Category Archives: Termination of Medicaid Contract
NC Medicaid Providers Lost Their Property Right in the Continued Participation in Medicaid, According to COA
According to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, health care providers possess a property right interest in the continued participation in Medicare and Medicaid. Nationally, the Circuits are split. The rule is, at least in the 4th Circuit, that termination for cause of a provider’s Medicaid contract is allowed, if the cause is correct and the provider was afforded due process. On October 5, 2023, the NC Court of Appeals deviated from legal precedent and ruled no property right exists in B&D Integrated Services v. NC DHHS and its agent Alliance. The COA held that Alliance, a managed care organization (“MCO”) could terminate any provider for any cause at any time for any reason. The 4th Circuit and I beg to differ. I read the Decision, and the Petitioner, unfortunately, according to the Decision, failed to argue that it has a property right in continued participation in Medicaid. I have no earthly idea why Petitioner argued what it did, which is that OAH has no jurisdiction over provider appeals and the OAH decision should be vacated. I have no idea why Petitioner thought that was a good argument. I don’t know if arguing the property right argument would have resulted in a victory, but, to me, it is the most compelling argument. Petitioner failed to argue that MCOs are paid by the tax payor; MCOs are not private companies, so MCOs are agents of the State and must follow pertinent regulations. Instead, Petitioner argues that OAH does not have jurisdiction???? Curiouser and curiouser.
That was not the right argument to make.
And now, unless the General Assembly changes the law, B&D Integrated Health Services v. NC DHHS and its agent Alliance Health, holds that “Alliance was contractually allowed to terminate the contract, with or without cause or for any reason, upon 30 days’ notice.” Which is precisely what I have argued against for the last 15 years or so. See blog. And blog. And blog.
These MCOs are bequeathed a fire hose of tax dollar money and whatever they don’t spend, they keep for bonuses for the executives. Therefore, it is in the MCOs’ financial best interest to terminate providers, which means all the terminated providers’ consumers are immediately cut-off from their Medicaid services, and the MCO saves money.
The following paragraphs are from a Decision from OAH holding that Medicaid contracts are NOT terminable at will:
“In determining whether a property interest exists a Court must first determine that there is an entitlement to that property. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985). Unlike liberty interests, property interests and entitlements are not created by the Constitution. Instead, property interests are created by federal or state law and can arise from statute, administrative regulations, or contract. Bowens v. N.C. Dept. of Human Res., 710 F.2d 1015, 1018 (4th Cir. 1983). Under North Carolina case law, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that North Carolina Medicaid providers have a property interest in continued provider status. Bowens, 710 F.2d 1018. In Bowens, the Fourth Circuit recognized that North Carolina provider appeals process created a due process property interest in a Medicaid provider’s continued provision of services, and could not be terminated “at the will of the state.” The court determined that these safeguards, which included a hearing and standards for review, indicated that the provider’s participation was not “terminable at will.” Id. The court held that these safeguards created an entitlement for the provider, because it limits the grounds for his termination such that the contract was not terminable “at will” but only for cause, and that such cause was reviewable. The Fourth Circuit reached the same result in Ram v. Heckler, 792 F.2d 444 (4th Cir. 1986) two years later. Since the Court’s decision in Bowen, a North Carolina Medicaid provider’s right to continued participation has been strengthened through the passage of Chapter 108C. Chapter 108C expressly creates a right for existing Medicaid providers to challenge a decision to terminate participation in the Medicaid program in the Office of Administrative Hearings. It also makes such reviews subject to the standards of Article 3 of the APA. Therefore, North Carolina law now contains a statutory process that confers an entitlement to Medicaid providers. Chapter 108C sets forth the procedure and substantive standards for which OAH is to operate and gives rise to the property right recognized in Bowens and Ram. Under Chapter 108C, providers have a statutory expectation that a decision to terminate participation will not violate the standards of Article 3 of the APA. The enactment of Chapter 108C gives a providers a right to not be terminated in a manner that (1) violates the law; (2) is in excess of the Department’s authority; (3) is erroneous; (4) is made without using proper procedures; or (5) is arbitrary and capricious. To conclude otherwise would nullify the General Assembly’s will by disregarding the rights conferred on providers by Chapter 108C. This expectation cannot be diminished by a regulation promulgated by the DMA which states that provider’s do not have a right to continued participation in the Medicaid program because under the analysis in Bowen the General Assembly created the property right through statutory enactment.” Carolina Comm. Support Serv, Inc., at 22.
Carolina Comm. Support Serv., Inc. v. Alliance Behavioral Healthcare, 14 DHR 1500, April 2, 2015.
ALJ Decisions determining a property right exists went on to be upheld by the 4th Circuit. However, this new NC COA decision, B&D Integrated Health v. NC DHHS, threatens all providers. The reason that termination at will does not work for Medicare and Medicaid versus a private companies’ right to terminate:
- These are our tax dollars, not private money.
