Category Archives: Medicare Appeal Process
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!
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.
Medicare Extrapolation Under 50% Error Rate? No Extrapolation ALLOWED!
Earlier this year, I reported on the new extrapolation rules for all audits, including RAC, UPIC, TPE, CERT, etc. You know, that alphabet soup. The biggest change was that no extrapolation may be run if the error rate is under 50%. This was an exciting and unexpected new protection for health care providers. Now I have seen it in action and want to tell you about it.
A client of mine, an internal medicine facility in Alabama, received a notice of overpayment for over $3 million. This is the first case in which I saw the 50% error rate rule in action. Normally, I always tell clients that the first two levels of appeals are rubber-stamps. In other words, don’t expect to win. The QIC and the entity that conducted the audit saying you owe money are not going to overturn themselves. However, in this case, we were “partially favorable” at the QIC level. “Partially favorable” normally means mostly unfavorable. However, the partially favorable decision took the error rate from over 50% to under 50%. We re-grouped. Obviously, we were going to appeal because the new extrapolation was still over $1 million. However, before our ALJ hearing, we received correspondence from Palmetto that said our overpayment was $0. Confused, we wrote to the ALJ pointing out that Palmetto said our balance was zero. The Judge wrote back saying that, certainly, the money has already been recouped and the practice would get a refund if he reversed the denials.” “Ok,” we said and attended a telephonic hearing. We were unsuccessful at the hearing, and the ALJ upheld an alleged overpayment of over $1 million. We argued that the extrapolation should be thrown out due to the error rate being under 50%. The Judge still ruled against us, saying that CMS has the right to extrapolate, and the courts have upheld CMS’ ability to extrapolate. Ok, but what about the NEW RULE?
Later, we contacted Palmetto to confirm what the zero-balance meant. The letter read as if we did not owe anything, yet we had an ALJ decision mandating us to pay over a $1million. There was serious juxtaposition. After many hours of chasing answers on hold with multiple telephone answerers of Palmetto, we learned that, apparently, because the error rate dropped below 50% after the QIC level, Palmetto “wrote off” the nominal balance. Since an extrapolation was no longer allowed, the miniscule amount that Palmetto thought we owed wasn’t enough to pursue. However, the letter sent to us from Palmetto did not explain, “hey, we are writing off your overpayment because the error rate fell below 50%.” No, it was vague. We didn’t even know if it were true.
It took us reaching out to Palmetto and getting an email confirmation that Palmetto had written off the alleged overpayment due to the error rate dropping. Even the ALJ misinterpreted the letter, which tells me that Palmetto should revise its notices of write offs.
If Palmetto unilaterally dismisses or writes off any balance that is allegedly owed, the letter should explicitly explain this. Because providers and attorneys are not accustomed to receiving correspondence from a MAC, CMS, Palmetto, or any other auditing entity with GOOD NEWS. If we get GOOD NEWS from an auditing entity, that correspondence should be explicit.
Regardless, this was a huge win for me and my client, who was positively ecstatic with the outcome. Tune in next week, during which I will tell a story of how we battled successfully a qui tam action against a facility of 9 specialists due to a disgruntled employee who tried to blow the whistle on my specialists and their facility…falsely!
Defending Medicare Providers Against FCA or Qui Tam Lawsuits
As a health care partner at Nelson Mullins, I’ve seen my fair share of False Claims Act (FCA) and Qui Tam actions against health care providers. It’s not uncommon for practices to receive unwarranted accusations of false claims, especially when it comes to billing Medicare. But fear not, my friends, for I’m here to provide some guidance on how to defend yourself. These cases are long and tedious, so it is important to maintain a bit of humor throughout the process – that and hire a really good attorney.
First things first, let’s talk about the False Claims Act. This federal law imposes liability on individuals and companies that defraud the government by submitting false claims for payment. Essentially, if you submit a claim for reimbursement from Medicare that you know is false, you could be on the hook for some serious penalties. However, the government has to prove that you had actual knowledge that the claim was false, which can be a tough burden to meet.
Now, let’s talk about Qui Tam actions. These are lawsuits brought by private individuals, also known as “whistleblowers,” on behalf of the government. The whistleblower stands to receive a percentage of any damages recovered by the government, so there’s a financial incentive for them to pursue these cases. Qui Tam actions can be especially tricky because the whistleblower doesn’t have to prove that you had actual knowledge that the claim was false – they just have to show that you submitted a false claim.
