Articles Posted in Health Law

Published on:

by

On May 8, 2013, in a retrial of a 2010 case, a federal jury found that Tuomey Healthcare System (Tuomey) in Sumter, SC violated both the Stark Law and the False Claims Act (FCA). The jury found that Tuomey violated the FCA by submitting 21,730 claims to the Medicare program that were tainted by illegal compensation arrangements which induced physicians to refer patients to the hospital in violation of the Stark Law.

The underlying employment arrangements were made for 19 surgeons who each received base pay, significant benefits, and potentially two bonuses. The jury agreed with the government’s contentions that the pay was not consistent with fair market value and was not commercially reasonable. The government argued that the excess compensation was evidence that the employment agreements took into account the volume or value of the physicians’ referrals to Tuomey.

The jury assessed damages against Tuomey in the amount of $39,313,065, which is the full amount of the Medicare claims at issue. In addition, under the FCA, the government may seek up to three times the amount of damages plus $11,000 per claim, meaning Tuomey could potentially face up to $357 million in liabilities under the FCA. However, since Tuomey is a community hospital, they are likely to receive a penalty less than that amount. Each side will now submit motions interpreting what they think are the appropriate amount of damages, with a final damage amount coming sometime in the future.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) is auditing physicians who have conducted in-office Drug of Abuse (DOA) screening test. The purpose of these BCBSM audits is to determine whether the services, treatment, devices, and procedures that the physician billed to BCBSM conformed to Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes at the time of billing.

In auditing physicians who billed drug screening procedure codes, BCBSM is alleging that those physicians have incorrectly billed under current CPT codes for dates of services prior to the effective date of the current billing policies. In these cases, BCBSM sent notices to physicians enclosing current copies of the Physician Office Laboratory List (POLL) – a list of payable laboratory services allowed to be performed in the physician office setting – instead of the relevant POLL covering the audited time period. The drug screening procedure code at issue is CPT code 80101 [drug screen, qualitative; single drug class method (e.g., immunoassay, enzyme assay), each drug class], which is not listed on the current POLL. Instead, BCBSM states that codes 80104 and G0434 are the proper and payable drug screening tests when performed in the physician’s office. BCBSM is seeking returns of alleged overpayments from these physicians who billed 80101 in the office setting, as opposed to billing the lesser-paying drug screening procedure codes.

BCBSM may not hold physicians retroactively accountable for recent changes in billing. We are currently representing a number of physicians that have been audited by BCBSM. Based upon our review, we believe these audits can be successfully defended and the amount for overpayment substantially reduced. If you have been audited by BCBSM, we believe we can help, as we are currently representing physicians in similar cases and have been successfully defending providers against BCBSM audits since 1980. For further information on BCBSM audits, please contact an experienced Wachler & Associates healthcare attorney at 248-544-0888.

Published on:

by

On May 8, 2013 the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) for the Department of Health and Human Services issued an Updated Special Advisory Bulletin on the Effect of Exclusion from Participation in Federal Health Care Programs (“the Updated Bulletin”) to replace and supersede a bulletin issued in 1999.

The Updated Bulletin reiterates, clarifies and/or provides guidance on many points, including the following with regard to the effect of exclusion on participation in Federal health care programs:

  • Payment cannot be made from a Federal health care program for items or services furnished by an excluded person or at the medical direction or on the prescription of an excluded person.
Continue reading
Published on:

by

On May 3, 2013, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a memorandum describing hospice general inpatient care (GIP) provided to Medicare patients in 2011, for which Medicare paid $1.1 billion. According to the memorandum, the OIG will be conducting an in-depth medical record review to evaluate the appropriateness of GIP provided by hospices. The study will be focused on the accuracy of reimbursement for GIP and the proportion of GIP provided in different settings, specifically Medicare-certified hospice inpatient units, hospitals, and skilled nursing facilities.

This ongoing study is a continuation of prior studies released by the OIG, which show that the amount of GIP services provided differs significantly depending on the setting. For example, hospices that have their own inpatient units provided GIP to 35% of their Medicare patients. In contrast, hospices that have to outsource GIP care sent only 12% of their Medicare beneficiaries to receive that care. Furthermore, hospices that provided GIP in their own inpatient units recorded 50% longer patient stays and three times the proportion of Medicare payments for GIP services than did hospices that have to outsource GIP care.

The memorandum states that the OIG will begin a new study which will use actual beneficiary medical records to determine the accuracy of reimbursement. In addition to its own investigations, the OIG advised CMS to ensure that the hospices not currently providing GIP are still providing beneficiaries with appropriate access to the types and amount of care needed at the end of their lives. These studies are part of OIG’s continuing investigations related to Medicare hospice care. In 2011, Medicare paid $13.7 billion for hospice services on behalf of 1.2 million beneficiaries, and both of those numbers are expected to increase with the aging of the baby boomer generation.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

As mandated by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, Medicare Part B outpatient therapy providers now face manual medical review of claims at or above a $3700 statutory cap. Due to some confusion in the provider community, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published a Frequently Asked Questions to clarify the new therapy manual medical review process.

In the FAQ, CMS explains that the manual medical review process is triggered when a beneficiary’s services for that year exceed one of two threshold caps dictated in Section 603 of the Act. The cap for Occupational Therapy (OT) services is $3700 per year, per beneficiary. Separately, the combined cap for Physical Therapy (PT) and Speech Language Pathology (SLP) is $3700 per year, per beneficiary. CMS also points out that although physical therapy and speech language pathology services are combined to trigger the cap, the medical review of those claims will be conducted separately.