- It allows discrimination.
- It allows subjectivity.
- It allows bias.
- It allows an entity to overnight prevent consumers from receiving medically necessary health care services.
- It allows for an entity to, overnight, cause hundreds of staff members to lose their jobs.
B&D Integrated Health v. NC DHHS is a bad decision for health care providers. The Petitioner lost its case because it made the wrong argument. Its argument that administrative courts have no jurisdiction was a losing argument. Now State and federal contractors have more power to be subjective and discriminatory.
Now we have NC case law in State Court that fails to follow federal case law in the 4th Circuit.
Medicare Advantage: “Termination At Will” Clauses Legal?
Providers who contract with Medicare Advantage Organizations (“MAO”) need to know that even though the MAO is a private company, because it manages federal Medicare money, the Medicare regulations are applicable – and, possibly, not the contract that you were forced to sign. When any entity accepts the responsibility of getting tax dollars – a firehose of tax dollars, no less – prepaid – then that entity answers to all tax payers for their actions and that entity must follow the Medicare regulations.
Medicare Advantage Plans, sometimes called “Part C” or “MA Plans,” are offered by MAOs that must follow rules set by Medicare. Most Medicare Advantage Plans include drug coverage (Part D). Health care providers can contract to be in the plan’s network. MAOs include BCBS, Humana, Anthem, UnitedHealthcare, Cigna, and Aetna.
Just for an example, I pulled up the provider agreement for BCBS. Section 6.2 allows termination by either party with 60 days notice; this is the “termination at will” clause. Theoretically, BCBS or any MAO could terminate contracts with small providers and decide to contract only with larger providers. Or contract with only African-American providers. Or contract with only female-owned companies. Or contract with the providers that the CEO likes. I disagree with a termination at will clause that allows a company with so much Medicare money at its fingertips the authority to only contract with whom it wants or likes. In fact, I believe a termination at will clause violates the law.
The Courts are split on this issue. See blog.
42 CFR Section 422, et al, outlines the regulations for Medicare Advantage.
According to CMS, in order for a MAO to “Suspend, Terminate, or Not-renew Physician Contracts” specific requirements for an MA organization that operates a coordinated care plan or network MSA plan providing benefits through contracting physicians and that suspends, terminates, or non-renews a physician’s contract are as follows:
- The MA organization must give the affected physician written notice of the reasons for the action, including, if relevant, the standards and profiling data used to evaluate the physician and the numbers and mix of physicians needed by the MA organization.
- The MA organization must allow the physician to appeal the action, and give the physician written notice of his/her right to a hearing and the process and timing for requesting a hearing.
- The MA organization must ensure that the majority of the hearing panel members are peers of the affected physician.
42 CFR 422.202(c) and (d) and preamble of February 17, 1999, rule.
In sum, MAOs are required to provide appeal rights for any Medicare contract that is terminated. But, doesn’t that contradict with a “termination at will” clause?
A Story of Three Medicaid Providers’ Erroneous Terminations
I have a story for you today that affected three, Medicaid, behavioral health care providers back in 2013. Instead of me spouting off legal jargon that no one understands, I am going to tell you a nonfictional story.
Since both stories occurred in NC, we will use DHHS, the Department of Health and Human Services, which is the acronym for NC’s Medicaid agency.
In 2013, a Residential Level IV facility was shut down overnight by the managed care organization (“MCO”), Alliance, which was one of many MCOs that managed all behavioral health care for NC Medicaid recipients within their respective, catchment areas. The facility, we will call Alpha, housed 5-6, at-risk, teenage, African American, males, who could not reside in their family’s home due to mental illness, substance abuse, legal trouble, and/or violence. The owners of Alpha, themselves were large, muscular, African American males, which, I can only imagine, was to their benefit.
Alliance terminated Alpha from its catchment area, but since Alpha only provided Medicaid services in Alliance’s catchment area, Alliance’s decision would close a business immediately, terminate all staff, cause the owners to lose their careers, and the residents would have no home.
Alpha hired me. We were successful in obtaining an injunction. Click on “injunction” to read my blog about this exact situation in 2013, written by me in 2013. I have written numerous blogs on the topic of erroneous terminations of Medicaid providers over the years. Here are a couple: blog and blog.
An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) ruled in our favor that Alliance does not have the legal authority to terminate a provider for no reason or any erroneous reason. The ALJ Stayed the termination and Ordered Alliance to reverse the termination and continue to contract with Alpha.
Whew! We thought. Then, Alliance flat-out ignored the ALJ’s Order.
We brought a Motion for Contempt and/or Sanctions; however, we were instructed, at the time, that a Writ of Mandamus was the appropriate venue in Superior Court. This too was unsuccessful.
