Blog Archives
RAC Audits: If It Walks Like a Duck and Quacks Like a Duck, It Is a Duck!
Today, I am going to talk about RAC audits. I know what you are thinking…don’t you always talk about RACs? Of course, you are going to talk about RAC audits. No. Today, I’m taking this blog in a different direction.
I want to talk about secret, hidden RAC audits. As you are aware, the federal regulations limit RACs from going back more than 3 years to audit claims. Juxtapose the UPICs, TPEs, SMRCs, MACs, OIG, and even State Medicaid agencies. Everyone, but the RACs are allowed more than a 3-year lookback period. Some, like OIG, have long lookback periods. Coincidentally, when a company responds to an RFP or a request for proposal from CMS to act as CMS’ vendor to conduct Medicare audits on America’s Medicare providers, a clause in the proposed contract between CMS and the vendor is highly argued or negotiated. Which clause in the vendor’s contract is most negotiated? I will tell you. The clause that states that the vendor is a RAC is most negotiated. Because if the vendor is called a UPIC instead of a RAC, the vendor has a longer lookback period. Being called a UPIC, suddenly, becomes a commodity. There are no laws mandating UPICs to a 3-year lookback period. All of a sudden, it is not hip to be a RAC.
Look into it. Do your research. The contracts are public record. Ask for Cotiviti’s contracts with CMS. Notice I said contracts, not contract. What I have realized over time is that a vendor may be hired by CMS to be a RAC auditor, but, once the vendor realizes the limit of 3 years, it goes back to CMS and asks if it can be considered an UPIC. Why? A UPIC can do everything that a RAC does; however, it gets an additional 3 years to lookback at claims and that means money. Cha-ching! Even Dr. Ron Hirsh commented today on RACMonitor about this story, which I presented this morning at 10:00am, as I present every Monday morning, live, on the national podcast RACMonitor , hosted by Chuck Buck and produced by MedLearn. If you want to listen to the podcast, click the following link: Nelson Mullins – Monitor Mondays Podcast Featuring Knicole Emanuel; Defeating Statistical Extrapolations, Expansion of Medicaid RACs, IPPS Final Rule, Smart Hospitals, and Physician Advisors Episodes
The podcast is also on video, but I don’t know how to view that. If you do, you would see my baby duck Biscuit on the screen. He joined me this morning to talk about, “What Walks Like a Duck and Quacks Like a Duck, Must be a Duck.” Dr. Hirsh commented that companies like Cotiviti have many, many contracts deeming Cotiviti many different acronyms. If you get a letter from Cotiviti, do not assume it is acting as a RAC. Instead, ask for the contract which allows Cotiviti to do what it purports to want to do.
I’ve noticed this trend in real life, but only for 10-20 individual cases, maybe 30. I have not had the time to draft a FOYIA request, and, quite frankly, my name on a FOYIA request nowadays result in a response that says, something to the effect of, use discovery instead. Even though my personal experiences should not be extrapolated across the country because that would be inappropriate and judgmental, I will give an example and you may extrapolate or not. There is a company that has been doing RAC audits in NC for the last 5-8 years. It is called Public Consulting Group (“PCG”). PCG and I go way back. If you are a longtime listener of RACMonitor, you will recall that Ed Roche and I presented numerous podcasts about the debacle in NM in 2013. The State of NM put 15 Medicaid providers who constituted 87.6% of the BH providers in NM at the time. The consequences were catastrophic; thousands were out of BH services overnight. There is even a documentary about the unraveling of BH in NM in 2013. The reason that these 15 BH providers were put out of business overnight was because of a NM vendor called PCG. PCG issued a report to NM after conducting Medicaid audits on these 15 BH facilities, which accused the 15 facilities of fraud. In 2013, PCG was considered a RAC per contract. Today, when I have a case against PCG and make the 3-year lookback period argument, I get a retort that it’s not a RAC. Instead it’s a UPIC.
To which I say, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is a duck.
The No Surprises Act and How It Can Benefit You, Personally! YOU WANT TO READ THIS BLOG!
