Category Archives: Medicaid Appeals
Whenever you receive correspondence with letterhead from the Department of Justice, Attorney General’s office, you know it’s important and you better take note.
A Civil or Criminal Investigative Demand is serious. Getting any communication from the U.S. Department of Justice can be a bit unnerving. That’s particularly true for Medicare and Medicaid providers receiving a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) for documents and testimony.
A CID is a tool used by the Justice Department (“DOJ”) to investigate potential violations of the False Claims Act (“FCA”). See blog. The DOJ can issue a CID whenever the DOJ has “reason to believe that any person may be in possession, custody, or control of any documentary material or information relevant to a false claims law investigation.” The bottom line is that the DOJ uses CIDs to obtain documents and identify potential witnesses so they can bring FCA suits against the recipient or others.
What is the False Claims Act anyway?
It’s a broad statute that punishes many things, one of which is making false statements to the government in connection with a claim for payment from the government. The DOJ often uses CIDs to investigate medical providers who seek payment from Medicare and Medicaid.
Just because the Investigative Demand is labeled “civil” does not mean that the investigation is only civil; it could take a turn towards criminal. In other words, something sparked the DOJ’s attention, but, perhaps there were no allegations of criminal action, the investigation could start and the investigator could uncover something they consider criminal. An investigation earmarked as civil can turn criminal with the uncovering of one document.
On the other hand, the investigator could review all the documents and conclude that there is not even a civil violation. Very rarely, do the investigators contact you to tell you that the investigation is over and no violation was found. Most of the time, you are put on notice that you are being investigated, then hear nothing from the investigator in perpetuity.
Recently, I had an investigator inform me that the review of. my client was complete, and the file was being closed. But that’s the only time in 22 years that I was informed that nothing noncompliant was found. Usually, time just passes.
If you are found to have violated the FCA, the government can triple the amount of penalties, so the numbers get very high very quickly.
The Justice Department obtained more than $5.6 billion in settlements and judgments from civil cases involving fraud and false claims against the government in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2021. This is the second largest annual total in False Claims Act history, and the largest since 2014. Settlement and judgments since 1986, when Congress substantially strengthened the civil False Claims Act, now total more than $70 billion.
A much lesser known provision of the FCA is the reverse one. Not to blow everyones’ minds, but there is also a “reverse false claims” provision of the False Claims Act. The reverse false claims provision permits the government or relators to pursue defendants who are alleged to have hidden or reduced an obligation to pay the government through false statements, or who have violated the 60-day payment rule’s obligation to return “identified overpayments.” These claims typically have been raised in the context of cost reporting, Medicare Part C, or related to alleged failures to fulfill obligations under the 60-day payment rule. The government and relators have increasingly relied on the reverse false claims provision to support stand-alone claims or have used it in conjunction with affirmative false claims. However, because the reverse false claims provision is very lightly used compared to affirmative false claims provisions, there is a dearth of case law defining it or exploring its parameters. The case law that does exist is primarily from district courts and, as the survey of case law contained herein illustrates, there is little guidance from the Circuit Courts or the U.S. Supreme Court.
Intent or deliberate disregard is required to prove the false claims act – reverse and regular.
Failure to respond to a CID completely could warrant criminal contempt. This is especially important to note, as civil investigate demand sounds much less important than a subpoena. But a CID is, in essence, a subpoena. Immediately, implement a “legal hold” upon receipt of the CID, and don’t forget to avoid producing privileged documents.
After the investigation is complete, if there are violations of the FCA uncovered, you will receive correspondence that states in “all-caps” and bold font:
Rule 408 FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
FRE 408 prohibits the use of settlement negotiations as evidence. After reviewing the offer, get with your legal counsel to discuss next steps.
It’s hard enough to be one of the providers to accept Medicare and Medicaid. The regulatory oversight is burdensome. You are always getting metaphorically yelled at for upcoding or bundling. See blog, thanking providers.
One of the absolute, most-Draconian penalty against a Medicare or Medicaid provider is prepayment review.
Prepayment review is exactly as it sounds. Before you receive payment – for services rendered – an auditor reviews your claims to determine whether you should be reimbursed. Prepayment review is the epitome of being guilty until proven innocent. It flies in the face of American due process. However, no one has legally fought its Constitutionality. Yet many provider-companies have been put out of business by it.
Generally, to get off prepayment review, you have to achieve a 75% or 80% success rate for three consecutive months. It doesn’t sound hard until your auditors – or graders – fail to do their job correctly and fail you erroneously.
