Category Archives: NCGS 108C-5
Prior To Means BEFORE: An Amendment to N.C. Gen. Stat 108C-5(i) and Renovating the Leaning Tower of Pisa
The way it works with our three, separate branches of government is that if the court system determines that a statute should be interpreted as ‘A,’ and the legislative branch does not appreciate the way in which the statute was interpreted, then, during the next session, the legislative branch can pass a bill into law that specifically states that the statute is ‘B’ (provided the statutes are consistent with the constitution).
Take the leaning Tower of Pisa. It was built on unsteady ground and within 10 years of its construction, the builders knew it would lean…much like many of our Medicaid and Medicare laws. A beautiful tower, on paper, may not work in real life and on unsteady ground. But once the tower is erected, renovations can occur that will stop the tower from falling over (supposedly, the leaning Tower of Pisa is now stable).
Similarly, when a new law is enacted, no one can predict whether the law will work in real life or be effective in the manner for which it was intended.
N.C. Gen. Stat. 108C-5 was enacted in 2011 and allows the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to audit a small sample of a health care provider’s medical records and extrapolate the error rate against the universe of all of the provider’s records. For example, HMS, one of NC’s hired auditors, asks a Hospital X for all 99222, 99219 and 99235 codes, that is, initial hospital encounter codes, for the period of time of January 1, 2010 – January 1, 2011. After HMS reviews a sample of those medical records, it determines that Hospital X is miscoding at an error rate of 45% (a conclusion which is ALWAYS likely to be wrong, from my experience) for an actual overpayment amount (from just that particular record sample) of $100,000.00. N.C. Gen. Stat. 108C-5 allows HMS to extrapolate the actual overpayment over a universe all of the Hospital’s records for ‘x’ number of years, to reach an alleged overpayment amount of $4,000,000.00 for the audited time period
It really is ridiculous. For example, one of my clients, a behavioral health care provider, who works very hard for his clients, received from the auditor an alleged notice of overpayment of $640,441.00. My associate, Robert Shaw, reviewed the exact same documents that the auditors reviewed and determined that the audit was erroneous. Robert didn’t even have to take it to court. After he drafted correspondence to the auditing company with explanations of why the audit was incorrect, the auditing company admitted that almost every single one of its conclusions was in error, and agreed to accept $258.20 for one claim.
Going back to N.C. Gen. Stat. 108C-5, subsection (i) used to state, “Prior to extrapolating the results of any audits, the Department shall demonstrate and inform the provider that (i) the provider failed to substantially comply with the requirements of State or federal law or regulation or (ii) the Department has credible allegation of fraud concerning the provider.”
Using the plain language of the statute, in court, I would often argue in defense of a health care provider that the extrapolation should be thrown out because DHHS would send a Tentative Notice of Overpayment (TNO) that included the extrapolated amount in the same correspondence in which DHHS was “demonstrating and informing” the health care provider that either: (i) the provider failed to substantially comply with the requirements of State or federal law or regulation or (ii) the Department has a credible allegation of fraud concerning the provider. N.C. Gen. Stat. 108C-5 clearly states that the demonstration and informing should be given to the health care provider prior to extrapolating.
The DHHS attorney would argue that my argument would create absurd results in that DHHS could demonstrate and inform the provider in one correspondence, then one minute later send the extrapolation. The judges at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) agreed with me to a point. They agreed that the first extrapolation should be thrown out because DHHS did not demonstrate and inform prior to extrapolating.
However, when a provider receives an extrapolation, the first level of appeal is an informal reconsideration review within DHHS, Division of Medical Assistance (DMA). The hearing officers are hired by DHHS and do not, generally, have legal backgrounds; although I can think of one exception. After the reconsideration review, DHHS, through its hired vendor, conducts another extrapolation, which usually does not usually result in a severe decrease in alleged overpayment.