So, what can you do to defend yourself against these accusations? Well, for starters, make sure that you’re submitting accurate claims to Medicare. Seems obvious, right? But you’d be surprised at how many practices make mistakes when it comes to billing. Double-check your codes, make sure you’re only billing for services that were actually provided, and make sure your documentation supports the services you’re billing for.
If you do find yourself facing an FCA or Qui Tam action, don’t panic. You have the right to defend yourself, and there are plenty of strategies that can be employed to fight back. For example, you could argue that the government hasn’t met its burden of proof, or that the whistleblower doesn’t have enough evidence to support their claim. And don’t forget about the power of humor – a well-timed joke can go a long way in disarming your accusers. Obviously, I am kidding. The investigators have no humor.
In all seriousness, though, these cases can be incredibly complex and time-consuming, so it’s important to have experienced legal counsel on your side. At Nelson Mullins, we’ve represented numerous health care providers in FCA and Qui Tam actions, and we have the knowledge and expertise to help you navigate these challenges.
So, to sum it up: be accurate in your billing, be prepared to defend yourself, and don’t be afraid to use a little humor to lighten the mood. And if all else fails, just remember the wise words of Mark Twain: “Humor is the great thing, the saving thing after all. The minute it crops up, all our hardnesses yield, all our irritations and resentments flit away, and a sunny spirit takes their place.”
#FalseClaimsAct #Medicare #QuiTam #HealthcareLaw #NelsonMullins #DefendYourself #AccuracyIsKey #HumorIsTheBestMedicine #MarkTwainQuotes
Texas Medical Society Sues CMS Over 600% Spike in Administrative Fees
The Texas Medical Association (TMA) is challenging a 600% hike in administrative fees for seeking federal dispute resolution in the No Surprises Act (NSA) situations. The association seeks relief by filing a fourth lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The Texas Medical Society is the largest state medical society in the nation, even though it is the 2nd largest State followed by Alaska, representing more than 57,000 physicians and medical student members.
The hike only applies to out-of-network physicians or provider and a health plan payor. These situations occur when emergency services are provided by a doctor or health care provider outside of the patient’s insurance network or when out-of-network services are provided at an in-network facility.
The federal agencies set the initial administrative fee at $50 and announced in October 2022 it would remain at $50 for 2023. Two months later the agencies announced a 600% hike in the fee to $350 beginning in January 2023, “due to supplemental data analysis and increasing expenditures in carrying out the Federal IDR process since the development of the prior 2023 guidance.”
The steep jump in fees will dramatically curtail many physicians’ ability to seek arbitration when a health plan offers insufficient payment for care.
The reason that I know the TX Medical Society filed this lawsuit, because it just happened, is because I joined ASMAC, which is the American Society of Medical Association Counsel. It’s an amazing association comprised of Presidents of State medical associations all of whom are lawyers trying to protect physicians. Kelly Walla is the Vice President and General Counsel for the Texas Medical Association, and she circulated an email letting us know. She was a week late in circulating the email because, apparently, the power has been out in Austen.
The association claims that the new uptick in administrative fees violates the notice and comment requirements. I do have a personal question – if the association is successful and gets the fee requirement eradicated due to notice and comment violations, wouldn’t TX just reinstitute the hike in fees, but allow comments next time? If we really ask ourselves, do the comments matter? Who looks at them and do they carry any weight?
Since this hike only applies to out-of-network providers, I wonder if, in TX, the networks are closed. Closed networks means that, supposedly, the network has enough providers and it’s not accepting more providers. What network has “enough providers?” If the law states that everyone has the freedom to pick their provider of choice or “access to care,” then a closed network would fly in the face of that prospect. I have been successful in fighting “closed networks” in the past and gaining access to that “closed network.”
Going back to Texas, the rules include establishing the nonrefundable administrative fee all parties must pay to enter the federal independent dispute resolution (IDR) process in the event of a payment disagreement between an out-of-network physician or provider and a health plan in circumstances covered by the law. The suit lists two radiology groups as plaintiffs: the Texas Radiological Society and Houston Radiology Associated. These groups bill small value claims, so they will be particularly hurt because most claims billed are less than $350, according to the suit. Apparently, the Emergency Department Practice Management Association supports the association’s lawsuit. CMS’ reasoning for the hike is the backlog. But, making independent dispute resolution more expensive, when doctors have a right to IDR, in my opinion, is counterintuitive. Get more arbitrators. Don’t heighten your fences.
340B Drug Pricing Program: Drug Companies Are Concerned!
The federal 340B Drug Pricing Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a discount of 25 percent to 50 percent. The program is intended to help safety-net health care providers stretch their financial resources to reach more financially vulnerable patients and deliver comprehensive services.