Usually, when a provider is placed on prepayment review, I say, “Well, you cannot appeal being placed on prepayment review, but we can get a preliminary injunction to Stay the withhold of reimbursements during the process.” It tends to work.
Most State statutes have language like this:
“(f) The decision to place or maintain a provider on prepayment claims review does not constitute a contested case under Chapter 150B of the General Statutes. A provider may not appeal or otherwise contest a decision of the Department to place a provider on prepayment review.”
However, in a recent case, Halikierra Community Services, LLC v. NCDHHS, the provider disputed being placed on prepayment review and accused NCDHHS of a malicious campaign against it.
Halikierra was the largest, in-home, Medicaid health care provider and it alleged that 2 specific, individuals at DHHS “personally detested” Halikierra because of its size. As an aside, I hear this all the time. I hear that the auditors or government have personal vendettas against certain providers. Good for Halikierra for calling them out!
According to the opinion, these 2 DHHS employees schemed to get Halikierra on prepayment review by accusing it of employing felons, which is not illegal. (Just ask Dave’s Killer Bread). Halikierra sued based on substantive due process and equal protection rights, but not before being forced to terminate its 600 employees and closing its doors because of being placed on prepayment review. It also asserted a claim of conspiracy in restraint of trade under NCG.S. §75-1 against the individual DHHS employees.
The Court held that “[t]he mere fact that an agency action is nonreviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act does not shield it from judicial review.” The upshot? Even if a statute states that you cannot appeal being placed on prepayment review, you can sue for that very determination.
FYI – This case was filed in the Industrial Commission, which has jurisdiction for negligence conducted by the state agencies. Exhaustion of administrative remedies was not necessary because, per the state statute, being placed on prepayment review does not constitute a contested case in administrative court.
On January 25, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an important opinion in Barrows v. Becerra that will have a significant impact on hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and, potentially, other Medicare providers. The Second Circuit affirmed a ruling from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut that the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) violated the due process rights of a certified nationwide class of Medicare patients that were reclassified from “inpatient” to “observation” by a hospital’s utilization review committee (URC) without being provided an administrative review process to challenge that determination.
Although hospitals (and other Medicare providers and suppliers) are not typically considered to be governmental actors, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) requirements surrounding hospital URCs made those determinations “state action” and thus subject to due process requirements under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The classification from “inpatient” to “observation” can have significant financial repercussions to the Medicare beneficiary. Hospital inpatient services are generally covered under Medicare Part A. Outpatient or observation services are generally covered under Medicare Part B. Medicare beneficiaries pay monthly premiums for Part B coverage and also are subject to copayment obligations under Part B that may be higher than the inpatient deductible under Part A.
The Second Circuit’s opinion has huge ramifications on providers, especially hospitals. This opinion says a hospital stands in the shoes of the government when deciding to charge this person’s hospital stay under Part B. But what if the hospital itself argues that Part A should pay and it disagrees with the patient being deemed outpatient? Well, this ruling gives hospitals a lot more leeway in its finances. A hospital can sue on behalf of its consumer or itself in getting higher or any reimbursements.
The threshold question presented in Barrows was whether CMS’s oversight and control over hospital URC’s reclassification determinations transform those URCs into state action and thus subject to constitutional due process. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, which also included a permanent injunction, requiring the HHS Secretary to create some sort of due process if a Medicare beneficiary disagrees with a hospital URC’s reclassification determination.
This decision may also favorably impact skilled nursing facilities. Generally, a Medicare beneficiary must have a three-day inpatient stay at a hospital in order for Medicare to pay for a subsequent stay in a skilled nursing facility. This three-day requirement is currently waived during the COVID-19 public health emergency. Once the three-day-stay requirement returns, this decision may positively impact skilled nursing facilities by discouraging hospitals from reclassifying patients from inpatient to observation.
Although the district court decision was issued in 2020, the Second Circuit had granted a temporary stay to allow the HHS Secretary to appeal. In the Second Circuit’s opinion, the Court affirmed the district court and denied the HHS Secretary’s motion for stay as moot.
At this stage, HHS has not signaled what due process hospital URCs will have to provide a Medicare beneficiary who disagrees with a reclassification determination. There are also open questions about how to handle potential claims for various members of the class. The class includes Medicare beneficiaries who have been hospitalized since January 1, 2009, had their status changed from inpatient to hospital, received a notice from the hospital or Medicare, and either have Part A-coverage only or had Part A and B and were (or still could be) admitted to a skilled nursing facility within 30 days of hospital discharge.
