Articles Posted in Compliance

Published on:

by

Having compliance plans and procedures in place is becoming increasingly important for Medicare providers and suppliers. On February 16, 2012, CMS released a proposed rule to implement Section 128(d) of the Social Security Act (“Act”) which was added by the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) and deals with the reporting and returning of overpayments. The proposed rule is significant in that it includes a ten year look back period and proposes a definition for when an overpayment is “identified” which includes a duty for providers and suppliers to make reasonable inquiries when an overpayment is suspected.

The ACA created Section 1128(d) of the Act to detail the requirements for reporting and returning overpayments. Overpayments are defined in Part 4(B) of the law as “any funds that a person receives or retains under title XVIII or XIX [42 USCS Section 1395 et seq. or 1396 et seq.] to which the person, after applicable reconciliation, is not entitled under such title.” Part 2 requires an overpayment be reported and returned by the later of 60 days from the date on which the overpayment is “identified” or the date any corresponding cost report is due. The statute itself does not define “identification” however, the proposed implementing regulation, 401.305(a)(2) defines “identification” as being when “the person has actual knowledge of the existence of the overpayment or acts in reckless disregard or deliberate ignorance of the overpayment.” (77 Fed. Reg. 9179, 9182, February 16, 2012). CMS believes that this will provide an incentive to providers and suppliers to exercise reasonable diligence to determine whether an overpayment exists. CMS goes on in the proposed rule to suggest that without such a definition, a provider or supplier might avoid activities which can be done to determine an overpayment such as “self-audits, compliance checks, and other additional research.”

CMS provides a nonexhaustive list of examples of when an overpayment is identified and the provider or supplier should make a “reasonable inquiry with all deliberate speed” to determine if an overpayment exists, including:

  • when a provider receives an anonymous compliance hotline telephone complaint about a potential overpayment;
  • when a provider or supplier reviews billing or payment records and learns it incorrectly coded certain services resulting in increased payment;
  • when a provider or supplier learns that a patient death occurred prior to the date of service on a claim submitted for service;
  • when a provider or supplier learns that services were provided by an unlicensed or excluded individual on its behalf;
  • when a provider or supplier performs an internal audit and discovers overpayments;
  • when a provider or supplier is informed by a government agency of an audit that discovered a potential overpayment and the provider or supplier fails to make a reasonable inquiry;
  • when a provider or supplier experiences a significant increase in Medicare revenue with no apparent reason for the increase.

While this list is not exhaustive, it should give providers and suppliers pause and reason to evaluate and update compliance plans. If a provider or supplier acts in reckless disregard or deliberate ignorance of whether it received an overpayment, then it could be found to have knowingly retained an overpayment. And, if an overpayment is retained after the deadline, it becomes an obligation under the False Claims Act, the provider or supplier may have liability under the Civil Monetary Penalties Law, and the provider or supplier could be excluded from participation in Federal Health Care programs.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

As part of healthcare reform, Section 6401(a) of the Affordable Care Act requires all providers and suppliers who enrolled in the Medicare program prior to March 25, 2011 to revalidate their provider enrollment under the new screening criteria. Providers and suppliers who enrolled after March 25, 2011 do not need to revalidate at this time as they have already been screened.

Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) will be sending revalidation notices to individual providers and suppliers between now and March 23, 2015. Providers and suppliers must complete the enrollment forms within 60 days of receiving the request from the MACs. If a provider fails to submit the provider enrollment forms after receiving the request, it may lead to a suspension of the provider’s Medicare billing privileges.

Providers and suppliers may not revalidate their provider enrollment until they have received a revalidation notice from their MAC. The CMS website provides a list of all the providers and suppliers to whom revalidation notices have been sent (See “download” section). In case a revalidation notice has been sent but never received, every provider is encouraged to check the list to determine whether or not they are currently expected to revalidate. If you are listed, but have not received the request, you should contact your Medicare contractor.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

CMS recently released the results of its Medicare Fee-for-Service Recovery Audit Program (RAC) for fiscal year 2012. Once again, improper payment numbers have increased from the year before. For the period from October 2011 – December 2011 the audit program collected $397.8 million in overpayments and returned $24.9 million in underpayments. This is a total of $422.7 million in corrections identified by the audit program, with the vast majority of those improper payments coming from Medicare overpayment to providers. The RAC program has collected $1.27 billion in overpayments since 2010, and has returned $187.7 million during that same timeframe. Not surprisingly, RACs have found far more overpayments to providers than they have found underpayments.

