Category Archives: Extrapolations
The Chevron Deference Rule: Pay Attention, Health Care Providers! CMS May Lose Control!
It has been nearly 40 years since the Supreme Court indicated in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court heard arguments abolishing the Chevron deference rule. It that good or bad? Well, let’s hash it out. Regardless your opinion, the Supreme Court will decide the Chevron deference rule’s legality this summer. And, listening to the oral arguments earlier this year, it seems that a majority of the justices seemed ready to jettison the doctrine or at the very least significantly limit it.
The Chevron deference rule is a critical aspect of administrative law that often remains in the shadows of legal discourse but holds immense implications for the functioning of our government: the Chevron deference rule. This rule, born out of a Supreme Court case in 1984, has been a cornerstone of administrative law, dictating how courts should defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes. But as with any legal doctrine, it invites debate, scrutiny, and calls for reform.
In simple terms, the Chevron deference rule mandates that if a statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to the reasonable interpretation of that statute made by the agency tasked with implementing it, unless that interpretation is unreasonable. In essence, it grants federal agencies significant leeway in interpreting laws passed by Congress. This deference has profound effects on the balance of power between the branches of government. For example: CMS is an agency that is allowed deference in its rules that are not laws. See the importance? Without the Chevron deference rule, ALJs would not be bound by CMS’ rules that are not laws. For example, CMS is of the mindsight that extrapolation is legal, allowed, and upheld. The ALJs are bound to agree. No Chevron deference rule? The ALJs can make up their own minds.
The rationale behind Chevron deference is to recognize the expertise of administrative agencies in their respective fields. These agencies possess specialized knowledge and experience that enable them to navigate complex regulatory landscapes. By allowing them deference in interpreting ambiguous statutes, the rule seeks to promote consistency, efficiency, and expertise in policymaking and implementation.
However, as with any legal doctrine, the Chevron deference rule is not without its critics. Some argue that it unduly concentrates power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, diminishing the role of the judiciary in interpreting the law. Moreover, it raises concerns about accountability and democratic legitimacy, as it can shield agency actions from robust judicial review.
Furthermore, the Chevron deference rule has become a subject of political contention, particularly in recent years. Critics argue that it enables regulatory overreach by agencies, allowing them to enact policies that may exceed the scope of their statutory authority. This concern has led to calls for judicial restraint and a reevaluation of the deference granted to administrative agencies.
So, should the Chevron deference rule stay in place? This question elicits a spectrum of opinions and requires careful consideration. On one hand, the rule promotes efficiency and expertise in governance, recognizing the specialized knowledge of administrative agencies. On the other hand, it raises concerns about accountability, democratic legitimacy, and the balance of power between the branches of government.
In navigating this complex terrain, we must strike a balance that upholds the principles of good governance, accountability, and the rule of law. Perhaps the solution lies not in abolishing the Chevron deference rule altogether but in refining it to address its shortcomings. This could involve clarifying the conditions under which deference is appropriate, ensuring robust judicial oversight, and promoting transparency and accountability in administrative decision-making.
The Chevron deference rule stands as a pivotal element of administrative law, shaping the relationship between the branches of government and influencing the course of public policy. Its effects are profound and far-reaching, touching upon fundamental principles of governance and democracy. As we navigate the complexities of modern governance, let us engage in thoughtful dialogue and debate to ensure that our legal framework reflects the values of accountability, transparency, and the rule of law.
Federal Court Vacates Two, Medicare ALJ Decisions with Extrapolations
Today is April Fool’s Day, but the story I am going to tell you today is no prank. On 03/25/2024, the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida rendered its Decision on MedEnvios Healthcare, Inc. v. Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as Secretary USDHHS. 2024 WL 1252264. The federal Court vacated two, ALJ Decisions upholding two, separate, extrapolated audits. This example highlights the importance of appealing ALJ Decisions to federal court, which will uphold the law versus CMS Rules.