During our legal battle for Alpha, we were successful in obtaining injunctions for two other provider also terminated without cause.
Alpha did close. But the bright side of the story is what happened in the future. Those 3 injunctions, which were ignored by MCOs to the detriment of the three providers, were the last ones to be ignored. In the years that followed, OAH ALJs routinely held MCOs accountable for erroneous terminations and without cause terminations.
My team has witnessed successful injunctions across the country that protect providers from arbitrary and capricious terminations. We have litigated many of these successful injunctions.
NC Medicaid: Are MCOs Biased?
Since the inception of the Medicaid MCOs in North Carolina, we have discussed that the MCO terminations of providers’ Medicaid contracts have consistently and disproportionately been African American-owned, behavioral health care providers. Normally the MCOs terminate for “purported various reasons,” which was usually in error. However, these provider companies had one thing in common; they were all African American-owned. On this blog, I have generally reported that MCO terminations were just based on inaccurate allegations against the providers. The truth may be more bias. – Knicole Emanuel
- Written by Ryan Hargrave, associate at Practus.
George Floyd; Breyonna Taylor; Eric Garner; Tamir Rice; Jordan Davis, these are all names that we know, all-too-well, for such horrendous reasons. Not for the brilliance, that these young African-American men and women possessed; nor for the accolades they had accumulated throughout their short-lived experiences on this earth. We recognize these names through a disastrous realization that brought communities and our nation together for a singular purpose; to fight racism.
A global non-profit organization, United Way, recognizes four types of racism.
- Internalized Racism—a set of privately held beliefs, prejudices, and ideas about the superiority of whites and the inferiority of people of color.
- Interpersonal Racism—the expression of racism between individuals. Occurring when individuals interact and their private beliefs affecting their interactions.
- Institutional Racism—the discriminatory treatment, unfair policies and practices, and inequitable opportunities and impacts within organizations and institutions, all based on race, that routinely produce racially inequitable outcomes for people of color and advantages for white people.
- Structural Racism—a system in which public policies, institutional practices, cultural representations and other norms work in various, often reinforcing, ways to perpetuate racial group inequality.
These various types of racism can be witnessed in every state, city, county, suburb, and community, although it isn’t always facially obvious. Racism can even be witnessed in the health care community. Recently in 2020, NC Governor Roy Cooper signed executive order 143 to address the social, environmental, economic, and health disparities in communities of color that have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 Pandemic. Machelle Sanders, NC Department of Administration Secretary, was quoted stating that “Health inequities are the result of more than one individual choice or random occurrence—they are the result of the historic and ongoing interplay of inequitable structures, policies, and norms that shape lives.” Governor Cooper went on to include that there is a scarcity of African-American healthcare providers, namely behavioral healthcare providers, available to the public.
Noting this statement from the Governor of our great state, its troublesome to know that entities that provide federal funding to these healthcare providers have been doing their absolute best to rid the remaining African-American behavioral healthcare providers. For years, Managed Care Organizations (“MCOs”) have contracted with these providers to fund the expenses pursuant Medicaid billing. MCOs have repeatedly attempted to terminate these contracts with African-American providers without cause, unsuccessfully; until recently. In the past few years, Federal Administrative Law Judges (“ALJ’s”) have been upholding “termination without cause” contracts between MCOs and providers. This is nothing less of an escape route for MCOs, allowing them to keep the federal funds, that they receive each year based upon the number of contracts they have with providers, as profit. This is an obvious incentive to terminate contracts after receiving these funds. Some may refer to this as a business loophole, while most Americans would label this an unconstitutional form of structural racism. It has been estimated that 99% of behavioral healthcare providers in NC that have been terminated have ONE thing in common. You guessed it. They are African-American owned. Once terminated, most healthcare providers cannot operate without these Federal Medicaid Funds and, ultimately, are forced to close their respective practices.
Why is this not talked about? The answer is simple. Most Americans who are on Medicaid don’t even understand the processes and intricate considerations that go into Medicaid, let alone the general public. And what’s the craziest thing? The craziest thing is the fact that these Americans on Medicaid don’t know that the acts of racism instituted against their providers, trickle down and limit their ability to obtain healthcare services. Think about it. If I live in a rural town and have a healthcare provider that I know and love is terminated and forced to close, I lose access to said healthcare provider and must potentially go to an out-of-town provider. The unfortunate fact is that most healthcare providers who operate with a “specific” specialty, such as autistic therapy, can have waitlists up to 12 months! The ramifications of these financially-greedy, racist acts of the MCOs ultimately affect the general population.
Managed Care Ruins Medicaid and Terminates Providers at Whim!