Surprisingly, I am talking about the No Surprises Act today. Last year, I had an unwelcome surprise. I was thrown from my horse on February 20, 2022. I’ve been thrown from many horses, and usually, I land on my boots or, at worst, my behind. However, last year, I awoke in the ICU after being thrown from a horse. Surprise! Spoiler alert, I ended up ok, according to most. However, I was helicoptered from the extremely rural area to the closest hospital. And you are probably thinking that I was blessed that someone could contact and obtain a helicopter so quickly for me…it probably saved my life. And you may be right. But there are two things about me that you probably don’t know: 1) my best friend in life is an ER Trauma nurse with over 20 years’ experience; and (2) I don’t like to spend $49,753.00 for a helicopter ride that I don’t even remember.
Let me explain. As I said earlier, I was unconscious when someone contacted a helicopter. Let me tell you who I was with. Let me set the stage, so to speak. I was with my husband Scott, my bff Tracey – the ER trauma nurse, and her husband Josh. I never asked them, because, quite frankly, I didn’t think to ask who called the helicopter until now. Regardless, I was helicoptered, and received a bill a month or so later for almost $50k. And I freaked.
I am without a doubt even more sympathetic to my provider-clients who get notices of owing tens of thousands or millions of dollars. That $50k stopped my heart for a second. Then, I thought, Dr. Ronald Hirsh and others have spoken about the NSA multiple times on Monitor Monday. Maybe I should re-listen to a couple, really good, detailed podcast episode. I did so.
Last year, in my unconscious-state, I would have entrusted my life with Tracey to drive me about 30 minutes to a hospital because:
- She is an ER Trauma nurse.
- She is good at her job. She was handed a decapitated arm once. I am sure I would have had nightmares, not she.
- She works at the nearest hospital and it was only 30 minutes away. She is/was friends with the ER surgeons. So, yes, had you asked me whether I wanted a $50k helicopter ride or a 30-minute ride with an experienced ER Trauma nurse – I would have chosen the free one. that, from some of her stories, I think may be more experienced than the MDs she performs under.
However, after I presented this story on RACMonitor, Dr. Hirsch, along with several listeners, one of whom is an emergency physician, told me that they would NEVER recommend a private transfer to the hospital, even if Dr. Hirsch were driving, especially for an unconscious, head injury victim. I was told that the helicopter was the way to go in my case, but that I should not be liable for it. I agree, hence the NSA. However, in the same vein, providers need to be paid. Remember, this paragraph was written after RACMonitor and after I was told the helicopter was the way to go.
However, had you asked me then, I would have chosen the free ride to the hospital. Post haste!!! Instead of getting my consent to pay $50k for a helicopter ride or a free ride with an ER Trauma nurse, I was “forced” to the helicopter. And here is where the NSA gets confusing. It was effective January 2022. The political issue arose a stark “T” or perpendicular “behind a rock and a hard place.” A month or so after my accident, I got the bill for almost $50k. Like I said, my heart palpitated. Just like the doctors, hospitals, DME providers, dentists, LTCF, HH, BHP, and anyone who accepts Medicare or Medicaid hearts’ would palpitate when they receive a bill for tens of millions of dollars that they may or may not truly owe.
The DOS happened to be one month after the NSA went into effect. No one wanted to pay for this ride. My health insurance went to bat for me; or, really, for them. My health insurance also didn’t want to pay for my $50k helicopter ride. The letter from my insurance company to the helicopter company said: “Upon review of your request, we have confirmed the claim was processed according to the terms of the No Surprises Act (NSA). Accordingly, your request does not qualify as an appeal under the terms of the member benefit plan.”
While I agree that I should not have been liable for a $50k helicopter ride, I do have empathy for the helicopter company and its nurses. It expended money on my behalf. And I am appreciative. I feel like there should be a less Draconian law than the NSA. Because of my being unconscious during my helicopter admission and my lack of ability to consent, shouldn’t mean the providers shouldn’t be paid for services rendered.