So the Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) held that the subsequent extrapolations…the extrapolations after receiving the TNO which provides the provider notice, are legit…that the TNOs satisfy the requirement of DHHS to demonstrate and inform the provider prior to extrapolating
Well, long story short, DHHS did not like having to defend itself for not providing sufficient notice prior to extrapolating.
Enter Session Law 2014-100, otherwise known as the sneaky Appropriations Bill that appropriates more than our budget.
Session Law 2014-100 revises N.C. Gen. Stat 108C-5(i) to state “(i) Prior to extrapolating the results of any audits, the Department shall demonstrate and inform the provider that (i) the provider failed to substantially comply with the requirements of State or federal law or regulation or (ii) the Department has a credible allegation of fraud concerning the provider. Nothing in the subsection shall be construed to prohibit the Department from identifying the extrapolated overpayment amount in the same notice that meets the requirements of this subsection.”
See the difference? Poof! The leaning Tower of Pisa is renovated!
Session Law 2014-100 retroactively became effective July 31, 2014. So, going forward, I can no longer argue that the TNO is not sufficient notice in order to throw out the first extrapolation.
However, I do have more arguments as to how DHHS is not complying with N.C. Gen. Stat. 108C-5 in an effort to throw out the extrapolation. There is more than one way to skin a cat! In fact, I am waiting for a decision from an ALJ on an innovative argument I made the last week.
Perhaps the leaning Tower of Pisa will lean a little more in the future despite the renovations…
The NC MCOs: Jurisdiction Issues and Possible Unenforceable Contract Clauses with Medicaid Providers
According to NC Superior Court, OAH (and I) has (have) been right all along…OAH does have jurisdiction over the MCOs. And you cannot contract away protections allowable by statute.
Before I went to law school, I do not recall ever thinking about the word “jurisdiction.” Maybe in an episode of Law and Order I would hear the word thrown around, but I certainly was not well-versed in its meaning. While I was in law school, the word “jurisdiction” cropped up incessantly.
“Jurisdiction” is extremely important to North Carolina Medicaid providers. Jurisdiction, in the most basic terms, means in which court to bring the lawsuit or appeal of an adverse determination.
In this blog, I am mostly referring to terminations/refusals to contract with providers by the managed care organizations (MCOs), which manage behavioral health, developmental disability, and substance abuse services for North Carolina. Recently, there have been a slew of providers terminated or told that they would not receive a renewed contract to provide Medicaid services. The MCOs tell the providers that, per contract, the providers have no rights to continued participation in the Medicaid system.
The MCOs also tell the providers that the providers cannot appeal at OAH… That the providers have no recourse… That the providers’ contracts are terminable at will (at the MCO’s will)…. I have been arguing all along that this is simply not true. And now a Superior Court decision sides with me.
The MCO have been arguing in every case that OAH does not have jurisdiction over the actions of the MCOs. The MCOs have pointed to NC Gen. Stat. 108D and Session Law 2013-397, which amends NC Gen. Stat. 150B-23 to read:
“Solely and only for the purposes of contested cases commenced as Medicaid managed care enrollee appeals under Chapter 108D of the General Statutes, a LME/MCO is considered an agency as defined in G.S. 150B-2(1a). The LME/MCO shall not be considered an agency for any other purpose.”
A termination or denial to participate in the Medicaid program is an adverse determination. Adverse determination is defined in NC Gen. Stat. 108C-2 as, “A final decision by the Department to deny, terminate, suspend, reduce, or recoup a Medicaid payment or to deny, terminate, or suspend a provider’s or applicant’s participation in the Medical Assistance Program.”
The Department is defined as, “The North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, its legally authorized agents, contractors, or vendors who acting within the scope of their authorized activities, assess, authorize, manage, review, audit, monitor, or provide services pursuant to Title XIX or XXI of the Social Security Act, the North Carolina State Plan of Medical Assistance, the North Carolina State Plan of the Health Insurance Program for Children, or any waivers of the federal Medicaid Act granted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.”