The 340B Drug Pricing Program has spiked in use. It has become more and more popular over the years.
In 2020, there were 8,100 provider sites (including both hospitals and pharmacies), but that number rose to 50,000 by 2020. New data released in August 2022 by the Health Resources and Services Administration suggest discounted purchases under the 340B program reached $44 billion in 2021, about 16% more than in 2020. Drug companies are concerned.
On November 30, 2022, the 340B Drug Pricing Program; Administrative Dispute Resolution Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was published in the Federal Register. Section 340B(d)(3) of the Public Health Service Act requires the establishment of an Administrative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process for certain disputes under the 340B Program. Under the statute, the ADR process is designed to resolve:
- Claims by covered entities that they have been overcharged for covered outpatient drugs by manufacturers; and
- Claims by manufacturers, after the manufacturer has conducted an audit of a covered entity, that a covered entity has violated the prohibition on diversion or duplicate discounts.
This NPRM proposes new requirements and more efficient procedures to make the 340B Program’s ADR process more accessible and efficient, including ensuring that ADR panels hearing disputes are comprised of subject matter experts on the 340B Program, and establishing an independent HRSA reconsideration process. The NPRM will be open for public comment through January 30, 2023. Please refer to the Federal Register (PDF – 315 KB) publication for instructions about how to submit comments.
The question is how does the new proposed rule mesh with the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022? If you recall, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) allows Medicare to negotiate drug rates. It has been suggested that the following 10 medications will be the first 10 negotiated:
Does the IRA and 340B conflict? How can you negotiate prices of a drug if the drug is already discounted?
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?
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.
Celebrating Christmas With an Audit, I mean, a Root Canal
Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah! I wanted to thank all my readers for TEN YEARS of this blog! Can you believe it has been 10 years? I started this blog in 2012, and the year is about to turn to 2023!! I going into my 11th year of blogging about Medicare and Medicaid regulatory compliance litigation. Whew! I tell you what: being a full-time attorney, a part-time blogger, mom, and wife is tiring! Try it. You’ll see. Try it for 10 years!
I am so proud to have created a career out of defending health care providers across the country, from HI to AL to NY to FL and everywhere in between.
My birthday is January 7th, right after Christmas and New Year’s Day. I am one year closer to getting Medicare (I cannot wait), but since I rely on private pay health insurance, I am giving myself a special Christmas present to end the year and “wind-down” the health spending plan. I will be undergoing a root canal tomorrow, the 21st of December.
Root canals are not fun. In fact, they remind me of undergoing a Medicare and/or Medicaid audit. No one wants them done, but you got to do it.
I suggest conducting self audits regularly, especially now with the Public Health Emergency (PHE) ending at some point.
Self Audits
The first step for a medical practice or organization is to select the timeframe that will be reviewed during the audit. The timeframe should be large enough to produce meaningful results. For example, in its OIG Data Brief, the OIG looked at a year’s worth of data, from March 1, 2020, through February 28, 2021. There are some key dates and regulations that practices or organizations need to consider when selecting the timeframe. These include:
- January 31, 2020: HHS announced the COVID-19 PHE, which was determined to have existed since January 27, 2020.
- March 27, 2020: The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law.
- March 31, 2020: CMS’ “Policy and Regulatory Revisions in Response to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency” became effective.
So many changes to Medicare and Medicaid rules and regulations were implemented during COVID. Some changes will continue after PHE ends and some will not.
Now more so than ever, putting your own facility through a thorough self-audit is imperative. You need to understand the policy changes pertinent to your health care service type and dates the changes occurred and when applicable. Before the “REAL” auditors come knocking on your facility’s door, prepare yourself. Consider hiring an attorney or medical compliance expert to conduct the self audit.
The next step in performing a self-audit is for the practice or organization to select a category of service to review. If the practice or organization provides multiple types of services, the focus should be on one category, such as office visits, for review. When reviewing office visit services, the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes applicable to telehealth visits include, but are not limited to, Office or Other Outpatient Services (99201-99205 [new patient] and 99211-99215 [established patient]) and Non-Face-to-Face Telephone Services (99441-99443 [practitioners who may report E/M services] and 98966-98968 [practitioners who cannot bill independently]). Practitioners who cannot bill independently are qualified non-physician health care professionals, such as social workers, clinical psychologists, and certain therapists. Please note, CPT code 99201 was deleted effective January 1, 2021.
Looking forward to 2023 after my root canal…Cheers!
