Category Archives: Provider Appeals of Adverse Decisions for Medicare and Medicaid
SNFs Are on the Medicare Chopping Block! Caveat!
Every skilled nursing facility in the US will be subject to a five-claim audit starting THIS WEEK as regulators try to better assess and root out improper payments. Blah. Blah. Blah. The former is the first sentence in an article that is giving warning to skilled nursing facilities (“SNF”). But, we all know that PROPER PAYMENTS get caught in the wide net cast for improper payments. Innocent people get accused of crimes. Health care providers get accused of Medicare and Medicaid fraud or, at least, abhorrent billing.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) announced the nationwide audits, which will be conducted by Medicare Administrative Contractors (“MACs”) on a rolling basis, with the MAC in every region required to pull five Medicare Part A claims from every facility they cover and review them for potential errors.
The results will lead to alleged overpayments, credible allegations of fraud, submittals to the OIG, and False Claims Act (“FCA”) penalties. The effort follows an HHS report that found skilled nursing facilities had the highest rate of improper payments, with nearly a quarter of those tied to insufficient documentation.
Most of the rest of my blog (except for what is important) is cut and pasted from the article (since I am not a journalist and cannot procure quotes):
“We haven’t seen anything like this in the recent past, at least not in the last 10 years,” said Stacy Baker, OTR/L, RAC-CT, director of audit services for Proactive LTC Consulting. “But it’s no surprise to see this sector-wide probe and educate. Looking back on Medicare FFS improper payment data, we’ve never seen SNF improper payment rates this high, and nearly doubling since the 2021 report.”
That rate stood at 15.1% in 2022, almost double the 7.79% rate in 2021. A CMS report blamed missing case-mix group component documentation. Baker billed the new initiative as an attempt to improve poor billing practices that emerged with the implementation of the Patient Driven Payment Model.
But the improper payments can’t be attributed to PDPM alone, said Alicia Cantinieri BSN, vice president of MDS policy and education for Zimmet Healthcare Services.
“That’s probably not the whole reason,” she said on a webinar earlier this month.
She noted that risk areas that could move providers to the front of the audit process include past performance, such as a history of additional documentation requests (“ADR”); frequent errors in Section GG, which sets payment rates for physical therapy, occupational and nursing groups; diagnoses without medical record to support MDS inclusion; and even illegible RN signatures. I bolded “even illegible RN signatures” because I cannot tell you how many times I have seen denials by auditors because they couldn’t read someone’s signature, and, therefore, could not verify their license. Have auditors heard of a phone?
The reviews will be conducted on a prepayment basis unless the provider requests post-payment review due to a financial burden. Holy cow! See blog, blog, and blog.
“Keep in mind, there’s lots of low-hanging fruit for payment error aside from PDPM accuracy, such as but not limited to, compliant SNF Certs and Recerts and physician oversight regs,” Baker added. “These components should be included in the Triple Check process as well.”
The CMG for each HIPPS code also must be clearly supported to validate the claim.
The MACs will complete one round of probe and educate for every provider, instead of that usual potential three rounds, as per their traditional TPE program.
It is a good idea for providers to start analyzing data and conducting internal self-audits.
TIPS for an effective ADR response:
- SECURE AN ATTORNEY WHO SPECIALIZES IN THIS TYPE OF LEGAL WORK.
- Develop a process and team now. Assign responsibilities for tasks such as, but not limited to: identifying ADR requests, ensuring timely response to deadlines are met, pulling together medical records and documents required to support the HIPPS code, and reviewing the packet for completeness.
- Make copies. Never ever, ever, ever send originals.
- Organize documentation to make the contractor’s review easy, labeling critical sections such as physician orders, MDS assessments, Section GG documentation and more.
- Allow sufficient time for your lawyers and hired experts, both with clinical and MDS coding expertise, to review the claims and documentation for accuracy. If your attorney believes that your documentation has concerning issues, it is best to SELF-DISCLOSE. Self-disclosure can prevent penalties; whereas if you are caught, penalties will ensue.
E/M Codes and When You Should NOT Fire Your Attorney!
Lately, I have been inundated with Medicare and Medicaid health care providers getting audited for E/M codes. I know Dr. Hirsh has spoken often about the perils of e/m codes. The thing about e/m codes is that everyone uses them. Hospitals, family physicians, urgent care centers, specialists, like cardiologists. Obviously, for a specialist, like cardiology, the higher level codes will be more common. A 99214 will be common compared to a generalist like a primary care physician, where a 99213 may be more common.