A related CMS Quarterly Newsletter indicates that Regions C and D RACs, Connolly and HealthData Insights (HDI) collected the most in overpayments, while Regions A and B RACs, Diversified Collection Services (DCS) and CGI Federal, collected the least.

The report also identified the top recovery issue by region. All issues were medical necessity issues. The top overpayment issues were:

  • Region A: Neurological Disorders- Medicare pays for inpatient hospital services that are medically necessary for the setting billed. Medical documentation for patients with neurological disorders needs to be complete and support all services provided in the setting billed.
  • Region B: Cardiovascular Procedures- Medicare pays for inpatient hospital services that are medically necessary for the setting billed. Medical documentation for patients undergoing cardiovascular procedures needs to be complete and support all services provided in the setting billed.
  • Region C: Neurological Disorders- Medicare pays for inpatient hospital services that are medically necessary for the setting billed. Medical documentation for patients with neurological disorders needs to be complete and support all services provided in the setting billed.
  • Region D: Minor Surgery and Other Treatment Billed as an Inpatient Stay- When beneficiaries with known diagnoses enter a hospital for a specific minor surgical procedure or other treatment that is expected to keep them in the hospital for less than 24 hours, they are considered outpatient for coverage purposes regardless of the hour they presented to the hospital, whether a bed was used, and whether they remained in the hospital after midnight.

The yearly report can be found here, while a report on the individual RAC contractors by region can be found here.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Earlier this month (February 2012) the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) released its report regarding the assessment of Review Medicaid Integrity Contractors (MICs). The OIG review looked at Review MIC assignments made between January 1 and June 30, 2010. The objectives of the study were to determine to what extent Review MICs were able to complete assignments, recommend audit leads, and identify potential fraud; and to determine what obstacles the Review MICs encountered during the review process.

CMS awarded MIC responsibility to two firms: Thompson Reuters and AdvanceMed. Assignments are given to Review MICs by CMS on a monthly basis. Each assignment specifies the state from which the claims will come, the type of claims, and a range of service dates. Once an assignment is complete, the Review MIC submits its report to CMS where it undergoes a quality assurance review. The assignment must pass this review to be considered complete.

Of the 361 assignments the Review MICs were tasked with during the OIG review period, 81% were completed and 17% were placed on hold by CMS. Rather than recommend specific audit leads as a result of their findings, CMS required the Review MICs to submit lists of providers ranked by the amounts of their potential overpayments. From these lists of 113,378 providers CMS selected 244 audit targets with a total of $39.8 million in potential overpayments from a retrospective 5-year audit period established by CMS.

The OIG review found that not only were the Review MICs unable to accurately complete assignments because of missing or inaccurate data, but states also invalidated more than one third of sampled potential overpayments. States compared the Review MIC findings with information in their state systems and found that 34% were not overpayments.

The OIG reports makes two recommendations, both of which CMS concurs with. The first is to improve the quality of data that Review MICs can access for conducting data analysis. One option the OIG provides is to facilitate Review MIC access to states’ Medicaid data systems. The CMS comments on the OIG report, in which they concur with the OIG recommendations, indicate that CMS has several initiatives underway to improve the quality of the data available to the Review MICs. One CMS long term strategy is to improve the Medicaid Statistical Information System (MSIS). MSIS is currently the only nationwide database of Medicaid claims and beneficiary eligibility information.

The second OIG recommendation is that CMS should require Review MICs to recommend specific audit leads. The OIG report suggests that these audit leads would have the best potential for recoveries and improve the value of the Review MICs contribution to the Medicaid Integrity Program. In their comments, CMS concurs with this recommendation and that the Review MIC assignments will now include specific recommendations for specific audit targets.

The full OIG report can be found on the OIG website.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPICs) were created by CMS primarily to investigate suspected fraud, waste, and abuse. ZPICs perform similar audit activities as other Medicare contractors, but with a reactive and proactive focus on the identification of possible Medicare fraud. ZPICs employ “innovative” strategies to engage in the early detection of fraud. The strategies include data analysis, pursuing proactive leads from other Medicare contractors or other sources such as the Fraud Investigation Database (FID), law enforcement, news media or the Internet.