But maybe the letter, which ostensibly shuts down any appeal to additional funds by the provider, means that the provider was paid an amount, maybe a reduced amount, but an amount nonetheless. If anyone knows whether surprised patients’ medical bills get paid at a reduced rate, let me know! Thanks!
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/
Knicole Partners-Up with Nelson Mullins and Questions NC Partial Hospitalization!
I have an announcement! I have the pleasure of joining Nelson Mullins as a partner. You may have heard of Nelson Mullins; it is a nationwide firm, and its health care team is “spot on.” Instead of spinning my own wheels trying to figure out the health care law; I now will be able to collaborate with colleagues and like-minded, health care, geeks. Yes, I will be doing the same thing – Medicare and Medicaid provider appeals and fighting terminations, suspensions, and penalties for long-term care facilities, home health, DME, hospitals, dentists…basically anyone who receives an adverse decision from any state or the federal government or a contracted vendor, such as RACs, MACs, TPE, UPICs, etc.
Now to my blog… Today I want to talk about partial hospitalization and billing to Medicare and Medicaid. One of my clients has been not getting paid for services rendered, which is always a problem. The 3rd party payor claims that substance abuse treatment is not partial hospitalization. 49 States consider substance abuse intensive outpatient services (“SAIOP”) and substance abuse comprehensive outpatient treatment (“SACOT”) partial hospitalization. Do you agree? Because, apparently, NC is the sole State that refuses to identify SAIOP and SACOT as partial hospitalization.
Partial hospitalization is defined as a structured mental health treatment program that runs for several hours each day, three to five days per week. Clients participate in the scheduled treatment sessions during the day and return home at night. This program is a step down from 24-hour care in a psychiatric hospital setting (inpatient treatment). It can also be used to prevent the need for an inpatient hospital stay. In reality, partial hospitalization saves massive amounts of tax dollars by not taking up a bed in an actual hospital.
In NC, partial hospitalization is codified in 10A NCAC 27G.1101, which states “A partial hospitalization facility is a day/night facility which provides a broad range of intensive and therapeutic approaches which may include group, individual, occupational, activity and recreational therapies, training in community living and specific coping skills, and medical services as needed primarily for acutely mentally-ill individuals. This facility provides services to: (1) prevent hospitalization; or (2) to serve as an interim step for those leaving an inpatient hospital. This facility provides a medical component in a less restrictive setting than a hospital or a rehabilitation facility.”
So, why does this 3rd party payor believe that SAIOP and SACOT are not partial hospitalization? I believe this payor’s stance is wrong. I spoke about their wrongness on RACMoniter, and I hope it may give me some “sway.”
Partial hospitalization is considered a short-term treatment. It is supposed to last 2-3 weeks. However, as many of you know substance abuse is not wiped away in 2-3 weeks. It is a long term process to overcome substance abuse issues. States’ Medicaid programs will question why consumers bounce from SAIOP AND SACOT over and over. In fact, another one of clients is being investigated by the Medicaid Investigative Division (“MID”) for having consumers in SAIOP and SACOT too long or too many times.
Substance abuse services are audited a lot. In fact, Medicare and Medicaid audits occur most often in behavioral health care, home health, and hospice. On January 24, 2023, the New York State Comptroller announced it found $22 million in alleged improper payments. I say alleged because, I would say, 90% of alleged overpayments accusations are inaccurate. The poor provider receives a letter saying you owe $12 million dollars, and their hearts drop. They imagine themselves going out of business. Then they hire a lawyer and it turns out that they owe $896.36. I give that example as a real-life example. I actually had a client accused of owing $12 million dollars and after a 2-week trial, the judge decided that this company owed $896.36. A big difference, right? We appealed nonetheless. 🙂
Always Challenge the Extrapolation in Medicare Provider Audits!
Always challenge the extrapolation! It is my personal opinion that extrapolation is used too loosely. What I mean is that sample sizes are usually too small to constitute a valid representation of the provider’s claims. Say a provider bills 10,000 claims. Is a sample of 50 adequate?
