Category Archives: Medicaid Providers

Recoupment, Recoupment, Everywhere and Not a Drop to Keep

The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, a poem written by Samuel Coleridge, states “Water, water everywhere, nor any drop to drink.” It is a tale of retribution. The poem talks about a mariner who is traveling with his fellow sailors. Suddenly, when the mariner finds an albatross chasing them, the mariner at once kills the albatross in cold blood without any major reason. After the killing of the bird, nothing goes well with the mariner. He is not in a position even to hold communion with God. Killing an albatross is symbolic of showing a criminal disregard for a creature of nature.

Now, imagine the mariner is a Medicare or Medicaid auditor. You are the albatross. According to Coleridge, an auditor that needlessly and mindlessly accuses you of owing $1 million in alleged overpayments should suffer dire consequences. However, unlike in poetry, the auditors suffer nothing. The albatross may or may not perish. A health care company may or may not go bankrupt due to the mariner/auditor’s inane actions.

I have a case right now that the auditor applied the 1995 AND 1997 guidelines, instead of only the 1995 or 1997 guidelines. The auditor created a more rigid criteria than what was actually required. Not ok.

So, how do you stop recoupment when you are accused of owing money for allegedly improperly billing Medicare or Medicaid?

  1. Hire an attorney as soon as you receive a Tentative Notice of Overpayment (“TNO”). Do not do, what multiple clients of mine have done, do not wait until the last few days of being allowed to appeal the TNO until you contact an attorney. You want your attorney to have time on his or her side! And yours!
  2. Appeal timely or recoupment will begin. If you do not appeal, recoupment will occur.
  3. Start putting money aside to pay for attorneys’ fees. I hate saying this, but you are only as good (legally) as what you can pay your attorneys. Attorneys have bad reputations regarding billing, but in a situation in which you are accused of owing mass amounts of money or, in the worst case scenario, of fraud against Medicare, you want an experienced, specialized attorney, who understands Medicare and Medicaid. Note: You do not need to hire an attorney licensed or located in your State. Administrative Law Courts (where you go for Medicare and Medicaid legal issues) do not require the attorneys to be legally licensed in the State in which they are practicing. At least, most States do not require attorneys to be licensed in the State in which they are practicing. There are a few exceptions.
  4. Meditate. The process is tedious.

Advocates Split on the Benefit of Banning Non-Compete Clauses!

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) unilaterally issued a Proposed Rule to ban non-compete clauses in employment contracts. See blog. The first question is: Does the FTC have the legal authority to ban non-compete clauses? As a member of the American Society of Medical Association Counsel (“ASMAC”), the president, Greg Pepe, sent out an informal questionnaire to solicit comments by health care attorneys and heads of medical societies.

Greg said, “The respondents were split 50%/50% between medical society attorney members and private practice attorneys who are members.  In general, the most common threads were as follows:

  1. The most common comment was that non-compete provisions in physician employment contracts impede the physician/patient relationship.  This comment came up over and over in a number of ways.
  2. A few comments pointed out that rural areas were disproportionately harmed by non-competes, with physicians having to move away to comply.
  3. Hospital-based physician groups need non-competes to protect their arrangements.
  4. Exemptions for non-profits is a loophole that eviscerates the effort.
  5. ASMAC should be mindful of the divergent interests of its members and their client when considering this kind of commentary.

Very few people offered specific examples of the ways non-competes in physician contracts harmed physicians.  If your organization takes steps to comment please keep ASMAC advised.”

I decided that ASMAC’s findings, even if informal, were important enough to post here on my blog. So, thank you, Greg, for heading this up.

I would like to pay particular attention to #4. Because, a week or so ago, I presented on RACMoniter the story about the FTC banning non-compete clauses, but failed to acknowledge the exemptions for non-profits, which is a HUGE exception. There are 6093 hospitals in the U.S. 1228 of the 6093 hospitals are for profit. The vast majority of hospitals are either government run or non-profit. If you notice above, the “anti-banning comment of non-competes” came from hospital-based physician groups (#3). That makes sense.