If you receive a letter from CMS or your State Department terminating your Medicare or Medicaid contract, would that affect you financially? I ask this rhetorical question because providers’ rights to a Medicare or Medicaid contract or to reimbursements for services rendered is a split in the Circuit Courts. Thankfully, I reside in the 4th Circuit, which has unambiguously held that providers and recipients have a property right in reimbursements for services rendered, a Medicare/caid contract and the right to the freedom of choice of provider. If you live in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, I am sorry. You have no rights.
Usually when there is split decision among the Circuit Courts, the Supreme Court weighs in. But, it has not. In fact, it declined to opine. Timing is everything. A 4th Circuit court of Decision giving providers property rights requested the Supreme Court to weigh in and finally end this rift amongst the Circuits. But, sadly, Justice Ginsburg died on September 18, 2020. The Supreme Court declined to review the Fourth Circuit decision on October 13, 2020. Justice Barrett was confirmed by the Senate on October 26, 2020 and was sworn in on October 27, 2020. So, the certiorari was denied – I assume – due to the vacant seat at the time.
In 40 States, managed care manages Medicaid. The contracts they write are Draconian, saying that either party may terminate at will for no cause but for convenience. Termination at will is all fine and good in the private sector. However, Medicare and Medicaid are highly regulated, and when tax dollars and access to care are at issue, property rights are created.
In NC State Court, against the judgment of the 4th Circuit, a November 5, 2021, unpublished case determined that providers have no property rights to a Medicaid contract and an MCO can terminate at whim. Family Innovations v. Cardinal Innovations Healthcare Solutions, No. COA20-681 (June 1, 2021). Unpublished decisions are supposed to carry no weight. Unpublished decisions are not supposed to be controlling. Citation is disfavored.
Yet, in a strange turn of events, our State administrative courts have rendered, in the last week and in violation of 4th Circuit and administrative case law, that the termination-at-will clause in the MCO contract that a provider is forced to sign stands and is enforceable. These were new Judges and obviously were not well-versed in Medicaid law. Both came from employment law backgrounds, which is completely different than the health care world. But their rash and uneducated decisions bankrupt companies and shut down access to care for medically necessary behavioral health care services.
The upshot? If you have managed care companies in charge of your Medicaid or Medicare contracts, review your contracts now. Is there a termination-at-will clause? Because if there is, you too could lose your contract at any time. Depending on where you reside, you may or may not have property rights in the Medicare Medicaid contract. This is an issue that the Supreme Court must decide. Too many providers are getting erroneously and discriminatorily terminated for no reason and given no due process.
We must bring litigation to thwart the Courts that uphold termination-at-will clauses. Especially, in the era of COVID, we need our health care providers. We certainly do not need the MCOs, which kill access to care.
To Disclose or Not to Disclose: The Answer Could Terminate Your Medicaid Contract
Changes of ownership of a facility can spur RAC, MAC, and MCO audits. In fact, federal regulations require disclosure of changes of ownership within 35 days after any change of ownership. 42 CFR 455.104. The regulations require disclosure, but there is no guidance regarding acceptance of said change of ownership. In other words what if your company undergoes a change in ownership and the MCO or MAC terminates the participation agreement because they don’t appreciate who the new owner is. The federal regulations also require disclosure of any convictions related to Medicaid. 42 CFR 455.106. In the particular case I am discussing, the MCO audited this company 10-15 times over two years. There seemed to be a personal vendetta, for whatever reason, against the company from higher-ups at the MCO.
Managed care can be tricky because, by definition, it removes the management of Medicaid and Medicare from the government agencies into these quasi-private/quasi-governmental agencies. I still think that managed care violates 42 CFR 410(e), the single state agency requirement that states that “The Medicaid agency may not delegate, to other than its own officials, the authority to supervise the plan or to develop or issue policies, rules, and regulations on program matters.” Despite my personal opinion, managed care is definitely the trend. To date, 40 States have managed care organizations (MCOs) to manage Medicaid.
This company is a behavioral health care provider, which provides substance abuse services, SAIOP, SACOT, PSR, OPT, urine tests; they run a Suboxone clinic, a laboratory, and a pharmacy. It also provides free/charitable transportation services to get the consumers to the facility without receiving any money in return. The CEO was accused of personal, tax fraud. He and his wife never submitted their own taxes; they relied on professionals. One, below-stellar accountant performed the companies’ taxes and the CEO’s personal taxes a few years ago. I am no tax expert, but apparently the problem was that he took no salary for two years while the facility was bringing in little profit. His wife is a physician, so they were able to sustain on one income. A lot of confusion later and multiple tax and criminal attorneys, CEO pled guilty to a personal tax plea. It is a Martha Stewart mistake, not a Bernie Madoff. The guilty plea was not germane to Medicaid.
Once the CEO pleads guilty to the personal plea, the newspaper publishes a story. The MCO first terminates the contract based on 42 CFR 455.106, which requires disclosure if – and the exact wording is important – “Has been convicted of a criminal offense related to that person’s involvement in any program under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Title XX services program since the inception of those programs.” This guilty plea was not related to Medicaid so the termination was erroneous.