Here’s a little secret: the difference between a 99214 and 99213 is subjective. It’s so subjective that I have seen auditors who are hired by private companies to audit on behalf of CMS and are financially incentivized to find fault find 100% error rates. Who finds a 100% error rate? Not one claim out of 150 was compliant. Then, I come in and hire the best independent auditors or coders. There are generally two companies that I always use. The independent auditors are so good. Most importantly, they come in and find a much more probable error rate of almost zero.
Hiring an independent, expert coder to ensure that the RAC, MAC, UPIC, or TPE audits accurately is always part of my defense.
Recently, I learned what I should have known a long time ago, but is essential for our listeners to know. If your medical malpractice is with The Doctors Company, for free, you get $25k of – what TDC calls – Medi-Guard or regulatory compliance protection. In other words, you get audited by a UPIC and are informed that you owe an alleged $5 million, extrapolated, of course, you get $25k to pay an attorney for defense. Sadly, $25k will not come close to paying your whole defense, but it’s a start. No one scoffs at “free” money.
When accused of an alleged overpayment, placed on prepayment review, or accused of a credible allegation of fraud, your reimbursements could be in imminent danger of being suspended or recouped. It is imperative for the health care provider to stay apprised of what penalties they are facing. You want to know: “best case scenario and worst case scenario.”
And, providers, be cognizant of the gravity of your situation. Infringement of the false claims act can result in high penalties or jail, depending on the circumstances and the provider’s attorney. I had a client, who is an M.D. psychiatrist. She asked me what is the worst penalty possible. I am blunt and honest, apparently to a fault. I didn’t miss a beat. “Jail,” I said. She was horrified, called her insurance company, and requested a new attorney. TDC refused to fire me, so the doctor said that she will draft the self-disclosure herself. She also said that she submitted the falsified documents to the UPIC, so she was confident that the UPIC would not notice, but see below, time stamps are a bitch.
When I told the doctor that we needed to self-disclose to OIG because she had some Medicare claims, she screamed, “No! No! NO!” It was a video call and my sound wasn’t up loud, and I just watch her on the screen with her face all contorted and her mouth getting really big, then contract, then get really big, then contract, then get really big and then even bigger. The expert certified coder was present for the call, and he called me afterward asking me: “What was that?” And his wife, who overheard, said, “OMG. I would have lashed out.” I kept my cool. Honestly, I just felt bad for her because I can see the writing on the wall.
Obviously, a new attorney is not going to change the outcome. She falsified 17 dates of service because she wanted the service notes to be “perfect.” Well, providers, there is no such thing as perfect and changing diagnoses and CPT codes and adding details to the notes that, supposedly, you remember from a month ago is not ok.
I did feel bad for her for leaving me. I could have gotten her off without any penalties.
You see, English is not her first language. She misinterpreted an email from the UPIC and thought it said that you can fix any errors before submitting the documents. She fabricated 17 claims before I was hired instructed her to stop. I had a solid defense prepared. I was going to hire an independent auditor to audit her 147 claims with the 17 falsified claims. I would have hoped for a low error rate. Then, I would have conducted a self-audit and self-disclosed the fabrications to the UPIC with the explanation that it was a nonintentional harmless error that we are admitting. Self-disclosure can, sometimes, save you from penalties! However, if she doesn’t self-disclose, she will be caught. Unbeknownst to her, on page 6 of the service notes, it is time and date stamped. It revealed on what day she changed the data and what data she changed. Those of you who would also terminate your attorney because you think you can get by with the fraud without anyone noticing, think hard about whether you would like to suffer the worst penalty – jail – or have your attorney be honest and upfront and get you off without penalties by following the rules and self-disclosing any problems uncovered.
I have no idea what will happen to the doctor, but had she stayed with me, she would have escaped without penalty. When not to fire your attorney!
Ding Dong! PHE Is Dead!!!
The federal Public Health Emergency (PHE) for COVID-19, declared under Section 319 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, is expiring at the end of the day on May 11, 2023, today! This is huge. There have been thousands of exceptions and waivers due to COVID throughout the last 2 1/2 years. But on the end of the day on May 11, 2023…POOF….