Most people, when asked, touts that non-compete agreements impede physician-patient relationships. Personally, as an attorney, non-compete agreements represent requiring me not being able to work at another law firm if I decided Practus, LLP, did not work out. Similarly, if I had attended med school and was working at a hospital in Angier, NC, which was in close proximity to my home, and received a better offer at a nearby hospital, why should I be impeded from working? Obviously, families need to have an income, and what if the physician was the sole breadwinner? The non-compete agreement could really adversely affect a family.

Non-compete agreements, also called restrictive covenants, are an increasingly common requirement for employment in many sectors, including health care. Sometimes non-compete agreements appear as a clause within a contract. Other times, they are separate contracts in and of themselves. Though common, the terms of non-compete agreements vary greatly.

Most people, even physicians, when presented with a contract, “fake” review the contract, and sign without digesting – or even reading – the material. Many don’t even know that a non-compete clause exists in their contracts. Until it’s too late.

Will the FTC’s Proposed Rule become permanent? So far, there have been 4.91k comments. One anonymous person posted: “I am completely in favor of forbidding noncompete agreements.” A woman posted: “I am a veterinarian and have worked close to 40 years. I have been an associate and a practice owner. I see no justification for non-competes and in fact feel it harms the entire profession. Non-competes are pervasive and notoriously difficult to fight. For many years now I have worked for corporations and have watched colleagues both attempt to negotiate non-competes and bear the brunt of legal battles if they attempt to challenge the non-compete. Should you really have to move your entire family to acquire a job? How do I harm a company by working for their competitor?”

A guy wrote: “These should’ve been banned a long time ago. Job mobility is important if we “really” believe in our economic system. Ban NDAs.”

A physician wrote: “As a physician I have suffered significant financial and personal hardship relating to a non-compete agreement. As a result of a non-compete I had to move across the country (twice). I suffered significant loss of income as a result of this not withstanding the expense of relocating twice within a year. My self and my family also suffered significant psycho-social ramifications and de-stabilization. I now also face another non-compete agreement that will essentially render me unable to leave my next position without tremendous harm to my life-long earning potential, credibly rendering me an indentured servant. The presence of a non-compete also removes any leverage an employee such as myself might have to negotiate agains unacceptable working or wage conditions.”

Unlike the commenters from ASMAC, which was split 50-50, it appears that many comments support banning non-compete agreements, but, remember, the not-for-profit exception!! The comment period is open through Mar 10, 2023.

340B Drug Pricing Program: Drug Companies Are Concerned!

The federal 340B Drug Pricing Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a discount of 25 percent to 50 percent. The program is intended to help safety-net health care providers stretch their financial resources to reach more financially vulnerable patients and deliver comprehensive services.

The 340B Drug Pricing Program has spiked in use. It has become more and more popular over the years.

In 2020, there were 8,100 provider sites (including both hospitals and pharmacies), but that number rose to 50,000 by 2020. New data released in August 2022 by the Health Resources and Services Administration suggest discounted purchases under the 340B program reached $44 billion in 2021, about 16% more than in 2020. Drug companies are concerned.

On November 30, 2022, the 340B Drug Pricing Program; Administrative Dispute Resolution Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was published in the Federal Register. Section 340B(d)(3) of the Public Health Service Act requires the establishment of an Administrative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process for certain disputes under the 340B Program. Under the statute, the ADR process is designed to resolve:

  • Claims by covered entities that they have been overcharged for covered outpatient drugs by manufacturers; and
  • Claims by manufacturers, after the manufacturer has conducted an audit of a covered entity, that a covered entity has violated the prohibition on diversion or duplicate discounts.

This NPRM proposes new requirements and more efficient procedures to make the 340B Program’s ADR process more accessible and efficient, including ensuring that ADR panels hearing disputes are comprised of subject matter experts on the 340B Program, and establishing an independent HRSA reconsideration process. The NPRM will be open for public comment through January 30, 2023. Please refer to the Federal Register (PDF – 315 KB) publication for instructions about how to submit comments.