Concurrently, in light of the CEO’s plea, he steps down and his wife who is also a medical physician steps in to transition as CEO to keep the company going. Obviously, a company is bigger than its CEO’s personal transgressions. 200 staff and hundreds of consumers relied on its viability as a company.
Once we argued that the personal guilty plea was not related to Medicaid, the MCO added the additional reason for termination – failing to disclose a change in ownership. A double whammy!
We were able to successfully file a preliminary injunction arguing that irreparable harm would ensue if the termination were upheld. We also argued that the terminations were erroneous. The Judge agreed in this case agreeing that a company is indeed bigger than its CEO’s transgressions.
We always think about audits involving medical records. But audits can also involve audits of corporate disclosures or nondisclosures of managerial issues. Audits of provider executive teams can be deadly to any company.
Terminations of provider agreements are always tricky because, most often, the MCO or MAC will argue that it can terminate the Medicaid/care contract at will. I disagree, first and foremost. See blog, “Property Rights.”
If a facility is terminated for cause, that reason better be accurate!
In this case, the CEO had no duty to disclose his personal, guilty plea per the regulations. Secondly, the MCOs’ assertion that it had no notice of the transfer of ownership was equally as disingenuous. The facility had been open and honest regarding the transition of the company to a new CEO. While no formal notice was ever provided, there was clear communication about the transition to/from the MCO.
Thus, we were successful in obtaining an injunction; thereby keeping the company viable.
Medicaid Suspension Lifted Because No Evidence of Intent!
Happy 2021! I bring great news and good tidings. I’m fairly sure that everyone reading is educated in what a preliminary injunction is and how important it can be for a health care provider falsely accused of credible allegations of fraud to lift the mandatory suspension of reimbursements. Finally, over the holidays, a Judge found that an indication of intent is required for an accusation of credible allegations of fraud, unlike past cases in which a mere accusation results in suspensions. 42 CFR §455.23 mandates that a health care provider’s reimbursements be suspended based on “credible allegations of fraud.” Which is a low bar. My client, an oral surgeon, had a disgruntled employee complaint and a baseless PCG audit of $6k. A double threat.
For those who are not in the know: An injunction is an extraordinary legal tool that allows the judge to suspend whatever bad action the government or one of its auditors do.
You have to prove:
- Likelihood of success on the merits
- Irreparable harm
- Balance of equities
- Public Interest.
I would guestimate that only 10-20% of requests for TROs and PIs are granted. Last week, we won for the oral surgeon. Everyone can learn from his success. This is how we won. Let me set the stage. We have an oral surgeon who underwent an infamous PCG audit resulting in an alleged $6k overpayment. PCG concurrently sends his data to program integrity, and one month later and without any notice, his reimbursements are suspended based on a “credible allegation of fraud.” Concurrently, he had a disgruntled employee threatening him.
Remember that the bar to demonstrate “credible allegation of fraud” is amazingly low. It is an “indicia of reliability.” An inaccurate PCG audit and a disgruntled employee, in this case, were the catalyst for the oral surgeon’s Medicaid reimbursements. His practice comprised of 80% Medicaid, so the suspension would cause irreparable harm to the practice.
We filed a TRO, PI, and Motion to Stay. The day before Christmas, we had trial.
The Judge ruled that the Department cannot just blindly rely on an anonymous accusation. There has to be some sort of investigation. It is not OK to accept accusations at face value without any sort of independent fact-checking. The Judge created an additional burden for the Department in cases of accusations of fraud that is not present in the regulation. But it is logical and reasonable to expect the Department to explore the accusations. The Judge emphasized that fraud requires intent. He also pointed out that fraud is not defined in the regulations. He emphasized that billing errors are not intentional acts.
The Judge held that, “[i]n light of the large number of Medicaid beneficiaries treated by the Petitioner’s practice, the rarity of the physician’s skills, and the apparent demand for those services, the relatively small amount of money now or formally in controversy, the lack of evidence of actual fraud and the contrary indications, the high probability that good cause exists for not suspending Petitioner’s Medicaid payments, and the near certainty of irreparable harm to the Petitioner if the relief is not granted, a TRO should be granted.”
Even better, the Judge ordered that the surgeon did not have to put up a bond, which is normally required by law. By the stroke of the Judge’s pen, the surgeon could go back to work performing medically necessary services to Medicaid recipients, which, by the way is rare for an oral surgeon to accept Medicaid. This is a success for health care providers. Accusations of fraud should require independent corroboration and evidence of intent.
“Credible Allegations of Fraud”: Immediate Medicare Payment Suspension!