The HHS Secretary has until late April 2022 to file a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. At the time of this publication, HHS has not indicated whether it intends to appeal.
Auditors are overzealous. I am not telling you anything you don’t know. Auditors cast wide nets to catch a few minnows. Occasionally, they catch a bass. But, for the most part, innocent, health care providers get caught in the overzealous, metaphoric net. What auditors and judges and basically the human population doesn’t understand is that accusing providers of “credible allegations of fraud” and alleged overpayments, when unfounded, has a profound and negative impact. First, the providers are forced to hire legal counsel at an extremely high cost. Their reputations and names get dragged through the mud because providers are guilty until they are proved innocent. Then, once they prove that there is no fraud or noncompliant documents, the wrongly accused providers are left with no recourse.
The audits generally result in similar reasoning for denials. For instance,
- Lacks medical necessity. Defense: The treating physician rule. Deference must be given to the treating physician, not the desk reviewer who has never seen the patient.
- Canned notes: Defense: While canned notes are not desirable, it is not against the law. There is no statute, regulation, or rule against canned notes. Canned notes are just not best practices. But, in reality, when you serve a certain population, the notes are going to be similar.
- X-rays tend to be denied for the sole reason that there are no identifying notes on the X-ray. Or the printed copy of the X-ray you submit to the auditors is unreadable. Defense/Proactive measure: When you submit an X-ray, include a brief note as to the DOS and consumer.
- Signature illegible; therefore, no proof of provider being properly trained and qualified. Defense: This one is easy; you just show proof of trainings, but to head off the issue, print your name under your signature or have it embedded into your EHR.
- Documentation nitpicking. The time, date, or other small omissions result in many a denial. Defense: There is no requirement for documents to be perfect. The SSA provides defenses for providers, such as “waiver of liability” and “providers without fault.” The “waiver of liability” defense provides that even if payment for claims is deemed not reasonable and necessary, payment may be rendered if the provider did not know and could not have been reasonably expected to know that payment would not be made.
Whenever a client tells me – let’s concede these claims because he/she believes the auditors to be right, I say, let me review it. With so many defenses, I rarely concede any claims. See blog for more details.
Hospitals across the nation are seeing lower profits, and it’s all because of a sudden, tsunami of Medicare and Medicaid provider audits. Whether it be RAC, MAC, UPIC, or Program Integrity, hospital audits are rampant. Billing errors, especially ‘supposed bundling,’ are causing a high rate of insurance claims denials, hurting the finances of hospitals and providers.
A recent report from American Hospital Association (AHA) found “Under an optimistic scenario, hospitals would lose $53 billion in revenue this year. Under a more pessimistic scenario, hospitals would lose $122 billion thanks to a $64 billion decline in outpatient revenue”*
The “Health Care Auditing and Revenue Integrity—2021 Benchmarking and Trends Report” is an insider’s look at billing and claims issues but reveals insights into health care costs trends and why administrative issues continue to play an outsize role in the nation’s high costs in this area. The data used covers 900+ facilities, 50,000 providers, 1500 coders, and 700 auditors – what could go wrong?
According to the report,
- 40% of COVID-19-related charges were denied and 40% of professional outpatient audits for COVID-19 and 20% of hospital inpatient audits failed.
- Undercoding poses a significant revenue risk, with audits indicating the average value of underpayment is $3,200 for a hospital claim and $64 for a professional claim.
- Overcoding remains problematic, with Medicare Advantage plans and payers under scrutiny for expensive inpatient medical necessity claims, drug charges, and clinical documentation to justify the final reimbursement.
- Missing modifiers resulted in an average denied amount of $900 for hospital outpatient claims, $690 for inpatient claims, and $170 for professional claims.
- 33% of charges submitted with hierarchical condition category (HCC) codes were initially denied by payers, highlighting increased scrutiny of complex inpatient stays and higher financial risk exposure to hospitals.
The top fields being audited were diagnoses, present on admission indicator, diagnosis position, CPT/HCPCS coding, units billed, and date of service. The average outcome from the audits was 70.5% satisfactory. So, as a whole, they got a ‘C’.
While this report did not in it of itself lead to any alleged overpayments and recoupments, guess who else is reading this audit and salivating like Pavlov’s dogs? The RACs, MACs, UPICs, and all other alphabet soup auditors. The 900 facilities and 50,000 health care providers need to be prepared for audits with consequences. Get those legal defenses ready!!!!
