Letter to HHS: RAC Audits “Have Absolutely No Direct Impact on the Medicare Providers” – And I Spotted Elvis!
“Recovery audits have absolutely no direct impact on the Medicare providers working hard to deliver much needed healthcare services to beneficiaries.“
And Elvis Presley is still alive! Oh, and did you know that Bill Clinton never had an affair on Hillary? (since when has her name become one word, like Prince or Beyonce?)
This sentence was written in a March 6, 2018, correspondence from The Council for Medicare Integrity to HHS Secretary Alex Azar.
“Recovery auditing has never been an impediment to the delivery of healthcare services nor is it an intrusion in the physician-patient relationship.” – Kristin Walter of The Council for Medicare Integrity. BTW, Ms. Walter, health care has a space between the two syllables.
The purpose of this letter that was sent from the The Council for Medicare Integrity to Secretary Azar was to request an increase of prepayment reviews for Medicare providers. For those of you so blessed to not know what a prepayment review, prepayment review is a review of your Medicare (or Caid) claims prior to being paid. It sounds reasonable on paper, but, in real life, prepayment review is a Draconian, unjust, and preposterous tool aimed at putting healthcare providers out of business, or if not aimed, is the unknown or accidental outcome of such a review. If placed on prepayment review, your Medicare or Medicaid reimbursements are 100% cut off. Gone. Like the girl in that movie with Ben Affleck, Gone Girl Gone, and, like the girl, not really gone because it’s alive – you provided services and are owed that money – but it’s in hiding and may ruin your life. See blog.
Even if I were wrong, which I am not, the mere process in the order of events of prepayment review is illogical. In the interest of time, I will cut-and-paste a section from a prior blog that I wrote about prepayment review:
In real-life, prepayment review:
- The auditors may use incorrect, inapplicable, subjective, and arbitrary standards.
I had a case in which the auditors were denying 100% ACTT services, which are 24-hour mental health services for those 10% of people who suffer from extreme mental illness. The reason that the auditor was denying 100% of the claims was because “lower level services were not tried and ruled out.” In this instance, we have a behavioral health care provider employing staff to render ACTT services (expensive), actually rendering the ACTT services (expensive), and getting paid zero…zilch…nada…for a reason that is not required! There is no requirement that a person receiving ACTT services try a lower level of service first. If the person qualifies for ACTT, the person should receive ACTT services. Because of this auditor’s misunderstanding of ACTT, this provider was almost put out of business.
Another example: A provider of home health was placed on prepayment review. Again, 90 – 100% of the claims were denied. In home health, program eligibility is determined by an independent assessment conducted by the Division of Medical Assistance (DMA) via Liberty, which creates an individualized plan of care. The provider submitted claims for Patient Sally, who, according to her plan, needs help dressing. The service notes demonstrated that the in-home aide helped Sally dress with a shirt and pants. But the auditor denies every claim the provider bills for Sally (which is 7 days a week) because, according to the service note, the in-home aide failed to check the box to show she/he helped put on Sally’s shoes. The auditor fails to understand that Sally is a double amputee – she has no feet.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes – Who watches the watchmen???
- The administrative burden placed on providers undergoing prepayment review is staggering.
In many cases, a provider on prepayment review is forced to hire contract workers just to keep up with the number of document requests coming from the entity that is conducting the prepayment review. After initial document requests, there are supplemental document requests. Then every claim that is denied needs to be re-submitted or appealed. The amount of paperwork involved in prepayment review would cause an environmentalist to scream and crumple into the fetal position like “The Crying Game.”
- The accuracy ratings are inaccurate.
Because of the mistakes the auditors make in erroneously denying claims, the purported “accuracy ratings” are inaccurate. My daughter received an 86 on a test. Given that she is a straight ‘A’ student, this was odd. I asked her what she got wrong, and she had no idea. I told her to ask her teacher the next day why she received an 86. Oops. Her teacher had accidentally given my daughter an 86; the 86 was the grade of another child in the class with the same first name. In prepayment review, the accuracy ratings are the only method to be removed from prepayment, so the accuracy of the accuracy ratings is important. One mistaken, erroneously denied claim damages the ratings, and we’ve already discussed that mistakes/errors occur. You think, if a mistake is found, call up the auditing entity…talk it out. See below.
- The communication between provider and auditor do not exist.
Years ago my mom and I went to visit relatives in Switzerland. (Not dissimilar to National Lampoon’s European Vacation). They spoke German; we did not. We communicated with pictures and hand gestures. To this day, I have no idea their names. This is the relationship between the provider and the auditor.
Assuming that the provider reaches a live person on the telephone:
“Can you please explain to me why claims 1-100 failed?”
“Don’t you know the service definitions and the policies? That is your responsibility.”
“Yes, but I believe that we follow the policies. We don’t understand why these claims are denied. That’s what I’m asking.”
“Read the policy.”
- The financial burden on the provider is devastating.
If a provider’s reimbursements are 80 – 100% reliant on Medicaid/care and those funds are frozen, the provider cannot meet payroll. Yet the provider is expected to continue to render services. A few years ago, I requested from NC DMA a list of providers on prepayment review and the details surrounding them. I was shocked at the number of providers that were placed on prepayment review and within a couple months ceased submitting claims. In reality, what happened was that those providers were forced to close their doors. They couldn’t financially support their company without getting paid.