MedEnvios is a durable medical equipment provider (DME). It was the target of two Medicare audits and both audits were extrapolated. MedEnvios’ argument is two-fold: (1) that its due process rights were violated because HHS failed to comply with the procedures set forth in statute, regulation, and “sub-regulatory guidance” that mandate “certain due process minimum protections be provided to health care suppliers in the statistical sampling and extrapolation process.” (Pl.’s Resp. at 9.) Specifically, MedEnvios objects to the Defendant’s exclusion of claims for which the Department never made a payment to MedEnvios from the sampling frame. Obviously if the zero-claims are not removed the number will be inflated or maybe even surpass what was actually paid to the provider during the specific timeframe. And (2) MedEnvios argues that the Defendant failed to provide sufficient documentation to support overpayments recalculated following partially favorable appellate decisions, allegedly depriving MedEnvios of notice. Following partially favorable decisions on appeal, the relevant contractor must “effectuate” the decision by recalculating the extrapolated overpayment amount to be recouped from the supplier based upon the revised decisions on individual sampled Medicare claims. The contractor then sends the supplier a revised demand letter reflecting the new overpayment amount. Without the underlying documentation showing how the contractor arrived at the new amount, MedEnvios claims that it lacked “the information necessary to mount a meaningful challenge to those recalculations.”
I bet that many readers today have felt the pain of having to defend themselves from an audit and knew the auditor was withholding data or documents, yet felt powerless. This Decision says it is not ok to not give all the information. The Court held that MedEnvios was and is prejudiced by the unavailability of the recalculation worksheets because MedEnvios did not receive three of the four relevant recalculation worksheets within enough time to satisfy its procedural due process rights by recreating the recalculations to verify the revised extrapolated amounts.
The Court held that the prejudice to MedEnvios in having to mount appeals without reviewing the contractors’ effectuation work easily outweighs any administrative difficulty of timely providing the worksheets. Provision of this information should be a negligible burden on the Department and its contractors. The MPIM already instructs that “[d]ocumentation shall be kept in sufficient detail so that the sampling frame can be re-created should the methodology be challenged. The contractor shall keep an electronic copy of the sampling frame.” MPIM § 8.4.4.4.1. Thus, contractors are already required to maintain this information, and the added burden of providing the information on request would be minimal. The Court therefore concludes that the Department has run afoul of MedEnvios’s procedural due process rights by failing to provide the documentation supporting the recalculated overpayment amounts.
So, what is the remedy for the Department’s failure to timely provide documents showing how the revised overpayment demands were calculated?
This Court vacated both ALJ Decisions upholding the two extrapolated amounts. This is a perfect example of why providers MUST appeal ALJ Decisions to federal court. The difference in the law and CMS’ Rules is vast. Not enough providers continue their appeal to federal court because of money. Litigation is expensive. However, in this case, attorneys’ fees were, most likely, much less than what CMS was alleging MedEnvios owed.
Have a great April Fool’s Day. Play a prank on a colleague. At the office, put tape under a coworker’s computer mouse, and watch them try to figure out why it’s not working!
Two Success Stories: (1) Getting a Provider’s Suspension of Medicaid Reimbursements Lifted; and (2) NCSU Wins the ACC!
A quick shout out to NC State University, my undergraduate alma mater, who won the ACC Tournament, beating out #1 ranked UNC!!!
I love legal success stories too. Because when my team wins, health care providers win.
Well, my firm and I had a success that I must share amongst my blog readers. I gave this blog a live read on RACMonitor this morning on Monitor Monday, so if you want to hear me read it, go to wherever you listen to podcasts and search for RACMonitor. I present on RACMonitor every Monday morning and have done so for the last 10 years!
One of my clients, a substance abuse facility, which provides SAIOP and SACOT services to the underserved in Idaho, is under civil and/or criminal investigation. The investigation began over two years ago, which is a material fact in this case. The substance abuse facility was being accused of health care fraud because it gave out gift cards and allegedly billed for services not rendered.
As for billing for services not rendered, we vehemently disagree, and the government has not provided any proof of such for the last 2 years. As for the gift cards, many of you may not know that in March 2022 the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (OIG) published an Advisory Opinion in support of such activity. The OIG had published similar language in the past as well.
OIG stated that patient incentives (e.g. gift cards or cash equivalents) given as part of patients’ treatment plans are favorable and allowable. Though the OIG reiterated its concern that cash and cash equivalents given to patients can present substantial fraud and abuse risks, the OIG concluded that the arrangement presented a minimal level of risk.
For over two years, this company and its CEO have known that it is under civil and/or criminal investigation. The facility continues to provide medically necessary service throughout the investigation. Then, unexpectedly, on 12/22/2023, right before Christmas, facility receives a notice that the Department of Health Services, Division of Health Benefits has suspended the company’s Medicaid reimbursements. The company relies 100% on Medicaid.