The FAQ states that the cap and manual medical review process applies to all Part B Outpatient Therapy settings and providers, including private practices, Part B skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), home health agencies (HHAs), outpatient rehabilitation facilities, rehabilitation agencies and hospital outpatient departments.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

On April 17th, 2013, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released an update to its Provider Self-Disclosure Protocol (SDP).

The SDP was established in 1998 to incentivize healthcare providers and suppliers to voluntarily disclose potential fraud related to payments received under Federal health care programs. All healthcare entities who are subject to the OIG’s Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) authorities are eligible to use the SDP.

The SDP dictates the procedures that healthcare providers must follow to identify potentially fraudulent conduct, determine damages, and report to the OIG. Successful use of the SDP leads to a settlement that reduces the healthcare entity’s liability under the OIG’s CMP provisions. To this end, the updated SDP states the OIG’s belief that providers who disclose fraud through the SDP deserve to pay less than they would be required to pay pursuant to an investigation initiated by the government. Notably, the updated SDP explicitly references the OIG’s general practice of imposing a multiplier of 1.5 times the single damages in CMP settlements of SDP cases; however, the OIG expressly reserves the right to determine whether a higher multiplier is warranted in each case. In addition, the OIG states that corporate integrity agreements are typically not required for providers utilizing the SDP in good faith.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Intermountain Healthcare, the largest health system in Utah, has agreed to pay $25.5 million to resolve claims that it violated the federal Stark law and False Claims Act by engaging in inappropriate financial relationships with referring physicians.

In 2009, Intermountain disclosed to federal officials that the system may have illegally paid bonuses to 37 doctors based on their patient referrals. If true, Intermountain would have been in violation of the Stark law. In addition, Intermountain disclosed that it compensated more than 170 doctors in the absence of written agreements, including via rentals of office space in several cities without written lease agreements. In total 209 physicians were involved in the violations, which spanned over a 10 year period.

Intermountain discovered the violations through its regular review process, and reported them to the government in 2009. Intermountain cites the complexities of the Stark law’s regulations as one cause of its noncompliance. According to Intermountain’s Chief Medical Officer Dr. Wallace, Intermountain should have more closely monitored the situation and although Intermountain’s management realized that penalties could be significant, they chose to self-disclose the issues.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

On March 22, 2013, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released Change Request 8185 to implement CMS Ruling (CMS-1455-R) and provide Medicare contractors with additional guidance for accepting claims rebilled from Part A to Part B. The CMS Ruling, which was released on March 13, 2013, permits hospital providers to rebill under Part B for Part A inpatient claims denied as not reasonable and necessary.

The Change Request reiterates the numerous revisions to the Part B payment policy when a Part A claim is denied as not reasonable and necessary. While the CMS Ruling remains in effect, the Change Requests instructs hospitals to submit Part B inpatient claims with the condition code “W2.” By attaching the “W2” condition code, the hospital is acknowledging that the Part B claim is a duplicate of the Part A claim that was previously denied, no payment shall be made for items or services included on the Part A claim, and the beneficiary will be refunded for any amounts collected from the beneficiary with respect to the Part A claim. Furthermore, by including the “W2” condition code, the hospital attests that no appeals are pending with respect to the previously submitted Part A claim and that any previous appeal of the Part A claim has become final, binding or dismissed, and no further appeal will be filed on the Part A claim. Any Part B inpatient claim submitted under the CMS Ruling that does not include condition code “W2” will be rejected by the contractor. The effective date of the Change Request mirrors that of the CMS Ruling, which took immediate effect on March 13, 2013. However, the implementation date of the Change request is July 1, 2013. Despite the delayed implementation date of the Change Request, hospitals may submit their Part B claims prior to the implementation date, according to CMS.

Wachler & Associates will continue to monitor the developments of CMS’s revised policy on Part B billing following the denial of a Part A inpatient hospital claim. If you have any questions regarding these developments or questions regarding the Medicare appeals process, please contact an experienced health care attorney at Wachler & Associates at 248-544-0888.

Published on:

by

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and oversees health information privacy in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). On Tuesday, a notice was published in the Federal Register asking for input and comments on the OCR’s HIPAA Audit Review Survey. The Information Collection Request (ICR) collected in this online survey looks at 115 Covered Entities (health plans, clearinghouses and providers) that were audited in 2012 by OCR.

The survey looks to collect information on just how effective these audits are and solicits opinions on the audit process itself. As part of that review, the online survey will be used to:

• Measure the effect of the HIPAA Audit program on covered entities • Gauge their attitudes towards the audit overall and in regards to major audit program features, such as the document request, communications received, the on-site visit, the audit-report findings and recommendations • Obtain estimates of costs incurred by covered entities, in time and money, spent responding to audit-related requests • Seek feedback on the effect of the HIPAA Audit program on the day-to-day business operations • Assess whether improvements in HIPAA compliance were achieved as a result of the Audit program

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Medicare administrative contractors (MACs) are expected to begin recouping money for annual wellness visits (AWV) erroneously paid to both facilities and physicians for the same visit.

For the past two years, CMS has erroneously allowed an AWV on a professional and institutional claim for the same patient on the same day. In some cases, this resulted in double billing to CMS. The erroneous collecting began with dates of service processed on or after April 4, 2011, and could continue through March 31, 2013 because the new policy will not take effect until April 1, 2013. CMS will recoup the double payments made from January 1, 2011 through March 31, 2013 from whoever billed the second claim. The new policy, Change Request 8107, will only allow payment for the professional service, regardless of whether it is paid on a professional or institutional claim.

If you need assistance determining how this new policy may affect your practice, or if you have any other health care law questions, please contact an experienced health care attorney at Wachler & Associates at 248-544-0888.

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