Monthly Archives: December 2022
Medicare Advantage: “Termination At Will” Clauses Legal?
Providers who contract with Medicare Advantage Organizations (“MAO”) need to know that even though the MAO is a private company, because it manages federal Medicare money, the Medicare regulations are applicable – and, possibly, not the contract that you were forced to sign. When any entity accepts the responsibility of getting tax dollars – a firehose of tax dollars, no less – prepaid – then that entity answers to all tax payers for their actions and that entity must follow the Medicare regulations.
Medicare Advantage Plans, sometimes called “Part C” or “MA Plans,” are offered by MAOs that must follow rules set by Medicare. Most Medicare Advantage Plans include drug coverage (Part D). Health care providers can contract to be in the plan’s network. MAOs include BCBS, Humana, Anthem, UnitedHealthcare, Cigna, and Aetna.
Just for an example, I pulled up the provider agreement for BCBS. Section 6.2 allows termination by either party with 60 days notice; this is the “termination at will” clause. Theoretically, BCBS or any MAO could terminate contracts with small providers and decide to contract only with larger providers. Or contract with only African-American providers. Or contract with only female-owned companies. Or contract with the providers that the CEO likes. I disagree with a termination at will clause that allows a company with so much Medicare money at its fingertips the authority to only contract with whom it wants or likes. In fact, I believe a termination at will clause violates the law.
The Courts are split on this issue. See blog.
42 CFR Section 422, et al, outlines the regulations for Medicare Advantage.
According to CMS, in order for a MAO to “Suspend, Terminate, or Not-renew Physician Contracts” specific requirements for an MA organization that operates a coordinated care plan or network MSA plan providing benefits through contracting physicians and that suspends, terminates, or non-renews a physician’s contract are as follows:
- The MA organization must give the affected physician written notice of the reasons for the action, including, if relevant, the standards and profiling data used to evaluate the physician and the numbers and mix of physicians needed by the MA organization.
- The MA organization must allow the physician to appeal the action, and give the physician written notice of his/her right to a hearing and the process and timing for requesting a hearing.
- The MA organization must ensure that the majority of the hearing panel members are peers of the affected physician.
42 CFR 422.202(c) and (d) and preamble of February 17, 1999, rule.
In sum, MAOs are required to provide appeal rights for any Medicare contract that is terminated. But, doesn’t that contradict with a “termination at will” clause?
Family Practice Doctors: Is It CPT 1995 or 1997 Guidance?
Right now, CMS allows physicians to pick to follow the 1995 or 1997 guidelines for determining whether an evaluation and management (“e/m”) visit qualifies for a 99214 versus a 99213. The biggest difference between the two policies is that the 1995 guideline allows you to check by systems, rather than individual organs. Starting January 1, 2023, there are a lot of revisions, including a 2021 guidance that will be used. But, for dates of service before 2021, physicians can pick between 1995 and 1997 guidance.
Why is this an issue?
If you are a family practitioner and get audited by Medicare, Medicaid, or private pay, you better be sure that your auditor audits with the right policy.
According to CPT, 99214 is indicated for an “office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: a detailed history, a detailed examination and medical decision making of moderate complexity.”
Think 99214 in any of the following situations:
- If the patient has a new complaint with a potential for significant morbidity if untreated or misdiagnosed,
- If the patient has three or more old problems,
- If the patient has a new problem that requires a prescription,
- If the patient has three stable problems that require medication refills, or one stable problem and one inadequately controlled problem that requires medication refills or adjustments.
The above is simplified and shorthand, so read the 1995 and 1997 guidance carefully.
An insurance company audited a client of mine and clearly used the 1997 guidance. On the audit report, the 1997 guidance was checked as being used. In fact, according to the audit report, the auditors used BOTH the 1997 and 1995 guidance, which, logically, would make a harder, more stringent standard for a 99214 than using one policy.