Once a ZPIC initiates an audit, it has the authority to conduct prepayment and postpayment medical review, perform announced and/or unannounced onsite audits, interview staff and beneficiaries, and suspend provider payments pursuant to approval from CMS. While any type of Medicare contractor audit can be disruptive to a provider’s business, it is extremely important for a health care professional to recognize when his or her practice is the focus of a ZPIC audit or investigation. This is because ZPICs also have the authority to refer providers and beneficiaries to law enforcement, refer providers for exclusion from the Medicare program, and utilize statistical sampling and extrapolation to determine overpayment amounts. For this reason, it is imperative that Medicare providers aggressively defend against a ZPIC investigation.

There are seven zones in which ZPICs are assigned, and providers should be aware of the ZPIC assigned to their zone. More information on ZPICs and be found on our website.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Connolly Healthcare, RAC for Region C, has recently added its first home health agency issue to its CMS-approved issues list.

The first posted issue targeting home health agencies is an automatic review that will focus on partial episode payments (PEPs). The Medicare Claims Processing Manual defines a PEP as “a reduced episode payment that may be made based on the number of service days in an episode (always less than 60 days, employed in cases of transfers or discharges with readmissions).” The approved home health issue is described below.

Incorrect billing of home health partial episode payment claims. Incorrect billing of home health PEP claims identified with a discharge status 06 and another home health claim was not billed within 60 days of the claim from date. Additionally, MCO effective dates are not within 60 days of the PEP claim.

Home health agencies should be on high alert for RAC audits. In addition, providers may expect additional home health issues to be added for review in the future, including complex reviews.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has now posted Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol (SDRP) settlements on the CMS website. Section 6409 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides the SDRP process, which allows providers of services and suppliers to self-disclose any actual or potential violations section 1877 of the Social Security Act, also known as the physician self-referral statute or the Stark II regulations. The following is a list of SDRP settlements, which CMS will continue to update on a quarterly basis:

  • On February 10, 2011, a Massachusetts general acute care hospital settled with CMS for $579,000 after disclosing that it failed (1) to satisfy the requirements of the personal services arrangements exception for arrangements with certain hospital department chiefs and the medical staff for leadership services, and (2) to satisfy the requirements of the personal services arrangements exception for arrangements with certain physician groups for on-site overnight coverage for patients at the hospital.
  • On November 11, 2011, a Mississippi critical access hospital settled with CMS for $130,000 after disclosing that it failed to satisfy the requirements of the personal services arrangements exception with certain hospital and emergency room physicians.
  • On January 5, 2012, a California hospital settled with CMS for $6,700 after disclosing that it exceeded the calendar year non-monetary compensation limit for a physician.
  • On January 5, 2012, a Georgia hospital settled with CMS for $4,500 after disclosing that it exceeded the calendar year non-monetary compensation limit for two physicians.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

On January 19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction and sentence of a medical billing professional for defrauding Medicare and Medicaid. Sylvia Delgado, a medical billing expert with thirty years of medical coding and billing experience, was the medical director of a group psychotherapy company that performed counseling to the elderly. Delgado formed the company (Synergy) in 2002 with Dr. Rafael Solis, a licensed psychiatrist who works primarily at his office in San Antonio, and Robert Rael, a Licensed Master Social Worker. Dr. Solis performed initial evaluations of patients, prescribed medication, and conducted individual counseling sessions. Thereafter, Dr. Solis would refer his patients to Synergy for group psychotherapy. Dr. Solis did not conduct or supervise the group session, but rather the sessions were conducted by Rael. However, Delgado, who performed all of the billing, would bill the group sessions under Dr. Solis’ Medicare and Medicaid numbers because Rael was not authorized under Texas law to have his own billing numbers. The Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement proceeds were split between Delagado and Rael; Delgado received thirty percent and Rael received seventy percent. Additionally, Synergy began paying Dr. Solis $2,000 per month in January 2005. Between 2002 and 2005, the total amount that Medicare and Medicaid paid to Synergy for the therapy was $1.4 million.

While group psychotherapy can be billed to Medicare and Medicare, the sessions conducted by synergy did not meet the requirements necessary for proper billing. For instance, a provider is typically not allowed to bill multiple sessions for one patient in one day, and the use of more than one group therapy code will be rejected in most circumstances. However, Delgado was able to get around this problem after discovering a billing technique which involved attaching a modifier to the billing code. The modifier was used by Delgado to bill up to six sessions per day per patient.