The State does have the authority to suspend reimbursements. 42 CFR 455.23 states:
“(1) The State Medicaid agency must suspend all Medicaid payments to a provider after the agency determines there is a credible allegation of fraud for which an investigation is pending under the Medicaid program against an individual or entity unless the agency has good cause to not suspend payments or to suspend payment only in part.”
The owner contacted me and explained that the company could not last 1 month without receiving Medicaid reimbursements for services rendered. It was catastrophic. His two facilities constitute over 24% of Idaho’s substance abuse facilities in the State. There would be a serious access to care issue, especially in southern Idaho.
I reviewed the Notice of Suspension, and appeal rights appeared there. I say it like I am astonished because I am astonished.
I have never seen appeal rights be given for “credible allegations fraud” under 42 CFR 455.23.
We appealed.
We won!
I argued threefold: (1) there is no credible allegation of fraud because the allegations that services were billed but not rendered is wrong and presenting gift cards is not illegal when dealing with substance abuse; (2) that nothing has changed since the investigation over two years ago, He has been rendering services during his investigation. Why now arbitrarily invoke a penalty on the facility when the government has been investigating for over two years. Why two years later suspend when seemingly nothing has changed. And (3) that the suspension was a violation of his due process.
Specifically, the court held that the State has had two years to investigate any allegations but for two years no action was taken, and no findings provided. Now, the State has decided to arbitrarily and capriciously suspend Medicaid payments to the provider. The suspension of Medicaid payments should be removed because the suspension is improper for a failure of there being any credible allegation of fraud. Additionally, the provider did not receive adequate notice and a chance for a hearing before the suspension action was taken. The suspension of payment is causing irreparable harm that will lead to the provider having to close their business of providing mental health and substance abuse services.
And just like that the suspension was lifted and the provider remains in business. I call that a win! And congratulations to NCSU Wolfpack! We were seeded #10, but ended up #1 of the ACC. We are seeded #11 in the Southern Division of the NCAA. And, yes, I chose NCSU to win the NCAA in my office pool. Go Pack! Can you pick me out from the below picture from 1994?
Or the one above from 1996?
In Medicare Provider Audits, the Best Defense Is a Good Offense
Today I want to discuss upcoming 2024 audits. It has been almost four years since the world shut down due to COVID. Life has been divided into “before COVID” and “after COVID.” Before COVID, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) aggressively pursued audits against durable medical equipment suppliers, home health, hospice, behavioral health, long term care facilities and hospitals. When COVID hit, most audits were paused. But not for long. As you know, CMS resumed its audit activities as early as August 2020. However, in the world of COVID, there were exceptions to every rule, many of which were state specific. Even exceptions had exceptions. It is imperative that you maintain for your type of health care service every policy, exceptions, bulletins, advisory opinions from 2020 through the present. If you have not assigned this task to someone in your facility, do it today.
We have seen an uptick in increased audit activity with pneumonic compression devices (PCDs). PCDs were not listed in the top error rates for the 2021 Improper Payment Report, but in the 2023 report, PCD’s have the second highest error rate behind oral cancer drugs at 78.9%. With an error rate that high, PCD’s will be a focal point of audits. Other items identified in the 2023 improper payment report for having high error rates include urological supplies, parenteral and enteral nutrition, manual wheelchairs, and various orthoses. These items will all see increased audit activity in the upcoming year. Basically, as long as the error rates remain high, audit activity will continue.
Surgical dressings have also been consistently audited. Surgical dressings are relatively a complex product to bill. DME suppliers of surgical dressings and physicians who order surgical dressings are seeing an uptick in denials. The 2021 Medicare fee for service supplemental improper payment report covering claims from July 1st, 2019, through June 30th 2020, listed surgical dressings as having the highest improper payment rate at 69.7%, followed closely by therapeutic shoes with an error rate of 67.9%. Since then, there has not been much improvement. The 2023 Improper Payment Report covering claims submitted between July 1st, 2021, and June 30th, 2022, shows the improper payment rate for surgical dressings is still at 62.1%. Therapeutic shoes did show some improvement with an improper payment rate of 51.4%, but this is still significant. For the 2023 reporting period, insufficient documentation accounted for 82.4% of improper payments for surgical dressings. Other types of errors for surgical dressings were no documentation at 1.9%, medical necessity at 1.7%, incorrect coding at 1.9% and other at 12.2%.
