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.
Do the Anti-Kickback and Stark Laws Apply to Private Payors?
Good question.
Anti-Kickback statutes (AKS) and Stark law are extremely important issues in health care. Violations of these laws yield harsh penalties. Yet, many healthcare professionals have little to no knowledge on the details of these two legal beasts.
The most common question I get regarding AKS and Stark is: Do AKS and Stark apply to private payers? Health care professionals believe, if I don’t accept Medicare or Medicaid, then I don’t need to worry about AKS and Stark. Are they correct??
The general and overly broad response is that the Stark Law, 42 USC § 1395nn, only applies to Medicare and Medicaid. The AKS, 42 USC § 1320a-7b(b)),applies to any federal healthcare program.
Is there a difference between AKS and Stark?
Answer: Yes. As discussed above, the first difference is that AKS applies to all federal healthcare programs. This stark difference (pun intended) makes the simple decision to not accept Medicare and Medicaid, thus allowing you to never worry about AKS, infinitely more difficult.
Let’s take a step back… What are AKS and Stark laws and what do these laws prohibit? When you Google AKS and Stark, a bunch of legal blogs pop up and attempt to explain, in legalese, what two, extremely esoteric laws purport to say, using words like “renumeration,” “knowing and willful,” and “federal healthcare program.” You need a law license to decipher the deciphering of AKS and Stark. The truth is – it ain’t rocket science.
The AKS is a criminal law; if you violate the AKS, you can be prosecuted as a criminal. The criminal offense is getting something of value for referrals. You cannot refer patients to other health care professionals in exchange for money, reduced rent, use of laboratory equipment, referrals to you, health services for your mother, marketing, weekly meals at Ruth’s Chris, weekly meals at McDonalds, oil changes, discounted theater tickets, Uber rides, Costco coupons, cooking lessons, or…anything of value, regardless the value.
Safe harbors (exceptions to AKS) exist. But those exceptions better fit squarely into the definition of the exceptions. Because there are no exceptions beyond the enumerated exceptions.
AKS is much more broad in scope than Stark. Other than Medicare and Medicaid, AKS applies to any health care plan that utilizes any amount of federal funds. For example, AKS applies to Veterans Health Care, State Children’s Health Programs (CHIP), Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, and many other programs with federal funding. Even if you opt to not accept Medicare and Medicaid, you may still be liable under AKS.
Stark law, on the other hand, is more narrow and only applies to Medicare and Medicaid. I find the following “cheat sheet” created by a subdivision of the Office of Inspector General to be helpful in understanding AKS and Stark and the differences between the two:
One other important aspect of Stark is that is considered “strict liability,” whereas AKS requires a proving of a “knowing and willful” action.
Feel free to print off the above chart for your reference. However, see that little asterisk at the bottom of the chart? It applies here as well.
Health Care Providers: Where Do You File an Appeal?
It depends.
For a Notice of Overpayment? Providers should request a reconsideration review and hire an attorney.
For a denial of endorsement? Providers have very limited time to appeal a denial. Hire a lawyer. Appeal as the denial explains.
For a Medicaid recipients’ rights? Most appeals will be to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
I wrote the above “blog” back in 2012. It was one of my first blogs and one of my shortest. Looking back, I must admit that the blog is not even good…it’s accurate-ish. I cannot believe that I have been blogging for over 10 years of my life…and about Medicare and Medicaid regulatory compliance litigation — who knew?
As the year ends, I want to thank all my readers for reading this blog for TEN YEARS. I am humbled and appreciative. As all of you are aware, I do not get paid to blog about Medicare and Medicaid. It actually eats-up quite a lot of my time, which I do not have in Spades, as a mother of a Senior in HS, a wife, and an attorney.
Now I will rewrite the 2012 blog for 2022-2023:
Health Care Providers: Where Do You File an Appeal?
If you are filing a Medicaid provider appeal claiming that you do not owe an overpayment, your State will have an administrative process for you to seek redress. You must exhaust administrative remedies, so read the notice of overpayment for clarification of the 1st and maybe 2nd steps. You normally have a reconsideration and a red-determination before presenting to an administrative law judge.
Hire a lawyer from the beginning.