Now the insurance company claims my client owes money. However, if the insurance company merely applied the 1995 guidance only, then, we believe, that he wouldn’t owe a dime. Now he has to hire me, defend himself to the insurance company, and possibly litigate if the insurance company stands its ground.
Sadly, the above story is not an anomaly. I see auditors misapply policies by using the wrong years all the time, almost daily. Always appeal. Never roll over.
Sometimes it is a smart decision to hire an independent expert to verify that the physician is right, and the auditors are wrong. If the audit is extrapolated, then it is wise to hire an expert statistician. See blog. And blog. The extrapolation rules were recently revised…well, in the last two or three years, so be sure you know the rules, as well. See blog.
Medicare Auditors Fail to Follow the Jimmo Settlement
Auditors are not lawyers. Some auditors do not even possess the clinical background of the services they are auditing. In this blog, I am concentrating on the lack of legal licenses. Because the standards to which auditors need to hold providers to are not only found in the Medicare Provider Manuals, regulations, NCDs and LCDs. Oh, no… To add even more spice to the spice cabinet, common law court cases also create and amend Medicare and Medicaid policies.
For example, the Jimmo v. Selebius settlement agreement dictates the standards for skilled nursing and skilled therapy in skilled nursing facilities, home health, and outpatient therapy settings and importantly holds that coverage does not turn on the presence or absence of a beneficiary’s potential for improvement.
The Jimmo settlement dictates that:
“Specifically, in accordance with the settlement agreement, the manual revisions clarify that coverage of skilled nursing and skilled therapy services in the skilled nursing facility (SNF), home health (HH), and outpatient therapy (OPT) settings “…does not turn on the presence or absence of a beneficiary’s potential for improvement, but rather on the beneficiary’s need for skilled care.” Skilled care may be necessary to improve a patient’s current condition, to maintain the patient’s current condition, or to prevent or slow further deterioration of the patient’s condition.”
This Jimmo standard – not requiring a potential for improvement – is essential for diseases that are lifelong and debilitating, like Multiple Sclerosis (“MS”). For beneficiaries suffering from MS, skilled therapy is essential to prevent regression.
I have reviewed numerous audits by UPICs, in particular, which have failed to follow the Jimmo settlement standard and denied 100% of my provider-client’s claims. 100%. All for failure to demonstrate potential for improvement for MS patients. It’s ludicrous until you stop and remember that auditors are not lawyers. This Jimmo standard is found in a settlement agreement from January 2013. While we will win on appeal, it costs providers money valuable money when auditors apply the wrong standards.
The amounts in controversy are generally high due to extrapolations, which is when the UPIC samples a low number of claims, determines an error rate and extrapolates that error rate across the universe. When the error rate is falsely 100%, the extrapolation tends to be high.
While an expectation of improvement could be a reasonable criterion to consider when evaluating, for example, a claim in which the goal of treatment is restoring a prior capability, Medicare policy has long recognized that there may also be specific instances where no improvement is expected but skilled care is, nevertheless, required in order to prevent or slow deterioration and maintain a beneficiary at the maximum practicable level of function. For example, in the regulations at 42 CFR 409.32(c), the level of care criteria for SNF coverage specify that the “. . . restoration potential of a patient is not the deciding factor in determining whether skilled services are needed. Even if full recovery or medical improvement is not possible, a patient may need skilled services to prevent further deterioration or preserve current capabilities.” The auditors should understand this and be trained on the proper standards. The Medicare statute and regulations have never supported the imposition of an “Improvement Standard” rule-of-thumb in determining whether skilled care is required to prevent or slow deterioration in a patient’s condition.
When you are audited by an auditor whether it be a RAC, MAC or UPIC, make sure the auditors are applying the correct standards. Remember, the auditors aren’t attorneys or doctors.
NC Medicaid Reform … Part 5,439-ish
I hope everyone had a Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkah! As 2023 approaches, NC Medicaid is being overhauled…again! Medicaid reform is never smooth, despite the State. NC is no different. When NC Medicaid reformed in 2013, I brought a class action lawsuit against Computer Science Corporation, which created NCTracks, and DHHS, NC’s “single state entity” charged with managing Medicaid. See blog.
