Fraud & Abuse

Published on: March 10, 2022

Referring Clinical Lab Services Under the “In Office Ancillary” Exception

Physician referrals for clinical laboratory services are a common focus of federal regulatory and enforcement actions. Numerous statutes and their implementing regulations, including the Stark Law, Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS), and the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act (EKRA), may be implicated where a physician refers clinical lab services to an entity in which the physician has a financial interest. However, the “in-office ancillary” exception to the Stark Law provides an important exception.

The Physician Self-Referral Law, often referred to as the Stark Law, prohibits “physicians” (generally including MDs, DOs, dentists, optometrists, and chiropractors) from referring patients to receive “designated health services” payable by Medicare or Medicaid from entities with which the physician or an immediate family member has a financial relationship, unless an exception applies. Financial relationships include both compensation and ownership or investment interests. Designated health services include clinical laboratory services, PT and OT, DME, some imaging services, and several other services. Some of the most common exceptions to the Stark Law include the in-office ancillary exception, fair market value compensation, and bona fide employment relationships. CMS has also recently implemented exceptions related to value-based arrangements.

“In Office Ancillary” services are an exception to the Stark Law. Generally, under the “in office ancillary” exception, the Stark Law does not apply to services that (1) are performed by the referring physician, another physician in the same group practice, or an individual supervised by the referring physicians or another physician in the same group practice; (2) are performed in the same building as the referring physician or their group practice offers services or in another centralized location; and (3) are billed by the performing physician, the supervising physician, their group practice, or a subsidiary that is wholly owned by the group practice.

Published on: February 21, 2022

Supplemental Medical Review Contractor (SMRC) Audits for Feb. 2022

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) contracts with a Supplemental Medical Review Contractor (SMRC), which performs a variety of Medicare and Medicaid audit and medical review tasks. Noridian Healthcare Solutions, which is also a Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC), was selected as the SMRC in 2018. The SMRC conducts nationwide medical reviews of Medicare Parts A and B, DMEPOS, and Medicaid claims for compliance with coverage, coding, payment, and billing requirements. The focus of the medical reviews may include areas identified by CMS data analysis, the Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) program, professional organizations, and federal oversight agencies. At the request of CMS, the SMRC may also carry out other special projects.

SMRC audits are referred to as projects and there are three categories of SMRC project reviews:

Healthcare Fraud Prevention Partnership (HFPP) Review: Based on fraud, waste, and abuse trends identified by the HFPP.

Published on: February 14, 2022

EKRA Continues to Cause Confusion for Clinical Labs

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

The Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act (“EKRA”) is an incredibly broad and incredibly vague criminal statute that continues to create compliance issues for clinical laboratories. Many arrangements between clinical laboratories and other entities that were previously compliant, or which are currently authorized under other federal statutes, may be unlawful under EKRA.

Congress enacted EKRA in 2018 and, throughout its drafting, it was intended to address patient brokering and kickback schemes in addiction treatment and recovery. For example, EKRA was targeted at individuals who received kickbacks for steering patients into sober living and recovery homes. However, shortly before EKRA was passed and with little consideration of the implications, the words “or laboratory” were inserted into the draft such that EKRA now likely applies to all referrals to clinical laboratories, regardless of payor and regardless of whether the testing relates to addiction treatment or recovery.

EKRA broadly prohibits paying, offering, receiving, or soliciting any remuneration in return for referrals to recovery homes, clinical treatment facilities, or laboratories. Further, EKRA is a criminal statute, the penalties for violation of which, up to 10 years in prison and fines up to $200,000, cannot be taken lightly. Like two other major federal healthcare fraud, waste, and abuse laws, the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Physician Self-Referral Law (commonly known as the Stark Law), EKRA contains a few exceptions. However, they are far fewer in number and often narrower than their counterparts in the older statutes.

Published on: February 10, 2022

Healthcare Companies Paid 90% of all False Claims Act Settlements in 2021

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

Healthcare companies were once again the leading source of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) False Claims Act (FCA) settlements and judgments last year. According to a DOJ news release, healthcare companies paid almost 90% of fraud settlement proceeds under the FCA in 2021. The Justice Department obtained more than $5.6 billion in total settlements and judgments under the FCA in the fiscal year ending September 30, 2021, which is the second largest annual total in the FCA’s history. Over $5 billion of that number relates to matters involving the healthcare industry, including hospitals, pharmacies, laboratories, drug and medical device manufacturers, managed care providers, hospice organizations, and physicians.

The largest settlements under the FCA were those reached with prescription drugmakers for their role in the opioid epidemic. A significant number of settlements also related to the Medicare Advantage Program, which pays a capitated amount to private health insurers for each patient enrolled in their plan according to a risk calculation. Other settlements involved claims of illegal kickbacks, claims of providing unnecessary medical services, and lawsuits filed under the FCA’s whistleblower provisions.