If you are filing a Medicare provider appeal, see blog. Still hire an attorney.
I look forward to another year of defending health care providers against the State and federal governments. I see it as I have the chance to keep health care providers in business and accepting Medicaid and Medicare. Thank you for accepting Medicare and Medicaid, and I will be here to fight!! I have represented providers from Alaska to New Mexico to New York and Florida and all in between!
The Chevron Deference Rule: Pay Attention, Health Care Providers! CMS May Lose Control!
It has been nearly 40 years since the Supreme Court indicated in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court heard arguments abolishing the Chevron deference rule. It that good or bad? Well, let’s hash it out. Regardless your opinion, the Supreme Court will decide the Chevron deference rule’s legality this summer. And, listening to the oral arguments earlier this year, it seems that a majority of the justices seemed ready to jettison the doctrine or at the very least significantly limit it.
The Chevron deference rule is a critical aspect of administrative law that often remains in the shadows of legal discourse but holds immense implications for the functioning of our government: the Chevron deference rule. This rule, born out of a Supreme Court case in 1984, has been a cornerstone of administrative law, dictating how courts should defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes. But as with any legal doctrine, it invites debate, scrutiny, and calls for reform.
In simple terms, the Chevron deference rule mandates that if a statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to the reasonable interpretation of that statute made by the agency tasked with implementing it, unless that interpretation is unreasonable. In essence, it grants federal agencies significant leeway in interpreting laws passed by Congress. This deference has profound effects on the balance of power between the branches of government. For example: CMS is an agency that is allowed deference in its rules that are not laws. See the importance? Without the Chevron deference rule, ALJs would not be bound by CMS’ rules that are not laws. For example, CMS is of the mindsight that extrapolation is legal, allowed, and upheld. The ALJs are bound to agree. No Chevron deference rule? The ALJs can make up their own minds.
The rationale behind Chevron deference is to recognize the expertise of administrative agencies in their respective fields. These agencies possess specialized knowledge and experience that enable them to navigate complex regulatory landscapes. By allowing them deference in interpreting ambiguous statutes, the rule seeks to promote consistency, efficiency, and expertise in policymaking and implementation.
However, as with any legal doctrine, the Chevron deference rule is not without its critics. Some argue that it unduly concentrates power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, diminishing the role of the judiciary in interpreting the law. Moreover, it raises concerns about accountability and democratic legitimacy, as it can shield agency actions from robust judicial review.
Furthermore, the Chevron deference rule has become a subject of political contention, particularly in recent years. Critics argue that it enables regulatory overreach by agencies, allowing them to enact policies that may exceed the scope of their statutory authority. This concern has led to calls for judicial restraint and a reevaluation of the deference granted to administrative agencies.
So, should the Chevron deference rule stay in place? This question elicits a spectrum of opinions and requires careful consideration. On one hand, the rule promotes efficiency and expertise in governance, recognizing the specialized knowledge of administrative agencies. On the other hand, it raises concerns about accountability, democratic legitimacy, and the balance of power between the branches of government.
In navigating this complex terrain, we must strike a balance that upholds the principles of good governance, accountability, and the rule of law. Perhaps the solution lies not in abolishing the Chevron deference rule altogether but in refining it to address its shortcomings. This could involve clarifying the conditions under which deference is appropriate, ensuring robust judicial oversight, and promoting transparency and accountability in administrative decision-making.
The Chevron deference rule stands as a pivotal element of administrative law, shaping the relationship between the branches of government and influencing the course of public policy. Its effects are profound and far-reaching, touching upon fundamental principles of governance and democracy. As we navigate the complexities of modern governance, let us engage in thoughtful dialogue and debate to ensure that our legal framework reflects the values of accountability, transparency, and the rule of law.
Federal Court Vacates Two, Medicare ALJ Decisions with Extrapolations
Today is April Fool’s Day, but the story I am going to tell you today is no prank. On 03/25/2024, the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida rendered its Decision on MedEnvios Healthcare, Inc. v. Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as Secretary USDHHS. 2024 WL 1252264. The federal Court vacated two, ALJ Decisions upholding two, separate, extrapolated audits. This example highlights the importance of appealing ALJ Decisions to federal court, which will uphold the law versus CMS Rules.