Targeted Probe and Educate (TPE) were some of the first audits resumed by CMS. Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) audits are also increasing. I consider RACs to be the bounty-hunters of Medicare and Medicaid. Audits of skilled nursing providers are going to see a hike this year, with a growing number of federal and state recovery audits adding to specialized compliance reviews announced last year. In 2023, regulators instituted audits of facilities using potentially inappropriate diagnosis of schizophrenia as well as a new, 5-claim audit of every US nursing home that was specifically meant to root out improper payments. CMS came under additional pressure this past summer. That’s when the Government Accountability Office said the agency needs to do a better job of recouping overpayments. What do we think CMS will do in light of the GAO instructing the agency to do a better job recouping? The answer is: audit more. But, as they say in football, the defense is a good offense. The same is true in Medicare and Medicaid provider appeals. Be prepared.
Physician Acquitted Due to Ambiguous and Subjective E/M CPT Codes!
Happy 2024! Today I want to discuss subjectivity and e/m codes. How many times have we heard horror stories surrounding the billings of 99204 versus 99205? We all know that the definitions of e/m codes were revised in 2021. “CPT Code 99204: New patient visits with moderate medical decision making must involve at least 45 minutes. CPT Code 99205: High-level medical decision making for new patients must equal or exceed 60 minutes of total time.” The new definitions allow physicians to rely on time spent. However, does the 45 minutes or 60 minutes equal face-to-face time? The definition does not specify face-to-face time, and I do not believe that the time requirements necessitate only face-to-face time. There is subjectivity in assessing whether a moderate or high-level of decision making has occurred. One person’s determination that a 99205 occurred could be the next person’s 99204. Despite the obvious subjectivity, courts have convicted physicians of health care fraud for billing 99205s instead of 99204 or 99203.
Well, I bring tidings of great joy. The criminal conviction of a Maryland physician for his role in a $15 million Medicare fraud scheme was vacated by a federal judge over the holidays last year…as in 1 month ago.
A federal jury in Maryland convicted Ron Elfenbein, M.D., age 49, of Arnold, Maryland, for five counts of healthcare fraud for submitting over $15 million in false and fraudulent claims to Medicare and other insurers for patients who received COVID-19 tests at sites operated by the defendant in August of 2023. Dr. Elfenbein was the first doctor convicted at trial by the Justice Department for health care fraud in billing for office visits in connection with patients seeking COVID-19 tests, which makes his acquittal even more important for other providers across the country. Literally, this is a ground-breaking case and all providers should put this powerful case in their defense toolkit because it’s a hammer of a case.
Dr. Elfenbein is on the right.
The conviction of Dr. Elfenbein was based upon his billing of level 4 evaluation and management claims for patients receiving COVID-19 tests, which the Justice Department determined was improper use of the billing codes.
According to the evidence presented at his three-week trial, Dr. Elfenbein owned and operated Drs ERgent Care, LLC, d/b/a First Call Medical Center and Chesapeake ERgent Care. Drs ERgent care operated drive-through COVID-19 testing sites in Anne Arundel and Prince George’s Counties. Dr. Elfenbein instructed his employees that, in addition to billing for the COVID-19 test, the employees were to bill for e/m visits. In reality, these visits were not provided to patients as represented, according to the DOJ. Rather, Elfenbein instructed his employees that the patients were “there for one reason only – to be tested,” that it was “simple and straightforward,” and that the providers were “not there to solve complex medical issues.” Many of these patients were asymptomatic, were getting tested for COVID-19 for their employment requirements, or who were getting tested for COVID-19 so that they could travel. Elfenbein submitted or caused the submission of claims totaling more than $15 million to Medicare and other insurers for these high-level office visits.
Elfenbein faced a maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison for each of the five counts of healthcare fraud for which he was convicted.
Dr. Elfenbein’s motion for acquittal was granted Dec. 21 by the same federal judge who oversaw his initial trial. The judge found that because E/M CPT codes, the type of medical billing codes used by Dr. Elfenbein, are imprecise and designed to allow “physicians flexibility to exercise their best judgment given the multitude of factors that go into medical decision-making,” his use of the higher-cost level 4 codes did apply to the patient encounters based on the relevant guidelines.
In a detailed, 90-page ruling, James K. Bredar, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for Maryland, said the government did not meet the bar to convict Dr. Ron Elfenbein and ruled that “imprecision does not necessarily integrate well with the clear notice and due process guarantees of our criminal law” and “where the relevant CPT codes and related definitions are ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations, problems clearly arise.” I agree. Ambiguous or subjective rules should not be the basis for criminal penalties. Civil, possibly. But not criminal.