The question is how does the new proposed rule mesh with the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022? If you recall, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) allows Medicare to negotiate drug rates. It has been suggested that the following 10 medications will be the first 10 negotiated:

Does the IRA and 340B conflict? How can you negotiate prices of a drug if the drug is already discounted?

Non-Compete Clauses Banned, According to Proposed Rule

Non-compete clauses have dominated the health care field for years. Generally, noncompete clauses place restrictions on a person’s ability to work in three different ways:

  1. geographical restrictions,
  2. time restrictions, and
  3. line of business restrictions

On January 5, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) released a notice of proposed rule-making to prohibit employers from imposing noncompete clauses on workers. Noncompete agreements block people from working for competing, potential employers or starting a competing business, after their employment ends.

Data show that non-compete clauses affect about one and five American workers, approximately 30 million people. However, non-compete clauses are predominantly in healthcare. By far, doctors employed by hospitals sign more non-compete agreements than any other profession. The theory behind eliminating non-compete agreements is that non-compete causes prevent employees from accepting better opportunities that offer higher pay or better working conditions.

Non-compete clauses are common and have been a contentious issue for decades. Some theorize that non-competes disrupt the physician-patient relationship and remove physicians who are already in short supply from the workforce.

I say, eliminating noncompete agreements may evolve healthcare.

As written, the federal rule will supersede state laws that currently govern noncompete and would apply retroactively, invalidating existing agreements.

This proposed rule comes with criticism and legal obstacles that will surely be tested. So for all of you who jumped up and down for the new proposed rule, expect litigation because as much as eliminating noncompete clause is awesome for physicians, hospitals will be adversely affected.

Many people have complained that the rule is over broad and vague. Challenges include whether the FTC has the authority to issue the non-compete rule under Section 5 of the FTC Act, the primary section the FTC cites as providing its rulemaking authority. Section 5 gives the FTC authority to police both “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” affecting commerce. Although Section 18 of the FTC Act contains an explicit grant of rulemaking authority to the FTC for unfair or deceptive acts or practices, the statutory authority for the FTC’s ability to make rules for unfair methods of competition is less clear. Even if the federal courts conclude that the FTC had the authority to make a rule under the FTC Act, there will be challenges to the legality of the non-compete rule itself. The FTC claims that the non-compete rule is based on a finding that non-compete clauses constitute an “unfair method of competition and therefore violate Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.”

To address these problems, the FTC’s proposed rule would generally prohibit employers from using noncompete clauses. Specifically, the FTC’s new rule would make it illegal for an employer to: enter into or attempt to enter into a noncompete with a worker; maintain a noncompete with a worker; or represent to a worker, under certain circumstances, that the worker is subject to a noncompete.

The proposed rule would apply to independent contractors and anyone who works for an employer, whether paid or unpaid. It would also require employers to rescind existing noncompetes and actively inform workers that they are no longer in effect.

The agency estimates that the new rule could boost wages by nearly $300 billion a year and expand career opportunities for about 30 million Americans.

The commission invites the public to submit comments. The FTC will review the comments and may make changes, in the final rule, based on the comments and on the FTC’s further analysis of the issue. Comments are due 60 days after the federal register publishes the proposed rule. You have until March 6 to comment.

Don’t Like the Reimbursement Rates? Maybe Litigation Is the Answer!

The Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates are a disgrace to health care providers nationwide. The low reimbursement rates are the reason why so many providers refuse to accept Medicare and/or Medicaid patients. Yet, with the pandemic, it is estimated that 100 million people will be on Medicaid by next year. Having a Medicaid card to wave around is useless if providers refuse to accept it.

Hospitals in Nebraska are not putting up with it – and they should not put up with it! Not only can hospitals NOT turn away any person; thus being forced to accept Medicaid and Medicare … and uninsured patients, but the overhead for a hospital is astronomical.

Saying more than half of the state’s hospitals are operating in the red, the Nebraska Hospital Association is calling for a 9.6% increase to Medicaid reimbursement rates this year, and 7.7% next year, after seeing a 2% bump each of the last two years.

