Published on:

by

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has extended the deadline for submitting a Notice of Intent to Apply to June 29, 2012 for Accountable Care Organizations (ACO) interested in participating in the Shared Savings Program beginning January 1, 2013. CMS will be accepting applications for the January 2013 start date from August 1 through September 9, 2012.

ACOs that do not file the Notice of Intent to Apply prior to the June 29 deadline will be unable to participate in the Shared Savings Program for the January 2013 start date. Furthermore, the Notice of Intent to Apply is not binding, which means that an ACO may submit its Notice and subsequently decide not to apply for the Program.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In June 2012 the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released Recovery Audit Program appeals data for fiscal year 2011. The report indicates that of the claim denials appealed, 43.4% were returned in the provider’s favor.

In fiscal year 2011, 903,372 claims were determined to be overpayments. Of those overpayments, 56,620 were appealed by the provider and 24,548 were returned in the provider’s favor.

The data shows that the type of claims overturned on appeal were more commonly automated claims, but far more money was overturned in complex claims. Nearly $30 million in overpayments was overturned on appeal in complex claim denials alone.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

On June 8, 2012, Robert Vito, Regional Inspector General for Evaluation and Inspections at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Inspector General (OIG), testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee: Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. The testimony focused on the current OIG assessment of Medicare contractors’ efforts to counteract fraud at present and in the near future. The testimony focused on Zone Program Integrity Coordinators (ZPIC), who audit and investigate claims and providers enrolled in Medicare Part A and B, and Medicare Drug Integrity Contractors (MEDIC), who focus on Medicare Part C and D.

The testimony revealed that OIG reviews over the last 10 years have found recurring issues with Medicare contractor performance–issues that continue to persist. These issues include:

• Limited results from proactive data analysis.
• Difficulties in obtaining the data needed to detect fraud.
• Inaccurate and inconsistent data reported by contractors.
• Limited use by CMS of contractor-reported fraud and abuse activity data in evaluating contractor performance and investigating variability across contractors.
• Lack of program vulnerability identification and resolution.

One major area for concern for the OIG is proactive data analysis. Medicare contractors, like ZPICs and MEDICs, have continued to pursue a “pay and chase” model of benefit integrity activity, rather than the proactive approach that HHS would like to implement. Proactive analysis would potentially identify fraudulent or otherwise inappropriate claims before they are paid rather than after. Proactive and early identification of fraud and inappropriate payments accounted for only 7 percent of ZPIC investigations, according to a 2011 OIG report. The vast majority of ZPIC and MEDIC audit and investigative activity is based upon “reactive methods” like complaints from other sources.

Vito’s testimony also indicated inaccuracies and lack of uniformity in ZPIC and MEDIC data. System issues, reporting errors, and differing interpretations of fraud terms and definitions have caused drastically different reporting results from different Medicare contractors. In one case, one ZPIC reported 7 times more investigations originating from external sources than the other. This inconsistency prevented OIG from making a conclusive assessment of ZPIC and MEDIC activities.

OIG review found that despite the requirement that Medicare benefit integrity contractors identify and report systemic vulnerabilities in the Medicare program, some contractors are not reporting any vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities are defined by CMS as fraud, waste, or abuse identified through analysis of Medicare data. In 2009 a total of 62 program vulnerabilities were reported to CMS. Only 21 vulnerabilities included an estimated monetary impact as required. These 21 vulnerabilities totaled an estimated monetary impact of $1.2 billion. As of January 2011, CMS had taken no action on 75% of the vulnerabilities reported in 2009.

The testimony recommended the following continuing actions to improve benefit integrity contractor performance:

• Oversee proactive identification of fraud.
• Provide timely data access.
• Improve accuracy of contractor-reported fraud activity data.
• Assess variability in performance across contractors.
• Ensure program vulnerability identification and resolution.
• Improve overpayment identification and collection.

The OIG will also continue to review Medicare benefit integrity issues, which include continuing evaluations of overpayments and Medicare debt collection, and examining the activities of MACs and RACs. Reviews of new enrollment procedures and prepayment identification of inappropriate claims will also begin.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

On May 29, 2012 the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina overturned the Medicare Appeals Counsel’s (MAC’s) decision regarding one evaluation and management (E/M) service claim.