The new start date for NC Medicaid Tailored Plans is April 1, 2023. Tailored Plans, originally scheduled to launch Dec. 1, 2022, will provide the same services as Standard Plans in Medicaid Managed Care and will also provide additional specialized services for individuals with significant behavioral health conditions, Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities and traumatic brain injury.
While the start of Tailored Plans will be delayed, specific new services did go live Dec. 1, 2022.
The following organizations will serve as regional Behavioral Health I/DD Tailored Plans beginning April 1, 2023:
- Alliance Healthalliancehealthplan.org
- Member phone numbers: 800-510-9132, TTY: 711 or 800-735-2962
- Eastpointeeastpointe.net
- Member phone numbers: 800-913-6109, TTY: 888-819-5112
- Partners Health Managementpartnersbhm.org
- Member phone numbers: 888-235-4673, TTY: English: 800-735-2962, TTY: Spanish: 888-825-6570
- Sandhills Centersandhillscenter.org
- Member phone numbers: 800-256-2452, TTY: 711 or 866-518-6778
- Trillium Health Resourcestrilliumhealthresources.org
- Member phone numbers: 877-685-2415, TTY: 711
- Vaya Healthvayahealth.com
- Member phone numbers: 800-962-9003, TTY: 711
Aetna is a managed-care provider, one of eight entities who submitted proposals for Medicaid managed-care services. The Committee issued its recommendations on January 24, 2019, which identified four statewide contracts for Medicaid managed care services to be awarded. On February 4, 2019, DHHS awarded contracts to WellCare of North Carolina, Inc. (“Wellcare”), Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina (“BCBS”), AmeriHealth Caritas of North Carolina (“AmeriHealth”), and UnitedHealthcare of North Carolina, Inc. (“United Healthcare”). DHHS also awarded a regional contract to Carolina Complete Health, Inc.
See below:
However, two private insurance failed to get awarded NC contracts.
Aetna, along with the two other entities who were not awarded contracts, protested DHHS’ contract by filing contested case petitions in the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”). Aetna filed its contested case petition and motion for preliminary injunction on April 16, 2019. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Aetna’s motion for preliminary injunction on June 26, 2019. The ALJ consolidated all three petitions on July 26, 2019. It rose to the Court of Appeals, where it was thrown out on a technicality; i.e., failure to timely serve Defendants. Aetna Better Health of N. Carolina, Inc. v. N. Carolina Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 2021-NCCOA-486, ¶ 4, 279 N.C. App. 261, 263, 866 S.E.2d 265, 267.
The Court stated, “Here, Aetna failed to timely serve DHHS or any other party within the “10 days after the petition is filed” as is mandated by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-46. Prior to serving DHHS, Aetna amended its Petition on 12 October 2020 and served its amended Petition the same day. Aetna argues “the relation-back provision of Rule 15(c) allows the service of an amended pleading where the original pleading was not properly served.” What a silly and mundane reason to have their Complaint dismissed due to the oversight of an attorney or paralegal…and a great law firm at that. Just goes to show you that technical, legal mistakes are easily done. This career in law in the Medicare/Medicaid realm is not simple.
The upcoming transformation in Medicaid will probably not be smooth; it never is. But we shall see if Medicaid reform 2023 works better than 2013 reform. We can hope!
Celebrating Christmas With an Audit, I mean, a Root Canal
Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah! I wanted to thank all my readers for TEN YEARS of this blog! Can you believe it has been 10 years? I started this blog in 2012, and the year is about to turn to 2023!! I going into my 11th year of blogging about Medicare and Medicaid regulatory compliance litigation. Whew! I tell you what: being a full-time attorney, a part-time blogger, mom, and wife is tiring! Try it. You’ll see. Try it for 10 years!
I am so proud to have created a career out of defending health care providers across the country, from HI to AL to NY to FL and everywhere in between.
