Category Archives: Medicare Audits

CMS Published 2023 Medicare/caid Health Care Providers’ Audit Process

THE CENTER FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES (“CMS”) 2023 Program Audit Process Overview came out recently. The report is published by the Division of Audit Operations. CMS will send engagement letters to initiate routine audits beginning February 2023 through July 2023. Engagement letters for ad hoc audits may be sent at any time throughout the year. The program areas for the 2023 audits include: 

  • CDAG: Part D Coverage Determinations, Appeals, and Grievances
  • CPE: Compliance Program Effectiveness
  • FA: Part D Formulary and Benefit Administration
  • MMP-SARAG: Medicare-Medicaid Plan Service Authorization Requests, Appeals, and Grievances
  • MMPCC: Medicare-Medicaid Plan Care Coordination 
  • ODAG: Part C Organization Determinations, Appeals, and Grievances
  • SNPCC: Special Needs Plans Care Coordination

The Program Audit Process document is only 13 pages. Yet, it is supposed to set forth the rules that the auditors must abide by in 2023. My question is – what if they don’t. What if the auditors fail to follow proper procedure.

For example, similarly to last year, an audit consists of 4 phases.

  1. Audit engagement and universe submission
  2. Audit field work
  3. Audit reporting
  4. Audit validation and close out

I would like to add another phase. Phase 5 is appeal.

According to the Report, and this is a quote: “the Audit Engagement and Universe Submission (which is the 1st stage) is a six-week period prior to the field work portion of the audit. During this phase, a Sponsoring organization is notified that it has been selected for a program audit and is required to submit the requested data, which is outlined in the respective Program Audit Protocol and Data Request document.” My question is: The sponsoring organization? CMS is referring to the provider who getting audited as a sponsoring organization. And why does CMS call the provider who is getting audited sponsoring? Is it because after the audit the sponsoring organization will be paying in recoupments?

It is interesting that the first phase “Audit Engagement and Universe Submission,” lasts 6 weeks. At this point, I want to know, does the provider know that the facility has been targeted for an audit? As an attorney, I get to see the process in the aftermath. Folks call me in distress because they got the results of an audit and disagree. I have never had the opportunity to be involved from the get go. So, if any of y’all receive a notice of an audit, please call me. I won’t charge you. I just would love the experience of walking through an audit from the get go. I think it would make me better at my job.

In other news, as you know, CMS may issue civil money penalties to providers for alleged noncompliance. Other penalties exist as well, which may or may not be worse that civil penalties. On January 23, 2023, CMS published a correction that Total Longterm Care, Inc. d/b/a InnovAge Colorado PACE (InnovAge CO) corrected its violations. In 2021, CMS had suspended its ability to re-enroll. Another facility was imposed with pre-payment review, which means that the facility must submit claims to an auditor prior to receiving reimbursements. Pre-payment review is probably the worse penalty in existence. A client of mine was told yesterday that pre-payment review is imminent. The only recourse for pre-payment review is a federal or State injunction Staying the suspension of reimbursements. You cannot appeal being placed on pre-payment review. But you do have a chance to Stay the suspension. The suspension makes no sense to me. It’s as if the government is saying that you are guilty before an ability to prove innocence.

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.

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.

CMS: Broaden the Definition of “Medically Necessary” Germane to Dental Services!

Dental services do not, historically, “gel-well” with Medicare and Medicaid. In fact, most dentists do not accept Medicare and Medicaid, and, quite frankly, I do not blame them. Accepting Medicare and/or Medicaid comes with accepting the fact that your dental practice can – and will – be audited by CMS or your State government at-will, at any time, for any reason. Your dental practice can be raided at any time by any federal agency, including the FBI, DOJ, OIG, alleging civil and criminal violations when you, as a dentist, had no clue that your medical records could be used against you, if not up to snuff…according to the governmental auditor. Perhaps more dentists would accept Medicare and/or Medicaid patients if the definition of “medically necessary” is broadened. More incentive to accept government programs is always good.

Dental benefits are covered by Medicare only in limited circumstances, and many people on Medicare do not have any dental coverage at all unless they pay for a Medicare Advantage (“MA”) plan. However, Medicare and Medicaid could cover more dental services if Congress or CMS broadens the definition of “medical necessity.” But, even with MA, the scope of dental benefits, when covered, varies widely and is often quite limited, which can result in high out-of-pocket costs among those with expensive dental needs.

Medicare and/or Medicaid will determine whether a dental service is essential – or “medically necessary” – for a beneficiary’s exasperating, primary medical condition. Congress has fallen short on expanding the legal definition of “medical necessary” regarding dental services for Medicare and Medicaid recipients.