The Hospital Association has never demanded this high of a rate increase. Inflation has significantly impacted the costs for Nebraska hospitals. The association says drug costs are up 35%, labor costs are up 20%, supplies are up 15-20%, and food and utilities are up 10%. Overall, it says inflation is up more than 20% per patient compared to the pre-pandemic level. The cost of labor has spiked, especially during the pandemic when emergency room nurses were in such short supply and such demand. Some hospitals were forced to pay nurses $10k a week! Traveling nurses became a “thing,” which allowed nurses to jump around hospitals for the best pay. In no way, I am not campaigning for lower salaries for nurses. Nurses are essential. However, the reimbursement rates are supposed to reflect society’s needs.

The Nebraska Hospital Association is completely in the right to sue for higher reimbursement rates. I commend them. I beseech more association groups to do the same. The dental, pediatric, primary care, home health, long term care facilities, behavioral health care, and other associations across the country should follow suit.

The legal argument is clear. Under §1902(a)(30)(A) of the Social Security Act, State Medicaid programs must ensure that provider payments are “consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care and are sufficient to enlist enough providers” to provide access to care and services comparable to those generally available. On November 2, 2015, CMS issued a regulation (42 CFR Part 447) under this authority requiring State Medicaid programs to demonstrate that their Medicaid fee-for-service (FFS) non-waiver payment rates ensure sufficient access to care. See blog.

Hospitals lose money on Medicare and Medicaid patients. Considering the legal requirement of reimbursement rates to be consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care, I am shocked that MORE associations haven’t litigated this issue. Perhaps the providers within these associations, who pay high yearly memberships, should demand that associations fund this type of litigation.

I have no doubt that the cost of litigation dissuades most associations from making the expensive decision to litigate for better rates. But isn’t litigating for higher reimbursement rates the job of the associations? The cost would be prohibitive for single provider facilities. And, aren’t we always more strong when we band together?

2023 Changes to the Physician Fee Schedule … Starting Now!

Happy 2023 to all my bloggies out there!! Over the New Year’s celebration, thousands gathered in a wet NYC to watch the ball drop. There was a shooting in Mobile, AL, killing one person and injuring 9. About 40 people died in Buffalo over the holidays due to severe cold weather. And a man named Jay Withey rescued 24 people in Buffalo during the blizzard. My friend got COVID and gave it to her mom. I took my 98-year-old grandma out for sushi and played pickleball with my mom and daughter.

Why the word vomit?

Well, it’s a New Year and a new start. I am choosing to have a positive attitude for 2023. Yes, you get audited. Yes, the government blows. Sometimes you do not get rainbows and applesauce every day. But the hard times give you strength. It’s the challenging times that teach you to appreciate the good. I have decided to think about life as school. You may not want to go, but it’s required. Attendance is required.

On the syllabus for today, should you choose to participate, is the 2023 Physicians Fee Schedule (“PFS”). On November 01, 2022, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) issued a final rule that includes updates and policy changes for Medicare payments under the PFS, and other Medicare Part B issues, effective on or after January 1, 2023. Well, guess what, folks? It is January 2, 2023.

For most services furnished in a physician’s office, Medicare makes payment to physicians and other professionals at a single rate based on the full range of resources involved in furnishing the service. In contrast, PFS rates paid to physicians and other billing practitioners in facility settings, such as a hospital outpatient department (“HOPD”) or an ambulatory surgical center (“ASC”), reflect only the portion of the resources typically incurred by the practitioner in the course of furnishing the service.

Conversion factor

There was a 3% supplemental increase to PFS payments in 2022. That increase expires in 2023. The final 2023 PFS conversion factor is $33.06, a decrease of $1.55 to 2022 PFS conversion factor of $34.61.

What is a conversion factor (“CF”)? It is a convoluted equation that sets Medicare rates that differs depending on whether the health care service is rendered within a facility or out. CF is set by statute.

Evaluation and Management (“E/M”) Visits

For 2023, there are 25 codes that are going away. Here are the codes that are being deleted.