Back to the current blog
So to have The Council for Medicare Integrity declare that prepayment review has absolutely no impact on Medicare providers is ludicrous.
Now, I will admit that the RAC (and other acronyms) prepayment and post payment review programs have successfully recovered millions of dollars of alleged overpayments. But these processes must be done right, legally. You can’t just shove an overzealous, for-profit, audit company out the door like an overweight kid in a candy store. Legal due process and legal limitations must be required – and followed.
Ms. Walter does present some interesting, yet factually questionable, statistics:
- “Over the past 5 years alone, Medicare has lost more than $200 billion taxpayer dollars to very preventable billing errors made by providers.”
Not quite sure how this was calculated. A team of compliance auditors would have had to review hundreds of thousands of medical records to determine this amount. Is she referring to money that has been recovered and the appeal process afforded to the providers has been exhausted? Or is this number how much money is being alleged has been overpaid? How exactly were these supposed billing errors “very preventable?” What does that mean? She is either saying that the health care providers could have prevented the ostensible overbillings – or – she is saying that RAC auditors could have prevented these purported overbillings by increased prepayment review. Either way … I don’t get it. It reminds me of Demi Moore in A Few Good Men, “I object.” Judge states, “Overruled.” Demi Moore pleads, “I strenuously object.” Judge states, “Still overruled.” “Very preventable billing errors,” said Ms. Walters. “Still overruled.”
- “Currently, only 0.5 percent of Medicare claims are reviewed, on a post-payment basis, for billing accuracy and adherence to program billing rules. This leaves 99.5 percent of claims immune from any checks and balances that would ensure Medicare payments are correct.”
Again, I am curious as to the mathematic calculation used. Is she including the audits performed, not only by RACs, but audits by ZPICs, CERTS, MACs, including Palmetto, Noridian and CGS, federal and state Program Integrities, State contractors, MFCUs, MICs, MCOs, PERMs, PCG, and HHS? Because I can definitely see that we need more players.
- “The contrast between Medicare review practices and private payers is startling. Despite the dire need to safeguard Medicare dollars, CMS currently allows Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs) to review fewer than 30 Medicare claim types (down from 800 claim types initially) and has scaled back to allow a review of a mere 0.5 percent of Medicare provider claims after they have been paid. Considered a basic cost of doing business, the same providers billing Medicare comply, without issue, with the more extensive claim review requirements of private health insurance companies. With Medicare however, provider groups have lobbied aggressively to keep their overpayments, putting intense pressure on CMS to block Medicare billing oversight.”
Did I wake up in the Twilight Zone? Zombies? Let’s compare Medicare/caid to private health care companies.
First, let’s talk Benjamins (or pennies in Medicare/caid). A study was conducted to compare Texas Medicare/caid reimbursement rates to private pay. Since everything is bigger in Texas, including the reimbursement rates for Medicare/caid, I figured this study is demonstrative for the country (obviously each state’s statistics would vary).
According to a 2016 study by the National Comparisons of Commercial and Medicare Fee-For-Service Payments to Hospitals:
- 96%. In 2012, average payments for commercial inpatient hospital stays were higher than Medicare fee-for-service payments for 96% of the diagnosis related groups (DRGs) analyzed.
- 14%. Between 2008 and 2012, the commercial-to-Medicare payment difference had an average increase of 14%.
- 86%. Longer hospital stays do not appear to be a factor for higher average commercial payments. During this period, 86 percent of the DRGs analyzed had commercial-to-Medicare average length-of-stay of ratios less than one.
The “basic cost of doing business” for Medicare/caid patients is not getting appropriate reimbursement rates.
The law states that the reimbursements rates should allow quality of care. Section 30(A) of the Medicare Act requires that each State “provide such methods and procedures relating to the utilization of, and the payment for, care and services available under the plan (including but not limited to utilization review plans as provided for in section 1396b(i)(4) of this title) as may be necessary to safeguard against unnecessary utilization of such care and services and to assure that payments are consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care and are sufficient to enlist enough providers so that care and services are available under the plan at least to the extent that such care and services are available to the general population in the geographic area.” (emphasis added).
Second, billing under Medicare/caid is much more complex than billing third-party payors, which are not required to follow the over-regulated, esoteric, administrative, spaghetti sauce that mandates providers who accept Medicare and/or Medicaid (a whole bunch of independent vegetables pureed into a sauce in which the vegetables are indiscernible from the other). The regulatory burden required of providing Medicare and/or Medicaid services does not compare to the administrative and regulatory burden associated with private pay, regardless of Ms. Walter’s uncited and unreferenced claims that “the more extensive claim review requirements [are with the] private health insurance companies.” We’re talking kumquats to rack of lamb (are kumquats cheap)?
Third, let’s discuss this comment: “provider groups have lobbied aggressively.” RAC auditors, and all the other alphabet soup, are paid A LOT. Government bureaucracy often does not require the same “bid process” that a private company would need to pass. Some government contracts are awarded on a no-bid process (not ok), which does not create the best “bang for your buck for the taxpayers.”
I could go on…but, I believe that you get the point. My readers are no dummies!