Today I pose a very important question for you. Do your participation contracts that you sign with Medicare/caid, MCOs, MACs – do they even matter? Are these boilerplate contracts worth the ink and the paper? The answer is yes and no. To the extent that the contracts are written aligned with the federal and State regulations, the contracts are enforceable. To the extent that the contracts violate the federal regulations, those clauses are unenforceable. The contract can even, at times, be more stringent or contain more limitations than the federal regulations. One thing is for sure, these contracts can be your worst enemy or your savior, depending on the clauses.
An Idaho client-provider of mine has been the victim of Optum-“black-hole-ism.” In this case, the “black-hole-ism” will save my client from paying $500k it does not owe. My client is the leading substance abuse (SA) provider in Idaho. Optum is managing Medicaid dollars, which makes it the Agent of the “single State agency,” the Department of Health of Idaho. 42 C.F.R. 431.10. See blog.
The Optum provider contract states that – “It is agreed that the parties knowingly and voluntarily waive any right to a Dispute if arbitration is not initiated within one year after the Dispute Date.” What a great clause. If only all contracts had this limiting clause.
In our dispute, Optum avers we owe $500k. The first demand we received was dated December 2018 for DOS 2016-2017. Notice Optum was timely back in 2018. That was when the client hired my team, and we submitted a rebuttal and initiated the informal appeal to Optum. Here’s where Optum gets sloppy. Months pass. A year passes. I hear crickets in the background. A year and a half passes. Who knows why Optum took a year and a half to respond? COVID happened. Black-hole-ism? Bureaucracy and red tape? Apathy? Ineptness?
Finally, we get a response in September 2020. We respond in October 2020. Our new response included a novel argument that was not included in the 2018 rebuttal. Our argument went something like: “Na Na Na Boo Boo, you’re too late per 7.1 Optum contract.” If we could have included a raspberry, we would done so.
Remember the clause? “It is agreed that the parties knowingly and voluntarily waive any right to a Dispute if arbitration is not initiated within one year after the Dispute Date.”
Well, 2020 is 3-4 years after the initial DOS at issue: 2016-2017. This time, the boilerplate contract is our friend.
Since there is also an arbitration clause, which is not your friend, we will be wholly dependent on an arbitrator to interpret the one-year, limiting clause as a logical, reasonable person. But I will be shocked if even an arbitrator doesn’t throw out this case with prejudice.
Today I want to talk about two ways to increase revenue merely by ensuring that your patients’ rights are met. We talk about providers being audited for their claims being regulatory compliant, but how about self-audits to increase your revenue? I like these kind of audits! I am calling these audits “Reverse RAC audits”. Let’s bring money in instead of reimbursements recouped.
You can protect yourself as a provider and increase revenue by remembering and litigating on behalf of your consumers’ rights. Plus, your patients will be eternally grateful for your advocacy. It is a win/win. The following are two, distinct ways to increase revenue and protect your consumers’ rights:
- Ensuring freedom of choice of provider; and
- Appealing denials on behalf of your consumers.
Freedom of choice of provider.
In a federal case in Indiana, we won an injunction based on the patients’ rights to access to care.
42 CFR § 431.51 – Free choice of providers states that “(b) State plan requirements. A State plan must provide as follows…:
(1) A beneficiary may obtain Medicaid services from any institution, agency, pharmacy, person, or organization that is –
(i) Qualified to furnish the services; and
(ii) Willing to furnish them to that particular beneficiary.
In Bader v. Wernert, MD, we successfully obtained an injunction enjoining the State of Indiana from terminating a health care facility. We sued on behalf of a geneticist – Dr. Bader – whose facility’s contract was terminated from the Medicaid program for cause. We sued Dr. Wernert in his official capacity as Secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration. Through litigation, we saved the facility’s Medicaid contract from being terminated based on the rights of the consumers. The consumers’ rights can come to the aid of the provider.
Keep in mind that some States’ Waivers for Medicaid include exceptions and limitations to the qualified and willing provider standard. There are also limits to waiving the freedom of choice of provider, as well.
Appealing consumers’ denials.
This is kind of a reverse RAC Audit. This is an easy way to increase revenue.
Under 42 CFR § 405.910 – Appointed representatives, a provider of services may appeal on behalf of the consumers. If you appeal on behalf of your consumers, the obvious benefit is that you could get reimbursed for the services rendered that were denied. You cannot charge a fee for the service; however, so please keep this in mind.