MedEnvios is a durable medical equipment provider (DME). It was the target of two Medicare audits and both audits were extrapolated. MedEnvios’ argument is two-fold: (1) that its due process rights were violated because HHS failed to comply with the procedures set forth in statute, regulation, and “sub-regulatory guidance” that mandate “certain due process minimum protections be provided to health care suppliers in the statistical sampling and extrapolation process.” (Pl.’s Resp. at 9.) Specifically, MedEnvios objects to the Defendant’s exclusion of claims for which the Department never made a payment to MedEnvios from the sampling frame. Obviously if the zero-claims are not removed the number will be inflated or maybe even surpass what was actually paid to the provider during the specific timeframe. And (2) MedEnvios argues that the Defendant failed to provide sufficient documentation to support overpayments recalculated following partially favorable appellate decisions, allegedly depriving MedEnvios of notice. Following partially favorable decisions on appeal, the relevant contractor must “effectuate” the decision by recalculating the extrapolated overpayment amount to be recouped from the supplier based upon the revised decisions on individual sampled Medicare claims. The contractor then sends the supplier a revised demand letter reflecting the new overpayment amount. Without the underlying documentation showing how the contractor arrived at the new amount, MedEnvios claims that it lacked “the information necessary to mount a meaningful challenge to those recalculations.”
I bet that many readers today have felt the pain of having to defend themselves from an audit and knew the auditor was withholding data or documents, yet felt powerless. This Decision says it is not ok to not give all the information. The Court held that MedEnvios was and is prejudiced by the unavailability of the recalculation worksheets because MedEnvios did not receive three of the four relevant recalculation worksheets within enough time to satisfy its procedural due process rights by recreating the recalculations to verify the revised extrapolated amounts.
The Court held that the prejudice to MedEnvios in having to mount appeals without reviewing the contractors’ effectuation work easily outweighs any administrative difficulty of timely providing the worksheets. Provision of this information should be a negligible burden on the Department and its contractors. The MPIM already instructs that “[d]ocumentation shall be kept in sufficient detail so that the sampling frame can be re-created should the methodology be challenged. The contractor shall keep an electronic copy of the sampling frame.” MPIM § 8.4.4.4.1. Thus, contractors are already required to maintain this information, and the added burden of providing the information on request would be minimal. The Court therefore concludes that the Department has run afoul of MedEnvios’s procedural due process rights by failing to provide the documentation supporting the recalculated overpayment amounts.
So, what is the remedy for the Department’s failure to timely provide documents showing how the revised overpayment demands were calculated?
This Court vacated both ALJ Decisions upholding the two extrapolated amounts. This is a perfect example of why providers MUST appeal ALJ Decisions to federal court. The difference in the law and CMS’ Rules is vast. Not enough providers continue their appeal to federal court because of money. Litigation is expensive. However, in this case, attorneys’ fees were, most likely, much less than what CMS was alleging MedEnvios owed.
Have a great April Fool’s Day. Play a prank on a colleague. At the office, put tape under a coworker’s computer mouse, and watch them try to figure out why it’s not working!
Two Success Stories: (1) Getting a Provider’s Suspension of Medicaid Reimbursements Lifted; and (2) NCSU Wins the ACC!
A quick shout out to NC State University, my undergraduate alma mater, who won the ACC Tournament, beating out #1 ranked UNC!!!
I love legal success stories too. Because when my team wins, health care providers win.
Well, my firm and I had a success that I must share amongst my blog readers. I gave this blog a live read on RACMonitor this morning on Monitor Monday, so if you want to hear me read it, go to wherever you listen to podcasts and search for RACMonitor. I present on RACMonitor every Monday morning and have done so for the last 10 years!
One of my clients, a substance abuse facility, which provides SAIOP and SACOT services to the underserved in Idaho, is under civil and/or criminal investigation. The investigation began over two years ago, which is a material fact in this case. The substance abuse facility was being accused of health care fraud because it gave out gift cards and allegedly billed for services not rendered.