My birthday is January 7th, right after Christmas and New Year’s Day. I am one year closer to getting Medicare (I cannot wait), but since I rely on private pay health insurance, I am giving myself a special Christmas present to end the year and “wind-down” the health spending plan. I will be undergoing a root canal tomorrow, the 21st of December.
Root canals are not fun. In fact, they remind me of undergoing a Medicare and/or Medicaid audit. No one wants them done, but you got to do it.
I suggest conducting self audits regularly, especially now with the Public Health Emergency (PHE) ending at some point.
Self Audits
The first step for a medical practice or organization is to select the timeframe that will be reviewed during the audit. The timeframe should be large enough to produce meaningful results. For example, in its OIG Data Brief, the OIG looked at a year’s worth of data, from March 1, 2020, through February 28, 2021. There are some key dates and regulations that practices or organizations need to consider when selecting the timeframe. These include:
- January 31, 2020: HHS announced the COVID-19 PHE, which was determined to have existed since January 27, 2020.
- March 27, 2020: The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law.
- March 31, 2020: CMS’ “Policy and Regulatory Revisions in Response to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency” became effective.
So many changes to Medicare and Medicaid rules and regulations were implemented during COVID. Some changes will continue after PHE ends and some will not.
Now more so than ever, putting your own facility through a thorough self-audit is imperative. You need to understand the policy changes pertinent to your health care service type and dates the changes occurred and when applicable. Before the “REAL” auditors come knocking on your facility’s door, prepare yourself. Consider hiring an attorney or medical compliance expert to conduct the self audit.
The next step in performing a self-audit is for the practice or organization to select a category of service to review. If the practice or organization provides multiple types of services, the focus should be on one category, such as office visits, for review. When reviewing office visit services, the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes applicable to telehealth visits include, but are not limited to, Office or Other Outpatient Services (99201-99205 [new patient] and 99211-99215 [established patient]) and Non-Face-to-Face Telephone Services (99441-99443 [practitioners who may report E/M services] and 98966-98968 [practitioners who cannot bill independently]). Practitioners who cannot bill independently are qualified non-physician health care professionals, such as social workers, clinical psychologists, and certain therapists. Please note, CPT code 99201 was deleted effective January 1, 2021.
Looking forward to 2023 after my root canal…Cheers!
Medicare and Medicaid Reimbursement Rates Suck: Is Litigation the Answer?
One way to raise Medicaid reimbursement rates would be to bring litigation against the State Medicaid agency in charge of managing Medicaid under §30(A) of the Social Security Act (“SSA”).
That’s what the pharmacy associations in the State of Washington did in April 2021. The associations alleged that, per a 2016 CMS Rule, State Medicaid agencies must consider two types of costs when it comes to reimbursement rates; i.e., (1) the ingredient costs; and (2) the professional dispensing fee, when creating a Medicaid reimbursement rate. They argued that Washington’s Medicaid reimbursement rates were less than half of the surrounding States.
The case never went to trial. In July 2021, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Voluntary Remand and Dismissal Without Prejudice. It was so ordered that this matter was remanded back to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”). It was further ordered that this matter was dismissed without prejudice with the parties to bear their own costs and fees. The Order was signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. National Association of Chain Drug Stores et al v. Becerra et al, 2:21CV00576. I have no idea what has happened since leaving the court system. If anyone knows, I would love to know. Has Washington’s Medicaid reimbursement rates increased for pharmacies?
Section 30(A) of the Social Security Act (“SSA”) describes reimbursement rates as being high enough “to assure that payments are consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care and are sufficient to enlist enough providers so that care and services are available under the plan at least to the extent that such care and services are available to the general population in the geographic area.” Yet, statistics show that only 70% of health care providers accept Medicaid or Medicare. In mental health, in particular, there is a shortage of providers, especially minority providers. In other words, government health is failing its providers and consumers. See blog.
Exactly what Section 30(A) requires of States in terms of payments to Medicaid providers has been the subject of considerable litigation. There is little consistency in the Courts’ interpretation of §30(A). While some Courts have held that provider costs should be considered, other Courts disagree.