Most exceptions or waivers will immediately cease.
The Department claims it has been working closely with partners—including Governors; state, local, Tribal, and territorial agencies; industry; and advocates—to ensure an orderly transition out of the COVID PHE.
Yesterday, HHS released a Fact Sheet. It is quite extensive, as it should be considering the amount of regulatory compliance changes that will happen overnight!
Since January 2021, COVID deaths have declined by 95% and hospitalizations are down nearly 91%.
There are some flexibilities and actions that will not be affected on May 11.
Access to COVID vaccinations and certain treatments, such as Paxlovid and Lagevrio, will generally not be affected.
At the end of the PHE on May 11, Americans will continue to be able to access COVID vaccines at no cost, just as they have during the COVID PHE. People will also continue to be able to access COVID treatments just as they have during the COVID PHE.
At some point, the federal government will no longer purchase or distribute COVID vaccines and treatments, payment, coverage, and access may change.
On April 18, 2023, HHS announced the “HHS Bridge Access Program for COVID-19 Vaccines and Treatments.” to maintain broad access to vaccines and treatments for uninsured Americans after the transition to the traditional health care market. For those with most types of private insurance, COVID vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) are a preventive health service and will be fully covered without a co-pay when provided by an in-network provider. Currently, COVID vaccinations are covered under Medicare Part B without cost sharing, and this will continue. Medicare Advantage plans must also cover COVID vaccinations in-network without cost sharing, and this will continue. Medicaid will continue to cover COVID vaccinations without a co-pay or cost sharing through September 30, 2024, and will generally cover ACIP-recommended vaccines for most beneficiaries thereafter.
After the transition to the traditional health care market, out-of-pocket expenses for certain treatments, such as Paxlovid and Lagevrio, may change, depending on an individual’s health care coverage, similar to costs that one may experience for other covered drugs. Medicaid programs will continue to cover COVID treatments without cost sharing through September 30, 2024. After that, coverage and cost sharing may vary by state.
Major telehealth flexibilities will not be affected. The vast majority of current Medicare telehealth flexibilities that people with Medicare—particularly those in rural areas and others who struggle to find access to care—have come to rely upon throughout the PHE, will remain in place through December 2024. Plus, States already have significant flexibility with respect to covering and paying for Medicaid services delivered via telehealth. This flexibility was available prior to the COVID PHE and will continue to be available after the COVID PHE ends.
What will be affected by the end of the COVID-19 PHE:
Many COVID PHE flexibilities and policies have already been made permanent or otherwise extended for some time, with others expiring after May 11.
Certain Medicare and Medicaid waivers and broad flexibilities for health care providers are no longer necessary and will end. During the COVID PHE, CMS used a combination of emergency authority waivers, regulations, and sub-regulatory guidance to ensure and expand access to care and to give health care providers the flexibilities needed to help keep people safe. States, hospitals, nursing homes, and others are currently operating under hundreds of these waivers that affect care delivery and payment and that are integrated into patient care and provider systems. Many of these waivers and flexibilities were necessary to expand facility capacity for the health care system and to allow the health care system to weather the heightened strain created by COVID-19; given the current state of COVID-19, this excess capacity is no longer necessary.
For Medicaid, some additional COVID PHE waivers and flexibilities will end on May 11, while others will remain in place for six months following the end of the COVID PHE. But many of the Medicaid waivers and flexibilities, including those that support home and community-based services, are available for states to continue beyond the COVID PHE, if they choose to do so. For example, States have used COVID PHE-related flexibilities to increase the number of individuals served under a waiver, expand provider qualifications, and other flexibilities. Many of these options may be extended beyond the PHE.
Coverage for COVID-19 testing will change.
State Medicaid programs must provide coverage without cost sharing for COVID testing until the last day of the first calendar quarter that begins one year after the last day of the PHE. That means with the PHE ending on May 11, 2023, this mandatory coverage will end on September 30, 2024, after which coverage may vary by state.
The requirement for private insurance companies to cover COVID tests without cost sharing, both for OTC and laboratory tests, will end at the expiration of the PHE.
Certain COVID data reporting and surveillance will change. CDC COVID data surveillance has been a cornerstone of our response, and during the PHE, HHS had the authority to require lab test reporting for COVID. At the end of the COVID-19 PHE, HHS will no longer have this express authority to require this data from labs, which will affect the reporting of negative test results and impact the ability to calculate percent positivity for COVID tests in some jurisdictions. Hospital data reporting will continue as required by the CMS conditions of participation through April 30, 2024, but reporting will be reduced from the current daily reporting to weekly.