In a June 29, 2022, letter to CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, more than 100 members of the U.S. House of Representatives pled with CMS to expand its definition of “medically necessary” dental care. Lawmakers highlighted the serious issues stemming from the lack of access to affordable dental care. I do not know if you recall, but, in 2013-ish, I blogged about a young, African American boy, named Deamonte, who died in the emergency room from an abscessed tooth that ruptured, when that abscessed tooth could have been remedied by a dentist for a few hundred dollars. See blog.

Nearly half of Medicare beneficiaries (47%), or 24 million people, do not have dental coverage, as of 2019.

Almost half of all Medicare beneficiaries did not have a dental visit within the past year (47%), with higher rates among those who are Black (68%) or Hispanic (61%), have low incomes (73%), or who are in fair or poor health (63%), as of 2018.

In 2021, 94% of Medicare Advantage enrollees in individual plans (plans open for general enrollment), or 16.6 million enrollees, are in a plan that offers access to some dental coverage.

To those dentists or dental surgeons who do accept Medicare and/or Medicaid – THANK YOU!

Medicare and/or Medicaid audits for dental services, while not fun to deal with, are easily defensible…most of the time. A few years ago Medicaid sought to recoup money from dentists who provided services to women believed to be pregnant when the pregnancy was over. See blog. I thought it was absolutely ridiculous that your dentist has the burden to ensure a woman is or is not pregnant. I feel as though many dentists could be slapped by asking. Plus, the services were rendered, so a dentist should not have to pay to provide services.

Are UTIs Preventable? OIG Says Yes and CMS Will Audit!

I hope everyone had a fantastic Thanksgiving and are now moving toward the Christmas or Hanukkah holiday. As I discussed last week, CMS and its contracted auditors are turning their watchdog eyes toward nursing homes, critical access hospitals (“CAHs”), and acute care hospitals (“ACHs”). You can hear more on this topic on Thursday, December 8th at 1:30 when I present the RACMonitor webinar, “Warning for Acute Care Hospitals: You Are a Target for Overpayment Audits.

October 2022, OIG published a new audit project entitled, “Potentially Preventable Hospitalizations of Medicare-Eligible Skilled Nursing Facility Residents.”

Residents of nursing homes and long-term care facilities are frequently transferred to an Emergency Department as an inpatient when they need acute medical care. A proportion of these transfers may be considered inappropriate and may be avoidable, says OIG.

OIG identified nursing facilities with high rates of Medicaid resident transfers to hospitals for urinary tract infections (“UTIs”).  OIG describes UTIs as being “often preventable and treatable in the nursing facility setting without requiring hospitalization.” A 2019 OIG audit found that nursing facilities often did not provide UTI detection and prevention services in accordance with resident’s individualized plan of care, which increases the chances for infection and hospitalization. Each resident should have their own prevention policy for whatever they are prone to get. My Grandma, for example, is prone to UTIs, so her personal POC should have prevention measures for trying to avoid contracting a UTI, such as drinking cranberry juice and routine cleansing. In addition to UTIs, OIG noted that previous CMS studies found that five conditions were related to 78% of the resident transfers to hospitals:  pneumonia, congestive heart failure, UTIs, dehydration, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/asthma. OIG added a sixth condition citing that sepsis is considered a preventable condition when the underlying cause of sepsis is preventable. In my humble opinion, the only condition listed as preventable that is actually preventable is dehydration.

OIG’s new audit project involved a review of Medicare and Medicaid claims related to inpatient hospitalizations of nursing home residents with any of the six conditions noted previously. The audit will focus on whether the nursing homes being audited provided services to residents in accordance with the residents’ care plans and related professional standards (or whether the nursing homes caused preventable inpatient admissions due to non-compliance with care plans and professional standards).

What can you do to prepare for these upcoming audits? Review your facilities’ policies, procedures, and practices germane to the identification of the 6 conditions OIG flagged as preventable. Ensure that your policies and procedures lay out definitive steps to prevent or try to prevent these afflictions. Educate and train your staff of detection, prevention, treatment, and care planning related to the six conditions. Collect and analyze data of trends of frequency and cause of inpatient hospitalizations and determine whether these inpatient hospitalizations could have been prevented and how.

In summary, be prepared for audits of inpatient hospitalizations with explanations of attempted prevention. You cannot prevent all afflictions, but you can have policies in place to try. As always, it’s the thought that counts, as long as, it’s written down.

Warning for Acute Care Hospitals: You’re a Target for Overpayment Audits

Today I want to talk about upcoming Medicare audits targeted toward Acute Care Hospitals.

In September 2022, OIG reported that “Medicare Part B Overpaid Critical Access Hospitals and Docs for Same Services.” OIG Reports are blinking signs that flash the future Medicare audits to come. This is a brief blog so be sure to tune in on December 8th for the RACMonitor webinar: Warning for Acute Care Hospitals: You’re a Target for Overpayment Audits. I will be presenting on this topic in much more depth. It is a 60-minute webinar.

