Medicare

Published on: November 8, 2021

DOJ Allegations Illustrate Issues in Coding

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.

Published on: November 5, 2021

Tips for Responding to a Medicare Revocation

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

When a Medicare provider or supplier’s Medicare billing privileges are revoked, commonly called a Medicare revocation, the provider or supplier must ask the following questions: Why? When? Will there be collateral consequences? What are the appeal rights?

Why? Federal regulations provide 22 distinct reasons that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) may use to revoke a healthcare provider’s or supplier’s Medicare billing privileges. Some of the most common revocation reasons are noncompliance with Medicare enrollment requirements, felony convictions, and failures to respond to requests for medical records. A particularly severe revocation reason is an abuse of billing privileges because it means that CMS has found that the provider or supplier has engaged in a “pattern or practice of submitting claims that fail to meet Medicare requirements.” The reason for the revocation can affect both the appeal process and the effective dates of the revocation.

When? Two dates are most important: the effective date and the length of the reenrollment bar. The effective date is the date that the revocation begins. For some revocations, the effective date will be 30 days after the letter informing the provider or supplier of the revocation. However, revocations can also be retroactive. For example, in 2021 CMS may revoke a provider for a felony conviction from 2017 and back-date the revocation to begin in 2017. This may mean that all claims for the provider’s services from 2017 to the present will be denied and overpayments sought. The reenrollment bar is the length of time that a revoked provider or supplier must wait before they can reenroll in Medicare. In general, CMS may set a reenrollment of between 1 and 10 years, depending on the severity of the denial reason. However, reenrollment bars are very often initially set at the maximum of 10 years.

Published on: November 3, 2021

False Claims Settlements Illustrate Compliance Challenges for Clinical Labs

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

Two recent settlements illustrate some of the compliance challenges facing clinical laboratories that perform urine drug testing (UDT). Both settlements involve a clinical laboratory resolving allegations that the lab violated the False Claims Act (FCA).

In the first case, the Department of Justice (DOJ) alleged that the lab performed and then billed federal health care programs for both presumptive testing and confirmatory testing. DOJ alleged that the lab was performing both tests at approximately the same time and providing both results to providers simultaneously. DOJ alleged that this rendered one test or the other medically unnecessary: either there was no result to confirm because the presumptive test came back negative, or the presumptive test was unnecessary because the provider already had the confirmatory test in hand. The lab agreed to pay $16 million to resolve these allegations.

In the second case, a physician practice referred UDTs to its in-house clinical laboratory. DOJ alleged that the physicians ordered excessive and unnecessary UDTs for patients without any individualized assessment of clinical need and caused these claims to be submitted to federal healthcare programs. The physicians agreed to pay $3.9 million to resolve these allegations.

Published on: November 1, 2021

HHS Proposes to Repeal Rules that Limit Its Authority

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently proposed to repeal two rules implemented under the Trump Administration to moderate the power of the agency. The rules HHS seeks to repeal are the Good Guidance Rule and the Civil Enforcement Rule. Public comments on the proposal are due by November 19, 2021.

The Good Guidance Rule was implemented to make guidance documents easier for the public to access and provide input on, and created extra screening steps before HHS may implement guidance. The major provisions of the Good Guidance Rule are: (1) a requirement that each guidance document issued by HHS generally include certain information, including a statement that the guidance does not have the force and effect of law and is not binding unless specifically incorporated into a contract; (2) additional procedures for ‘‘significant guidance documents’’ (defined as those with an estimated impact of greater than $100 million), including a period of notice and comment, a requirement that the Secretary of HHS personally approve new guidance, and a requirement for submission to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review; (3) creation of a repository for all guidance documents along with a provision stating that guidance documents not in the repository are not effective and would be considered rescinded; and (4) procedures for the public to petition the Department to withdraw or modify any particular guidance document.

The Civil Enforcement Rule was implemented to provide greater notice to providers subject to civil enforcement actions and greater transparency of HHS’s civil enforcement actions. Under the Civil Enforcement Rule, before taking civil enforcement actions, HHS must provide the targeted party with an initial notice of the agency’s legal and factual determinations, an opportunity to object or respond, and the Department’s written response to the affected party’s objections.