In a 2020 case, Palmetto audited .0051% of claims by Palm Valley, and Palm Valley challenged CMS’ sample and extrapolation method. Palm Valley Health Care, Inc. v. Azar, No. 18-41067, 2020 BL 14097 (5th Cir., Jan. 15, 2020). As an aside, I had 2 back-to-back extrapolation cases recently. The provider, however, did not hire me until the ALJ level – or the 3rd level of Medicare provider appeals. Unfortunately, no one argued that the extrapolation was faulty at the first 2 levels. We had 2 different ALJs, but both ALJs ruled that the provider could not raise new arguments; i.e., that the extrapolation was erroneous, at the 3rd level. They decided that all arguments should be raised from the beginning. This is just a reminder that: (a) raise all defenses immediately; and (b) don’t try the first two levels without an attorney.
Going back to Palm Valley.
The 5th Circuit held that while the statistical sampling methodology may not be the most precise methodology available, CMS’ selection methodology did represent a valid “complex balance of interests.” Principally, the court noted, quoting the Medicare Appeals Council, that CMS’ methodology was justified by the “real world constraints imposed by conflicting demands on limited public funds” and that Congress clearly envisioned extrapolation being applied to calculate overpayments in instances like this. I disagree with this result. I find it infuriating that auditors, like Palmetto, can scrutinize providers’ claims, yet circumvent similar accountability. They are being allowed to conduct a “hack” job at extrapolating to the financial detriment of the provider.
Interestingly, Palm Valley’s 5th Circuit decision was rendered in 2020. The dates of service of the claims Palmetto audited were July 2006-January 2009. It just shows how long the legal battle can be in Medicare audits. Also, Palm Valley’s error rate was 53.7%. Remember, in 2019, CMS revised the extrapolation rules to allow extrapolations in 50% or higher error rates. If you want to read the extrapolations rules, you can find them in Chapter 8 of the Medicare Program Integrity Manuel (“MPIM”).
On RACMonitor, health care attorney, David Glaser, mentioned that there is a difference in arguments versus evidence. While you cannot admit new evidence at the ALJ level, you can make new arguments. He and I agreed, however, even if you can dispute the extrapolation legally, a statistical report would not allowed as new evidence, which are important to submit.
Lastly, 42 CFR 405.1014(a)(3) requires the provider to assert the reasons the provider disagrees with the extrapolation in the request for ALJ hearing.
Licensure Penalties, Plans of Corrections, and Summary Suspensions, Oh My!!
Most of you know that I also appear on RACMonitor every Monday morning at 10:00am eastern. I present a 3-minute segment on RACMonitor, which is a national, syndicated podcast that focuses on RAC audits and the casualties they leave in their wakes. I am joined on that podcast with nation Medicare and Medicaid experts, such as Dr. Ronald Hirsh, health care attorneys David Glaser and me, Tiffany Ferguson, who speaks on the social determinants of health and Matthew Albright, who presents on legislative matters. Other experts join in a rotating fashion, such as Mary Inman, a whistleblower attorney who resides in London, England, Ed Roche, an attorney and statistical wizard who debunks extrapolations, and it is hosted by my friend and producer, Chuck Buck and Clark Anthony and Chyann and others….
But there are other audits that wield similar dire results: OTHER THAN RAC, TPE, MAC, and ZPICs. Licensure audits, for example, can cause monetary penalties, plans of corrections, or even summary suspensions…OH MY!!! (A reference to The Wizard of Oz, obviously).
For hospitals and other health facilities, the licensure laws typically cover issues such as professional and non-professional staffing; physical plant requirements; required clinical services; administrative capabilities; and a vast array of other requirements. In most states, in addition to hospital licensure, full-service hospitals require other licenses and permits, such as laboratory permits, permits relating to hazardous wastes, food service permits, and transportation licenses for hospital-affiliated ambulances. Other residential healthcare facilities, such as nursing homes or behavioral health homes, are typically subject to similar requirements.