FDA’s ability to detect shortages of critical devices related to COVID-19 will be more limited. While FDA will still maintain its authority to detect and address other potential medical product shortages, it is seeking congressional authorization to extend the requirement for device manufacturers to notify FDA of interruptions and discontinuances of critical devices outside of a PHE which will strengthen the ability of FDA to help prevent or mitigate device shortages.
Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act liability protections will be amended. On April 14, 2023, HHS Secretary Becerra mailed all the governors announcing his intention to amend the PREP Act declaration to extend certain important protections that will continue to facilitate access to convenient and timely COVID vaccines, treatments, and tests for individuals.
More changes are occurring than what I can write in one, little blogpost. Know that auditors will be knocking on your doors, asking for dates of service during the PHE. Be sure to research the policies and exceptions that were pertinent during those DOS. This is imperative for defending yourself against auditors knocking on your doors.
And, as always, lawyer-up fast!
And just like the Wicked With of the West, DING DONG! The PHE is dead.
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!
Texas Judge Poo Poos the ACA Preventable Services Mandate!
In March, the U.S District Court in the Northern District of Texas vacated the requirement that ACA-compliant health plans cover certain U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended preventive services without cost sharing.
The DOJ argued the lower-court ruling from a federal judge in Texas “has no legal justification and threatens the public health.” The Health and Human Services Department estimates the ACA covered preventive services for more than 150 million people in 2020.
I am not taking a stance on the ACA. As a lawyer, I can tell you that to obtain an injunction, you have to prove:
- Likelihood of success on the merits;
- Irreprepable harm;
- Balancing the equities;
- Public interest.
Those standards come from a Supreme Court case called Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008).
I understand that the Texas case vacating that the ACA-compliant health plans cover preventive services has become highly polarizing in politics. Obviously, the Republicans are Plaintiffs in this case and fighting against Obamacare. But I do not care about the politics. My contention with this case is if the government is mandating (well, was mandating before this TX judge’s decision) preventive care to be free, how is that not forcing doctor’s to work for whatever the government deems to be fair. Will they get paid Medicare or Medicaid prices? They should be so lucky. I don’t want to go out on a limb and compare mandating doctors to provide services for Medicare and Medicaid prices, regardless whether that physician is even enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid to slavery, but if the shoe fits…
On another note, the Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs) added hospice to the list of CMS approved audit targets. The review will determine if Hospice General Inpatient Care (GIP) was reasonable and necessary to achieve pain control or acute or chronic symptom management which could not be managed in any other setting. Claims that do not meet the indications of coverage and/or medical necessity will be recoded to Routine Hospice Care 0651 and result in an overpayment.” The affected code will be REV code 0656.
On March 31, CMS issued the FY 2024 proposed rule which includes a 2.8% rate increase and the FY 2024 cap of $33,396.55. The proposed rule also includes updates on the Hospice Outcomes & Patient Evaluation (HOPE) tool, CAHPS® tool, the Hospice Special Focus Program, and a proposed addition of hospice physicians to the Medicare enrollment process. For a full analysis of the proposed rule, view NHPCO’s regulatory alert from April 4. Comments are due by May 30, 2023.
Other CMS approved audit targets for 2023 and 2024 are : Ambulance Providers, Ambulatory Surgery Center (ASC), Outpatient Hospital, Inpatient Hospital, Inpatient Hospital, Inpatient Psychiatric Facility, Inpatient, Outpatient, ASC, Physician, IP, OP, SNF, OP Clinics, ORF, CORF, OPH, OP Non-Hospital, SNF, ORF, CORF, Physician, Physician/Non-physician Practitioner (NPP), Physician/NPP, Professional Services (Physician/Non-Physician), and Radiologists/Part B providers.
To name a few.
Supreme Court to Decide Mens Rea in FCA Claims!
First, I would like to give a quick shout out to my husband Scott. It’s his birthday today. Speaking of important days, another important day is imminent. Back in mid-January 2023, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in two consolidated cases from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — U.S. ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc., No. 21-1326, and U.S. ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway, Inc., No. 22-111 — which has teed up a case that could undermine one of the government’s most powerful tools for fighting fraud in government contracts and programs and, dare I say, overreaching tool. The False Claims Act (“FCA”). A jackhammer where a scalpel would suffice.