I disagree with the correspondence, dated March 6, 2018, from The Council for Medicare Integrity to HHS Secretary Alex Azar is correct. However, my question is who will push back against The Council for Medicare Integrity? All those health care provider associations that “have lobbied aggressively to keep their overpayments, putting intense pressure on CMS to block Medicare billing oversight.”?
At the end of the day (literally), I questioned the motive of The Council for Medicare Integrity. Whenever you question a person’s motive, follow the money. So, I googled “who funds The Council for Medicare Integrity? Unsurprisingly, it was difficult to locate. According to The Council for Medicare Integrity’s website it provides transparency with the following FAQ:
Again, do you see why I am questioning the source of income?
According to The Council for Medicare Integrity, “The Council for Medicare Integrity is a 501(c)(6) non-profit organization. The Council’s mission is to educate policymakers and other stakeholders regarding the importance of healthcare integrity programs that help Medicare identify and correct improper payments.
As a 501(c)(6) organization, the Council files IRS Form 990s annually with the IRS as required by law. Copies of these filings and exemption application materials can be obtained by mailing your request to the Secretary at: Council for Medicare Integrity, Attention: Secretary, 9275 W. Russell Road, Suite 100, Las Vegas, Nevada 89148. In your request, please provide your name, address, contact telephone number and a list of documents requested. Hard copies are subject to a fee of $1.00 for the first page and $.20 per each subsequent page, plus postage, and must be made by check or money order, payable to the Council for Medicare Integrity. Copies will be provided within 30 days from receipt of payment. These documents are also available for public inspection without charge at the Council’s principal office during regular business hours. Please schedule an appointment by contacting the Secretary at the address above.
This website serves as an aggregator of all the verifiable key facts and data pertaining to this important healthcare issue, as well as a resource center to support the provider community in their efforts to comply with Medicare policy.”
I still question the funding (and the bias)…Maybe funded by the RACs??
Our old friends from Public Consulting Group (PCG) were found to have accepted improper Medicaid payments in New Jersey.
Those of you who have followed my blog will remember that PCG has been the “watchdog” and auditor of Medicaid claims in many, many states, including North Carolina, New Mexico, and New York. The story of PCG’s motus operandi is like an old re-run of Friends – it never seems to end. PCG audits health care provider records, usually about 150 claims, and determines an error rate based on a desk review by an employee who may or may not have the requisite experience in health care or regulatory compliance issues. The error rates are normally high, and PCG extrapolates the number across a universe of three years (generally). The result is an alleged overpayment of millions of dollars. Of course, it varies state to state, but PCG is paid on a contingency basis, usually 12 – 15%. See blog.
In a November 2017 Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report, OIG found that, in New Jersey, PCG, which was the contractor for New Jersey doctored records.
Isn’t that called fraud?
OIG found that New Jersey did not follow Federal regulations and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) guidance when it developed its payment rates for Medicaid school-based services and, as a result, claimed $300.5 million in unallowable costs. Among OIG’s findings, OIG determined that PCG improperly altered school employees’ responses to time studies to timestudies to indicate that their activities were directly related to providing Medicaid services when the responses indicated the activities were unrelated.
OIG recommended that New Jersey repay $300.5 million in federal Medicaid reimbursements. If you are a taxpayer in New Jersey,
you know that you are hanging Sec. Carole Johnson in effigy…at least, in your mind.
According to the New Jersey Medicaid website, PCG receives and processes billing agreements from newly Medicaid-enrolled LEAs, which is the acronym for “Local Education Agency.”
Here are PCG’s duties:
The New Jersey State Agency claims Federal Medicaid reimbursement for health services provided by schools under Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) through its Special Education Medicaid Initiative (SEMI). The State Department of Treasury (Treasury), the administrative manager for SEMI, hired PCG, on a contingency fee basis (shocker) to develop SEMI payment rates and submit claims on behalf of schools, which are overseen by the State Department of Education (DOE). Figure 1 (below) illustrates how New Jersey processes and claims Medicaid school-based services.
But notice the last bullet point in the list of PCG’s duties above. “provides ongoing Medicaid legal and regulatory compliance monitoring.” Of itself?
Only costs related to providing Medicaid-covered services may be included in payment rates for Medicaid services. But, remember, PCG is paid on contingency. See below.
So is it surprising that PCG raised the reimbursement rates? Why wouldn’t they? If you were paid on contingency, wouldn’t you determine the rates to be higher?
OIG’s report states that New Jersey, through a contractor (PCG), increased the payment rates retroactively to July 2003 from $552 to $1,451 for evaluation services and from $21 to $50 for rehabilitation services. This significant increase raised the question of whether the State was again using unallowable costs.
According to OIG, out of 1,575 responses from school employees, PCG recoded 235 employee responses in order to receive payment from Medicaid. Of those 235 recoded responses, OIG determined that 203 claims were incorrectly recoded by PCG. My math isn’t the best, but I am pretty sure that is approximately a 85% error rate. Shall we extrapolate?
Examples of improper activity code alterations included a social worker indicated that they were “scheduling students to see the [social worker].” Social worker coded this activity as “general administration” – correctly by the way. PCG altered the code to indicate that the employee was providing health care services in order to get paid for that time.
