more pharmacy claims than during traditional in-person audits, it also allows them to potentially deny more claims than before.

According to PAAS National, even though the number of pharmacy audits in 2020 declined nearly 14% year over year, the overall number of prescriptions reviewed increased by 40%. PAAS data also shows that the average audit in 2020 cost pharmacies $23,978, which is 35% more than the annual average over the previous five years. This data further implies that pharmacies are shouldering more of the administrative burden of responding to audits in addition to the task of pursuing a subsequent appeal where the PBM denies claims during an audit.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

The August 12, 2021 issue of the Medical Learning Network (MLN) Connects newsletter indicates that CMS is planning to resume the Targeted Probe and Educate (TPE) audit program. CMS temporarily suspended pre-payment reviews under the TPE program in response to the Covid-19 public health emergency (PHE) in March 2020. While CMS authorized Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) to resume post-payment audits in August 2020, TPE pre-payment reviews generally remained suspended.

The MLN Newsletter does not offer specific information as to when CMS will officially resume TPE audits. The Newsletter also does not indicate whether CMS will focus on new TPE audits or whether the agency intends to resume existing TPE reviews that were suspended at the beginning of the PHE. In a June 2021 Q&A by Palmetto GBA, one of the MACs, Palmetto stated that they “do not have an expected date for TPE to return.” Other MACs have yet to update their websites to reflect CMS’s announcement. However, it appears CMS has given the MACs the go-ahead to resume paused TPE reviews and initiate new reviews.

A TPE review consists of up to three rounds of claims review, with education to the provider after each round. A provider or supplier navigating a TPE review should take care to comply with the program’s requirements and timelines and should be aware of the potential consequences of a review. A TPE review can take months or years to resolve and can have devastating impacts on a provider’s business, up to and including revocation of Medicare billing privileges and placement on the CMS Preclusion List. Closely monitoring the process of the TPE review can be critical to a successful resolution. For more information about TPE reviews, please see our previous blog on Responding to a Targeted Probe and Educate Review.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) issued an updated August 2021 Code on Interaction with Health Care Professionals, which takes effect January 1, 2022. Section 7 of the PhRMA Code’s guidance on speaker programs largely echoes a Special Fraud Alert regarding health care speaker programs which was issued by the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) in November 2020. The focus here is on programs where health care professionals (HCPs) participate in company-sponsored speaker programs in order to help educate and inform other health care professionals about the benefits, risks, and appropriate uses of company medicines. Similarly to the Special Fraud Alert, the PhRMA Code raises significant concerns about companies offering or paying remuneration (and HCPs soliciting or receiving remuneration) in connection with speaker programs in violation of health care fraud and abuse laws, such as the Anti-Kickback Statute.

A primary focus of the PhRMA Code’s speaker program guidance involves situations where attendees of such programs are offered meals incident to attendance. In general, the Code explains that incidental meals of modest value may be offered to attendees of company-sponsored speaker programs, subject to some non-exhaustive principles. The purpose of the speaker program should be to present substantive educational information designed to help address a bona fide educational need among attendees, taking into account recent substantive changes in relevant information or the importance of the availability of such educational programming. According to the PhRMA Code, only those with a bona fide educational need for the information should be invited and incidental meals furnished to attendees must be modest as judged by local standards, as well as subordinate in focus to the educational presentation. Companies should not pay for or provide alcohol in connection with the speaker program. Speaker programs should occur in a venue and manner conducive to informational communication, and a company representative should be physically present. Luxury resorts, high-end restaurants, and entertainment, sporting, or other recreational venues or events are cautioned against. Repeat attendance at a speaker program on the same or substantially the same topic is generally not appropriate, unless the attendee has a bona fide educational need to receive the information presented, including attendance by speakers as participants after speaking at such programs. Friends, significant others, family members, and other guests of a speaker or an invited attendee are not appropriate attendees unless such individuals have an independent, bona fide educational need to receive the information presented. To note, the PhRMA Code does not address attendance at a speaker program that does not include an incidental meal to the attendee.