Six years earlier, a CMS Program Safeguard Contractor audited Dr. Ojebuoboh. It was determined that the government had overpaid Dr. Ojebuoboh approximately $179,000. Dr. Ojebuoboh contested the overpayment through the five-step Medicare appeals process. Before the matter reached federal district court, the physician had managed to reduce the overpayment amount to $12,000.

On appeal to federal district court, Dr. Ojebuoboh argued, among other things, that the MAC reached the wrong decision as to services provided for three beneficiaries: WB, MT, and OW. At this stage, Dr. Ojebuoboh had the right to judicial review of specific claims, however; in order to overturn the prior holding he had to prove that the MAC’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. This is a difficult standard to prove as it presumes that the MAC’s decision is correct. The federal district court determined that the MAC must explain its reasons for denying the claims, yet; it need not thoroughly detail every element of every component.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

On May 31, 2012, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Director of the Office of Civil Rights Leon Rodriguez issued a memo to consumers regarding those consumers’ right to access their protected health information and medical records. In this memo, Rodriguez stressed that it is important for consumers and providers to remember that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) not only provides protection for personal health information, but also provides consumers with the right to view and obtain copies of health records.

Many providers, when dealing with HIPAA compliance, tend to focus on safeguarding protected health information, but fail to recognize the importance of patient rights including the right to access. Under HIPAA, patients have the right to view their health records from most providers, pharmacies, and health plans. Patients also have the right to obtain copies of those records in the form they choose, be it electronic or on paper, if the provider is able to do so.

Providers can charge patients a reasonable amount for the copies of health records the patient receives, and any cost for mailing the records. This amount is statutorily regulated in most states. It is important to note that a provider cannot charge a fee for searching for and retrieving records, and providers cannot withhold access to records because a patient has not paid for services received.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) announced yesterday that its Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Enforcement Training tools would be available to the general public today, June 5, 2012.

Since 2009, as part of the Health Information Technology for Clinical and Economic Health (HITECH) Act, State Attorneys General (SAGs) were given the authority to bring civil suit for HIPAA violations on behalf of the aggrieved patients. To assist SAGs, the OCR developed a wide range of HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules compliance, enforcement, and training tools.

Included in the materials are computer-based modules, and videos and slides from in-person training sessions covering the following topics:

  • General Introduction to the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules
  • Analysis of the impact of the HITECH Act on the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules
  • Investigative techniques for identifying and prosecuting potential violations
  • A review of HIPAA and State Law
  • OCR’s role in enforcing the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules
  • SAG roles and responsibilities under HIPAA and the HITECH Act
  • Resources for SAG in pursuing alleged HIPAA violations
  • HIPAA Enforcement Support and Results

These materials may be a helpful training tool for health care providers and privacy officers. The materials highlight to whom, what, where, when, and how HIPAA Rules will be enforced and provide basic summaries of the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rule requirements.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced it will release a national provider Comparative Billing Report addressing Home Oxygen Services. The release is scheduled for June 26, 2012.

The CBRs are produced by Safeguard Services under contract with CMS and will provide comparative data to help show how these individual providers compare to other providers within the same field. These comparative studies are designed to help providers review their coding and billing practices and utilization patterns, and take proactive compliance measures. Providers should view CBRs as a tool, rather than a warning, as a way to aid them in properly complying with Medicare billing rules. It is also important to understand that CBRs do not contain patient or case-specific data, but rather only summary billing information as a method of ensuring privacy.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

On May 29, 2012, Connolly added new approved issues to its Approved Issues List for providers in Region C states. The new approved issues are across five categories and include:

• Medical Necessity: Other O.R. Procedure of the Blood & Blood Forming Organs MS-DRG 802, 803, 804 W/MCC, W/CC, w/o CC/MCC CMS Issue Number: C000672012. RACs will review documentation to validate the medical necessity of short stay, uncomplicated admissions. Medicare only pays for inpatient hospital services that are medically necessary for the setting billed and that are coded correctly. Medical documentation will be reviewed to determine that the services were medically necessary and were billed correctly for MS-DRG 802, 803 and 804.