PCG incorporated learning disabilities teacher-consultant salaries in the evaluation rate. These salaries are unallowable because teacher-consultants provide special education services, not health-related services.
In a description of its rate-setting methodology, PCG stated that it excluded costs associated with learning disabilities teacher-consultants because they do not perform any medical services and are not medical providers as customarily recognized in the State’s Medicaid program. However, OIG found that PCG did not remove all learning disabilities teacher-consultant salaries when calculating payment rates
OIG calculated the amount of just that one issue – learning disabilities teacher-consultant salaries incorrectly incorporated – as more than $61 million. What’s 13% of $61 million (assuming that PCG’s contingency rate is 13%)? $7,930,000.
OIG recommended that New Jersey Medicaid:
- refund $300,452,930 in Federal Medicaid reimbursement claimed based on payment rates that incorporated unallowable costs,
- work with CMS to determine the allowable amount of the remaining $306,233,377 that we have set aside because the rates included unallowable costs that we cannot quantify, and
- revise its payment rates so they comply with Federal requirements.
PCG disagreed with OIG’s findings.
Another recommendation that OIG SHOULD have found – Get rid of PCG.
Knicole Emanuel Interviewed on Recent Success: Behavioral Health Care Service Still Locked in Overbilling Dispute with State
Last Thursday, I was interviewed by a reporter from New Mexico regarding our Teambuilders win, in which an administrative judge has found that Teambuilders owes only $896 for billing errors. Here is a copy of an article published in the Santa Fe New Mexican, written by Justin Horwath:
The true tragedy is that these companies, including Teambuilders, should not have been put out of business based on false allegations of fraud. Not only was Teambuilders cleared of fraud, but, even the ALJ agreed with us that Teambuilders does not owe $12 million – but a small, nominal amount ($896.35). Instead of having the opportunity to pay the $896.35 and without due process of law, Teambuilders was destroyed – because of allegations.
One of our clients in New Mexico had an alleged Medicaid recoupment of over $12 million!! Actually, $12,015,850.00 – to be exact. (See below). After we presented our evidence and testimony, the Judge found that we owe $896.35. I call that a win!
In this case, the Human Services Department (HSD) in New Mexico had reviewed 150 random claims. Initially, HSD claimed that 41 claims out of 150 were noncompliant.
But, prior to the hearing, we saved over $10 million by pointing out HSD’s errors and/or by providing additional documentation.
And then the ALJ’s decision after we presented our evidence and testimony –
Boom! Drop the mike…
…………………………….not so fast…
……………………………………………..picking the mike back up…
You see, in New Mexico, the administrative law judges (ALJs) cannot render decisions. Look in the above picture. You see where it reads, “Recommendation?” That is because the ALJs in New Mexico can only render recommendations.
Because Medicaid has a “single state agency” rule; i.e., that only one agency may render discretionary decisions regarding Medicaid, and HSD is the single state agency in New Mexico charged with managing Medicaid, only HSD may render a discretionary decision. So in NM, the ALJ makes a recommendation and then the Secretary of HSD has the choice to either accept or reject the decision.
Guess whether HSD accepted or rejected the ALJ’s recommendation?
Now we will have to appeal the Agency’s Decision to overturn the ALJ recommendation.
Here, in NC, we obtained a waiver from the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to allow our ALJs to render Decisions. See blog.
I still consider this a win.
Recently, hundreds of dentists across North Carolina received Tentative Notices of Overpayment (TNOs) from Public Consulting Group (PCG) demanding recoupment for reimbursements made to dentists who rendered services on Medicaid for Pregnant Women (MPW) eligible recipients. There was no dispute at this hearing that these women were eligible for MPW according to the Department of Health and Human Services’ (DHHS) portal. There was also no dispute that these woman had delivered their babies prior to the date of dental service. So the question becomes: If DHHS informs a dentist that a woman is MPW eligible on the date of the service, does that dentist have an individual and separate burden to determine whether these women are pregnant. And if so, what is it? Have them pee in a cup prior to dental services? See blog, and blog, and blog.
We do not have a definitive answer to the above-posed question, as the Judge has not rendered his decision. However, he did substantially limit these “nameless audits” or “non-RAC” audits to the RAC program limitations. In an Order on our Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that, even if the State does not agree that an audit is a RAC audit, if the audit conducted falls within the definition of a RAC audit, then the audit is a RAC audit.
The reason this is important is because RAC auditors yield such powerful and overwhelming tools against health care providers, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) limits the RAC auditors’ ability to look-back on older claims. For example, even though a provider is, generally, required to maintain records for six (6) years, the federal regulations only allow RAC auditors to look-back three (3) years, unless credible allegations of fraud exist.
Thus, when an auditor reviews documents over three-years-old, I always argue that the review of claims over 3-years-old violates the statute of limitations and federal law.
During hearings, inevitably, the state argues that this particular audit…the one at issue here…is not a RAC audit. The opposing side could no more identify which acronym this audit happens to be, but this audit is not a RAC. “I don’t know what it is, but I know what it’s not!”
Well, an ALJ looked past the rhetoric and pleas by the State that “this is not a RAC” and held that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a RAC audit and, subsequently, the RAC audit limitations do apply.