At issue is whether hundreds of major retail pharmacies across the country knowingly overcharged Medicaid and Medicare by overstating what their usual and customary prices were. In other words, the question presented is: Whether and when a defendant’s contemporaneous subjective understanding or beliefs about the lawfulness of its conduct are relevant to whether it “knowingly” violated the False Claims Act. Unlike most civil fraud actions, the FCA allows treble damages, which in “non-lawyer-ese” equals triple damages.
To Calculate Base Damages, you look at the injury. Determine what damages to the government resulted “because of” the defendant’s acts. The burden is on the government or the relator to prove that the damages sought were caused by the fraud. The defendant will want to be able to distance the alleged damages from the fraudulent acts to the extent possible (such that the damages cannot be said to have been caused by the defendant’s acts) in order to minimize its potential financial liability.
This case essentially began in 2006, when Walmart upended the retail pharmacy world by offering large numbers of frequently used drugs at very cheap prices — $4 for a 30-day supply — with automatic refills. That left the rest of the retail pharmacy industry desperately trying to figure out how to compete.
The pharmacies came up with various offers that matched Walmart’s prices for cash customers, but they billed Medicaid and Medicare using far higher prices, not what are alleged to be their usual and customary prices.
Walmart did report its discounted cash prices as usual and customary, but other chains did not, like Safeway and Supervalu. Even as the discounted prices became the majority of their cash sales, other retail pharmacies continued to bill the government at the previous and far higher prices.
For example, between 2008 and 2012, Safeway charged just $10 for almost all of its cash sales for a 90-day supply of a top-selling drug to reduce cholesterol. But it did not report $10 as its usual and customary price. Instead, Safeway told Medicare and Medicaid that its usual and customary price ranged from $81 to $109. In the Petition, Petitioner’s “expert estimated that Safeway received $127 million more in reimbursements from government health programs than it would have if it reported its price-match and discount club prices as its usual and customary prices.
A decision is expected this summer. Quote from the Petitioner about Safeway trying to hide their price matching policy from media or investigtors:
“With respect to price-matching, Safeway adopted an “official company policy” of denying that it would match Walmart prices “if an unidentified customer calls in. This is to avoid trouble with the media or competitors.” But “[i]f a regular customer known to you asks if we will match . . . the answer is YES.””
I foresee the pharmacies facing a looming overpayment. The Petition explains that, for example, after a pharmacy manager informed executives that Nebraska’s Medicaid program was requiring price-matched discount prices to be reported as U&C prices, an executive asked: “Does anyone think we have an issue here? My question is how the state of Nebraska will know that we offered to match any price out there.” In a follow-up communication, other executives pointed out that advertising their price-matching program would “Alert the Medicaid programs to start looking” into what Safeway was doing, and therefore stressed the “need to keep a low profile.” We shall see in June or July.
Watch AND Listen to RACMonitor Mondays!!
Now you can WATCH and listen to Monitor Monday!
We went to video! Click the link to watch!
We present live every Monday, so be sure and join us. You can ask real live questions of the panelists!
https://www.linkedin.com/video/event/urn:li:ugcPost:7052380196447948800/
Dueling Ophthalmologists: Accusations of Violations of the False Claims Act for Refusal to Hire?
Today I have a story about dueling ophthalmologists. And, yes, I wrote “dueling,” as in fighting. This is a true story that the 6th Circuit heard about the False Claims Act (“FCA”). With the Appellate Circuit Courts split regarding the issue I will be discussing in this blog, I foresee the U.S. Supreme Court taking an appeal of this case for a final review if the losing ophthalmologist appeals. So, be on the watch. Because this case is defining what the FCA statute does not….remuneration.
Issue: Does renumeration cover (1) just payments and transfers of value; or (2) any act that may be valuable to another?
The case was published March 28, 2023, from the 6th Circuit. United States ex rel. Martin v. Hathaway, No. 22-1463, 2023 WL 2661358 (6th Cir. Mar. 28, 2023). In a rural part of Michigan, there was an ophthalmology group consisting of two physicians, the owner of the practice, Dr. Hathaway, and one employee physician, Dr. Martin. Dr. Martin overheard Dr. Hathaway negotiating a sale to a larger practice, and began to question her employment path. The sale fell through, but she had begun negotiations with the local hospital to become the hospital’s sole ophthalmologist. Well, Drs. Hathaway and Martin were the only ophthalmologists in this area, and Dr. Hathaway knew that if Dr. Martin went in-house to the local hospital Oaklawn that his business would suffer because his now-employee would become a competitor.