If you are accused of Medicare fraud, your Medicare reimbursements will be immediately cut off without any due process or ability to defend yourself against the allegations. If you accept Medicare and Medicaid then you are held to strict regulations, some of which are highly, Draconian in nature without much recourse, legally, for providers. Many, many a provider have gone bankrupt and been forced out of business due to “credible allegations of fraud.” You see, legally, “credible allegations of fraud” is a low standard to meet. The definition of “credible” is “an indicia of reliability.” “Indicia” is defined as “signs, indications, circumstances which tend to show or indicate that something is probable. It is used in the form of “indicia of title,” or “indicia of partnership,” particularly when the “signs” are items like letters, certificates, or other things that one would not have unless the facts were as the possessor claimed. It can be a disgruntled worker. I am sure that none of the listeners here today have ever dealt with a disgruntled employee. Yes, that is sarcasm.
42 CFR § 405.372 is the regulation outlining the requirements for suspending Medicare payments. 42 CFR § 455.23 is the regulation mandating suspension of Medicaid payments upon credible allegations of fraud.
Pursuant to Medicare regulations, CMS must suspend Medicare reimbursements to a healthcare provider “in whole or in part” if it has been “determined that a credible allegation of fraud exists against a provider or supplier.” 42 C.F.R. § 405.371(a)(2). A credible allegation of fraud is “an allegation from any source, including … civil fraud claims cases, and law enforcement investigations.” 42 C.F.R. § 405.370(a). The decision to suspend Medicare payment or continue a payment suspension is made at the discretion of CMS – not the MAC. If you receive a letter from a MAC alleging fraud, be sure to check whether the letter states that the decision was made in collaboration with CMS. The MACs do not have the authority.
The suspension, however, is not indefinite, although the length is normally a year, which is financially devastating. The regulations allow CMS to maintain the suspension until a “legal action is terminated by settlement, judgment, or dismissal, or when the case is closed or dropped because of insufficient evidence to support allegations of fraud.” 42 C.F.R. §§ 405.370(a) and .372(d)(3); see also § 405.371(b)(3)(ii) (CMS may extend the suspension of payment if the Department of Justice submits a written request that “suspension of payments be continued based on the ongoing investigation and anticipated filing of criminal or civil action or both or based on a pending criminal or civil action or both.”).
When you receive a fraud accusation of any type – it is imperative to send it to your counsel. If you opt to litigate the suspension by asking the Court to enjoin the suspension, your first legal obstacle will be to argue that you do not have to exhaust your administrative remedies before appearing for the injunction. Cases have been decided both in the favor of providers and their suspensions have been lifted and against the providers. These cases usually win or lose on the argument that the suspension of reimbursements is an ancillary subject from the actual investigation of fraud. It is a jurisdictional argument.
It is my opinion that the federal regulations that allow for suspension of payments upon credible allegations of fraud need to be revised. Any of you with lobbyists, we need to revise the regulations to require due process – notice and an opportunity to be heard – prior to the government suspending Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements based on a spurious accusation from an anonymous source.
Back in 2015, I am sure that you all recall the case in New Mexico where NM accused 15 BH care provider of credible allegations of fraud. The providers constituted 87.5% of the BH in NM. I was one of the attorneys representing the larger BH cos. Prior to my involvement, all 15 providers requested good cause. All were denied. Lawmakers think that the good cause exception written into the regulation is enough defense for providers. But when the good cause is almost always denied, it isn’t much help. Write to your congress people. Amend the regulations to require due process.
New Revisions to the Justice Manual -The New World of Health Care Fraud and Abuse in 2019
So many memos, so little time. Federal prosecutors receive guidance on how to prosecute. Maybe “guidance” is too loose a term. There is a manual to follow, and memos are just guidance until the memos are incorporated into what is known as the Justice Manual. Memos are not as binding as the Justice Manual, but memos are persuasive. For the last 22 years, the Justice Manual has not been revised to reflect the many, many memos that have been drafted to direct prosecutors on how to proceed. Until recently…
Justice Manual Revised
The Justice Manual, which is the manual that instructs federal prosecutors how to proceed in cases of Medicare and Medicaid fraud, has been revised for the first time since 1997. The Justice Manual provides internal Department of Justice (DOJ) rules.
The DOJ has new policies for detecting Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse. Some of these policies are just addendums to old policies. Or formal acceptance to old memos. Remember the Yates Memo? The Yates Memo directed prosecutors to indict executives, individually, of fraudulent companies instead of just going after the company.
The Yates Memo has now been codified into the Justice Manual.
