Wachler & Associates Health Law Blog

Auditing entities are utilizing more sophisticated electronic data mining methods than ever before. Today’s sophisticated data mining techniques enable auditors to identify greater cost recoveries, making auditing activities both more efficient and more effective.

Auditors utilize statistical data mining testing to determine whether a provider’s billing practices are statistically different from their peers’. If data patterns from a provider’s utilization rates are significantly different from that of their peers’, auditors are able to identify situations where a provider’s practices may be improper. By mining data on a regular basis, healthcare auditors isolate potential fraud and abuse.

Comparative Billing Reports (CBRs), a tool used by CMS to educate providers about their individual billing practices, detail complex statistical analysis in the form of charts and graphs and show how a practices’ utilization rates compare to those of their peer group. Safeguard Services, LLC, a company contracted by CMS, produces and sends out CBRs to certain provider types. CBRs compare both state and national standards and may help a provider detect possible billing and coding problems for their practice.

Earlier this year, Connolly, Inc., the Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) for Region C, posted a new issue to its CMS-Approved Issues List targeting Stereotactic Radiation Therapy (SBRT) and Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) services for providers in the following states: Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

According to the issue’s description, CMS has approved auditing providers who have incorrectly billed for SBRT and SRS procedures found to be, upon review, “not medically appropriate.” Connolly will be able to audit the billed SBRT/SRS claims as far back as three years from the initial determination date of the procedures, and will be focusing its audit efforts on the outpatient hospital setting. Consequently, this Connolly initiative may affect radiology oncology providers that have performed SRS and SBRT procedures in the states mentioned above.

In response to this news, providers must ensure they are keeping accurate records regarding the rationale and medical necessity for these treatment procedures, as well as maintaining and following effective compliance plans. If you need assistance in preparing for, or defending against RAC audits, or implementing a compliance program geared towards identifying and correcting potential risk areas related to RAC audits, please contact an experienced health care attorney at Wachler & Associates at 248-544-0888.

Hospital lobbying groups are pushing for Congress to pass the Medicare Audit Improvement Act of 2013, which would put a cap on the amount of document requests that Recovery Audit Contractors (RAC) may demand from providers. Specifically, the bill would limit RAC document requests to 2% of hospital claims and a maximum of 500 additional document requests over 45 days.

The legislation was introduced in the House on March 19, 2013 by Representatives Sam Graves (R-MO) and Adam Schiff (D-CA); and was introduced two months later in the Senate by Senators Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Mark Pryor (D-AK). On March 19, 2013, Graves stated in a press release that “[d]octors and nurses should be focused on caring for patients, not trying to comply with the ever-increasing requests for documents.” Graves also stated that small, rural hospitals will benefit from this new legislation the most, since they are often ill-equipped to handle extensive document requests.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) endorsed both bills, and since the new year, has spent $4.3 million thus far in lobbying efforts. In addition, the Federation of American Hospitals and six state hospital associations also joined the AHA in its lobbying efforts. Despite this significant lobbying, neither bill has gained momentum. The same bill was also introduced last year by Graves, but failed to move out of committee. A spokeswoman for the AHA stated that the House bill was not expected to move soon. As a result, lobbying efforts have been placed on increasing the number of co-sponsors of the bill. Last year, only 26 members of Congress co-sponsored the bill, whereas the current legislation has 70 co-sponsors.