One of my clients currently has hired my team appealing all denials that are still viable under the statute of limitations. There are literally hundreds of denials.
Over the past few years, they had hundreds of consumers’ coverage get denied for one reason or the other. Allegedly not medically necessary or provider’s trainings weren’t conveyed to the auditors. In other words, most of the denials are egregiously wrong. Others are closer to call. Regardless these funds were all a huge lump of accounts’ receivables that was weighing down the accounting books.
Now, with the help of my team, little by little, claim by claim, we are chipping away at that accounts’ receivables. The receivables are decreasing just by appealing the consumers’ denials.
In RAC news, on June 1, 2021, Cotiviti acquired HMS RAC region 4. Don’t be surprised if you see Cotiviti’s logo on RAC audits where you would have seen HMS. This change will have no impact in the day-to-day contract administration and audit timelines under CMS’ guidance. You will continue to follow the guidance in the alleged, improper payment notification letter for submission of medical documentation and discussion period request. In March 2021, CMS awarded Performant an 8.5 year contract to serve as the Region 1 RAC.
There really cannot be any deviations regardless the name of the RAC Auditor because this area is so regulated. Providers always have appeal rights regardless Medicare/caid RAC audits. Or any other type of audit. Medicaid RAC provider appeals are found in 42 CFR 455.512. Whereas Medicare provider redeterminations and the 5 levels of appeal are found in 42 CFR Subpart I. The reason that RAC audits are spoken about so often is that the Code of Federal Regulations applies different rules for RAC audits versus MAC, TPE, UPIC, or other audits. The biggest difference is that RAC auditors are limited to a 3 year look back period according to 42 CFR 455.508. Other auditors do not have that same limitation and can look back for longer periods of time. Of course, whenever “credible allegations of fraud” is involved, the lookback period can be for 10 years.
The federal regulations also allow States to request exceptions from the Medicaid RAC program. CMS mandates every State to participate in the RAC program. But there is a federal reg §455.516 that allows exceptions. To my knowledge, no State has requested exceptions out of the RAC Audit program.
RAC auditors have announced a renewed focus on the two-midnight rule for hospitals. Again. This may seem like a rerun and it is. You recall around 2012, RACs began noticing high rates of error with respect to patient status in certain short-stay Medicare claims submitted for inpatient hospital services. CMS and the RACs indicated the inpatient care setting was medically unnecessary, and the claims should have been billed as outpatient instead. Remember, for stays under 2 midnights, inpatient status may be used in rare and unusual exceptions and may be payable under Medicare Part A on a case-by-case basis.
Changes of ownership of a facility can spur RAC, MAC, and MCO audits. In fact, federal regulations require disclosure of changes of ownership within 35 days after any change of ownership. 42 CFR 455.104. The regulations require disclosure, but there is no guidance regarding acceptance of said change of ownership. In other words what if your company undergoes a change in ownership and the MCO or MAC terminates the participation agreement because they don’t appreciate who the new owner is. The federal regulations also require disclosure of any convictions related to Medicaid. 42 CFR 455.106. In the particular case I am discussing, the MCO audited this company 10-15 times over two years. There seemed to be a personal vendetta, for whatever reason, against the company from higher-ups at the MCO.
Managed care can be tricky because, by definition, it removes the management of Medicaid and Medicare from the government agencies into these quasi-private/quasi-governmental agencies. I still think that managed care violates 42 CFR 410(e), the single state agency requirement that states that “The Medicaid agency may not delegate, to other than its own officials, the authority to supervise the plan or to develop or issue policies, rules, and regulations on program matters.” Despite my personal opinion, managed care is definitely the trend. To date, 40 States have managed care organizations (MCOs) to manage Medicaid.
This company is a behavioral health care provider, which provides substance abuse services, SAIOP, SACOT, PSR, OPT, urine tests; they run a Suboxone clinic, a laboratory, and a pharmacy. It also provides free/charitable transportation services to get the consumers to the facility without receiving any money in return. The CEO was accused of personal, tax fraud. He and his wife never submitted their own taxes; they relied on professionals. One, below-stellar accountant performed the companies’ taxes and the CEO’s personal taxes a few years ago. I am no tax expert, but apparently the problem was that he took no salary for two years while the facility was bringing in little profit. His wife is a physician, so they were able to sustain on one income. A lot of confusion later and multiple tax and criminal attorneys, CEO pled guilty to a personal tax plea. It is a Martha Stewart mistake, not a Bernie Madoff. The guilty plea was not germane to Medicaid.