Then came the Granston Memo – In a January 10, 2018, memo (the “Granston Memo”), the DOJ directed its prosecutors to more seriously consider dismissing meritless False Claims Act (“FCA”) cases brought by whistleblowers. It lists 7 (non-exhaustive) criteria for determining whether the DOJ should dismiss a qui tam lawsuit. The reasoning behind the Granston Memo is that whistleblower lawsuits have risen over 600 cases per year, but the government’s involvement has not mirrored the raise. This may indicate that many of the whistleblower lawsuits are frivolous and filed for the purpose of financial gain, even if the money is not warranted. Remember qui tam relators (people who bring lawsuits against those who mishandle tax dollars, are rewarded monetarily for their efforts…and, usually, the reward is not a de minimus amount. In turn, people are incentivized to identify fraud and abuse against the government. At least, according to the Granston Memo, the financial incentive works too well and frivolous lawsuits are too prevalent.
The Granston Memo has also been codified into the Justice Manual.
Talk about an oxymoron…the Yates Memo instructs prosecutors to pursue claims against more people, especially those in the executive positions for acts of the company. The Granston Memo instructs prosecutors to more readily dismiss frivolous FCA allegations. “You’re a wigwam. You’re a teepee. Calm down, you’re just two tents (too tense).” – a horrible joke that my husband often quips. But this horrible quote is apropos to describe the mixed messages from DOJ regarding Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse.
The Brand Memo, yet another memo that we saw come out of CMS, instructs prosecutors not to use noncompliance as subject to future DOJ enforcement actions. In other words, agency guidance does not cannot create binding legal requirements. Going forward, the DOJ will not enforce recommendations found in agency guidance documents in civil actions. Relatedly, DOJ will not use noncompliance with agency guidance to “presumptively or conclusively” establish violations of applicable law or regulations in affirmative civil enforcement cases.
The Brand Memo was not incorporated into the Justice Manual. It also was not repudiated.
Medicare/caid Audit Targets Broadened
Going forward, traditional health care providers will not be the only targets – Medicare Advantage plan, EHR companies, and private equity owners – will all be audited and reviewed for fraud and abuse. Expect more audits with wider nets to catch non-provider targets to increase now that the Yates Memo was codified into the Justice Manual.
Anti-Kickback Statute, Stark Law, and HIPAA Narrowed
The Stark Law (42 U.S.C. 1395nn) and the Anti-Kickback Statute (42 U.S.C. §1320a‑7b(b)) exist to minimize unneeded or over-utilization of health-care services payable by the federal government. Stark Law and the Anti-Kickback regulations criminalize, impose civil monetary penalties, or impose other legal sanctions (such as termination from Medicare) against health care providers and other individuals who violate these laws. These laws are esoteric (which is one reason that I have a job) and require careful navigation by specialized legal counsel. Accidental missteps, even minute documentation errors, can lead to harsh and expensive results.
In a health care world in which collaboration among providers is being pushed and recommended, the Anti-Kickback, Stark, and HIPAA laws are antiquated and fail to recognize the current world. Existing federal health-care fraud and abuse laws create a “silo effect” that requires mapping and separating financial interests of health-care providers in order to ensure that patient referrals cannot be tainted by self-interest. Under Stark, a strict liability law, physicians cannot make a referral for the provision of “designated health services” to an entity with which they have a financial relationship (unless one of approximately 30 exceptions applies). In other words, for example, a hospital cannot refer patients to the home health care company that the hospital owns.
Going forward – and this has not happened yet – regulators and the Department will begin to claw back some of the more strict requirements of the Stark, Anti-Kickback, and HIPAA regulations to decrease the “silo effect” and allow providers to collaborate more on an individual’s whole health method. I had an example of this changing of the tide recently with my broken leg debacle. See blog. After an emergency surgery on my leg by an orthopedic surgeon because of a contracted infection in my wound, my primary care physician (PCP) called to check on me. My PCP had nothing to do with my leg surgery, or, to my knowledge, was never informed of it. But because of new technology that allows patient’s records to be accessed by multiple providers in various health care systems or practices, my PCP was informed of my surgery and added it to my chart. This never could have happened 20 years ago. But this sharing of medical records with other providers could have serious HIPAA implications if some restrictions of HIPAA are not removed.
In sum, if you haven’t had the pleasure of reading the Justice Manual in a while, now would be an appropriate time to do so since it has been revised for the first time in 22 years. This blog does not enumerate all the revisions to the Justice Manual. So it is important that you are familiar with the changes…or know someone who is.
Medicare and Medicaid Regulations Suspended During Natural Disasters
My blog (below) was published on RACMonitor.
CMS provides Medicare waivers for providers dealing with natural disasters.
I live in North Carolina, and as most of you have seen on the news, we just underwent a natural disaster. Its name is Hurricane Florence. Our Governor has declared a state of emergency, and this declaration is extremely important to healthcare providers that accept Medicare and Medicaid and are located within the state of emergency. Once a state of emergency is implemented, the 1135 Waiver is activated for Medicare and Medicaid providers, and it remains activated for the duration of the state of emergency. The 1135 Waiver allows for exceptions to normal regulatory compliance regulations during a disaster. It is important to note that, during the disaster, a state of emergency must be officially “declared” in order to activate the 1135 Waiver.