As for billing for services not rendered, we vehemently disagree, and the government has not provided any proof of such for the last 2 years. As for the gift cards, many of you may not know that in March 2022 the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (OIG) published an Advisory Opinion in support of such activity. The OIG had published similar language in the past as well.
OIG stated that patient incentives (e.g. gift cards or cash equivalents) given as part of patients’ treatment plans are favorable and allowable. Though the OIG reiterated its concern that cash and cash equivalents given to patients can present substantial fraud and abuse risks, the OIG concluded that the arrangement presented a minimal level of risk.
For over two years, this company and its CEO have known that it is under civil and/or criminal investigation. The facility continues to provide medically necessary service throughout the investigation. Then, unexpectedly, on 12/22/2023, right before Christmas, facility receives a notice that the Department of Health Services, Division of Health Benefits has suspended the company’s Medicaid reimbursements. The company relies 100% on Medicaid.
The State does have the authority to suspend reimbursements. 42 CFR 455.23 states:
“(1) The State Medicaid agency must suspend all Medicaid payments to a provider after the agency determines there is a credible allegation of fraud for which an investigation is pending under the Medicaid program against an individual or entity unless the agency has good cause to not suspend payments or to suspend payment only in part.”
The owner contacted me and explained that the company could not last 1 month without receiving Medicaid reimbursements for services rendered. It was catastrophic. His two facilities constitute over 24% of Idaho’s substance abuse facilities in the State. There would be a serious access to care issue, especially in southern Idaho.
I reviewed the Notice of Suspension, and appeal rights appeared there. I say it like I am astonished because I am astonished.
I have never seen appeal rights be given for “credible allegations fraud” under 42 CFR 455.23.
We appealed.
We won!
I argued threefold: (1) there is no credible allegation of fraud because the allegations that services were billed but not rendered is wrong and presenting gift cards is not illegal when dealing with substance abuse; (2) that nothing has changed since the investigation over two years ago, He has been rendering services during his investigation. Why now arbitrarily invoke a penalty on the facility when the government has been investigating for over two years. Why two years later suspend when seemingly nothing has changed. And (3) that the suspension was a violation of his due process.
Specifically, the court held that the State has had two years to investigate any allegations but for two years no action was taken, and no findings provided. Now, the State has decided to arbitrarily and capriciously suspend Medicaid payments to the provider. The suspension of Medicaid payments should be removed because the suspension is improper for a failure of there being any credible allegation of fraud. Additionally, the provider did not receive adequate notice and a chance for a hearing before the suspension action was taken. The suspension of payment is causing irreparable harm that will lead to the provider having to close their business of providing mental health and substance abuse services.
And just like that the suspension was lifted and the provider remains in business. I call that a win! And congratulations to NCSU Wolfpack! We were seeded #10, but ended up #1 of the ACC. We are seeded #11 in the Southern Division of the NCAA. And, yes, I chose NCSU to win the NCAA in my office pool. Go Pack! Can you pick me out from the below picture from 1994?
Or the one above from 1996?
Beyond Malpractice: Cultivating Trust and Safety in Health-Based Services
Today’s blog post is from a guest blog poster, Teresa Greenhill. Teresa Greenhill is the co-creator of MentalHealthforSeniors.com, which is dedicated to providing seniors with information on physical and mental fitness. Being a senior herself, Teresa, with some help from her granddaughter, manages the website as a way to keep her busy and help other seniors be active and happy in their golden years.
So, without further ado, Beyond Malpractice: Cultivating Trust and Safety in Health-Based Services. By Teresa Greenhill
Balancing providing individualized care and adhering to legal responsibilities is delicate in health-based businesses. As you strive to offer exceptional services, understanding and mitigating medical malpractice risks are crucial. This MedicaidLawNC.com article outlines practical strategies to ensure your business thrives on a foundation of trust, quality, and legal integrity.
Championing Continuous Education
Promoting continuous learning among your team, such as exploring the variety of available nurse practitioner programs online, is crucial in upholding top-notch healthcare standards. Acquiring a healthcare qualification via these programs can notably influence the well-being of both individuals and families, showcasing a dedication to exceptional care. Online educational initiatives enable professionals to balance full-time work with advancing their educational pursuits, reducing legal risks linked to outdated or ineffective treatments.