For OIG’s report regarding the ACHs, OIG audited 40,026 Medicare Part B claims, with half submitted by critical access hospitals and the rest submitted by health care practitioners for the same services provided to beneficiaries on the same dates of service (“DOS”). OIG studied claims from March 1, 2018, to Feb. 28, 2021, and found almost 100% noncompliance, which constituted almost $1million in overpayments to providers.

According to the OIG Report, CMS didn’t have a system to edit claims to prevent and detect any duplicate claims, as in the services billed by an acute hospital and by a physician elsewhere. Even if the physician reassigned his/her rights to reimbursement to the ACH.

As you know, a critical access hospital cannot bill Part B for any outpatient services delivered by a health care practitioner unless that provider reassigns the claim to the facility, which then bills Part B. However, OIG’s audit found that providers billed and got reimbursed for services they did perform but reassigned their billing rights to the critical access hospital. 

The question is – why did the physicians get reimbursed even if they assigned their rights to reimbursement away? At some point, CMS needs to take responsibility as to the lack having a system to catch these alleged overpayments. If the physicians were reimbursed and had no reason to know that they were getting reimbursed for services that they assigned to an ACH, there is an equitable argument that CMS cannot take back money based on its own error and no intent by the physician.

On a different note, I wanted to give a shout out to ASMAC, which is the American Society of Medical Association Counsel; Attorneys Advocating for America’s Physicians. It is comprised of general counsels (GCs) of health care entities and presidents of State Medical Societies. ASMAC’s topics at conferences are cutting-edge in our industry of defending health care providers, interesting, and on-point by experts in the fields. I was to present there last week in Hawaii on extrapolations in Medicare and Medicaid provider audits. Thankfully, all their conferences are not in Hawaii; that is too far of a trip for someone on the East Coast. But you should look into the association, if ASMAC sounds like it would benefit you or you could benefit them, join.

The Ugly Truth about Medicare Provider Appeals

Extrapolated audits are the worst.

These audits under sample and over extrapolate – almost to the point that some audits allege that you owe more than you were paid. How is that fair in our judicial system? I mean, our country was founded on “due process.” That means you have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If the government attempts to pursue your reimbursements at all, much less a greater amount than what you received, you are required notice and a hearing.

Not to mention that OIG conducted a Report back in 2020 that identified numerous mistakes in the extrapolations. The Report stated: “CMS did not always provide sufficient guidance and oversight to ensure that these reviews were performed in a consistent manner.” I don’t know about you, but that is disconcerting to me. It also stated that “The test was associated with at least $42 million in extrapolated overpayments that were overturned in fiscal years 2017 and 2018. If CMS did not intend that the contractors use this procedure, these extrapolations should not have been overturned. Conversely, if CMS intended that contractors use this procedure, it is possible that other extrapolations should have been overturned but were not.

I have undergone hundreds of Medicare and Medicaid audits with extrapolations. You defend against these audits twofold: 1) by hiring an expert statistician to debunk the extrapolation; and 2) by using the provider as an expert clinician to discredit the denials. However, I am always dismayed…maybe that’s not the right word…flabbergasted that no one ever shows up on the other side. It is as if CMS via whatever contractor conducted the extrapolated audit believes that their audit needs no one to prove its veracity. As if we attorneys and providers should just accept their findings as truth, and they get the benefit of NOT hiring a lawyer and NOT showing up to ALJ trials.

In the above picture, the side with the money is CMS. The empty side is the provider.

In normal trials, as you know, there are two opposing sides: a Plaintiff and a Defendant, although in administrative law it’s called a Petitioner and a Respondent. Medicaid provider appeals also have two opponents. However, in Medicare provider appeals, there is only one side: YOU. An ALJ will appear, but no auditor to defend the merits of the alleged overpayment that you, as a provider, are accused of owing.

In normal trials, if a party fails to appear, the Judge will almost automatically rule against the non-appearing party. Why isn’t it the same for Medicare provider appeals? If a Medicare provider appears to dispute an alleged audit, the Judge does not rule automatically in favor of the provider. Quite the opposite quite frankly. The CMS Rules, which apply to all venues under the purview of CMS, which includes the ALJ level and the Medicare Appeals Council level, are crafted against providers, it seems. Regardless the Rules create a procedure in which providers, not the auditors, are forced to retain counsel, which costs money, retain a statistician in cases of extrapolations, which costs money, go through years of appeals through 5 levels, all of which the CMS Rules apply. Real law doesn’t apply until the district court level, which is a 6th level – and 8 years later.

Any providers reading, who retain lobbyists, this Medicare appeal process needs to change legislatively.