The PhRMA Code also sets out four general principles that apply to companies’ retention of HCPs as speakers at company-sponsored speaker programs. First, HCPs may be engaged by companies as speakers for company-sponsored speaker programs to help educate and inform other HCPs who have an independent, bona fide educational need to receive information about the benefits, risks, and appropriate uses of company medicine and related disease states. Second, company decision regarding the selection or retention of HCPs as speakers should be made based on defined criteria such as general medical expertise, reputation, knowledge, experience regarding a particular therapeutic area, and communication skills. Third, HCPs engaged by the company as speakers should also participate in company-sponsored speaker training programs because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) holds companies accountable for the presentation of their speakers. Finally, any compensation or reimbursement made to HCPs in conjunction with a speaking arrangement (including company-sponsored speaker training) should be reasonable, based on fair market value, and should not take into account the volume or value of past business that may have been, or potential future business that could be, generated for the company by the HCP. The PhRMA Code further cautions companies and speakers to be clear about the distinction between health care professional speaker programs and continued medical education programs. Health care providers should keep these guidelines in mind when designing company-sponsored HCP speaker programs.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

On July 6, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a 2-1 opinion in Judge Rotenberg Education Center v. FDA that overturned the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) ban on the use of electric shock medical devices for particular purposes because the FDA is prohibited from regulating the practice of medicine. The Judge Rotenberg Education Center (Center) is a facility in Massachusetts that treats patients with severe behavioral conditions and intellectual disabilities. The Center manufactures its own electric stimulation device, known as a graduated electronic decelerator, and is the only facility in the country that uses electric shock therapy to treat individuals who severely self-injure or are aggressive. The Center admits patients that other facilities could not successfully treat, and is seen by some as a last resort for patients and their families.

The FDA first proposed to ban electric stimulation devices used to treat self-injurious or aggressive behaviors in April 2016, and a final rule banning such devices became effective in March 2020. Electrical stimulation devices are legally authorized for use in other medical settings, for example to prevent muscle atrophy and reduce muscle spasms in physical therapy patients. Thus, the key question that the Court addressed was whether the FDA has legal authority to ban an otherwise legal device from a particular use. The Court concluded that the FDA does not have such authority because a “use-specific” ban like the one at issue “interferes with a practitioner’s authority by restricting the available range of devices through regulatory action.” The Court further opined that “the FDA has no authority to choose what medical devices a practitioner should prescribe or administer or for which conditions.”

Section 360f of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act) grants the FDA authority to ban medical devices intended for human use when such devices present “substantial deception or an unreasonable and substantial risk of illness or injury.” Section 396 of the Act prohibits the FDA from regulating the practice of medicine, specifically forbidding the agency from taking actions that “interfere with the authority of a health care practitioner to prescribe or administer any legally marketed device to a patient for any condition or disease within a legitimate health care practitioner-patient relationship.” Since electric shock stimulation devices are legally used in other settings, the FDA’s attempted use-specific ban does not render such devices as not legally marketed. As the Court stated, “any device that the FDA attempts to ban for one but not all uses will, accordingly, still be legally marketed.” Thus, the FDA only has the more comprehensive power to completely ban a medical device, but not the intermediate power to tailor a ban to only certain uses. The opinion underlines the limits of the FDA’s authority to regulate medical devices.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Congress recently proposed changes to the False Claims Act (“FCA”) that would make it easier for the government to prove certain noncompliance was “material” and therefore a violation of the FCA. These changes appear to be a response to the landmark Escobar decision regarding materiality under the FCA.

Originally introduced to address unscrupulous government contractors during the Civil War, the FCA has become a popular tool for prosecuting alleged healthcare fraud. In general, the FCA imposes civil liability for knowingly submitting false claims to the government. Importantly, the FCA carries severe consequences, including treble damages and a per-claim penalty that increases each year with inflation ($11,803 per claim for 2021). The FCA also allows individuals to initiate the prosecution under a qui tam action, in which the government may decide to intervene and wherein the individual is entitled to a share of the government’s recovery.