In the case for this dentist, Public Consulting Group (PCG) audited claims going back as far as six years! The Department of Health and Human Services’ argument was that this audit is not a RAC audit. So what is it? What makes it NOT a RAC? Because you say so? We all know that PCG has a contract with DHHS to perform RAC audits. Is this audit somehow outside its contractual purview?
So I filed a Motion for Summary Judgment requesting the Judge to throw out all claims outside the three-year look-back period per the RAC limitations.
Lo, and behold, I was right!! (The good guys win again!)
To understand this fully, it is important to first understand what the RAC program is and its intention. (“It depends on what the definition of “is” is”).
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(42):
the State shall—(i) establish a program under which the State contracts (consistent with State law and in the same manner as the Secretary enters into contracts with recovery audit contractors under section 1893(h), subject to such exceptions or requirements as the Secretary may require for purposes of this title or a particular State) with 1 or more recovery audit contractors for the purpose of identifying underpayments and overpayments and recouping overpayments under the State plan and under any waiver of the State plan with respect to all services for which payment is made to any entity under such plan or waiver.
RAC is defined as an entity that “…will review claims submitted by providers of items and services or other individuals furnishing items and services for which payment has been made under section 1902(a) of the Act or under any waiver of the State Plan to identify underpayments and overpayment and recoup overpayments for the States.” 42 CFR § 455.506(a).
Under this definition, PCG is clearly a recovery audit contractor. And the Judge agreed. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, just because the duck protests it is a donkey, it is still a duck. (Hmmmm..wonder how this logic would carry over to the whole transgender bathroom issue…another topic for another blogger…)
RACs must follow certain limitations as outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations. For example, pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 455.508(f), a Medicaid RAC “must not review claims that are older than 3 years from the date of the claim, unless it receives approval from the State.”
In this particular case, there were 15 claims at issue. Eleven (11) of those claims were outside the three-year look-back period!! With one fell swoop of an ALJ’s signature, we reduced the claims at issue from 15 to 4. Nice!
In DHHS’ Response to our Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, DHHS argued that, in this case, PCG was not acting as a RAC; therefore, the limitations do not apply. In support of such decision, DHHS supplied an affidavit of a DMA employee. She averred that the audit of this particular dentist was not per the RAC program. No rules were cited. No contract in support of her position was provided. Nothing except an affidavit of a DMA employee.
Obviously, it is my opinion that the ALJ was 100% accurate in ruling that this audit was a RAC audit and was limited in scope to a 3-year look-back period.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is not a donkey. No matter how much it pleads that it is, in fact, a donkey!
Remember the Super Bowl Ad of the Puppy, Baby, Monkey?:
That is so NOT ok!
In a groundbreaking decision published today by the Court of Appeals (COA), the Court smacked down Public Consulting Group’s (PCG), as well as any other contracted entity’s, authority to wield an “adverse decision” against a health care provider. This solidifies my legal argument that I have been arguing on this blog and in court for years!
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is the “single state agency” charged with managing Medicaid. Federal law requires that that one agency manage Medicaid with no ability to delegate discretionary decisions. Case law in K.C. v. Shipman upheld the federal law. See blog.
Yet, despite K.C. v. Shipman, decided in 2013, in Court, DHHS continued to argue that it should be dismissed from cases in which a contracted vendor rendered the adverse decision to recoup, terminate, or suspend a health care provider. DHHS would argue that it had no part of the decision to recoup, terminate, or suspend, that K.C. Shipman is irrelevant to health care provider cases, and that K.C. v. Shipman is only pertinent to Medicaid recipient cases, to which I countered until I was “blue in the face” is a pile of horse manure.
DHHS would argue that my interpretation would break down the Medicaid system because DHHS cannot possibly review and discern whether every recoupment, termination, and/or suspension made by a contracted vendor was valid (my words, not theirs). DHHS argued that it simply does not have the manpower, plus if it has the authority to contract with a company, surely that company can determine the amount of an alleged overpayment…WRONG!!
In fact, in DHHS v. Parker Home Care, LLC, the COA delineates the exact process for the State determining an overpayment with its contracted agent PCG.
- DHHS may enter into a contract with a company, such as PCG.
- A private company, like PCG, may perform preliminary and full investigations to collect facts and data.
- PCG must submit its findings to DHHS, and DHHS must exercise its own discretion to reach a tentative decision from six options (enumerated in the NC Administrative Code).
- DHHS, after its decision, will notify the provider of its tentative decision.
- The health care provider may request a reconsideration of the tentative decision within 15 days.
- Failure to do so will transform the tentative decision into a final determination.
- Time to appeal to OAH begins upon notification of the final determination by DHHS (60 days).
Another interesting part of this decision is that the provider, Parker Home Care, received the Tentative Notice of Overpayment (TNO) in 2012 and did nothing. The provider did not appeal the TNO.
However, because PCG’s TNO did not constitute a final adverse decision by DHHS (because PCG does not have the authority to render a final adverse decision), the provider did not miss any appeal deadline. The final adverse decision was determined to be DHHS’ action of suspending funds to collect the recoupment, which did not occur until 2014…and THAT action was timely appealed.
The COA’s message to private vendors contracted with DHHS is crystal clear: “There is only one head chef in the Medicaid kitchen.”