• Medical Necessity: Disease and Disorders of the Female Reproductive System MS-DRG 750, w/o CC/MCC CMS Issue Number: C000642012. RACs will review documentation to validate the medical necessity of short stay, uncomplicated admissions. Medicare only pays for inpatient hospital services that are medically necessary for the setting billed and that are coded correctly. Medical documentation will be reviewed to determine that the services were medically necessary and were billed correctly for MS-DRG 750.

• Medical Necessity: Diseases and Disorders of the Kidney and Urinary Tract MS-DRG’S 656,659,662,665,671,686,687,709,710 and 711 W/CC, W/MCC, w/o CC/MCC CMS Issue Number: C000622012. RACs will review documentation to validate the medical necessity of short stay, uncomplicated admissions. Medicare only pays for inpatient hospital services that are medically necessary for the setting billed and that are coded correctly. Medical documentation will be reviewed to determine that the services were medically necessary and were billed correctly for MS-DRG’S 656, 659, 662, 665, 671, 686, 687, 709, 710 and 711.

For a full list of Approved Issues in RAC Region C, visit the Connolly website.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) expects to publish Comparative Billing Reports (CBRs) on Evaluation and Management (E/M) Services on June 4, 2012.

Since 2010, CMS, through Safeguard Services (SGS), has produced national comparative billing reports in select fields. These comparative studies are designed to help providers review their coding and billing practices and utilization patterns, and take proactive compliance measures. A CBR outlines the provider’s billing patterns and compares those patterns to other similar entities. Pursuant to Safeguard Services website, E/M services CBRs will be given to providers that meet the following criteria:

  • Filed Medicare Part B final claims with dates of service from January 1 to December 31, 2011;
  • Claims were retrieved from the Integrated Data Repository (IDR) on April 13, 2012;
  • The provider is a specialty primary care provider (General Practice, Family Practice, Internal Medicine, Nurse Practitioner, Multispecialty Clinic or Group Practice, Preventive Medicine, or Physician Assistant);
  • Billed CPT codes 99201, 99202, 99203, 99204, 99205, 99211, 99212, 99213, 99214, and 99215;
  • Place of service was in the office (11);
  • Allowed charges greater than $0; and
  • Provided greater than or equal to 100 total units for the combination of the aforementioned CPT codes.

The sole intent of conducting CBRs is to educate providers as to potential fraud and abuse; they are not punitive. Providers should view CBRs as a tool, rather than a warning, as a way to aid them in properly complying with Medicare billing rules. It is also important to understand that CBRs do not contain patient or case-specific data, but rather only summary billing information as a method of ensuring privacy.

E/M services are specifically targeted because they are susceptible to fraud and abuse. From 2001 to 2010 Medicare payments for E/M Services increased by 48 percent. CMS will publish CBRs that analyze Medicare Part B final claims data from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. Collective trends in the individual CBRs will be published for the nation to inspect.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

On May 10, 2012 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth District decided that criminal charges under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) do not require that an individual have knowledge that their actions are illegal. The case, United States of America v. Zhou, is the first such case to establish that the knowledge requirements of a criminal HIPAA violation apply only to the fact that the information accessed was protected health information, and not that obtaining the information was in violation of HIPAA.

Under the statute, HIPAA provides that a criminal penalty applies to a person who knowingly and in violation of the statute, uses, obtains, or discloses protected health information. Zhou argued that the statute requires knowledge that the information obtained was protected health information, as well as knowledge that obtaining it was illegal. The court rejected the argument and determined that the language of HIPAA is plain. The court found that the word “and” unambiguously indicates that there are two elements of a violation, and that knowingly applies only to obtaining the protected health information, and not to the fact that obtaining the protected health information was illegal.

The statute at issue in the decision is 42 U.S.C §1320d-6a, which reads as follows:

(a) Offense A person who knowingly and in violation of this part–

(1) uses or causes to be used a unique health identifier;

(2) obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an individual; or

(3) discloses individually identifiable health information to another person,
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section. For purposes of the previous sentence, a person (including an employee or other individual) shall be considered to have obtained or disclosed individually identifiable health information in violation of this part if the information is maintained by a covered entity (as defined in the HIPAA privacy regulation described in section 1320d-9 (b)(3) of this title) and the individual obtained or disclosed such information without authorization.

Penalties for violations of the statute can include fines of up to $250,000, imprisonment for up to 10 years, or both.
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