Published on: October 29, 2021

OIG Updates Work Plan For October 2021

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 October 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 plans to compare the average sales price (ASP) for certain drugs with their corresponding average manufacturer price (AMP) to assess Medicare Part B drug reimbursement. Since Congress established the ASP as the basis for Medicare Part B drug reimbursement, OIG is empowered to monitor market prices to limit excessive Medicare payment amounts. In fact, the Social Security Act requires that OIG compares the ASPs with AMPs, and if the ASP for a drug exceeds the AMP by 5% in the two previous quarters or three previous four quarters, HHS may substitute the reimbursement amount with a lower calculate rate. The memo produced from this investigation will report the number of drugs OIG identified that meet the criteria for substitution of a lower reimbursement amount. Ultimately, providers and suppliers should be aware of the findings in this memo, as they could lead to reduced Medicare Part B reimbursements.

Second, OIG announced their plans for additional oversight of the 50 state Medicaid Fraud Control Units (MFCUs). MFCUs are state agencies that investigate and prosecute Medicaid provider fraud and complaints of patient abuse or neglect in Medicaid-funded facilities, although approximately 75% of MFCU funding comes from the federal government. OIG will conduct on-site reviews of a sample of MFCUs. OIG did not specify which or how many MFCUs they would review. Additionally, OIG will provide guidance regarding Federal regulations, policy and performance through data collection and analysis. Finally, the OIG will provide technical assistance and training to improve MFCU management and operations.

Published on: October 25, 2021

Appealing a Medicare Audit

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

Your practice, agency, or business has been audited by Medicare and now Medicare has stopped paying your claims or is claiming that you owe significant funds that must be repaid to Medicaid. These difficult circumstances can lead to many questions. Who performed the audit? Why are they denying claims or demanding an overpayment? How can you respond?

There are several entities that perform Medicare audits. The federal agency that oversees Medicare, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), performs few audits itself, but outsources these duties to a series of independent contractors, such as Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs), Unified Program Integrity Contractors (UPICs), and the Supplemental Medical Review Contractor (SRMC). The vast majority of audits are performed by these contractors, although they will often use CMS’s name or logo in their correspondence and may answer phone calls by saying that they are “with Medicare.”

A healthcare provider’s options in responding to a Medicare audit are available from the very beginning. Sometimes providers receive Additional Document Requests (ADRs) from the contractor demanding information or documentation on a claim or claims. These requests should be reviewed carefully; however, they often contain boilerplate or generic language and it may be difficult to determine which specific documentation the contractor is requesting. Once the contractor reviews any additional documentation that the provider supplies, the contractor will issue its audit findings and determine to pay or to deny certain claims. Other times, the contractor will audit claims dates or other information and issue audit findings without requesting additional information from the provider.

Published on: October 7, 2021

HHS Reports Progress Resolving Medicare Appeals Backlog

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

In a recent court filing, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reported that it has cleared approximately 79% of the Medicare appeals backlog. HHS is currently under court order to clear a backlog of hundreds of thousands of Medicare claims appeals pending before the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA).

Generally, a Medicare claim denial or overpayment demand may be appealed through five successive levels of appeals. First, Redetermination by a Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC), often the same MAC that denied the claims initially. Second, Reconsideration by a Qualified Independent Contractor (QIC). Third, appeal to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) employed by the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA), a subdivision of HHS, where the provider may be entitled to a hearing. Fourth, review by the Medicare Appeals Counsel, also within HHS. Fifth and finally, appeal to a federal district court.

The entire appeals process can take years and create difficulties for healthcare providers or suppliers. The least efficient part of the process has long been the wait, sometimes for three to five years, for an available ALJ to hear the appeal, at which point in the appeals process the only review of a contractor’s decisions has been by other contractors. This left providers in the difficult position of having significant overpayment demands based on incorrect decisions by contractors but having to wait years for independent review of their cases. This long wait also violated the regulations that govern the appeals process, which generally entitle a provider to an ALJ hearing within 90 days of the provider’s request for a hearing. At the height of the backlog, over 400,000 cases were pending at OMHA.

Published on: October 5, 2021

CMS Proposes Repeal of Breakthrough Devices Medicare Coverage Rule

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently announced a proposal to repeal the Medicare Coverage of Innovative Technology (MCIT) rule that has been delayed several times. The latest news in the MCIT saga comes from a CMS announcement expressing concerns with the final rule, specifically that it will require more time for adequate implementation.

The final rule was implemented to reduce the time it takes for FDA-approved medical technology to become covered under Medicare. The MCIT would reduce these wait times by granting Medicare coverage to breakthrough devices immediately after receiving FDA approval. The FDA designates medical devices as “breakthrough devices” when they are shown to be more effective at diagnosing or treating serious diseases than the currently available devices. This designation allows these devices to have reduced development, assessment, and review timelines.