Ensuring Comprehensive Evaluations
Your journey to minimize legal risks begins with thorough assessments of each client’s health history and specific needs. This step is vital in crafting personalized care plans that address individual health goals and mitigate the risks of overlooking essential health details. By prioritizing detailed evaluations, you set a strong precedent for effective and legally sound care.
Fostering Transparency Through Informed Consent
Obtaining informed consent before initiating any services or treatments is more than a legal formality; it’s a cornerstone of ethical practice. This process ensures clients are fully aware of their treatment plan’s potential risks and benefits, fostering an environment of transparency and mutual trust. Additionally, informed consent is a crucial legal safeguard, protecting your business from potential disputes related to consent.
Clarifying Contracts
Carefully crafted contracts are crucial for defining the scope of services, ensuring legal protection, and maintaining clear expectations between providers and clients. These agreements serve as a foundational element for transparent and accountable relationships. Additionally, using this intuitive tool for completing forms online simplifies administrative tasks. This convenience allows your clients to sign and fill out PDF forms online without the need to print anything, enhancing both the client experience and the legal robustness of your practice.
Adhering to Professional Boundaries
Operating strictly within your legally defined scope of practice is non-negotiable. This adherence not only upholds professional standards but also protects your business from the legal repercussions of overstepping professional boundaries. Ensuring that all practitioners within your company understand and respect the limits of their professional capabilities, you safeguard your practice against potential malpractice claims.
Implementing Quality Control Measures
Robust quality control measures are essential for monitoring the efficacy and safety of your services. Regular assessments and updates to care protocols ensure that your practice remains aligned with the highest standards, safeguarding your clients and your business against the consequences of substandard care. These measures include periodic training for staff to ensure adherence to updated protocols and the use of advanced technology to track and improve treatment outcomes, further enhancing the reliability and safety of patient care.
Prioritizing Patient Feedback
Establishing efficient mechanisms for receiving and addressing patient feedback and complaints is critical. Such systems enable you to identify and rectify any issues promptly, maintaining your clients’ trust and satisfaction. Moreover, open lines of communication can serve as an early warning system for potential legal issues, allowing for swift resolution and continuous improvement.
Proactive Risk Management
Implementing proactive risk management strategies is essential for identifying and mitigating potential risks in patient care. By assessing vulnerabilities preemptively and adjusting protocols accordingly, you protect your business from legal liabilities and reinforce your commitment to providing safe and effective care. This approach involves regular review of treatment methods, consultation with legal and medical experts to stay ahead of regulatory changes, and establishing a responsive system for addressing any issues that arise, ensuring continuous improvement in patient safety and care quality.
Conclusion
Navigating the complexities of medical practices within health-based businesses demands a careful balance between personalized care and legal diligence. By implementing thorough assessments, obtaining informed consent, adhering to professional boundaries, championing continuous education, enforcing quality control, prioritizing patient feedback, clarifying contracts, and engaging in proactive risk management, you can build a practice that thrives on excellence, trust, and legal integrity. In doing so, you safeguard your business against medical malpractice and affirm your dedication to the highest standards of care.
Would you like to inform yourself about all things Medicaid or Medicare? Visit MedicaidLawNC.com today!
In Medicare Provider Audits, the Best Defense Is a Good Offense
Today I want to discuss upcoming 2024 audits. It has been almost four years since the world shut down due to COVID. Life has been divided into “before COVID” and “after COVID.” Before COVID, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) aggressively pursued audits against durable medical equipment suppliers, home health, hospice, behavioral health, long term care facilities and hospitals. When COVID hit, most audits were paused. But not for long. As you know, CMS resumed its audit activities as early as August 2020. However, in the world of COVID, there were exceptions to every rule, many of which were state specific. Even exceptions had exceptions. It is imperative that you maintain for your type of health care service every policy, exceptions, bulletins, advisory opinions from 2020 through the present. If you have not assigned this task to someone in your facility, do it today.