Providers have reasonable complaints about the Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates. The reimbursement rates are wholly inadequate; in fact, the reimbursement rates, in some cases, do not even cover the cost of rendering the services. Yet “quality of care” and “equality of access” are promised in Section 1902(a)(30)(A) of the SSA. For example, in 2020 hospitals received only 88 cents for every dollar spent caring for Medicaid patients. This amounted to a $24.8 billion underpayment. Low reimbursement rates limit access to quality care and contribute to poor health outcomes for Medicaid beneficiaries, who are disproportionately minority. Research suggests that increasing Medicaid primary care rates by $45 per service would reduce access-to-care inequities by at least 70%.
Medicaid reimbursement rates suck. Medicare reimbursement rates suck. Plus, providers must succumb to tedious audits. There is little upside to accepting Medicare and Medicaid, except charity.
I do not believe that the reason “why” matters when it comes to reimbursement rates. If the government chooses to regulate health care, the health care the government regulates should be adequate.
Other service types should choose to litigate over the low reimbursement rates.
The State of Florida recently looked into its Medicaid reimbursement rates. “According to the latest Physician Workforce Annual Report published by the Florida Department of Health, the most common reason that physicians do not accept Medicaid is low reimbursement.” In total, the report found that 44% of physicians who do not accept Medicaid patients do so due to the unacceptably low reimbursement offered by the program.
Other associations have likewise filed litigation in hopes of increasing Medicaid reimbursement rates. I highly encourage providers to discuss bringing litigation to increase Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement rates to their respective associations Litigation, unlike lobbying, is swifter to change. Public opinion has weight.
CMS: Broaden the Definition of “Medically Necessary” Germane to Dental Services!
Dental services do not, historically, “gel-well” with Medicare and Medicaid. In fact, most dentists do not accept Medicare and Medicaid, and, quite frankly, I do not blame them. Accepting Medicare and/or Medicaid comes with accepting the fact that your dental practice can – and will – be audited by CMS or your State government at-will, at any time, for any reason. Your dental practice can be raided at any time by any federal agency, including the FBI, DOJ, OIG, alleging civil and criminal violations when you, as a dentist, had no clue that your medical records could be used against you, if not up to snuff…according to the governmental auditor. Perhaps more dentists would accept Medicare and/or Medicaid patients if the definition of “medically necessary” is broadened. More incentive to accept government programs is always good.
Dental benefits are covered by Medicare only in limited circumstances, and many people on Medicare do not have any dental coverage at all unless they pay for a Medicare Advantage (“MA”) plan. However, Medicare and Medicaid could cover more dental services if Congress or CMS broadens the definition of “medical necessity.” But, even with MA, the scope of dental benefits, when covered, varies widely and is often quite limited, which can result in high out-of-pocket costs among those with expensive dental needs.
Medicare and/or Medicaid will determine whether a dental service is essential – or “medically necessary” – for a beneficiary’s exasperating, primary medical condition. Congress has fallen short on expanding the legal definition of “medical necessary” regarding dental services for Medicare and Medicaid recipients.
In a June 29, 2022, letter to CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, more than 100 members of the U.S. House of Representatives pled with CMS to expand its definition of “medically necessary” dental care. Lawmakers highlighted the serious issues stemming from the lack of access to affordable dental care. I do not know if you recall, but, in 2013-ish, I blogged about a young, African American boy, named Deamonte, who died in the emergency room from an abscessed tooth that ruptured, when that abscessed tooth could have been remedied by a dentist for a few hundred dollars. See blog.
Nearly half of Medicare beneficiaries (47%), or 24 million people, do not have dental coverage, as of 2019.
Almost half of all Medicare beneficiaries did not have a dental visit within the past year (47%), with higher rates among those who are Black (68%) or Hispanic (61%), have low incomes (73%), or who are in fair or poor health (63%), as of 2018.