However, CMS announced reservations about the final rule and has proposed changes. CMS’s primary concern is that the final MCIT is not acting in Medicare recipients’ best interest because it could provide coverage for breakthrough devices that are not reasonable and necessary to treat Medicare recipients’ diseases or conditions. This concern stems from the current guidelines for clinical trials for medical devices. Specifically, the FDA does not require Medicare recipients to be included in clinical trials for medical devices. Since Medicare recipients generally have more comorbidities than the general population, the clinical trials may not accurately reflect Medicare patient outcomes. CMS has also expressed concern that the final rule takes away its tools to deny coverage when it becomes apparent that a particular device can be harmful to the Medicare population. If the rule goes into effect, and a device approved under it is later found to be harmful to Medicare recipients, CMS would be limited in the actions it could take to withdraw or modify coverage. Lastly, CMS believes there could be confusion and disruption stemming from devices receiving approval without a clear path for appropriate coding and payment.

Published on: September 30, 2021

HHS Expands Settlement Conference Facilitation

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently announced the annual expansion of the Settlement Conference Facilitation (SCF) program. SCF is an alternate dispute resolution mechanism used to resolve Medicare claims appeals. However, because SCF is meant to help reduce the appeal backlog, only appeals filed before a certain date are eligible. With the latest expansion, appeals involving requests for Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing or Medicare Appeal Council review filed on or before June 30, 2021 are now eligible for SCF.

Generally, a Medicare claim denial or overpayment demand may be appealed through five successive levels of appeals. First, Redetermination by a Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC), often the same MAC that denied the claims initially. Second, Reconsideration by a Qualified Independent Contractor (QIC). Third, appeal to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) employed by the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA), a subdivision of HHS, where the provider may be entitled to a hearing. Fourth, review by the Medicare Appeals Counsel, also within HHS. Fifth and finally, appeal to a federal district court.

The entire appeals process can take years and create difficulties for healthcare providers or suppliers. The least efficient part of the process has long been the wait for an available ALJ to hear the appeal, which can take three to five years, at which point the only prior review of a contractor’s decisions has been done by other contractors. This has left providers in the difficult position of having significant overpayment demands based on incorrect decisions by contractors but having to wait years for independent review of their cases. In response to this, HHS is now under court order to reduce this backlog of cases.

Published on: September 20, 2021

HHS Announces Another $25.5 Billion in COVID-19 Provider Funding, Grace Period for Provider Relief Fund

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

On September 10, 2021, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that it would make $25.5 billion in new funding available for healthcare providers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This funding includes allocations of $8.5 billion in funding from the American Rescue Plan (ARP) for providers who provide services to rural Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or Medicare patients, as well as an additional $17 billion in Provider Relief Fund (PRF) Phase 4 funding for a broad range of providers who can document expenses and lost revenue associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

PRF Phase 4 payments are based on providers’ lost revenue and expenditures between July 1, 2020 and March 31, 2021, in conformity with the requirements of the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2020 (CRRSAA). PRF Phase 4 is intended to reimburse smaller providers for their lost revenues and pandemic-related expenses at a higher rate compared to larger providers. This characteristic stems from the Biden Administration’s ongoing commitment to social equity, as smaller providers tend to operate on thinner margins and often serve vulnerable or isolated communities when compared to larger providers. Because Medicaid, CHIP, and Medicare patients tend to be lower income and have greater and more complex medical needs, PRF Phase 4 will also include bonus payments for providers who serve these individuals. HRSA will price these bonus payments at the generally higher Medicare rates to ensure equity amongst providers serving low-income children, pregnant women, people with disabilities, and seniors. In parallel, HRSA will make ARP payments to providers based on the amount of Medicaid, CHIP, and/or Medicare services they provide to patients who live in rural areas as defined by the HHS Federal Office of Rural Health Policy. For both programs, HRSA will use existing Medicaid, CHIP, and Medicare claims data to calculate payments.

In order to streamline the application process, providers will apply for both the PRF and ARP programs in a single application. To help ensure that provider relief funds are used for patient care, PRF recipients will be required to notify the HHS Secretary of any merger with, or acquisition of, another healthcare provider during the period in which they can use the payments. Providers who report a merger or acquisition may be more likely to be audited to confirm their funds were used for pandemic-related expenses. The application portal will open on September 29, 2021. Moreover, HHS is also releasing detailed information about the methodology utilized to calculate PRF Phase 3 payments in order to promote transparency in the PRF program. Providers who believe their PRF Phase 3 payment was not calculated correctly according to this methodology will now have an opportunity to request a reconsideration. Specific details on the PRF Phase 3 reconsideration process have yet to be announced.