Once the CEO pleads guilty to the personal plea, the newspaper publishes a story. The MCO first terminates the contract based on 42 CFR 455.106, which requires disclosure if – and the exact wording is important – “Has been convicted of a criminal offense related to that person’s involvement in any program under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Title XX services program since the inception of those programs.” This guilty plea was not related to Medicaid so the termination was erroneous.
Concurrently, in light of the CEO’s plea, he steps down and his wife who is also a medical physician steps in to transition as CEO to keep the company going. Obviously, a company is bigger than its CEO’s personal transgressions. 200 staff and hundreds of consumers relied on its viability as a company.
Once we argued that the personal guilty plea was not related to Medicaid, the MCO added the additional reason for termination – failing to disclose a change in ownership. A double whammy!
We were able to successfully file a preliminary injunction arguing that irreparable harm would ensue if the termination were upheld. We also argued that the terminations were erroneous. The Judge agreed in this case agreeing that a company is indeed bigger than its CEO’s transgressions.
We always think about audits involving medical records. But audits can also involve audits of corporate disclosures or nondisclosures of managerial issues. Audits of provider executive teams can be deadly to any company.
Terminations of provider agreements are always tricky because, most often, the MCO or MAC will argue that it can terminate the Medicaid/care contract at will. I disagree, first and foremost. See blog, “Property Rights.”
If a facility is terminated for cause, that reason better be accurate!
In this case, the CEO had no duty to disclose his personal, guilty plea per the regulations. Secondly, the MCOs’ assertion that it had no notice of the transfer of ownership was equally as disingenuous. The facility had been open and honest regarding the transition of the company to a new CEO. While no formal notice was ever provided, there was clear communication about the transition to/from the MCO.
Thus, we were successful in obtaining an injunction; thereby keeping the company viable.
Hello! And beware the Ides of March, which is today! I am going to write today about the state of audits today. When I say Medicare and Medicaid audits, I mean, RACs, MACs, ZPICs, UPICs, CERTs, TPEs, and OIG investigations from credible allegations of fraud. Without question, the new Biden administration will be concentrating even more on fraud, waste, and abuse germane to Medicare and Medicaid. This means that auditing companies, like Public Consulting Group (“PCG”) and National Government Services (“NGS”) will be busy trying to line their pockets with Medicare dollars. As for the Ides, it is especially troubling in March, especially if you are Julius Caesar. “Et tu, Brute?”
One of the government’s most powerful tool is the federal government’s zealous use of 42 CFR 455.23, which states that “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.” (emphasis added). That word – “must” – was revised from “may” in 2011, part of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”).
A “credible allegation” is defined as an indicia of reliability, which is a low bar. Very low.
Remember back in 2013 when Ed Roche and I were reporting on the New Mexico behavioral health care cluster? To remind you, the State of NM accused 15 BH health care providers, which constituted 87.5% of the BH providers in NM, of credible allegations of fraud after the assistant AG, at the time, Larry Heyeck, had just published a legal article re “Credible Allegations of Fraud.” See blog and blog. Unsurprisingly, the suicide rate and substance abuse skyrocketed. There was even a documentary “The Shake-Up” about the catastrophic events in NM set off by the findings of PCG.
I was the lawyer for the three, largest entities and litigated four administrative appeals. If you recall, for Teambuilders, PCG claimed it owed over $12 million. After litigation, an ALJ decided that Teambuilders owed $836.35. Hilariously, we appealed. While at the time, PCG’s accusations put the company out of business, it has re-opened its doors finally – 8 years later. This is how devastating a regulatory audit can be. But congratulations, Teambuilders, for re-opening.
Federal law mandates that during the appeal of a Medicare audit at the first two levels: the redetermination and reconsideration, that no recoupment occur. However, after the 2nd level and you appeal to the ALJ level, the third level, the government can and will recoup unless you present before a judge and obtain an injunction.
Always expect bumps along the road. I have two chiropractor clients in Indiana. They both received notices of alleged overpayments. They are running a parallel appeal. Whatever we do for one we have to do for the other. You would think that their attorneys’ fees would be similar. But for one company, NGS has preemptively tried to recoup THREE times. We have had to contact NGS’ attorney multiple times to stop the withholds. It’s a computer glitch supposedly. Or it’s the Ides of March!