About a year ago, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized the 1135 Waiver to establish consistent emergency preparedness requirements for healthcare providers participating in Medicare and Medicaid, to increase patient safety during emergencies, and to establish a more coordinated response to natural and manmade disasters. The final rule requires certain participating providers and suppliers to plan for disasters and coordinate with federal, state, tribal, regional, and local emergency preparedness systems to ensure that facilities are adequately prepared to meet the needs of their patients during disasters and emergency situations.
The final rule states that Medicare and Medicaid participating providers and suppliers must do the following prior to a natural disaster capable of being foreseen:
- Conduct a risk assessment and develop an emergency plan using an all-hazards approach, focusing on capacities and capabilities that are critical to preparedness for a full spectrum of emergencies or disasters specific to the location of a provider or supplier;
- Develop and implement policies and procedures, based on the plan and risk assessment;
- Develop and maintain a communication plan that complies with both federal and state law, and ensures that patient care will be well-coordinated within the facility, across healthcare providers, and with state and local public health departments and emergency systems; and
- Develop and maintain training and testing programs, including initial and annual trainings, and conduct drills and exercises or participate in an actual incident that tests the plan.
Obviously, the minutiae of this final rule deviates depending on the type of provider. The waivers and modifications apply only to providers located in the declared “emergency area” (as defined in section 1135(g)(1) of the Social Security Act, or SSA) in which the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has declared a public health emergency, and only to the extent that the provider in question has been affected by the disaster or is treating evacuees.
Some examples of exceptions available for providers during a disaster situation under the 1135 Waiver are as follows:
- CMS may allow Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs) to exceed the 25-bed limit in order to accept evacuees.
- CMS can temporarily suspend a pending termination action or denial of payment sanction so as to enable a nursing home to accept evacuees.
- Normally, CAHs are expected to transfer out patients who require longer admissions to hospitals that are better equipped to provide complex services to those more acutely ill. The average length of stay is limited to 96 hours. However, during a natural disaster, the CAH may be granted a 1135 Waiver to the 96-hour limit.
- Certification for a special purpose dialysis facility can be immediate.
- Relocated transplant candidates who need to list at a different center can transfer their accumulated waiting time without losing any allocation priority.
- For home health services, normally, the patient must be confined to his or her home. During a state of emergency, the place of residence may include a temporary alternative site, such as a family member’s home, a shelter, a community, facility, a church, or a hotel. A hospital, SNF, or nursing facility would not be considered a temporary residence.
In rare circumstances, the 1135 Waiver flexibilities may be extended to areas beyond the declared emergency area. A limitation of the 1135 Waiver is that, during a state of emergency, an Inpatient Prospective Payment System- (IPPS)-excluded psychiatric or rehabilitation unit cannot be used for acute patients. A hospital can submit a request for relief under 1135 Waiver authority, and CMS will determine a course of action on a case-by-case basis. A hospital could also apply for certification of portions of its facility to act as a nursing facility. Hospitals with fewer than 100 beds, located in a non-urbanized area, may apply for swing bed status and receive payment for skilled nursing facility services.
If a provider’s building is devastated during a state of emergency, the 1135 Waiver allows the provider to maintain its Medicare and Medicaid contract, despite a change of location – under certain circumstances and on a case-by-case basis. Factors CMS will consider are as follows: (1) whether the provider remains in the same state with the same licensure requirements; (2) whether the provider remains the same type pf provider after relocation; (3) whether the provider maintains at least 75 percent of the same medical staff, nursing staff, and other employees, and whether they are contracted; (4) whether the provider retains the same governing body or person(s) legally responsible for the provider after the relocation; (5) whether the provider maintains essentially the same medical staff bylaws, policies, and procedures, as applicable; (6) whether at least 75 percent of the services offered by the provider during the last year at the original location continue to be offered at the new location; (7) the distance the provider moves from the original site; and (8) whether the provider continues to serve at least 75 percent of the original community at its new location.
The 1135 Waiver does not cover state-run services. For example, the 1135 Waiver does not apply to assisted living facilities. The federal government does not regulate assisted living facilities. Instead, assisted living is a state service under the Medicaid program. The same is true for clinical laboratory improvement amendment (CLIA) certification and all Medicaid provider rules. The 1135 Waiver also does not allow for the 60 percent rule to be suspended. The 60 percent Rule is a Medicare facility criterion that requires each Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) to discharge at least 60 percent of its patients with one of 13 qualifying conditions.
In conclusion, when the governor of your state declares a state of emergency, the 1135 Waiver is activated for healthcare providers. The 1135 Waiver provides exceptions and exclusions to the normal regulatory requirements. It is important for healthcare providers to know and understand how the 1135 Waiver affects their particular types of services prior to a natural disaster ever occurring.