In 2021, 94% of Medicare Advantage enrollees in individual plans (plans open for general enrollment), or 16.6 million enrollees, are in a plan that offers access to some dental coverage.
To those dentists or dental surgeons who do accept Medicare and/or Medicaid – THANK YOU!
Medicare and/or Medicaid audits for dental services, while not fun to deal with, are easily defensible…most of the time. A few years ago Medicaid sought to recoup money from dentists who provided services to women believed to be pregnant when the pregnancy was over. See blog. I thought it was absolutely ridiculous that your dentist has the burden to ensure a woman is or is not pregnant. I feel as though many dentists could be slapped by asking. Plus, the services were rendered, so a dentist should not have to pay to provide services.
A Story of Three Medicaid Providers’ Erroneous Terminations
I have a story for you today that affected three, Medicaid, behavioral health care providers back in 2013. Instead of me spouting off legal jargon that no one understands, I am going to tell you a nonfictional story.
Since both stories occurred in NC, we will use DHHS, the Department of Health and Human Services, which is the acronym for NC’s Medicaid agency.
In 2013, a Residential Level IV facility was shut down overnight by the managed care organization (“MCO”), Alliance, which was one of many MCOs that managed all behavioral health care for NC Medicaid recipients within their respective, catchment areas. The facility, we will call Alpha, housed 5-6, at-risk, teenage, African American, males, who could not reside in their family’s home due to mental illness, substance abuse, legal trouble, and/or violence. The owners of Alpha, themselves were large, muscular, African American males, which, I can only imagine, was to their benefit.
Alliance terminated Alpha from its catchment area, but since Alpha only provided Medicaid services in Alliance’s catchment area, Alliance’s decision would close a business immediately, terminate all staff, cause the owners to lose their careers, and the residents would have no home.
Alpha hired me. We were successful in obtaining an injunction. Click on “injunction” to read my blog about this exact situation in 2013, written by me in 2013. I have written numerous blogs on the topic of erroneous terminations of Medicaid providers over the years. Here are a couple: blog and blog.
An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) ruled in our favor that Alliance does not have the legal authority to terminate a provider for no reason or any erroneous reason. The ALJ Stayed the termination and Ordered Alliance to reverse the termination and continue to contract with Alpha.
Whew! We thought. Then, Alliance flat-out ignored the ALJ’s Order.
We brought a Motion for Contempt and/or Sanctions; however, we were instructed, at the time, that a Writ of Mandamus was the appropriate venue in Superior Court. This too was unsuccessful.
During our legal battle for Alpha, we were successful in obtaining injunctions for two other provider also terminated without cause.
Alpha did close. But the bright side of the story is what happened in the future. Those 3 injunctions, which were ignored by MCOs to the detriment of the three providers, were the last ones to be ignored. In the years that followed, OAH ALJs routinely held MCOs accountable for erroneous terminations and without cause terminations.
My team has witnessed successful injunctions across the country that protect providers from arbitrary and capricious terminations. We have litigated many of these successful injunctions.
Regulatory Fright: Audits Citing Harm, Abuse, Neglect, or Exploitation
There is little more daunting than the Division of Health Services Regulation (“DHSR”) – or whatever acronym is used in your State – slapping penalties on long term care facilities, nursing homes, and other residential facilities, such as residential homes housing handicapped recipients, mentally ill recipients, or substance abuse consumers. Many of these penalties are immediate and can easily put a facility out of business and a resident without a home. DHSR falls under the umbrella of DHHS, the “single State entity” that manages Medicaid in each respective State. DHSR may be a different acronym in your State, but the essence will be the same.
The primary difference between adult care homes and nursing homes is as follows:
“Adult Care Homes” provide care and assistance to people with problems carrying out activities of daily living and supervision to people with cognitive impairments whose decisions, if made independently, may jeopardize the safety or well-being of themselves or others and therefore require supervision. Medication in an adult care home may be administered by designated, trained staff. Smaller adult care homes that provide care to two to six unrelated residents are commonly called family care homes.