The DOJ’s healthcare fraud enforcement is more vigorous compared to other industries, in part due to the unique nature of the business of healthcare. The Department’s enforcement efforts attempt to restore funds to federal programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE, as well as prevent further losses by deterring others from engaging in fraudulent behavior. In many cases, the Department may be motivated to protect patients from medically unnecessary or potentially harmful actions. Providers should be aware that overpayment allegations are common, especially given the substantial effect that widespread healthcare fraud can have on individuals and entities throughout the US. The regulatory and business risks in healthcare are unlike other fields, in large part due to the web of complex and often vague regulatory and statutory restrictions, such as Stark law, the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS), the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act (EKRA), and the Corporate Practice of Medicine doctrine (CPOM), among others. Healthcare providers should remain proactive in ensuring operations comply with the many different standards of practice governed by federal and state laws and regulations.

Published on: February 7, 2022

HHS to Audit More Providers That Received COVID-19 Relief Funds

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently announced additional audits of certain healthcare providers that received funding from the Provider Relief Fund (PRF). These audits will focus on whether hospitals that received PRF payments have complied with the surprise billing provisions of the PRF terms and conditions. HHS has long promised “significant enforcement” related to the PRF, a promise which is beginning to take effect.

The PRF was created by Congress through the CARES Act and was designed to provide financial relief to healthcare providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Acceptance of a PRF payment is conditioned on, among other things, the provider agreeing to use the funds only for healthcare related expenses and lost revenue attributable to coronavirus, and to file reports demonstrating compliance with the conditions of the payment.

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.

Published on: February 1, 2022

OIG Opinion Underlines AKS Concerns About Healthcare Joint Ventures

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

Late last year, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a significant Advisory Opinion regarding a proposed joint venture (JV) between a therapy services provider and an owner of various long-term care (LTC) facilities. OIG concluded that it viewed the Proposed Arrangement as presenting a significant risk of fraud and abuse and potentially designed to permit the therapy services provider to pay the LTC owner a share of the profits derived from referrals for therapy services made by the LTC owner’s facilities. The opinion reiterates OIG’s longstanding concern that joint ventures formed between healthcare providers or suppliers and referral sources can present risk under the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS).

Under the Proposed Arrangement, a therapy services provider would form a JV with an owner of LTC facilities where the JV would provide therapy services to the LTC facilities. The JV would contract out the bulk of operations (all clinical and non-clinical employees, space, and equipment) to the therapy services provider in exchange for a fair market value fee. The LTC owner would hold a 40% interest in the JV and the therapy services provider would hold the remaining 60% interest. The LTC owner’s investment in the JV would be based, at least in part, on the JV’s expected business from the LTC owner’s facilities. The LTC owner’s facilities were not required to contract with the JV or otherwise make or direct referrals to the JV, although the therapy services provider certified that it expected the LTC owner’s facilities to do so, and during the initial phases of the JV all of the JV’s revenues would be generated by services provided to the LTC owner’s facilities.

OIG concluded that the Proposed Arrangement would not satisfy any AKS safe harbors, including the small entity investment safe harbor, because the Arrangement likely violates the investor test, the revenue test, and the investment offer test. Moreover, OIG referred to its landmark 2003 Special Advisory Bulletin on Contractual Joint Ventures, which includes a detailed list of characteristics that OIG considers suspect when present under a contractual JV. Since the JV described in the Proposed Arrangement included several of these previously outlined suspect characteristics, OIG further determined that the proposed JV presents significant risk of fraud and abuse. This Advisory Opinion serves as a useful reminder of the regulatory framework applicable to joint ventures between healthcare providers and entities in a position to refer or generate business for the joint venture. Providers considering joint ventures should ensure that they are structured to comply with AKS and OIG guidance.

Published on: January 18, 2022

OIG Updates Work Plan for January 2022

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) included several new items in its work plan update in January 2021. The OIG work plan outlines the projects that OIG plans to implement over the foreseeable future. Such projects typically include OIG audits and evaluations. Below are the highlights from the work plan update that providers and suppliers should take notice of.

First, OIG will perform a nationwide audit to determine whether hospitals that received Provider Relief Fund (PRF) payments and attested to the associated terms and conditions complied with the balance billing requirement for COVID – 19 inpatients. Under the PRF terms and conditions, hospitals are eligible for PRF distribution payments if they attest to specific requirements, including a requirement that providers, such as hospitals, must not pursue the collection of out-of-pocket payments from presumptive or actual COVID – 19 patients in excess of what the patients otherwise would have been required to pay if the care had been provided by in-network providers. OIG plans to assess how bills were calculated for out-of-network patients admitted for COVID-19 treatment, review supporting documentation for compliance, and assess procedural controls and monitoring to ensure compliance with the balance billing requirement.