Obviously, per statute, any entity that is acting on behalf of DHHS would be considered the “Department.” Any adverse act by any entity acting on behalf of DHHS, including terminating a provider’s participation in the Medical Assistance Program is considered an adverse determination.
The MCOs have been arguing that the above-referenced amendment to 150B means that the MCOs are not agents of the state; therefore, OAH has no jurisdiction over them.
Until March 7, 2014, these issues have been argued within OAH and no Superior Court judge had ruled on the issue. Most of the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ), even without Superior Court’s guidance, has, in my opinion, correctly concluded that OAH does have jurisdiction over the MCOs. A couple of the ALJs vacillate, but without clear guidance, it is to be expected.
On or about March 7, 2014, the Honorable Donald W. Stephens, Senior Resident Superior Court Judge ruled that OAH does have jurisdiction over the MCOs. Yelverton’s Enrichment Services, Inc. v. PBH, as legally authorized contractor of and agent for NC Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
If these MCOs are acting on DHHS’ behalf in managing the behavioral health Medicaid services, it would be illogical for OAH to NOT have jurisdiction over the MCOs.
In the Yelverton Order, Judge Stephens writes, “OAH did not err or exceed its statutory authority in determining that it had jurisdiction over Yelverton’s contested case.”
The Order also states that the MCO, in this case, PBH (now Cardinal Innovations), agreed that only DHHS had the authority to terminate provider enrollment. The MCO argued that, while only DHHS can terminate provider enrollment, the MCOs do have the authority “to terminate the participation of the provider in the Medical Assistance Program.”
Talk about splitting hairs! DHHS can terminate the enrollment, but the MCO can terminate the participation? If you cannot participate, what is the point of your enrollment?
Judge Stephens did not buy the MCO’s argument.
On March 7, 2014, Judge Stephens upheld ALJ Donald Overby’s Decision that OAH has jurisdiction over the MCOs for terminating provider contracts.
I anticipate that the MCOs will argue in future cases that the Yelverton case was filed prior to Session Law 2013-397, so Yelverton does not apply to post-Session Law 2013-397 fillings. However, I find this argument also without merit. The Yelverton Order expressly contemplates NC Gen. Stat. 108D and House Bill 320.
House Bill 320 was the bill contemplated by the General Assembly in the last legislative session that expressly stated that OAH does not have jurisdiction over the MCOs. It did not pass.
In Yelverton, the MCO argued that the MCO contracts with the providers allow the MCO to terminate without cause and without providing a reason.
Judge Stephens notes that the General Assembly did not pass House Bill 320. The Yelverton Order further states that no matter what the contracts between the providers and the MCOs states, “[c]ontract provisions cannot override or negate the protections provided under North Carolina law, specifically appeal rights set forth in NC Gen. Stat. 108C.”
Will the MCO appeal? That is the million dollar question…
The Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies and Medicare/caid Providers
What is the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies? And why is it important?
If you are a Medicaid or Medicare provider (which, most likely, you are if you are reading this blog), then knowing your administrative remedies is vital. Specifically, you need to know your administrative remedies if you receive an “adverse determination” by the “Department.” I have placed “adverse determination” and the “Department” in quotation marks because these are defined terms in the North Carolina statutes and federal regulations.
What are administrative remedies? If you have been damaged by a decision by a state agency then you have rights to recoup for the damages.
However, just like in the game of Chess, there are rules…procedures to follow…you cannot bring your castle out until the pawn in front of it has moved.
Similarly, you cannot jump to NC Supreme Court without beginning at the lowest court.
What is an adverse determination?
In Medicaid, NCGS 108C-2 defines “Adverse determination” as “a final decision by the Department to deny, terminate, suspend, reduce, or recoup a Medicaid payment or to deny, terminate, or suspend a provider’s or applicant’s participation in the Medical Assistance Program.”
In Medicare, sometimes the phrase “final adverse action” applies. But, basically an adverse determination in Medicaid and Medicare is a decision by [whatever entity] that adversely affects you, your Medicare/caid contract or reimbursements.