Another group psychotherapy requirement that Synergy failed to satisfy was that which requires the therapy to be conducted by one of the designated healthcare professional listed in the regulations. Rael was not qualified to conduct the therapy, and even though a non-physician may conduct the therapy so long as the regulation’s supervision requirements are met, Dr. Solis had admitted to investigators that he did not supervise the therapy. Furthermore, there was evidence that Delgado had been informed that Rael was not authorized to conduct the group psychotherapy sessions that took place at Synergy. Moreover, it was also discovered that Rael was not even the one who conducted most of the therapy sessions. The majority sessions were actually conducted by Robert Martinez, who has a sixth grade education.

Finally, the therapy sessions were conducted in a manner that consisted of watching television, eating meals, socializing, being read to, playing loteria, and celebrating birthdays. Despite the fact that the regulations prohibit describing these activities as group therapy, Delgado billed Medicare and Medicaid up to six group psychotherapy sessions per day per patient. In addition, Delgado also billed for group psychotherapy when both Dr. Solis and Rael were out of town.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced that the Prior Authorization of Power Mobility Devices (PMDs) and the Recovery Audit Prepayment Review Demonstration Programs are expected to move forward on or after June 1, 2012. On December 30, 2011, the two demonstrations were delayed from their initial January 1, 2012 start date. Although CMS initially announced the demonstration programs in November 2011, CMS decided to delay the programs’ implementations after receiving considerable feedback from the provider communities affected by the programs.

In its most recent announcement, CMS stated that the demonstrations programs will begin once they receive Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Office of Management and Budget control numbers.

The Prior Authorization of PMDs demonstration program will be initiated in California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Florida, and Texas. These are all states with high populations of fraud- and error- prone providers. The demonstration will implement a prior authorization process for scooters and power wheelchairs.

As a result of comments CMS received from providers and suppliers, significant modifications have been made to the Prior Authorization of PMDs demonstration program. Most importantly for suppliers, the 100% pre-payment review phase has been removed. Many interested parties had raised the concern that suppliers would be adversely financially impacted by the 100% pre-payment review phase, thus CMS eliminated it and the demonstration will begin immediately with the prior authorization phase. There was also concern regarding the inconsistency of suppliers in some states experiencing 100% pre-payment review, while suppliers in other states were required to receive prior authorizations. The pre-payment review phase was planned to last from between three to nine months for each state, so while one state might only be in that phase for three months, another state might be for nine. As a result, all demonstration states will start prior authorization at approximately the same time instead of the staggered start times as originally planned.

CMS also received many concerns about the ordering physician possibly not being in the best position to submit the prior authorization request. Under the modified demonstration, the physician/treating practitioner or supplier, on behalf of the physician/treating practitioner, may perform the administrative function of submitting the prior authorization request.

The Pre-Payment Review Demonstration Program did not receive any significant changes and will be implemented as proposed in November.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently published an important reminder for all providers and suppliers who provide services and items ordered or referred by other providers and suppliers. The reminder states that Medicare will only pay for items or services for Medicare beneficiaries that have been ordered by a physician or eligible profession enrolled in the Medicare program, and that the individual National Provider Identifier (NPI) of the referring provider or supplier must be included in any claim to Medicare. 

CMS also emphasizes that providers and suppliers must ensure that any items or services submitted in Medicare claims were referred by Medicare-enrolled providers of a specialty type authorized to order or refer such services. Further, Medicare will only reimburse for specific items or services ordered or referred by providers or suppliers that are authorized by statute and regulation. Specifically, CMS highlighted that:

  • Chiropractors are not eligible to order or refer supplies or services of Medicare beneficiaries. Consequently, all services ordered or referred by a chiropractor will be denied.
  • Home Health Agency (HHA) services may only be ordered or referred by a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.), Doctor of Osteopathy (D.O.) or Doctor of Podiatric Medicine (DPM). Thus, claims for HHA services ordered by any other practitioner specialty will be denied.
  • Portable X-Ray services may only be ordered by a Doctor of Medicine or Doctor of Osteopathy. Portable X-Ray services ordered by any other practitioners will be denied.

Through this “important reminder,” CMS emphasizes the necessary standards and documentation for healthcare providers and suppliers to successfully bill for providing referred services or items. The reminder demonstrates CMS’ continued focus on ensuring proper referral arrangements and supporting documentation.

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 – 2025, Wachler & Associates, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design