Under the “implied false certification” theory of FCA liability, liability attaches where a provider submits a claim for payment that makes specific representations about the goods or services provided, but knowingly fails to disclose the defendant’s noncompliance with a statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirement. In 2016, in the Escobar case, the United States Supreme Court held that any misrepresentation about compliance with a statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirement must be “material” to the government’s decision to pay the claim in order to give rise to liability under the FCA. Materiality under Escobar is a demanding standard and cannot be met merely because the government has designated a requirement to be a condition of payment.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) FY 2022 Budget Justification request to Congress indicates a greater focus on audit activities, including a doubling of CMS’ medical review budget, and an effort to decrease the number of claim denials overturned through the Medicare appeals process. While still in the proposal phase, the budget justification provides a glimpse into CMS’ priorities for the coming fiscal year. Specifically, CMS requests $96.7 million to be used as discretionary funding for medical review activities, which represents an increase of $50.5 million above the FY 2021 Enacted level. Medical review activities can be conducted pre-payment or post-payment and concentrate on areas identified through a variety of means, including targeted data analysis, Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) results, and oversight agency findings that indicate allegedly questionable billing patterns.

CMS contracts with Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) to perform analysis of claims data to identify atypical billing patterns and perform claims review, including medical reviews. The FY 2022 request supports ongoing medical review operations, including Targeted Probe and Educate (TPE) reviews, which CMS temporarily suspended for a portion of 2020 in response to the Public Health Emergency (PHE). CMS recently announced in June 2021 that MACs are authorized to begin conducting post-payment medical reviews for dates of service during and after March 2020. CMS states that the FY 2022 Budget Justification “proposes to significantly increase funding to allow MACs to conduct additional review in FY 2022.” MAC medical reviews were previously limited to dates of service prior to March 2020, which means we can expect to see MACs begin audits of claims submitted during the PHE.

The FY 2022 Budget Justification also would allocate $19 million to the Supplemental Medical Review Contactor (SMRC) to conduct SMRC audits, which provide support for a variety of tasks meant to lower the improper payment rates and increase efficiencies of the medical review function of Medicare. SMRC audits were similarly paused for a period of time during 2020 in response to the PHE. In FY 2020, the SMRC reviewed approximately 80,197 claims, whereas CMS expects the SMRC to review 792,800 claims in FY 2022. So, providers may also anticipate increased SMRC medical reviews.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

The first reporting deadline for the Provider Relief Fund (PRF) is less than two months away, the first batch of reports are due September 30, 2021. The PRF is a $175 billion fund created by Congress through the CARES Act and administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to provide financial relief to healthcare providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. HHS has subdivided the PRF into various general and targeted distributions. These distributions were paid to providers in several waves between April 2020 and the present.

In June 2021, HHS released long-awaited updates on the reporting requirements for entities that received payments from the PRF. These reporting requirements divided the payment based on when the provider received the payment and then set deadlines for reporting based on when the provider received the payment. Providers who received payments between April 10, 2020 and June 30, 2020, the first to receive payments, are required to file their reports by September 30, 2021. This time period includes most of the payments made under the Phase 1 General Distribution, some of the payments made under the Phase 2 General Distribution, and some payments made under the Target Distributions.  The reporting portal opened on July 1, 2021 and is currently available to these recipients.

Providers who received and retained payments through the PRF are required to file reports justifying their use of the funds. Providers must report information on healthcare-related expenses attributable to coronavirus, lost revenue attributable to coronavirus, other pandemic assistance received, and administrative data. Providers who received more than $500,000 in aggregate payments are required to report some data elements in greater detail, including specific information regarding operations, personnel, supplies, equipment, facilities, and several other categories. Some providers will be required to report significant amounts of financial information in significant detail, which may require time to compile or calculate. Further, HHS continues to update the guidance surrounding PRF reporting. Providers should be aware of the potential complexity of PRF reporting as the deadlines begin to approach.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

On July 13, 2021, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a Proposed Rule that includes amendments to  the regulations surrounding the Physician Self-Referral Law, also known as the Stark Law. The Proposed Rule seeks to revise the definition of “indirect compensation arrangement” (ICA) to bring it back in line with the previous definition of ICA as it existed prior to the latest Stark Law rulemaking, “Modernizing and Clarifying the Physician Self-Referral Regulations” (MCR Final Rule), issued on December 2, 2020. Additionally, the Proposed Rule seeks to define the term “unit’ and the phrase “services that are personally performed” for purposes of the ICA definition.