What is the definition of the Department?
NCGS 108C-2 defines the “Department,” as “The North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, its legally authorized agents, contractors, or vendors who acting within the scope of their authorized activities, assess, authorize, manage, review, audit, monitor, or provide services pursuant to Title XIX or XXI of the Social Security Act, the North Carolina State Plan of Medical Assistance, the North Carolina State Plan of the Health Insurance Program for Children, or any waivers of the federal Medicaid Act granted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.”
On the federal level, the Department would be the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) and its agents, contractors and/or vendors.
So, an adverse decision is any final decision by DHHS….OR any of its vendors (Public Consulting Group (PCG), Carolinas Center for Medical Excellence (CCME), HMS, Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), or any of the 10 managed care organizations (MCOs) (Alliance, Centerpointe, Smokey Mountain Center, Sandhills, East Carolina Behavioral Health, MeckLink, Cardinal Innovations, Eastpointe, CoastalCare, and Partners).
For example, PCG tells a dentist that he/she owes $500,000 in overpayments to the State. The notice of overpayment is an adverse determination by the Department as defined in the general statutes.
For example, Smokey Mountain Center (SMC) tells a provider that it will no longer contract with the provider as of March 15, 2014. SMC’s decision to not contract with the provider is an adverse determination by the Department as defined in the general statutes.
For example, CCME tells you that you are subject to prepayment review under NCGS 108C-7, which results in DHHS withholding Medicaid reimbursements. The notice of suspension of payments is an adverse determination by the Department, as defined in the general statutes (not the fact that you were placed on prepayment review because the placement on prepayment review is not appealable, but the determination that Medicaid reimbursements will be withheld).
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is, in essence, a party must satisfy five conditions before turning to the courts: “(1) the person must be aggrieved; (2) there must be a contested case; (3) there must be a final agency decision; (4) administrative remedies must be exhausted; and (5) no other adequate procedure for judicial review can be provided by another statute.” Huang v. N.C. State Univ., 107 N.C. App. 710, 713, 421 S.E.2d 812, 814 (1992) (citing Dyer v. Bradshaw, 54 N.C. App. 136, 138, 282 S.E.2d 548, 550 (1981)
Move your pawn before moving your castle.
Typically, if a party has not exhausted its administrative remedies, the party cannot bring a claim before the courts. However, NC courts have recognized two exceptions that I will explain in a moment.
If you bring a lawsuit based on the adverse determination by the Department, do you go to state Superior Court? No.
In North Carolina, we are lucky to have the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). OAH is fantastic because the judges at OAH, Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) have immense Medicaid experience. OAH is a court of limited jurisdiction, meaning that only if a NC statute allows OAH to hear the case is OAH allowed to hear the case. One facet of OAH’s jurisdiction is adverse determinations by DHHS, its agents, vendors or independent contractors. Not all states have an administrative court system, and we are lucky to have an accomplished administrative court system. Our ALJs are well-versed in Medicaid, so, most likely, your issue you bring to OAH will be one already heard by the court.
Another great thing about OAH, is that OAH publishes some opinions. So you can review some published opinions prior to your hearing. For the most part, the ALJs are quite consistent in rulings. For the published opinions of OAH, click here. And, BTW, if you want to review only cases involving the Department of Health and Human Services, scroll down to the cases with the acronym: DHR. As you can see, OAH listens to cases involving many different state agencies.
So, let’s review:
If you receive an adverse determination by any state or federal agency, its contractors, vendors and/or independent contractors, you have the right to appeal the adverse determination. However, you MAY need to exhaust your administrative remedies prior to bringing the action in OAH. In other words, if the agency’s contractor, vendor, and/or independent contractor notifies you of an adverse determination, check with the contractor, vendor and/or independent contractor for informal appeals.
There are, however, some small exceptions. (Remember the knights can jump over your pawns. So can the Queen).
Number 1: Inadequacy.