Knicole Emanuel Presents Webinar January 25, 2024!
A Guide to the RAT-STATS Statistical Software in Medicare and Medicaid
Hosted by: Lorman
Click here to register for the webinar on January 25, 2024, from 1:00pm-2:30pm!
Join Nelson Mullins Raleigh partner Knicole Emanuel for a webinar hosted by Lorman on Jan. 25., 2024. Emanuel will be a speaker at the session entitled “A Guide to the RAT-STATS Statistical Software,” where attendees will learn about key considerations in interpreting sample size results for how to interpret and critically assess key factors influencing the extrapolation process, how to apply theoretical knowledge through practical exercises using RAT-STATS, how to develop a critical mindset for evaluating the reliability and replicability of results; and informed decision-making.
This webinar is available to attend live with available credits for ACHE, HFMA, AHIMA, and NASBA. There will also be an OnDemand Course for this presentation available.
Post-COVID Medicare and Medicaid Provider Audits Are Here!
My esteemed colleagues with curious minds, today we embark on a journey into the complex world of Medicare and Medicaid provider audits, specifically orchestrated by the enigmatic entities known as Recovery Audit Contractors, or RACs. The dates of service (DOS) during COVID are specifically being targeted, and I’ve seen an uptick. With the plethora of exceptions, you need a specialized attorney.
Picture this: You’re a healthcare provider, diligently navigating the seas of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement. All of a sudden, a tempest approaches – the Recovery Audit Contractors or RACs. These are the bounty hunters of the healthcare world, commissioned to recoup improper payments and ensure the ship of government healthcare funding stays afloat. And paid by contingency creating a financial incentive that some may call bias. The RACs even have the authority to extrapolate, making alleged overpayments to skyrocket, increasing its profit.
Now, you might wonder, “How do these RACs operate, and what laws govern their actions?” Well, let me shed some light on that. The Medicare RAC program was born out of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, a legislative “masterpiece” that empowered RACs to review Medicare and Medicaid payments and, when necessary, claw back funds. It’s like having financial watchdogs on the prowl, ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.
A hospital client of mine provided outpatient services and billed Medicare for reimbursement during COVID. A RAC, armed with their legal authority, started scrutinizing these claims. Suddenly, the RAC believes that the hospital has been billing for services that don’t meet the necessary criteria. I love how RAC auditors without medical licenses purport to determine medical necessity for physicians. I hope you hear the sarcasm. The RAC alleged “upcoding” – alleging services were billed at a higher complexity than they actually were. The RACs, acting within the confines of the law, swoop in to recover those overpayments, ensuring the taxpayer’s purse strings are untangled.
We all know RACs are not infallible. Hopefully, you know this if you are a longtime reader. RACs mistakenly identify an overpayment or misinterpret complex healthcare regulations. That’s where the appeal process becomes crucial. The Medicare appeals process, defined under the Social Security Act, provides a right for providers to challenge RAC decisions. It’s a legal battleground where the provider can present evidence, argue their case, and seek justice against the RAC’s findings.
Now, let’s consider the Medicaid realm. The Medicaid RAC program, established by the Affordable Care Act in 2010, mirrors its Medicare counterpart. These RACs operate at the state level, conducting audits to identify and recover improper Medicaid payments. It’s like a dual-front war on wasteful spending, both federally and within individual states. Again, DOS during COVID are at issue.
For a concrete example, let’s imagine a nursing home submitting claims to Medicaid for resident services. The state-level Medicaid RAC, acting under the Affordable Care Act’s provisions, reviews these claims. If they discover discrepancies – perhaps services billed without proper documentation or purportedly unsupported by medical necessity – the RAC, wielding its legal mandate, initiates the recovery process.
The RACs, armed with the legislative might of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act and the Affordable Care Act, play a crucial role in safeguarding the integrity of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements. While their actions may feel like storms to providers, it’s essential to recognize the checks and balances in place, including the appeals process, to ensure fairness and accuracy in the audit battlefield. As we navigate the seas of healthcare reimbursement, may our compass be true, our documentation impeccable, and our understanding of the law unwavering.
RAC Audits Are BOO-Very Scary, and, Sometimes, Are DEAD wrong!
For Monitor Monday, today, October 30, 2023, I dressed up as a RAC auditor. BOO!!! I get a spooky 13.5% commission for overzealous auditing tactics. RAC auditors come in every shape and size, color or gender.