The hospital gave her a pending offer. Dr. Hathaway was infuriated. He told the hospital that if it hired Dr. Martin that he would move all his surgeries to another hospital. He even told the local hospital’s CEO that if the Board approved the hiring of Dr. Martin, it would be the “death knell” of his practice because the hospital’s future patients referrals would go to Dr. Martin and not him.
Dr. Hathaway pled with the CEO. It would be a lose-lose if you hire Dr. Martin, he said. It will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to set up an internal ophthalmology line, while it would force Dr. Hathaway to pull his cases and go elsewhere.
Perhaps due to Dr. Hathaway’s threats, the Board elected to not hire Dr. Martin.
Dr. Martin did not take the rejection well.
She sued Dr. Hathaway, South Michigan, and Oaklawn in a qui tam action under the False Claims Act and Michigan’s False Claims Act. She accused Dr. Hathaway and Oaklawn Hospital of engaging in an illegal fraudulent scheme under the Anti-kickback Statute (“AKS”) and that claims for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement resulting from the kickbacks violated the False Claims Act.
The definition of remuneration was at stake. The statute does not define renumeration. Does renumeration cover just payments and transfers of value or any act that may be valuable to another. The 6th Circuit held that renumeration only cover payments and other transfers of value.
The Complaint’s main theory of remuneration turns on the Oaklawn Board’s refusal to hire Dr. Martin in return for Dr. Hathaways general commitment to continue sending surgery referrals for his patients to Oaklawn.
You may recall that the FCA uses the word “payment,” whereas the AKS uses the word “remuneration,” which prompts the question whether remuneration means something broader.
The Court held, “no” – money and value needs to be defined as just that…money and value.
Dr. Hathaway gave Oaklawn no payment, no value. Dr. Martin lost in this case, but if she appeals, like I said, I foresee the US Supreme Court to weigh in.
NC Medicaid Expansion: More Consumers, Not More Providers!
Republican-run Congress passed Medicaid expansion today, March 23, 2023.
Today North Carolina took a commendable step forward in healthcare by expanding Medicaid to cover more low-income individuals. Now there are 10 States that have not expanded Medicaid. This decision will provide much-needed healthcare coverage to over 600,000 people in the state who previously did not have access to affordable healthcare. North Carolina has 2.9 million enrollees in traditional Medicaid coverage. Advocates have estimated that expansion could help 600,000 adults. In theory. On paper.
As a legal professional, I commend the North Carolina lawmakers for making this decision. The expansion of Medicaid will go a long way in improving the health and wellbeing of North Carolinians. It is well known that access to quality healthcare is critical for people to lead healthy and productive lives. By expanding Medicaid, the state is taking a proactive step towards ensuring that its citizens have access to the healthcare they need.
However, it is important to note that despite this expansion, many healthcare providers still do not accept Medicaid due to low reimbursement rates and regulatory burdens. This is a major issue that must be addressed if the benefits of the expansion are to be fully realized.
According to a report by the Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicaid patients often face significant challenges in accessing healthcare services due to a shortage of healthcare providers who accept Medicaid. In North Carolina, as of 2021, only 52% of primary care physicians accept Medicaid patients, while only 45% of specialists accept Medicaid patients. 600,000 North Carolinians will get a Medicaid card. A card does not guarantee health care services. See blog.
One area that has been severely impacted by the shortage of Medicaid providers is dental care. According to the American Dental Association, only 38% of dentists in the United States accept Medicaid patients. This has led to many low-income individuals going without essential dental care, which can lead to more serious health issues down the line. Remember, Deamante Driver? See blog.
Another area that has been impacted by the shortage of Medicaid providers is nursing homes. In many cases, nursing homes that accept Medicaid patients struggle to find healthcare providers willing to provide care to their residents. This can lead to residents going without essential medical care, which can have severe consequences.
Specialists are another area where the shortage of Medicaid providers is particularly acute. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, only 45% of specialists accept Medicaid patients. This can be especially challenging for patients with complex medical needs, who often require specialized care.