If the informal administrative appeal process would be inadequate for your remedies then you are not required to exhaust the administrative remedies prior to going to the courts.
A remedy is inadequate “unless it is ‘calculated to give relief more or less commensurate with the claim.’” Huang v. N.C. State Univ., 107 N.C. App. 710, 713, 421 S.E.2d 812, 814 (1992) (citing Dyer v. Bradshaw, 54 N.C. App. 136, 138, 282 S.E.2d 548, 550 (1981).
An example of inadequacy would be if you are seeking monetary damages and the agency is powerless to grant such relief.
The phrase “monetary damages” means that you are seeking money. The agency owes you money and you are seeking the money. Or if you were caused monetary damages because of the agencies actions. For example, your Medicaid reimbursements were suspended. As a result, you fired staff and closed your doors. You would want to sue for the money you lost as a result of the reimbursement suspension. If the agency cannot give money damages or is powerless to give such money damages, then informal agency appeals would be in adequate to address you needs.
Number 2: Futility.
Futility refers to situations where an agency “has deliberately placed an impediment in the path of a party” or where agency policies “are so entrenched that it is unlikely that parties will obtain a fair hearing.”
For example, if by appealing informally within the administrative agency, you will not receive a fair hearing because no independent decision maker exists, you can make the argument that the informal appeal process would be futile.
Here’s the “small print:”
If you claim futility and/or inadequacy, then you must include the futility and/or inadequacy allegations in the Complaint; AND you bear the burden of proving futility and/or inadequacy.
If, however, you exhaust your adminastrative remedies, go to OAH.
Checkmate!
Are PCG’s Extrapolated Medicaid Audits in Violation of State Statute?
Public Consulting Group (PCG) is one of the contracted entities conducting Medicaid post-payment audits in North Carolina. I’ve heard rumors that NC Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is not renewing PCG’s contract, although I have found no evidence to corroborate this rumor.
Regardless, right now, PCG is here and the Medicaid post-payment audits continue. And PCG continues to extrapolate. For more information as to the extrapolations, see my blog: How Does $100 Become $100,000? Check for Clusters!
But is PCG legally allowed to extrapolate? Oh, of course it is allowed to legally extrapolate!! The contract between DHHS and PCG allows PCG to extrapolate, right? But…what if….the extrapolations are not being conducted legally?
N.C. Gen. Stat. 108C-5 states, in pertinent part:
“(i) Prior to extrapolating the results of any audits, the Department shall demonstrate and inform the provider that (i) the provider failed to substantially comply with the requirements of State or federal law or regulation or (ii) the Department has credible allegation of fraud concerning the provider.
Prior to extrapolating, the Department must demonstrate and inform…
Prior to…
Of all the Tentative Notices of Overpayment (TNO) that I have seen, the actual TNO states the extrapolated amount and states that the audit is extrapolated because “(1) the provider failed to substantially comply with the requirements of State or federal law or regulation or (ii) the Department has credible allegation of fraud concerning the provider.” There is no more detail. The TNO literally regurgitates the statutory language into the TNO. Does that constitute “demonstrating”? Better yet, if a provider receives the information that “(1) the provider failed to substantially comply with the requirements of State or federal law or regulation or (ii) the Department has credible allegation of fraud concerning the provider” CONCURRENTLY with receipt of the extrapolated amount, does that notice meet the statutory criteria of PRIOR TO?
Question #1: Does regurgitating the statutory language meet the requirement that the State demonstrate the noncompliance?
Question #2: Does the Department sending the reason for the extrapolation concurrently with the extrapolation meet the statutory requirement to inform the provider prior to extrapolating?
Let’s start with Question #1…
Last night I was checking my daughter’s homework. She had to read an article on Abraham Lincoln. Then she had to answer reading comprehension questions about the article. One question was something like, “What is this article primarily about?” The article discussed the Civil War, Lincoln, the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln’s top hat, Lincoln’s assassination and Lincoln’s gravesite. My daughter answered “B: Abraham Lincoln’s presidency.” (Which was wrong).