In one of the most audacious acts of governmental power, in 2013, New Mexico accused 15 behavioral health care provider agencies of credible allegations of fraud and immediately suspended all Medicaid reimbursements to these agencies. These behavioral health care agencies comprised 87.5% of all New Mexico’s behavioral health care. Hundreds of thousands Medicaid recipients were adversely affected; all of a sudden, their mental health care provider was gone. Most of the companies were devastated. (One company was allowed to stay open because it paid millions to the state). See blog for more. See documentary.
Now, over 2 1/2 years later, three days ago (February 8, 2016), the NM Attorney General cleared 10 of the 15 companies. Oops, sorry, there was never any fraud. Sorry about the devastation of your company.
Imagine losing your job, your reputation, all your money, getting accused of a crime…then let two years pass. You walk into the grocery store (and everywhere else you go) and people stare at you, thinking that you are guilty of the crime for which you are accused. (Ever read “The Count of Monte Cristo?”)
Then you are exonerated. Are you happy or angry?
Here’s the issue: The government has a lot of power. Legally, the government has the authority to accuse you of a crime, seize your home, seize your property, take away your children, to put you in jail, to put you to death, etc.; the only barrier between the government carrying out these drastic measures and you is due process.
So, readers, if you are understanding my logic thus far, you understand the importance of due process.
However, for you who accept Medicare and Medicaid, due process is nonexistent. Since the inception of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), when it comes to accusations of fraud, due process has been suspended.
Hence the situation in New Mexico. Without substantial evidence supporting its decision (remember the Public Consulting Group (PCG) audit in this case actually found no credible allegations of fraud), the State of New Mexico accused 15 companies of fraud, suspended all their reimbursements, and put most of the companies out of business.
With a mere waving of the wand.
And an apology too little too late.
For those of you who follow my blog, you know that the single state agency in New Mexico, Human Services Department (HSD), accused 15 behavioral health care providers, which made up 87% of the mental health care in NM, of credible allegations of fraud back in June 2013. HSD immediately ceased paying all companies’ Medicaid and non-Medicaid reimbursements causing most of the companies to go out of business.
Easter Seals El Mirador is one of those companies accused of fraud.
Then, a year later, May 2014, the Attorney General’s office clears Easter Seals El Mirador (ESEM) of any fraud. ESEM is the second company cleared of fraud. In other words, HSD accused 15 companies of fraud, and the first two reviewed by the AG were determined to have committed no fraud. Oops. Sorry. We were mistaken.
But you can’t fix a broken egg. The best you can do is clean it up.
But, no, HSD does not accept the AG’s determination that ESEM committed no fraud, and on or about June 25, 2014, HSD re-referred ESEM to the AG for credible allegations of fraud again.
Instead of me going on a rampage as to the violations committed (and alleged in our complaint), let me just explain that through the first referral and re-referral of credible allegations of fraud, HSD is withholding all ESEM’s reimbursements.
After the re-referral, in June 2014, we, on behalf of ESEM, and with the help of local counsel, Bryan Davis, filed a Complaint requesting declaratory judgment followed by a Motion for Summary Judgment.
Last Friday, January 23, 2015, the New Mexico judge agreed with us holding that HSD’s “temporary” withhold of reimbursements violates due process and that ESEM has a right to a fair hearing.
Here is an article from the Santa Fe New Mexican written by Patrick Malone:
Judge: State Human Services Department violated due process law
In a harsh rebuke of the 2013 behavioral health shake-up that thrust mental health care for indigent New Mexicans into disarray, a Santa Fe judge on Friday ruled that the state Human Services Department had denied due process to one of the providers accused of fraud.
State District Judge Francis Mathew ordered the department to hold a hearing that would allow Santa Fe-based Easter Seals El Mirador to hear the specific allegations against it for the first time — and give the provider a chance to respond to those claims. The ruling could open the door for other providers affected by the shake-up to do the same, according to the nonprofit’s lawyer.
In the 19 months since audit findings spurred Gov. Susana Martinez’s administration to cut off Medicaid funds to Easter Seals El Mirador and other providers in the state who treat Medicaid patients, the nonprofit has not been shown the audit findings that outline exactly what it is accused of doing wrong. Nor has the agency been afforded the chance to refute any of the findings. Meanwhile, the Human Services Department has withheld more than $600,000 in Medicaid funds that were owed to Easter Seals El Mirador at the time of its termination, citing federal guidelines that allow temporary withholding of funds from agencies that are suspected of Medicaid fraud.
“I don’t believe that 19 months is temporary,” Mathew said, particularly since the Human Services Department has prolonged the investigation by referring Easter Seals El Mirador’s case back to the Attorney General’s Office after the nonprofit already had been cleared once.
The judge blasted the department’s process from the outset of the shake-up.
“I think it’s a due-process violation,” he said.
In June 2013, Human Services halted Medicaid funding to 15 organizations that provided mental health and substance abuse services to low-income patients. The state pointed to audit findings that indicated the agencies had overbilled Medicaid by an estimated $36 million as grounds for the decision. The Martinez administration brought in five Arizona providers as replacements and paid them $24 million to set up shop in New Mexico.