  • Hospital observation services codes 99217—99220, 99224–99226
  • Consultation codes 99241, 99251
  • Nursing facility service 99318
  • Domiciliary, rest home (eg, boarding home), or custodial care services, 99324—99328, 99334-99337, 99339, 99340
  • Home or resident services code 99343
  • Prolonged services codes 99354—99357

There is also a new Section entitled “initial and subsequent services,” which applies to hospital inpatient, observation care and nursing facility codes. It applies to both new and established patient visits. The AMA says,

“For the purpose of distinguishing between initial or subsequent visits, professional services are those face-to-face services rendered by physicians and other qualified health care professionals who may report evaluation and management services. An initial service is when the patient has not received any professional services from the physician or other qualified health care professional or another physician or other qualified health care professional of the exact same specialty and subspecialty who belongs to the same group practice, during the inpatient, observation, or nursing facility admission and stay.”

Admission and Discharge on the Same Day

Lastly, at least for this blog, codes 99234-99236, which are used for hospital inpatient or observation care and include the admission and discharge on the same day. The patient must be in the facility for greater than 8 hours. See the below table for reference:

These are just a few of the PFS 2023 changes. Stay tuned for new Medicare and Medicaid news on this blog by me, Knicole Emanuel.

Family Practice Doctors: Is It CPT 1995 or 1997 Guidance?

Right now, CMS allows physicians to pick to follow the 1995 or 1997 guidelines for determining whether an evaluation and management (“e/m”) visit qualifies for a 99214 versus a 99213. The biggest difference between the two policies is that the 1995 guideline allows you to check by systems, rather than individual organs. Starting January 1, 2023, there are a lot of revisions, including a 2021 guidance that will be used. But, for dates of service before 2021, physicians can pick between 1995 and 1997 guidance.

Why is this an issue?

If you are a family practitioner and get audited by Medicare, Medicaid, or private pay, you better be sure that your auditor audits with the right policy.

According to CPT, 99214 is indicated for an “office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: a detailed history, a detailed examination and medical decision making of moderate complexity.”

Think 99214 in any of the following situations:

  • If the patient has a new complaint with a potential for significant morbidity if untreated or misdiagnosed,
  • If the patient has three or more old problems,
  • If the patient has a new problem that requires a prescription,
  • If the patient has three stable problems that require medication refills, or one stable problem and one inadequately controlled problem that requires medication refills or adjustments.

The above is simplified and shorthand, so read the 1995 and 1997 guidance carefully.

An insurance company audited a client of mine and clearly used the 1997 guidance. On the audit report, the 1997 guidance was checked as being used. In fact, according to the audit report, the auditors used BOTH the 1997 and 1995 guidance, which, logically, would make a harder, more stringent standard for a 99214 than using one policy.

Now the insurance company claims my client owes money. However, if the insurance company merely applied the 1995 guidance only, then, we believe, that he wouldn’t owe a dime. Now he has to hire me, defend himself to the insurance company, and possibly litigate if the insurance company stands its ground.

Sadly, the above story is not an anomaly. I see auditors misapply policies by using the wrong years all the time, almost daily. Always appeal. Never roll over.

Sometimes it is a smart decision to hire an independent expert to verify that the physician is right, and the auditors are wrong. If the audit is extrapolated, then it is wise to hire an expert statistician. See blog. And blog. The extrapolation rules were recently revised…well, in the last two or three years, so be sure you know the rules, as well. See blog.

Medicare Auditors Fail to Follow the Jimmo Settlement

Auditors are not lawyers. Some auditors do not even possess the clinical background of the services they are auditing. In this blog, I am concentrating on the lack of legal licenses. Because the standards to which auditors need to hold providers to are not only found in the Medicare Provider Manuals, regulations, NCDs and LCDs. Oh, no… To add even more spice to the spice cabinet, common law court cases also create and amend Medicare and Medicaid policies.

For example, the Jimmo v. Selebius settlement agreement dictates the standards for skilled nursing and skilled therapy in skilled nursing facilities, home health, and outpatient therapy settings and importantly holds that coverage does not turn on the presence or absence of a beneficiary’s potential for improvement.