What if I told her she was wrong, but never explained why? I believe the conversation would go something like this: “You’re wrong.” “Why?” “Because you’re wrong.” “But WHY am I wrong.” “Because you are wrong.”
In the above scenario, I informed my daughter that she was wrong. But I failed to demonstrate how or why she was wrong.
Similarly, N.C. Gen. Stat. requires that the Department demonstrate and inform the provider that the provider failed to substantially comply with the requirements of State or federal law or regulation or that the Department has credible allegation of fraud concerning the provider.
Inform + Demonstrate = Statutory compliance
So, does PCG demonstrate and inform the providers that the provider failed to substantially comply with the requirements of State or federal law or regulation or that the Department has credible allegation of fraud concerning the provider, simply by restating the identical language in the TNO?
“Why?” “Because you’re wrong.”
Ok, how about Question #2…?
How important is something to occur prior to versus concurrently? I mean, at least it is done, right? Who cares whether the action is done prior to or concurrently?
Think of skydiving. I tell you to be sure to put on your parachute prior to jumping. Instead you hold your parachute, leap out of the plane, and attempt to put on your parachute contemporaneously as jumping. With the amount of air resistance you encounter after you jump, you are unable to get the parachute secured and you die.
Let’s look at a less grotesque example…Think about eating…I tell you to open your mouth prior to inserting the piece of chocolate cake into your mouth. Instead you insert the piece of chocolate cake into your mouth while you concurrently open your mouth. Sure, you get some cake into your mouth, but the majority of the chocolate cake is smeared all over your face.
Can PCG send you one letter saying you are non-compliant while concurrently informing you of the extrapolated amount? Or is that a bit like squashing chocolate cake into your face?
Are PCG’s Extrapolated Medicaid Audits in Violation of State Statute?
In the Future, Could Physicians Be Forced to Accept Medicaid?
According to a report in the “Mason Conservative,” Virginia Democrat delegate candidate, Kathleen Murphy, stated, during a debate, that the government should force physicians to accept Medicaid.
After reading that, how many of you shuddered from horror?
I think we can all agree that we need more physicians to accept Medicaid. We simply do not have enough physicians to meet the needs of all our Medicaid recipients. Not enough physicians equals not enough quality health care to our most needy. In particular, rural areas suffer most from the lack of physicians who accept Medicaid.
According to Forbes magazine, “Right now, the United States is short some 20,000 doctors, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. The shortage could quintuple over the next decade, thanks to the aging of the American population — and the aging and consequent retirement of many physicians. Nearly half of the 800,000-plus doctors in the United States are over the age of 50.” I’m sure Forbes would have found even more shortage had it researched the rural areas.
But is the answer to force doctors to accept Medicaid?
A week or so ago I saw my primary care physician. I’ve seen my primary care doctor for years. (We will call him Dr. Bob). He’s a native North Carolinian, just like I. So he knew me in college, law school, and for the past 13 years of my legal career, both pre-baby and post-baby. Until a week or so ago, I always knew Dr. Bob accepts Medicaid as a form of insurance. I liked that he did.
Per our normal routine, Dr. Bob asks about my husband, my daughter, and my job. But, usually he is extremely interested in “all-things-Medicaid.” He normally asks the status of reimbursement rates, my opinion on the current administration, my perception of the trend at my job (who was getting audits, who may be getting audits soon, etc.), and other various Medicaid-related issues.
But, at my visit, Dr. Bob fails to ask about the current events of Medicaid. And I, being I, just started talking about Medicaid. He interrupts me and says, “Knicole, I made a difficult decision since I have seen you last.”
Pause….I’m expecting:
Retirement….possible divorce???
Retirement….change in profession???
Retirement…closing his practice???
Instead, Dr. Bob says, “I’ve decided to no longer accept Medicaid.” (My jaw is agape).
My first instinct is, “What? But you CARE! How could you?”