We have seen an uptick in increased audit activity with pneumonic compression devices (PCDs). PCDs were not listed in the top error rates for the 2021 Improper Payment Report, but in the 2023 report, PCD’s have the second highest error rate behind oral cancer drugs at 78.9%. With an error rate that high, PCD’s will be a focal point of audits. Other items identified in the 2023 improper payment report for having high error rates include urological supplies, parenteral and enteral nutrition, manual wheelchairs, and various orthoses. These items will all see increased audit activity in the upcoming year. Basically, as long as the error rates remain high, audit activity will continue.
Surgical dressings have also been consistently audited. Surgical dressings are relatively a complex product to bill. DME suppliers of surgical dressings and physicians who order surgical dressings are seeing an uptick in denials. The 2021 Medicare fee for service supplemental improper payment report covering claims from July 1st, 2019, through June 30th 2020, listed surgical dressings as having the highest improper payment rate at 69.7%, followed closely by therapeutic shoes with an error rate of 67.9%. Since then, there has not been much improvement. The 2023 Improper Payment Report covering claims submitted between July 1st, 2021, and June 30th, 2022, shows the improper payment rate for surgical dressings is still at 62.1%. Therapeutic shoes did show some improvement with an improper payment rate of 51.4%, but this is still significant. For the 2023 reporting period, insufficient documentation accounted for 82.4% of improper payments for surgical dressings. Other types of errors for surgical dressings were no documentation at 1.9%, medical necessity at 1.7%, incorrect coding at 1.9% and other at 12.2%.
Targeted Probe and Educate (TPE) were some of the first audits resumed by CMS. Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) audits are also increasing. I consider RACs to be the bounty-hunters of Medicare and Medicaid. Audits of skilled nursing providers are going to see a hike this year, with a growing number of federal and state recovery audits adding to specialized compliance reviews announced last year. In 2023, regulators instituted audits of facilities using potentially inappropriate diagnosis of schizophrenia as well as a new, 5-claim audit of every US nursing home that was specifically meant to root out improper payments. CMS came under additional pressure this past summer. That’s when the Government Accountability Office said the agency needs to do a better job of recouping overpayments. What do we think CMS will do in light of the GAO instructing the agency to do a better job recouping? The answer is: audit more. But, as they say in football, the defense is a good offense. The same is true in Medicare and Medicaid provider appeals. Be prepared.
Medicare Can Force a Whistleblower to Dismiss When Smoking Gun is Smoke and Mirrors
2024 has already proven to be audit heavy. It seems that the repercussions of COVID are beginning to appear. Actions related to COVID, such as audits of dates of service (“DOS”) during COVID are commonplace now. Whistleblower actions also seem to be on the rise.
We have even seen a few qui tam actions going forward even though the government did not intervene, which is rare, to say the least. In most cases, if the government does not intervene, usually, the whistleblower dismisses the case. The last qui tam action that I was worried was going to forward even though the government refused to intervene was a cardiologist practice. The number one reason that these super educated cardiologists were even on the metaphoric chopping block was because English was not the first language of any doctor employed by the practice. Imagine how smart you have to be to not only become a doctor, but to become a doctor in a country where you do not even speak the native language – to me – this is remarkable. The facility at issue employed 9 remarkable cardiologists, and, no surprise, the practice was the best and most desirable in the area. Plus, the practice was undergoing a possible acquisition by a nearby hospital, which was in the best interest of the doctors. The cardiologists were less than stellar business owners, but excellent doctors.
What happened was one of the senior cardiologists wrote an email that the whistleblower and the government, at first, took as a smoking gun. The doctor disseminated the email to everyone. Including the staff. This is what it said,
“…going forward, bill everything at a 99215; no matter what.”
The Feds believed that they had a smoking gun. Wouldn’t you?
99215 is Procedure Code 99215: Evaluation and Management Description for 40 minutes.
What the good doctor meant was this…COVID is upon us. Remember that? The times were so crazy and hectic in the health care world, which is why I am infuriated that the government is conducting audits of DOS during COVID. Sorry. Can we not give a “GET OUT OF JAIL FREE card” to all those providers who continued services in the midst of COVID?
What the misunderstood cardiologist meant by saying, “bill everything at a 99215 no matter what” was … we are in midst of COVID; this is worldwide pandemic. We are specialists. We are cardiologists. Anytime someone comes to us, it’s at least a 99214. During COVID, OF COURSE EVERY VISIT IS A 99215.
