Wachler & Associates Health Law Blog

The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) released an unfavorable Advisory Opinion involving a transportation supplier’s proposal to offer skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) two payment plans for transportation of the SNF’s Medicaid-covered residents.  The OIG determined that the arrangement could potentially violate the Anti-Kickback Statute and that administrative sanctions could be imposed.

The transportation supplier (Requestor) provides transportation services in a state where SNFs receive a per-resident daily rate for ancillary and support services form the state Medicaid program.  SNFs that have residents which are eligible for Medicare and Medicaid are responsible for the amount not covered by Medicare that would otherwise be covered by Medicaid as a secondary payor.  The Requestor will offer two payment plans that respond to SNFs’ responsibilities:

(1) The first payment plan would be a capitated rate per resident per day for Medicaid transports regardless of whether the services were needed and whether Medicaid is the responsible payor.  For residents covered under Medicare and Medicaid, the payment would release the SNF from any further liability (including Medicaid deductibles).  The capitated payment would be less than the Requestor’s cost of transportation for Medicaid patients and more for Medicare patients. 

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported $25.9 billion of expected recoveries and savings in fiscal year (FY) 2010.  The large amount is a combination of audit receivables, investigative receivables and other legislative and cost-saving actions that OIG recommended. 

In addition, the OIG’s semiannual report documented that it initiated 647 criminal actions and 378 civil actions against individuals or entities that engaged in crimes against departmental programs.  These actions included lawsuits under the False Claims Act (FCA), the Civil Monetary Penalties Law (CMPL) settlement and other administrative recoveries related to self-disclosure. 

Finally, the report indicated the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team’s (HEAT) success in fighting fraud.  That program alone recovered $71.3 million in investigative receivables.  

Last week, the House and Senate passed the “Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010.”  The Act limits the definition of “creditor” to a person who obtains or uses consumer reports in connection with a credit transaction, furnishes information to consumer reporting agencies in connection with credit transactions, or advances funds based on the recipients’ obligation to repay.  The bill excludes from the definition persons, such as health care providers, who “advance funds” by providing services before receiving payment.  Relevant government agencies, however, are permitted to designate creditors that will be subject to the Rule.  The Agencies will designate based upon the determination that the person manages accounts that are subject to a reasonably foreseeable risk of identity theft.  These designations must be made through agency rule making. 

The enforcement of the Red Flags rule has been delayed several times, with the most recent delay expiring on January 2011.  The FTC previously determined that health care providers met the definition of “creditor.”  While the Clarification Act’s revised definition would not include most health care providers, the FTC could still designate health care providers as “creditors” through the rule making process based on the risk of medical identity theft concerns previously voiced by the FTC. 

For more information on the Red Flags rule, please visit www.wachler.com or contact a Wachler & Associates attorney at 248-544-0888.