Second, OIG will perform a nationwide review of Medicare beneficiary hospice eligibility. OIG indicated that a number of recent compliance audits have identified findings related to beneficiary eligibility. In its review, OIG plans to focus on those hospice beneficiaries that haven’t had an inpatient hospital stay or an emergency room visit in certain periods prior to their start of hospice care.

Published on: January 6, 2022

A Primer on Medicare Statistical Extrapolations

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

Medicare audits often include a statistical extrapolation to estimate the full extent of an alleged overpayment. Medicare contractors are authorized to review the merits of only a small “sample” of submitted claims and extrapolate the results of that review to a large “universe” of claims to estimate the overpayment amount. This practice can lead contractors to allege overpayments of hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars despite only reviewing and denying a small handful of claims. Medicare contractors generally have broad authority to use a wide array of statistical methods when extrapolating the overpayment amount, which can lead to grossly overestimated overpayment determinations.

When conducting the statistical sampling and extrapolation, the contractor will select the period for review and establish the universe and sample frame. The sample frame is the large group of claims from which the sample is randomly selected, and the universe is the group of claims over which the results of the review are projected. The sample frame and universe may or may not be identical. The universe and sample frame may be defined by specific codes, dates of services, beneficiaries, or some combination thereof. From here, the contractor will select a random sample from the sample frame, review the claims within the designated sample, and extrapolate the results of the review of the sample to all claims in the established universe.

A statistical extrapolation is subject to appeal, similar to any Medicare overpayment determination. However, there are several issues unique to appealing a statistically extrapolated overpayment. First, it adds increased importance to appealing the denial of each claim in the sample. While an individual claim may not represent significant monetary value on its own, it may represent tens of thousands of dollars after it has been statistically projected over a large universe. Second, there are special procedural rules for appealing an extrapolation. For example, providers are generally prevented from arguing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that the extrapolation was flawed unless they included specific language in their request for ALJ review.

Published on: November 11, 2021

HHS OIG Revises Self-Disclosure Protocol

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

On November 8, 2021, the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a revised and renamed Provider Self-Disclosure Protocol. The OIG “Health Care Fraud Self-Disclosure Protocol” (SDP) is the first revision to the SDP since 2013. The Self-Disclosure Protocol is available only for matters that involve potential violations of federal criminal, civil, or administrative law for which civil monetary penalties (CMPs) are authorized. The OIG’s updated website provides that “Self-disclosure gives persons the opportunity to avoid the costs and disruptions associated with a Government-directed investigation and civil or administrative litigation.” The SDP expects that “the disclosing party should ensure that the conduct has ended or, at least, in the case of an improper kickback arrangement, that corrective action will be taken and the improper arrangement will be terminated within 90 days of submission to the SDP.” The Protocol also expects providers to complete all other necessary corrective action by the time of disclosure.

The following are several key takeaways from the revised SDP and highlight information that providers should be aware of before beginning the self-disclosure process:

Minimum Settlement Amounts Doubled. The revised SDP doubles the minimum settlement amounts required to resolve matters accepted into the SDP. When the matter is related to kickbacks, the minimum settlement amount has been increased from $50,000 to $100,000. For all other matters, the minimum settlement amount has been increased from $10,000 to $20,000. These increases follow the increased CMP maximum imposed by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018.

Published on: November 8, 2021

DOJ Allegations Illustrate Issues in Coding

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

Recent allegations by the Department of Justice (DOJ) against Kaiser Permanente (Kaiser) highlight some of the tensions in proper medical coding and in internal documentation review. DOJ recently intervened in a series of whistleblower lawsuits that alleged that internal chart reviews and amendment of medical records by Kaiser constituted improper upcoding of claims for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. DOJ accused Kaiser of coercing its employees to retroactively change or add codes in order to increase reimbursement rates. Ultimately, DOJ claimed that the alleged upcoding resulted in an estimated 75% error rate.

DOJ alleged that Kaiser physicians changed medical records often months after care was provided in order to increase Medicare Advantage reimbursement. A whistleblower claimed that more than 50% of Kaiser physicians said that they were coerced to add diagnoses that they never considered, let alone evaluated or treated. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Kaiser targeted codes for atherosclerosis of the aorta as having a “high rate of reimbursement.” The whistleblower claimed that Kaiser told its facilities that 40% of their bonuses would be based on how often they coded atherosclerosis of the aorta, pointing to an email between executives that identified this upcoding as a “$40M opportunity.”

The lawsuit focuses on retroactive additions and changes to patients’ medical records. These retroactive changes are usually done during retrospective chart reviews, which are typically used promote proper coding and reimbursement for services performed. Although the practice of internally reviewing charts to identify and address documentation or coding issues is common and generally permissible, the changes should be supported by proper documentation and some documentation elements must be documented at the time of service. In this case, DOJ alleged that Kaiser’s changes were not supported by documentation and that Kaiser only performed retroactive chart reviews on patients that could receive risk-adjustment payments.