The Jimmo settlement dictates that:

“Specifically, in accordance with the settlement agreement, the manual revisions clarify that coverage of skilled nursing and skilled therapy services in the skilled nursing facility (SNF), home health (HH), and outpatient therapy (OPT) settings “…does not turn on the presence or absence of a beneficiary’s potential for improvement, but rather on the beneficiary’s need for skilled care.” Skilled care may be necessary to improve a patient’s current condition, to maintain the patient’s current condition, or to prevent or slow further deterioration of the patient’s condition.”

This Jimmo standard – not requiring a potential for improvement – is essential for diseases that are lifelong and debilitating, like Multiple Sclerosis (“MS”). For beneficiaries suffering from MS, skilled therapy is essential to prevent regression.

I have reviewed numerous audits by UPICs, in particular, which have failed to follow the Jimmo settlement standard and denied 100% of my provider-client’s claims. 100%. All for failure to demonstrate potential for improvement for MS patients. It’s ludicrous until you stop and remember that auditors are not lawyers. This Jimmo standard is found in a settlement agreement from January 2013. While we will win on appeal, it costs providers money valuable money when auditors apply the wrong standards.

The amounts in controversy are generally high due to extrapolations, which is when the UPIC samples a low number of claims, determines an error rate and extrapolates that error rate across the universe. When the error rate is falsely 100%, the extrapolation tends to be high.

While an expectation of improvement could be a reasonable criterion to consider when evaluating, for example, a claim in which the goal of treatment is restoring a prior capability, Medicare policy has long recognized that there may also be specific instances where no improvement is expected but skilled care is, nevertheless, required in order to prevent or slow deterioration and maintain a beneficiary at the maximum practicable level of function. For example, in the regulations at 42 CFR 409.32(c), the level of care criteria for SNF coverage specify that the “. . . restoration potential of a patient is not the deciding factor in determining whether skilled services are needed. Even if full recovery or medical improvement is not possible, a patient may need skilled services to prevent further deterioration or preserve current capabilities.” The auditors should understand this and be trained on the proper standards. The Medicare statute and regulations have never supported the imposition of an “Improvement Standard” rule-of-thumb in determining whether skilled care is required to prevent or slow deterioration in a patient’s condition.

When you are audited by an auditor whether it be a RAC, MAC or UPIC, make sure the auditors are applying the correct standards. Remember, the auditors aren’t attorneys or doctors.

NC Medicaid Reform … Part 5,439-ish

I hope everyone had a Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkah! As 2023 approaches, NC Medicaid is being overhauled…again! Medicaid reform is never smooth, despite the State. NC is no different. When NC Medicaid reformed in 2013, I brought a class action lawsuit against Computer Science Corporation, which created NCTracks, and DHHS, NC’s “single state entity” charged with managing Medicaid. See blog.

The new start date for NC Medicaid Tailored Plans is April 1, 2023. Tailored Plans, originally scheduled to launch Dec. 1, 2022, will provide the same services as Standard Plans in Medicaid Managed Care and will also provide additional specialized services for individuals with significant behavioral health conditions, Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities and traumatic brain injury.

While the start of Tailored Plans will be delayed, specific new services did go live Dec. 1, 2022.

The following organizations will serve as regional Behavioral Health I/DD Tailored Plans beginning April 1, 2023:

Aetna is a managed-care provider, one of eight entities who submitted proposals for Medicaid managed-care services. The Committee issued its recommendations on January 24, 2019, which identified four statewide contracts for Medicaid managed care services to be awarded. On February 4, 2019, DHHS awarded contracts to WellCare of North Carolina, Inc. (“Wellcare”), Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina (“BCBS”), AmeriHealth Caritas of North Carolina (“AmeriHealth”), and UnitedHealthcare of North Carolina, Inc. (“United Healthcare”). DHHS also awarded a regional contract to Carolina Complete Health, Inc.

See below:

However, two private insurance failed to get awarded NC contracts.