My Halloween blog from Yesterday: Medicare Dollars Vanish!

Happy Halloween. This year I am dressing as Freddy Krueger and my daughter, who is 17, says, “that’s so 80’s.” I guess some younger kids will just think I’m a spooky lady in a green and red sweater with knives for fingers. In honor of Halloween, I would like to tell you three ghost stories, of Medicare money that has vanished never to be found.

First, a ghoulish report from OIG states that CMS has not done enough to recoup Medicare payments found in 12 hospitals. Nothing like a report saying “CMS isn’t getting enough money” to make CMS “trick or treat” with more audits. According to the OIG report, CMS is short staffed, like almost every employer in America. Apparently, CMS claims to have too many phantoms instead of employees to track down every dollar, which I must say, makes me superstitious. If CMS is claiming to not have enough resources to track down money that has been targeted at 12 hospitals, how is it conducting the other audits nation-wide?

Among the 12 hospitals, supposedly, there is an eerie $82 million allegedly owed to CMS.

OIG recommended recouping all the money, but, according to OIG, CMS has provided insufficient information. Specifically, CMS did not provide information on the status of appeals hospitals levied against OIG’s overpayment findings. CMS didn’t provide information on the reason for the appeal or status of the action. Personally, I am just happy the hospitals appealed.

The second ghost story entails CMS’ continual audit of providers, especially the Medicare Advantage plans, which are nightmares. CMS has agreed to release the audits of 90 MA plans conducted between 2011 and 2013. These records are expected to demonstrate more than $600 million in MA overpayments due to alleged upcoding. Chilling!

Finally, a NC hospital system, Atrium Health, publicly announced that in 2019 it provided $640 million to Medicare patients that were never paid for. You would think this spine chilling unless you knew the tax breaks associated with the charity. But for the same year that Atrium’s website says it recorded the $640 million loss on Medicare, the hospital system claimed $82 million in profits from Medicare and an additional $37.2 million in profits from Medicare Advantage in a federally required financial document. Sleight of hand and hocus pocus!

Always Challenge the Extrapolation in Medicare Provider Audits!

Always challenge the extrapolation! It is my personal opinion that extrapolation is used too loosely. What I mean is that sample sizes are usually too small to constitute a valid representation of the provider’s claims. Say a provider bills 10,000 claims. Is a sample of 50 adequate?

In a 2020 case, Palmetto audited .0051% of claims by Palm Valley, and Palm Valley challenged CMS’ sample and extrapolation method. Palm Valley Health Care, Inc. v. Azar, No. 18-41067, 2020 BL 14097 (5th Cir., Jan. 15, 2020). As an aside, I had 2 back-to-back extrapolation cases recently. The provider, however, did not hire me until the ALJ level – or the 3rd level of Medicare provider appeals. Unfortunately, no one argued that the extrapolation was faulty at the first 2 levels. We had 2 different ALJs, but both ALJs ruled that the provider could not raise new arguments; i.e., that the extrapolation was erroneous, at the 3rd level. They decided that all arguments should be raised from the beginning. This is just a reminder that: (a) raise all defenses immediately; and (b) don’t try the first two levels without an attorney.

Going back to Palm Valley.

The 5th Circuit held that while the statistical sampling methodology may not be the most precise methodology available, CMS’ selection methodology did represent a valid “complex balance of interests.” Principally, the court noted, quoting the Medicare Appeals Council, that CMS’ methodology was justified by the “real world constraints imposed by conflicting demands on limited public funds” and that Congress clearly envisioned extrapolation being applied to calculate overpayments in instances like this. I disagree with this result. I find it infuriating that auditors, like Palmetto, can scrutinize providers’ claims, yet circumvent similar accountability. They are being allowed to conduct a “hack” job at extrapolating to the financial detriment of the provider.

Interestingly, Palm Valley’s 5th Circuit decision was rendered in 2020. The dates of service of the claims Palmetto audited were July 2006-January 2009. It just shows how long the legal battle can be in Medicare audits. Also, Palm Valley’s error rate was 53.7%. Remember, in 2019, CMS revised the extrapolation rules to allow extrapolations in 50% or higher error rates. If you want to read the extrapolations rules, you can find them in Chapter 8 of the Medicare Program Integrity Manuel (“MPIM”).

On RACMonitor, health care attorney, David Glaser, mentioned that there is a difference in arguments versus evidence. While you cannot admit new evidence at the ALJ level, you can make new arguments. He and I agreed, however, even if you can dispute the extrapolation legally, a statistical report would not allowed as new evidence, which are important to submit.

Lastly, 42 CFR 405.1014(a)(3) requires the provider to assert the reasons the provider disagrees with the extrapolation in the request for ALJ hearing.