This month, one of the replacement providers informed the state that it is financially failing and plans to pull out of New Mexico at the end of March, bringing new disruptions to a fragile population still reeling from the earlier provider changes.
“We have an obligation to protect taxpayer dollars and to help ensure that New Mexicans most in need receive vital behavioral health services,” said Matt Kennicott, a spokesman for Human Services. “We will provide a hearing on the credible allegations of fraud.”
He said the department has not yet decided whether it will appeal the judge’s ruling. Easter Seals El Mirador’s lawyer, Bryan Davis, said he expects the department to do so.
When Judge Mathew issues a written ruling in the days ahead, the Human Services Department will have 90 days to set a hearing date. Within 30 days, the department will be required to share with Easter Seals El Mirador the evidence it plans to present at the hearing. That could yield the agency’s first glimpse at the state’s basis for accusing it of fraud. The behavioral health audit that led to the shake-up has been largely shielded from public view while the Attorney General’s Office conducts a criminal investigation.
On Friday, Attorney General Hector Balderas, who just took office this month, informally asked lawmakers for an additional $1 million in hopes of speeding up the probe to complete it within the next six to eight months. Balderas inherited the investigation from his predecessor, Gary King, whose office has faced criticisms from lawmakers and the ousted providers for its slow pace. To date, three investigations have been completed, four are actively being investigated and eight have not yet begun, Balderas’ spokesman said.
Easter Seals El Mirador and the Counseling Center of Alamogordo have been cleared of fraud by the Attorney General’s Office, but Human Services referred Easter Seals El Mirador back to the attorney general for a follow-up investigation.
Mark Johnson, chief executive officer of Easter Seals El Mirador, said he is confident that the organization would be cleared of any wrongdoing in a fair hearing.
With at least one of the replacement providers from Arizona already leaving the state and the New Mexico providers financially hobbled or already out of business because of the shake-up, Johnson said, he fears the most serious consequences of the Martinez administration’s abrupt actions lie ahead.
“There is no safety net. There is no New Mexico company that can fill the systemic void for services for the poor people who need them,” Johnson said. “It’s catastrophic.”
All right, peeps, a forewarning…there will, most likely, not be a blog post next week from yours truly.
You have read my blogs in the past regarding the flagrant violations of due process against 15 behavioral health care providers in New Mexico when they were all accused of credible allegations of fraud. If not, see below.
See “New Mexico Affords No Due Process Based on a PCG Audit!;” “NC Medicaid: Are New Mexico and North Carolina Fraternal Twins? At Least, When It Comes to PCG!;” and “Because of PCG Audit, New Mexico Freezes Mental Health Services.”
The first administrative action as to an alleged overpayment is going forward this week, and I am flying to New Mexico early tomorrow morning. Including travel, the administrative action will last all week…hence the probability of no blog.
I tell you what…PCG is PCG is PCG is PCG. New Mexico or North Carolina. The motus operandi is the same. (Public Consulting Group).
Details to follow the trial.
Planning for the inevitable is smart. And it is inevitable if you are a provider and you accept Medicaid that you will undergo some sort of review, whether it is onsite or database checks, in the near future. And only two outcomes can result from this upcoming review:
Are YOU ready for that test???
So, it is imperative to arm yourself with knowledge of your rights, a liability insurance policy that covers attorneys’ fees (and lets you pick your attorney), and confidence that your billing practices comply with rules and regulations. If you do not know whether your billing practices comply, do a self-audit or hire a knowledgeable billing expert to audit you.
Read or not here they come…
Beginning June 9, 2014, Public Consulting Group (PCG) began scheduling post-enrollment site visits to fulfill federal regulations 42 CFR 455.410 and 455.450, which require all participating providers to be screened according to their categorical risk level: high, moderate, or limited.
What does being high, moderate, or limited risk mean?
If you are limited risk, the state will check your licenses, ensure that you, as a provider, meet criteria for applicable federal and state statutes, conduct license verifications, and conduct database checks on a pre- and post-enrollment basis to ensure that providers continue to meet the enrollment criteria for their provider type. This is the only category that does not need an onsite review.
If you are moderate risk, the state does everything for you as if you are a limited risk plus perform on-site reviews. (Enter PCG).
If you are high risk, the state will perform all reviews as if you are a moderate risk but also will conduct a criminal background check, and require the submission of a set of fingerprints in accordance with §455.434. (And you thought fingerprints for only for the accused.)
Let’s discuss in which level risk you fall. NC Gen. Stat §108C-3 spells out the risk levels. Are you a new personal care service (PCS) provider getting ready to start your own business? You are high risk. Are you a directly-enrolled behavioral health care provider rendering outpatient behavioral health care services? You are high risk. Do you provide HIV Management services? You are high risk.
Here is a list of high risk providers:
- Prospective (newly enrolling) adult care homes delivering Medicaid-reimbursed services.
- Agencies providing behavioral health services, excluding Critical Access Behavioral Health Agencies
- Directly enrolled outpatient behavioral health services providers.
- Prospective (newly enrolling) agencies providing durable medical equipment, including, but not limited to, orthotics and prosthetics.
- Agencies providing HIV case management.
- Prospective (newly enrolling) agencies providing home or community-based services pursuant to waivers authorized by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c).