Aetna, along with the two other entities who were not awarded contracts, protested DHHS’ contract by filing contested case petitions in the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”). Aetna filed its contested case petition and motion for preliminary injunction on April 16, 2019. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Aetna’s motion for preliminary injunction on June 26, 2019. The ALJ consolidated all three petitions on July 26, 2019. It rose to the Court of Appeals, where it was thrown out on a technicality; i.e., failure to timely serve Defendants. Aetna Better Health of N. Carolina, Inc. v. N. Carolina Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 2021-NCCOA-486, ¶ 4, 279 N.C. App. 261, 263, 866 S.E.2d 265, 267.

The Court stated, “Here, Aetna failed to timely serve DHHS or any other party within the “10 days after the petition is filed” as is mandated by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-46. Prior to serving DHHS, Aetna amended its Petition on 12 October 2020 and served its amended Petition the same day. Aetna argues “the relation-back provision of Rule 15(c) allows the service of an amended pleading where the original pleading was not properly served.” What a silly and mundane reason to have their Complaint dismissed due to the oversight of an attorney or paralegal…and a great law firm at that. Just goes to show you that technical, legal mistakes are easily done. This career in law in the Medicare/Medicaid realm is not simple.

The upcoming transformation in Medicaid will probably not be smooth; it never is. But we shall see if Medicaid reform 2023 works better than 2013 reform. We can hope!

Celebrating Christmas With an Audit, I mean, a Root Canal

Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah! I wanted to thank all my readers for TEN YEARS of this blog! Can you believe it has been 10 years? I started this blog in 2012, and the year is about to turn to 2023!! I going into my 11th year of blogging about Medicare and Medicaid regulatory compliance litigation. Whew! I tell you what: being a full-time attorney, a part-time blogger, mom, and wife is tiring! Try it. You’ll see. Try it for 10 years!

I am so proud to have created a career out of defending health care providers across the country, from HI to AL to NY to FL and everywhere in between.

My birthday is January 7th, right after Christmas and New Year’s Day. I am one year closer to getting Medicare (I cannot wait), but since I rely on private pay health insurance, I am giving myself a special Christmas present to end the year and “wind-down” the health spending plan. I will be undergoing a root canal tomorrow, the 21st of December.

Root canals are not fun. In fact, they remind me of undergoing a Medicare and/or Medicaid audit. No one wants them done, but you got to do it.

I suggest conducting self audits regularly, especially now with the Public Health Emergency (PHE) ending at some point.

Self Audits

The first step for a medical practice or organization is to select the timeframe that will be reviewed during the audit. The timeframe should be large enough to produce meaningful results. For example, in its OIG Data Brief, the OIG looked at a year’s worth of data, from March 1, 2020, through February 28, 2021. There are some key dates and regulations that practices or organizations need to consider when selecting the timeframe. These include:

  1. January 31, 2020: HHS announced the COVID-19 PHE, which was determined to have existed since January 27, 2020.
  2. March 27, 2020: The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law.
  3. March 31, 2020: CMS’ “Policy and Regulatory Revisions in Response to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency” became effective.

So many changes to Medicare and Medicaid rules and regulations were implemented during COVID. Some changes will continue after PHE ends and some will not.

Now more so than ever, putting your own facility through a thorough self-audit is imperative. You need to understand the policy changes pertinent to your health care service type and dates the changes occurred and when applicable. Before the “REAL” auditors come knocking on your facility’s door, prepare yourself. Consider hiring an attorney or medical compliance expert to conduct the self audit.

The next step in performing a self-audit is for the practice or organization to select a category of service to review. If the practice or organization provides multiple types of services, the focus should be on one category, such as office visits, for review. When reviewing office visit services, the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes applicable to telehealth visits include, but are not limited to, Office or Other Outpatient Services (99201-99205 [new patient] and 99211-99215 [established patient]) and Non-Face-to-Face Telephone Services (99441-99443 [practitioners who may report E/M services] and 98966-98968 [practitioners who cannot bill independently]). Practitioners who cannot bill independently are qualified non-physician health care professionals, such as social workers, clinical psychologists, and certain therapists. Please note, CPT code 99201 was deleted effective January 1, 2021.

Looking forward to 2023 after my root canal…Cheers!