The Stark Law generally prohibits physicians from referring designated health services (DHS) payable by Medicare or Medicaid to an entity with which the physician (or an immediate family member) has a financial relationship unless an exception is met. With the MCR Final Rule, CMS introduced a further definitional requirement to the definition of ICA: that the “individual unit of compensation” received by the physician (or an immediate family member) must either (i) not be fair market value; or (ii) include the physician’s referrals as a variable that impacts compensation. By adding this definitional requirement, the MCR Final Rule effectively further narrowed the regulatory definition of ICA. In the Proposed Rule, CMS states that the MCR Final Rule inadvertently omitted language from the ICA definition which would have ensured that a subset of potentially abusive financial relationships would have continued to satisfy the definition of ICA. Under the Proposed Rule, the ICA definitional requirement added by the MCR Final Rule would be effective only if the compensation received by the physician would be for the physician’s own personally performed services.

In response to providers’ concerns about the scope and practical application of the phrase “individual unit of compensation,” CMS seeks to provide some clarity by defining the phrase in the Proposed Rule. CMS proposes to define an individual unit either in terms of service, where all compensation is based solely on the service provided, or in terms of time, in all other cases, where any one basis of the physician’s compensation is time-based. CMS also proposes to introduce regulatory language to aid in the application of the ICA definition when the physician receives compensation for personally performed services by stating services personally performed by a physician “do not include services that are performed by any person other the physician ….” At this time, it is unclear whether this proposed language would include services performed by an employee, but provided incident to the physician’s personally performed services. The Proposed Rule is open for public comment until September 13, 2021.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

During the COVID-19 public health emergency, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) waived many of the restrictions that limited Medicare coverage for healthcare services for telemedicine and allowed for much greater use of these services. Among these was the introduction of Medicare coverage for several audio-only services, whereas Medicare coverage had previously only extended to telemedicine services provided by interactive two-way audio/video communication. However, these actions were only temporary and will end when the declaration of a public health emergency ends.

Due to the tremendous value that audio-only telemedicine has provided to the healthcare system, providers, and Medicare beneficiaries, there have been calls for the temporary expansion of telemedicine to be made permanent. While CMS has asserted that large-scale changes to the Medicare program must come from Congress, CMS recently released the proposed 2022 Physician Fee Schedule which, among many other proposals, would retain Medicare coverage for some audio-only services.

Specifically, CMS would permit the use of audio-only communications technology for mental health telehealth services under certain conditions when the services are provided to beneficiaries located in their home. Under the CMS proposal, coverage would be limited to the diagnosis, evaluation, or treatment of mental health disorders in established patients where the originating site is the patient’s home. CMS would retain the requirement that an in-person item or service must be furnished within six months of such a mental health telehealth service. Further, CMS would require that the provider has the technical capability at the time of the service to use an interactive telecommunications system that includes video, but conducts the visit via audio-only because the beneficiary is unable to use, does not wish to use, or does not have access to two-way, audio/video technology. CMS states its goal is to allow audio-only services only where no service would otherwise occur.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

The opportunity for expanded use of telehealth services spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic provided many individuals with greater access to healthcare services and allowed providers to furnish patient care in safe environments. However, this expansion has led to potential abuse concerns, prompting the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) to issue a statement announcing that OIG is conducting seven different audits, evaluations, and inspections of telehealth services under the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Because OIG is investigating providers specific to telemedicine, these audits will review remote patient monitoring, virtual check-ins, and e-visits. An OIG report issued in April 2018 concluded that 31% of the sample claims reviewed did not meet the Medicare conditions for payment for telehealth services. That report was prior to the broad expansion of telemedicine from the COVID -19 pandemic. Providers who have billed for telehealth services during the public health emergency (PHE) should be prepared to undergo audits of those claims.

Current OIG telemedicine audit projects include:

Continue reading
Contact Information
210 E 3rd St #204
Royal Oak, MI 48067
Phone: 248-544-0888
Fax: 248-544-3111

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2024, Wachler & Associates, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design