In my experience, RACs are garishly incorrect in their assessments. I will reveal three, real life examples where these audit contractors accused healthcare providers of owing money but were found to be dead wrong:
Example 1 – Medical Necessity quibbles:
In a haunting case involving a hospital, the RAC alleged that certain cardiac procedures were billed inappropriately, citing concerns about the medical necessity of these services. They claimed the hospital should refund a repugnant amount for these procedures. However, upon closer examination and an appeal process, it was revealed that the services were indeed medically necessary and aligned with the standard protocols. The ghastly RAC’s accusation was disproven, and the hospital was not required to return any funds. Spine-tingling!
Example 2 – Improper Coding of Diagnosis:
A healthcare provider, particularly a large physician group, was accused by the RAC of using suspicious, improper diagnostic codes, leading to overbilling for certain services provided to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. After a thorough internal audit, it was determined that the codes used were accurate and supported by the patient’s medical records. The RAC’s allegations were unfounded, and no repayment was required. Suspicious. A haunting reminder to spook audits.
Example 3 – Alleged Duplicate Billing:
In a murderous case involving a nursing facility, the RAC identified what they believed were instances of duplicate billing for certain procedures and services. Upon further review, it was revealed that the billing discrepancies were due to the RAC’s misunderstanding of the facility’s billing processes. Mysterious. The facility provided evidence showcasing that the billed services were distinct and not duplicates. Consequently, the RAC’s claim was refuted, and no repayment was deemed necessary. Suspicious.
These examples underscore the critical need for providers to have robust internal compliance measures in place. While RACs serve a vital purpose in identifying billing errors, they are not infallible. Providers need to be equipped to challenge these audit findings, ensuring they are based on accurate and comprehensive information.
It’s crucial for healthcare providers to engage in a proactive approach by conducting their internal audits, maintaining accurate documentation, and being prepared to challenge RAC determinations when necessary. These efforts not only protect providers from unwarranted financial obligations but also ensure that Medicare and Medicaid funds are appropriately allocated.
In conclusion, the relationship between RACs, healthcare providers, and government healthcare programs is complex. The examples provided demonstrate that while RACs play a critical role in safeguarding the integrity of Medicare and Medicaid, their findings are not always accurate. Providers must be diligent in ensuring their billing practices align with regulations and be prepared to contest any erroneous audit findings to maintain fiscal stability and fair reimbursement for services rendered.
Happy Halloween!!!!
RAC Audits: If It Walks Like a Duck and Quacks Like a Duck, It Is a Duck!
Today, I am going to talk about RAC audits. I know what you are thinking…don’t you always talk about RACs? Of course, you are going to talk about RAC audits. No. Today, I’m taking this blog in a different direction.
I want to talk about secret, hidden RAC audits. As you are aware, the federal regulations limit RACs from going back more than 3 years to audit claims. Juxtapose the UPICs, TPEs, SMRCs, MACs, OIG, and even State Medicaid agencies. Everyone, but the RACs are allowed more than a 3-year lookback period. Some, like OIG, have long lookback periods. Coincidentally, when a company responds to an RFP or a request for proposal from CMS to act as CMS’ vendor to conduct Medicare audits on America’s Medicare providers, a clause in the proposed contract between CMS and the vendor is highly argued or negotiated. Which clause in the vendor’s contract is most negotiated? I will tell you. The clause that states that the vendor is a RAC is most negotiated. Because if the vendor is called a UPIC instead of a RAC, the vendor has a longer lookback period. Being called a UPIC, suddenly, becomes a commodity. There are no laws mandating UPICs to a 3-year lookback period. All of a sudden, it is not hip to be a RAC.