- Prospective (newly enrolling) agencies providing personal care services or in-home care services.
- Prospective (newly enrolling) agencies providing private duty nursing, home health, or home infusion.
- Providers against whom the Department has imposed a payment suspension based upon a credible allegation of fraud in accordance with 42 C.F.R. § 455.23 within the previous 12-month period. The Department shall return the provider to its original risk category not later than 12 months after the cessation of the payment suspension.
- Providers that were excluded, or whose owners, operators, or managing employees were excluded, by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General or another state’s Medicaid program within the previous 10 years.
- Providers who have incurred a Medicaid or Health Choice final overpayment, assessment, or fine to the Department in excess of twenty percent (20%) of the provider’s payments received from Medicaid and Health Choice in the previous 12-month period. The Department shall return the provider to its original risk category not later than 12 months after the completion of the provider’s repayment of the final overpayment, assessment, or fine.
- Providers whose owners, operators, or managing employees were convicted of a disqualifying offense pursuant to G.S. 108C-4 but were granted an exemption by the Department within the previous 10 years.
Here is a list of moderate risk providers:
- Ambulance services.
- Comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facilities
- Critical Access Behavioral Health Agencies.
- Hospice organizations
- Independent clinical laboratories.
- Independent diagnostic testing facilities.
- Pharmacy Services.
- Physical therapists enrolling as individuals or as group practices.
- Revalidating adult care homes delivering Medicaid-reimbursed services.
- Revalidating agencies providing durable medical equipment, including, but not limited to, orthotics and prosthetics
- Revalidating agencies providing home or community-based services pursuant to waivers authorized by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c).
- Revalidating agencies providing private duty nursing, home health, personal care services or in-home care services, or home infusion.
- Nonemergency medical transportation.
Here are the limited risk providers:
- Ambulatory surgical centers.
- End-stage renal disease facilities.
- Federally qualified health centers.
- Health programs operated by an Indian Health Program (as defined in section 4(12) of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act) or an urban Indian organization (as defined in section 4(29) of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act) that receives funding from the Indian Health Service pursuant to Title V of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.
- Histocompatibility laboratories.
- Hospitals, including critical access hospitals, Department of Veterans Affairs Hospitals, and other State or federally owned hospital facilities
- Local Education Agencies.
- Mammography screening centers.
- Mass immunization roster billers.
- Nursing facilities, including Intermediate Care Facilities for the Mentally Retarded.
- Organ procurement organizations.
- Physician or nonphysician practitioners (including nurse practitioners, CRNAs, physician assistants, physician extenders, occupational therapists, speech/language pathologists, chiropractors, and audiologists), optometrists, dentists and orthodontists, and medical groups
According to the June 2014 Medicaid Bulletin, the onsite reviews will last approximately two hours and PCG will send 2 representatives to conduct the review.
How to prepare for the onSite reviews
- Read and learn. (or re-learn, whichever the case may be).
“Providers will be expected to demonstrate a working knowledge of N.C. Medicaid through responses to a series of questions.” See June 2014 Medicaid Bulletin.
Knowledge is power. Brush up on your applicable DMA Clinical Coverage Policy. Review the NC Medicaid Billing Guide. Re-read your provider participation agreement. If you don’t understand a section, go to your attorney and ask for an explanation. Actually read the pertinent federal and state statutes quoted in your participation agreements because, whether you know what the laws say or not, you signed that agreement and you will be held to the standards spelled out in the federal and state statutes.
- Call your liability insurance.
Be proactive. Contact your liability insurance agent before you get the notice of an onsite review from PCG. Have a frank, open discussion about these upcoming onsite reviews. Explain that you want to know whether you policy covers attorneys’ fees and whether you can choose your attorney. If your policy does not cover attorneys’ fees or does not allow you to choose your own lawyer, beef up your liability insurance plan to include both. Believe me, the premiums will be cheaper than an attorney from your own pocket.
- Be confident.
Presentation matters. If you whisper and cower before the PCG reviewers, you will come across as weak and/or trying to hide something. Be polite and forthcoming, but provide the information that is asked of you; do not supply more information than the reviewers do not request.
I always tell my clients before their deposition or a cross examination by the other side, “Answer the question that is asked. No more. If you are asked if your favorite color is blue, and you favorite color is red, the correct response is “No,” not “No, my favorite color is red.” Do not over-answer.
If you do not believe that you can be confident, ask your attorney to be present. I had someone tell me one time that he did not want an attorney present because he felt that the auditors would think he was hiding something and he did not want to appear litigious. I say, this is your company, your career, and your life. If you need the support of an attorney, get one. Whenever I give this advice, I try to imagine that I am telling the same advice to my mother. My mother, bless her heart, does not have the confidence to stand her ground in high pressure situations. She would rather yield her position than be the least bit confrontational. If that also describes you, have your attorney present.
- Know your rights.
What if you fail the onsite review? Can you appeal? You need to know your rights. When you get a notice from PCG that an onsite review is scheduled, contact your attorney. Make sure that BEFORE the onsite review, you understand all the possible consequences. Knowing your rights will also help with #3, confidence. If you know the worst case scenario, then you stop creating worse case scenarios in your mind and become more confident.
Ready or not, the PCG reviews are coming, so get ready!