The shortage of Medicaid providers is a complex issue that requires a multifaceted solution. One approach is to increase reimbursement rates for healthcare providers who accept Medicaid patients. This would incentivize more healthcare providers to accept Medicaid patients, thereby increasing access to healthcare services for low-income individuals.
Another approach is to reduce regulatory burdens for healthcare providers. This would make it easier for healthcare providers to participate in Medicaid, thereby increasing access to healthcare services for low-income individuals.
These statistics highlight the urgent need to address the issue of low reimbursement rates and regulatory burdens faced by healthcare providers. If more providers are incentivized to accept Medicaid patients, more people will have access to the care they need, and the benefits of the expansion will be fully realized.
In conclusion, North Carolina’s decision to expand Medicaid is a significant step forward in healthcare, and it should be applauded. However, it is crucial that policy change to incentivize providers to accept Medicaid. From dental care to nursing homes and specialists, low-income individuals who rely on Medicaid face significant challenges in accessing essential healthcare services.
The Horror Story of 99214 and Insurance to Assist
99214. Is that Jean Valjean’s number? No. It is an E/M code of moderate complexity. Few CPT codes cause goosebumps, chilly air, and a pit in your stomach besides 99214. As I said, 99214 is an E/M code of moderate level of complexity. For a low complexity visit, the code decreases to 99213. Even lower is a 99212, which is considered a straightforward visit. The code goes as high as a 99215, which denotes high complexity. Generally, physicians are good at spotting the 99215s and 99212s; the lowest and highest complexities seem simple to spot. However, the middle complexity codes are a bit subjective. Auditors frequently find 99214s that the auditor thinks should have been a 99213. I am talking about the RACs, MACs, TPEs, UPICs, and other contractors paid with our tax dollars on behalf of CMS. I recently had a BCBS audit, which found that an urgent care center had a 97% error rate. Out of 30 claims, only one claim was considered 99214; 29 claims should have been down coded to a 99213, according to BCBS. Well, my urgent care center disagreed and hired an independent auditor to review the same claims that were audited. The independent audit resulted in vastly different results. According to the independent audit, only 4 of the 30 claims should have been down coded to 99213.
One should ask, how could two separate auditors audit the same documents and issue such disparate results? One reason is that the difference between 99213 and 99214 is subjective. However, subjectiveness was not the only reason for two polar opposite results.
You see, before 2021, facilities had the choice to follow either the 1995 guidelines or the 1997 guidelines for these CPT codes. And, there is a difference between the two guidelines. Instead of choosing either the 1995 or 1997 guidelines, BCBS applied both the 1997 and 1995 guidelines, which falsely created a more stringent criteria for a 99214.
The urgent care center had been verbose about the fact that they use the 1995 guidelines, not the 1997 guidelines. When the independent contractor audited the records, it used the 1995 guidelines only.
All in all, for an accusation of owing $180k, it cost the urgent care center almost $100k to defend itself against what was obviously a faulty audit. So, I’m thinking why in the world is there insurance for physicians for making a mistake in surgery – medical malpractice, but no insurance for False Claims allegations. I mean, med mal allegations mean there is a victim. But you can be accused of false claims unexpectantly and your practice is changed forever.
Recently, I learned of an insurance company that insures doctors and facilities if they are accused of billing Medicare or Medicaid for false claims. Unlike med mal, an accusation of false claims does not yield a victim (unless you see our tax dollars as people); however, an accusation of billing a False Claim can cost a doctor, facility, a hospital hundreds of thousands of dollars. Which, knowing all things are relative, is pennies on the dollar of the penalties under the FCA.
The company’s name is Curi. That is C-U-R-I. Personally, I had never heard of this company. I googled it after I was placed on the panel. This is an insurance company that pays for attorneys’ fees if you are accused of false claims or an overpayment. Personally, I think every listener should procure this insurance directly after RACMonitor. After 23 years of litigating, I have realized the worst part about defending yourself against accusations that you owe the government money is the huge price tag associated with it.
When I presented this story on RACMonitor, David Glaser made a comment about my segment that I would be remiss to omit. SOME med mal insurance policies cover the legal fees for attorneys for regulatory audits. Please review your policy to see whether your insurance company covers the attorneys’ fees for defense of regulatory audits before purchasing more insurance.