Look into it. Do your research. The contracts are public record. Ask for Cotiviti’s contracts with CMS. Notice I said contracts, not contract. What I have realized over time is that a vendor may be hired by CMS to be a RAC auditor, but, once the vendor realizes the limit of 3 years, it goes back to CMS and asks if it can be considered an UPIC. Why? A UPIC can do everything that a RAC does; however, it gets an additional 3 years to lookback at claims and that means money. Cha-ching! Even Dr. Ron Hirsh commented today on RACMonitor about this story, which I presented this morning at 10:00am, as I present every Monday morning, live, on the national podcast RACMonitor , hosted by Chuck Buck and produced by MedLearn. If you want to listen to the podcast, click the following link: Nelson Mullins – Monitor Mondays Podcast Featuring Knicole Emanuel; Defeating Statistical Extrapolations, Expansion of Medicaid RACs, IPPS Final Rule, Smart Hospitals, and Physician Advisors Episodes
The podcast is also on video, but I don’t know how to view that. If you do, you would see my baby duck Biscuit on the screen. He joined me this morning to talk about, “What Walks Like a Duck and Quacks Like a Duck, Must be a Duck.” Dr. Hirsh commented that companies like Cotiviti have many, many contracts deeming Cotiviti many different acronyms. If you get a letter from Cotiviti, do not assume it is acting as a RAC. Instead, ask for the contract which allows Cotiviti to do what it purports to want to do.
I’ve noticed this trend in real life, but only for 10-20 individual cases, maybe 30. I have not had the time to draft a FOYIA request, and, quite frankly, my name on a FOYIA request nowadays result in a response that says, something to the effect of, use discovery instead. Even though my personal experiences should not be extrapolated across the country because that would be inappropriate and judgmental, I will give an example and you may extrapolate or not. There is a company that has been doing RAC audits in NC for the last 5-8 years. It is called Public Consulting Group (“PCG”). PCG and I go way back. If you are a longtime listener of RACMonitor, you will recall that Ed Roche and I presented numerous podcasts about the debacle in NM in 2013. The State of NM put 15 Medicaid providers who constituted 87.6% of the BH providers in NM at the time. The consequences were catastrophic; thousands were out of BH services overnight. There is even a documentary about the unraveling of BH in NM in 2013. The reason that these 15 BH providers were put out of business overnight was because of a NM vendor called PCG. PCG issued a report to NM after conducting Medicaid audits on these 15 BH facilities, which accused the 15 facilities of fraud. In 2013, PCG was considered a RAC per contract. Today, when I have a case against PCG and make the 3-year lookback period argument, I get a retort that it’s not a RAC. Instead it’s a UPIC.
To which I say, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is a duck.
What To Do When Your Doctor Fails To Doctor?
Not everyone loves their job. Not everyone has a job. Not everyone does their job. And that includes doctors and lawyers. Not all doctors and lawyers do their jobs well. When a doctor fails to doctor, where does the liability lie? On the facility? On the hospital?
That is exactly what happened in one of my cases. My client, an inpatient substance abuse facility, hired a physician. Upon hire, the doctor signed an employment agreement that stated that he or she would perform the role as a doctor/medical director for the facility. Years passed. There were no complaints, so the executive committee was under the impression that the doctor was fulfilling his duties. The members certainly had no reason to suspect that the doctor was not doctoring according to the employment contract. No, they assumed that a doctor would doctor.
Then a RAC audit happened. As you are well aware, RAC audits go back three years. The facility received a Tentative Notice of Overpayment from the RAC alleging the facility owed almost $10 million. I was hired, and I conducted a review of the facility, its policies, and interviewed all staff. It came to light that the doctor did not review the results of urinalysis tests. Remember, this is a substance abuse facility. Urine tests are essential. The Medicaid recipients provided the samples; they peed in a cup. The labs were ordered. The doctor has a standing order for definitive and presumptive urinalysis tests. The doctor has sole access to the test results electronically. We discovered, much to our horror, that the doctor never looked at the results. For the past three years, she has never informed any patient that they were or were not positive or negative for any substance. In my mind, reviewing the urinalysis results goes hand in hand with substance abuse therapy.
Here, we discovered a breakdown in the facility, but that breakdown was one person not doing his or her job. Sadly for him or her, we – the facility – were able to use the doctor’s failure to doctor to our advantage. We appealed the $10 million alleged overpayment. Our primary defense was throwing the doctor under the bus, and we had every right to do so. Who would have expected your medical director failing to direct or review pertinent tests. In the world of law, respondeat superior, normally, is the general rule. In Latin, respondeat superior means that the superior or the boss or the owner is responsible for those underneath them. In this case, the facility is the superior and the doctor is the inferior, so you would expect the facility to bear any liability of its employees. But, not here. Not in this case. The doctor failed to meet expectations of the job. By not reviewing urinalysis test results, the doctor veered enough off the track to relieve liability from the facility. The doctor’s inactions were the direct cause of the accusation of owing $10 million. The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) agreed. After terminating the doctor, we contemplated suing the physician for damages. However, since we won the alleged overpayment case, we did not do so.