“Nursing Homes” are for people who need chronic or rehabilitative care, who, on admission are not acutely ill and who do not usually require special facilities such as an operating room, X-ray facilities, laboratory facilities, and obstetrical facilities. A “nursing home” provides care for people who have remedial ailments or other ailments, for which medical and nursing care are indicated; who, however, are not sick enough to require general hospital care. Nursing care is their primary need, but they will require continuing medical supervision.
Regarding Violations & Penalties in Adult Care Homes
Pursuant to G.S. 131-D-34 (a), the Department shall impose an administrative penalty in accordance with provisions of the Article on any facility which is found to be in violation of requirements of G.S. 131D-21 or applicable State and federal laws and regulations. Citations for violations shall be classified and penalties assessed according to the nature of the violation.
Type A1 and A2 Violations & Penalties: A monetary penalty fine may be imposed when a “Type A1” or “Type A2” violation has occurred.
- “Type A1 Violation” means a violation by a facility of applicable laws and regulations governing a facility which results in death or serious physical harm, abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a resident.
- “Type A2 Violation” means a violation by a facility of applicable laws and regulations governing the licensure of a facility which results in substantial risk that death or serious physical harm, abuse, neglect, or exploitation will occur.
- For family care homes (licensed for two to six beds), the penalty amount may range from $500.00 to $10,000 for each Type A violation.
- For adult care homes (licensed for seven beds or more), the penalty amount may range from $2000.00 to $20,000 for each Type A violation.
Examples of a Type A1 violation may include the following:
- The facility failed to provide supervision to a confused resident who exhibited wandering and exit seeking behaviors resulting in the resident leaving the facility unsupervised and without the knowledge of the facility’s staff. The resident was hit by a car and sustained multiple injuries causing death.
- The facility failed to administer an antibiotic medication for 7 days as ordered for a resident discharged from the hospital with diagnoses including pneumonia. The resident required a subsequent 11-day hospitalization for diagnoses including respiratory failure and an infection in the bloodstream.
Examples of a Type A2 violation may include the following:
- The facility failed to send a resident to the hospital for evaluation after the resident drank approximately 24 ounces of hand sanitizer on one occasion; drank approximately 8 ounces of body wash and ate an unknown amount of solid deodorant on a second occasion; and failed to notify the resident’s primary care provider of the resident drinking non-consumable substances on more than one occasion which placed the resident at substantial risk of serious physical harm and neglect.
- A resident was administered medications that belonged to another resident. The medications administered had the strong potential of adverse side effects. The resident required emergent evaluation and treatment in the emergency department of the local hospital which placed the resident at substantial risk of serious physical harm.
Unabated Violations and Penalties:
If a facility has failed to correct any violation within the specified date of correction (30 days for Type A violations; 45 days for Type B violations), these are “unabated violations.” Additional penalty fines may be imposed for unabated violations.
Unabated Type A1 and A2 Violations & Penalties:
When a facility has failed to correct a “Type A1” or “Type A2” violation within 30 days, a monetary penalty fine may be imposed in the amount of up to $1,000 for each day that the Type A1 or Type A2 violation continued to occur beyond the date specified for correction.
The Department has legal authority to impose a monetary fine for:
- The inspection in which the Type A1 or Type A2 violation was first identified and
- Additional monetary penalty fines as a result of each inspection in which the unabated Type A1 violation or unabated Type A2 violation continued to occur beyond the specified date of correction
Unabated Type B Violations & Penalties:
Another unabated violation that could result in the imposition of penalty fines is a “Type B” violation that has not been corrected by the facility within the specified correction date (45 days per regulatory authority), known as an Unabated B violation.
- A “Type B” violation means a violation by a facility of applicable laws and regulations governing a facility which is detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of any resident, but which does not result in substantial risk that death or serious physical harm, abuse, neglect, or exploitation will occur.
- The range of the fine for an Unabated “Type B” violation that was not corrected is up to $400.00 for each day that the violation continues beyond the date specified for correction.