But that’s not what the government read. Which is why defense lawyers exist.
In this instance, I was afraid that the whistleblower would go forward regardless what the government decided. But I was wrong. Apparently, we were so convincing to the government that the government actually demanded the whistleblower to dismiss.
I did not know this until this case, which was only about 7 years ago, that in rare circumstances, the government can force a whistleblower to dismiss even if the whistleblower is gung ho.
In this case, the whistleblower was “gung ho.” But the government was adamant that there was no fraud since the “smoking gun” was, in reality, neither a gun nor was it smoking.
Since January of 2021, CMS and OIG accept anonymous and confidential whistleblower disclosures. Can you imagine your competitor accusing you of fraud in order to get your consumers? It happens. In fact, next blog, I will tell you a story of two specialized dental practices in Minnesota. And how one practice purposefully and nefariously accuses the other of fraud. That accusation resulted in a two-year reimbursement suspension for the accused practice which resulted in the business closing. The accuser facility is thriving and opened up three new offices. Is this really what are fraud laws are intended to do. The laws are being used to put competitors out of business, not finding fraud.
Physician Acquitted Due to Ambiguous and Subjective E/M CPT Codes!
Happy 2024! Today I want to discuss subjectivity and e/m codes. How many times have we heard horror stories surrounding the billings of 99204 versus 99205? We all know that the definitions of e/m codes were revised in 2021. “CPT Code 99204: New patient visits with moderate medical decision making must involve at least 45 minutes. CPT Code 99205: High-level medical decision making for new patients must equal or exceed 60 minutes of total time.” The new definitions allow physicians to rely on time spent. However, does the 45 minutes or 60 minutes equal face-to-face time? The definition does not specify face-to-face time, and I do not believe that the time requirements necessitate only face-to-face time. There is subjectivity in assessing whether a moderate or high-level of decision making has occurred. One person’s determination that a 99205 occurred could be the next person’s 99204. Despite the obvious subjectivity, courts have convicted physicians of health care fraud for billing 99205s instead of 99204 or 99203.
Well, I bring tidings of great joy. The criminal conviction of a Maryland physician for his role in a $15 million Medicare fraud scheme was vacated by a federal judge over the holidays last year…as in 1 month ago.
A federal jury in Maryland convicted Ron Elfenbein, M.D., age 49, of Arnold, Maryland, for five counts of healthcare fraud for submitting over $15 million in false and fraudulent claims to Medicare and other insurers for patients who received COVID-19 tests at sites operated by the defendant in August of 2023. Dr. Elfenbein was the first doctor convicted at trial by the Justice Department for health care fraud in billing for office visits in connection with patients seeking COVID-19 tests, which makes his acquittal even more important for other providers across the country. Literally, this is a ground-breaking case and all providers should put this powerful case in their defense toolkit because it’s a hammer of a case.
Dr. Elfenbein is on the right.
The conviction of Dr. Elfenbein was based upon his billing of level 4 evaluation and management claims for patients receiving COVID-19 tests, which the Justice Department determined was improper use of the billing codes.
According to the evidence presented at his three-week trial, Dr. Elfenbein owned and operated Drs ERgent Care, LLC, d/b/a First Call Medical Center and Chesapeake ERgent Care. Drs ERgent care operated drive-through COVID-19 testing sites in Anne Arundel and Prince George’s Counties. Dr. Elfenbein instructed his employees that, in addition to billing for the COVID-19 test, the employees were to bill for e/m visits. In reality, these visits were not provided to patients as represented, according to the DOJ. Rather, Elfenbein instructed his employees that the patients were “there for one reason only – to be tested,” that it was “simple and straightforward,” and that the providers were “not there to solve complex medical issues.” Many of these patients were asymptomatic, were getting tested for COVID-19 for their employment requirements, or who were getting tested for COVID-19 so that they could travel. Elfenbein submitted or caused the submission of claims totaling more than $15 million to Medicare and other insurers for these high-level office visits.
Elfenbein faced a maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison for each of the five counts of healthcare fraud for which he was convicted.