My second instinct is, “I get it. Medicaid is a hassle.”
My third instinct is to actually ask HIM why HE made this decision. (My first couple instincts are usually the wrong route).
When I ask him why he decided to no longer take Medicaid, his response is “I’m sick of people who are not physicians telling me what to do in my practice.”
I get it.
As a primary care physician, the bulk of his Medicaid work is conducting physicals (or what Medicaid calls, “preventative care”).
He says that he is ‘ok’ with the low reimbursement rates of Medicaid because he is able to offset the low reimbursement rates by accepting more privately insured patients (like me). He says he loves serving the Medicaid population. His issue lies in the administrative burden of accepting Medicaid versus accepting private insurance, including the regulatory audits, the way in which the regulatory audits are conducted, NCTracks debacles, and possible unannounced payment suspensions…to name a few. Dr. Bob explains that when he decides a procedure is “gender-and-age-appropriate,” inevitably, someone, from some, state-contracted company, will come back to him a couple of years later to recoup the Medicaid money because that (non-physician) auditor disagrees that the procedure he chose, as a physician, was “gender-and-age-appropriate.”
DMA Clinical Policy 1A-2 defines preventative care as, “An adult preventive medicine health assessment consists of a comprehensive unclothed physical examination, comprehensive health history, anticipatory guidance/risk factor reduction interventions, and the ordering of gender and age-appropriate laboratory and diagnostic procedures.” (emphasis added).
He describes an audit during which an auditor, who was not a physician, attempted to recoup a date of service (DOS), citing the reason as the procedure was not “gender-and-age-appropriate.” How can a non-physician decide what treatment is or is not “gender-and-age-appropriate?”
I’ve seen this before. In behavioral health care audits, an auditor with no substance abuse clinical background determines no medical necessity exists for a service for a Medicaid recipient suffering from substance abuse. In dental audits, an auditor without ever attending dental school, will determine that a partial implant is not medically necessary.
N.C. Gen. Stat. 108C-5 requires that, “[a]udits that result in the extrapolation of results must be performed and reviewed by individuals who shall be credentialed by the Department, as applicable, in the matters to be audited, including, but not limited to, coding or specific clinical issues.” (emphasis added).
Credentialed in the matters to be audited.
Is DHHS seriously credentialing non-physicians to audit physician? Non-dentists to audit dentists? Non-substance abuse clinical providers to audit substance abuse clinical providers?
I do not know whether DHHS is credentialing the auditors, but, in my experience, non-qualified auditors (in the field in which they are auditing) are conducting audits.
Going back to my original premise, are we going to force/require that physicians, in order to be physicians, to accept Medicaid, thus subjecting themselves to limitless and unannounced Medicaid audits? To force physicians to undergo the administrative burden that comes with Medicaid audits, not to mention the administrative burden to just follow Medicaid regulations? To force physicians to accept the quite possible possibility that the physician will need to defend him or herself against audits and incur steep attorneys’ fees?
In Dr. Bob’s case, he did accept Medicaid for years. Then, he consciously made the decision that he no longer wanted to be subject to the regulatory scrutiny that comes with accepting Medicaid. So, now, would we force Dr. Bob to undergo the very scrutiny he so loathes?
It would be similar to the State forcing all attorneys to accept clients at a discounted rate and accept the threat of audits. Or forcing accountants to accept clients at a discounted rate and accept the threat of audits. Or forcing a plumber to accept clients at a discounted rate and accept the threat of audits.
Don’t we, in the United States, have the economic freedom to own private property, thus, logically, allowing us the right to pursue private property?
“We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;…”
See the Declaration of Independence.
I understand that Ms. Murphy’s comment was just that…a comment at a debate. But her comment demonstrates that, while politicians understand there is a shortage of physicians who are willing to accept Medicaid, some politicians may believe that physicians should be forced to accept Medicaid.
But aren’t we all entitled to the economic freedom to pursue private property, happiness, and liberty?
Or is that all a ruse?