- Additional penalty fines may be imposed as a result of each inspection in which the unabated Type B violation continued to occur beyond the specified date of correction.
Examples of Unabated Type B violations may include the following:
- Several residents have orders to receive pain medications every evening but on one evening, staff forget to give the residents the ordered pain medications. One resident suffers from shoulder pain and could not sleep from the missed dose. Subsequent doses are given as ordered. The facility is cited a Type B violation for the non-compliance and on a follow-up visit, additional medication errors are noted; therefore, the facility is fined up to $400/day until compliance with medication administration is determined, which must be verified by another follow-up inspection.
- The facility’s pest management program is not effective, and roaches are noted in a couple of the residents’ rooms on one out of two halls in the facility. The facility is cited a Type B violation for the non-compliance and on a follow-up visit, additional roaches and insects are noted; therefore, the facility is fined up to $400/day until compliance with pest management is determined, which must be verified by another follow-up inspection.
The Department will determine whether each violation has been corrected.
Pursuant to Chapter 150B and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 131D-34(e), adult care homes have the legal right to appeal the imposition of a penalty fine by filing a petition for contested case within 30 days after the Department mails a notice of the penalty imposition decision to a Licensee.
Once a penalty has been imposed, payment is due within 60 days unless an appeal is timely filed at the at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
If a penalty is appealed, it will go to a hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). Alternatively, the Department and the Licensee may agree to resolve the penalty by executing a settlement agreement.
I emphasize, if you disagree with the sanction and/or the accusation, APPEAL. I have been successful in eliminating severe penalties that a residential home, nursing home, or adult care homes by arguing at the OAH. Just remember, DHSR can accuse anything of happening to constitute “abuse or neglect” of a consumer. But DHSR must prove it to a Judge!
District Court Upholds ALJ’s Decision that Extrapolation Was Conducted in Error
Today, I am going to write about a hospital in Tennessee that underwent an audit, and the MAC determined that the hospital owed over $5 million. The hospital challenged both the OIG contractor’s sampling methodology and its determinations on specific claims by requesting a hearing before an ALJ. The District Court decision was published in September 2022. The reason that I want to make you aware of this case, is because there have been numerous Medicare provider appeals unsuccessfully challenging the extrapolation, and the ALJs upholding the extrapolations. In this case, the ALJ found the extrapolation in error, the Council reversed the ALJ on its own motion, and the district court reaffirmed the ALJ, saying the extrapolation was faulty. Whenever good case law is published, we want to analyze the Court’s reasoning so we, as attorneys, can replicate the winning arguments.
One of the main reasons that the district court agreed that the extrapolation was faulty was because no testimony supporting the OIG contractor’s extrapolation process or the implementation of its statistical sampling methodology were submitted to that hearing on June 11, 2020, and the contractor did not appear. It’s the mundane scene with an ALJ level appeal and the auditor failing to appear to prove the audit’s veracity. See blog.
In addition to finding that additional claims satisfied Medicare coverage & payment requirements, the ALJ also found that OIG’s statistical extrapolation process did not comply with § 1893 of the Social Security Act, nor with the MPIM’s guidance on statistical extrapolation.
The ALJ held that HHS policy requires that the OIG’s audit must be able to be recreated and that as the audit’s sampling frame utilized data from outside of the audit, the audit could not be recreated.
The Council subsequently reviewed the ALJ’s decision on its own motion and reversed that decision in part, finding that the ALJ’s determination that the sampling process was invalid was an error of law. The Council then concluded that the OIG contractor’s statistical extrapolation met all applicable Medicare legal and regulatory requirements.
The hospital appealed to the federal district court. The district court’s review consists of determining whether, in light of the record as a whole, the Secretary’s determination is supported by “substantial evidence.”
According to the Court, the hospital amply demonstrated that the Council did not have the authority to overturn the decision of the ALJ on own-motion review. Accordingly, the hospital’s Motion for Summary Judgement was GRANTED and the extrapolation was thrown out.