Dr. Elfenbein’s motion for acquittal was granted Dec. 21 by the same federal judge who oversaw his initial trial. The judge found that because E/M CPT codes, the type of medical billing codes used by Dr. Elfenbein, are imprecise and designed to allow “physicians flexibility to exercise their best judgment given the multitude of factors that go into medical decision-making,” his use of the higher-cost level 4 codes did apply to the patient encounters based on the relevant guidelines.
In a detailed, 90-page ruling, James K. Bredar, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for Maryland, said the government did not meet the bar to convict Dr. Ron Elfenbein and ruled that “imprecision does not necessarily integrate well with the clear notice and due process guarantees of our criminal law” and “where the relevant CPT codes and related definitions are ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations, problems clearly arise.” I agree. Ambiguous or subjective rules should not be the basis for criminal penalties. Civil, possibly. But not criminal.
Knicole Emanuel Presents Webinar January 25, 2024!
A Guide to the RAT-STATS Statistical Software in Medicare and Medicaid
Hosted by: Lorman
Click here to register for the webinar on January 25, 2024, from 1:00pm-2:30pm!
Join Nelson Mullins Raleigh partner Knicole Emanuel for a webinar hosted by Lorman on Jan. 25., 2024. Emanuel will be a speaker at the session entitled “A Guide to the RAT-STATS Statistical Software,” where attendees will learn about key considerations in interpreting sample size results for how to interpret and critically assess key factors influencing the extrapolation process, how to apply theoretical knowledge through practical exercises using RAT-STATS, how to develop a critical mindset for evaluating the reliability and replicability of results; and informed decision-making.
This webinar is available to attend live with available credits for ACHE, HFMA, AHIMA, and NASBA. There will also be an OnDemand Course for this presentation available.
CMS Issues Interim Rule in Response to State Medicaid Disenrollment Trend
When the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) ended in April 2023, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act’s Medicaid continuous enrollment condition also came to an end. The condition had allowed States to claim a temporary monetary incentive for not disenrolling persons enrolled in Medicaid during the PHE, among other conditions. When this monetary incentive disappeared, many States moved quickly to disenroll recipients from the Medicaid program. In response to this trend, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) published an interim final rule (Rule) on Dec. 6, implementing reporting requirements and enforcement authorities created by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023.
The Rule seeks to limit the extent to which states are removing Medicaid recipients from the program by instituting punishments for states that kick recipients out of the program for procedural reasons as opposed to eligibility considerations. For example, some states had been using procedural or administrative issues, such as the failure to renew within the required timeline or not updating contact information, as justification for disenrollment. Any noncompliance or failure to reinstate eligibility for affected individuals could subject the state to enforcement authorities, including requiring states to submit and participate in a corrective action plan, suspending disenrollments from Medicaid for procedural reasons, imposing fees on the state via civil money penalties, and applying a reduction to the State’s Federal Medical Assistance Percentage.
In order to promote transparency and hold States accountable for adhering to redetermination requirements, the Rule also requires that States submit to CMS a report on the activities of the State relating to eligibility redeterminations conducted between April 1, and June 30, 2024. The reports require several specific data elements, such as the number of eligibility renewals initiated or the number of individuals determined eligible for a qualified health plan, and CMS intends to make such reports public. Failure to follow reporting requirements could similarly result in enforcement actions taken against the State by CMS, including the application of a reduction to the State specific FMAP.
The regulations became effective on December 6, with public comments due by February 2, 2024. If you have questions about implications or requirements associated with the Rule, reach out to one of the authors.
By Cara N. Ludwig, Knicole Emanuel, Shane M. Duer, JD, CIPP/US
Medicaid Expansion Set To Take Effect In North Carolina Today!
The AP (11/30, Schoenbaum) reports that “hundreds of thousands of adults in North Carolina” are set to receive Medicaid benefits, “a development that boosters say will aid hospitals and local economies in addition to the long-term uninsured.” As of Friday, “more than 600,000 North Carolinians are ultimately expected to qualify, with roughly half to be automatically enrolled.” The AP notes that “a 2022 report from the National Center for Health Statistics estimated North Carolina’s uninsured population at 17.6%, significantly above the national average of 12.6%.”