Penalties are brandished once audits ensue. Licensure audits do not possess the same financial incentives as RAC audits. In NC the entity that conducts licensure audits is DHSR, the Department of Health Service Regulation. DHSR is still under the umbrella of DHHS, which is the single state entity charged with managing Medicaid. Every State has a DHHS although it may be named something else. In New Mexico, the single state entity is called HSD or Health Services Department. In CA, the single state entity is called DHCS or Department of Health Care Services.
The entity in your State that conducts licensure audits will be under the umbrella of your State’s single State entity that manages Medicaid.
Penalties can be severe.
Summary suspensions occur in all 50 States. A summary suspension is an action in administrative law in which a judge suspends a provider’s license upon the receipt of allegations and prior to a full hearing on the matter. In general, the summary suspension is based on a finding that the suspension is necessary, given the allegations, to protect safety or public health. The summary suspension is a temporary, emergency ruling pending a full hearing on the allegations. For example, in Washington State WAC 170-03-0300(1)(a), permits summary suspension of a child care license by the Department where “conditions in the licensed facility constitute an imminent danger to a child or children in care.”
Imminent dangers can be alleged in hospitals, nursing homes, or residential facilities. I say “alleged” because an allegation is all it takes for a summary suspension to be bestowed. Allegations, unfortunately, must be defended.
Appeal! Appeal! Appeal! Be like Dorothy and get to the Wizard of Oz – no matter what, even if she has to defeat the Wicked Witch of the West!
Last year I had two residential facilities receive summary suspensions at the same time. What do you do if your facility receives a summary suspension?
PANIC.
Kidding. Do not panic. Contact your Medicaid attorney immediately.
Ultimately, we went to trial and defended these two facilities successfully.
Can Medicare/caid Auditors Double-Dip?
The issue today is whether health care auditors can double-dip. In other words, if a provider has two concurrent audits, can the audits overlap? Can two audits scrutinize one date of service (“DOS”) for the same consumer. It certainly doesn’t seem fair. Five years ago, CMS first compiled a list of services that the newly implemented RAC program was to audit. It’s been 5 years with the RAC program. What is it about the RAC program that stands out from the other auditor abbreviations?
We’re talking about Cotiviti and Performant Recovery; you know the players. The Recovery Audit Program’s mission is to reduce Medicare improper payments through the efficient detection and collection of overpayments, the identification of underpayments and the implementation of actions that will prevent future improper payments.
RACs review claims on a post-payment basis. The RACs detect and correct past improper payments so that CMS and Carriers, and MACs can implement actions that will prevent future improper payments.
RACs are also held to different regulations than the other audit abbreviations. 42 CFR Subpart F dictates the Medicaid RACs. Whereas the Medicare program is run by 42 CFR Subchapter B.
The auditors themselves are usually certified coders or LPNs.
As most of you know, I present on RACMonitor every week with a distinguished panel of experts. Last week, a listener asked whether 2 separate auditors could audit the same record. Dr. Ronald Hirsh’s response was: yes, a CERT can audit a chart that another reviewer is auditing if it is part of a random sample. I agree with Dr. Hirsh. When a random sample is taken, then the auditors, by definition, have no idea what claims will be pulled, nor would the CERT have any knowledge of other contemporaneous and overlapping audits. But what about multiple RAC audits? I do believe that the RACs should not overlap its own audits. Personally, I don’t like the idea of one claim being audited more than once. What if the two auditing companies make differing determinations? What if CERT calls a claim compliant and the RAC denies the claim? The provider surely should not pay back a claim twice.
I believe Ed Roche presented on this issue a few weeks ago, and he called it double-dipping.
This doesn’t seem fair. What Dr. Hirsh did not address in his response to the listener was that, even if a CERT is allowed to double-dip via the rules or policies, there could be case law saying otherwise.
I did a quick search on Westlaw to see if there were any cases where the auditor was accused of double-dipping. It was not a comprehensive search by any means, but I did not see any cases where auditors were accused of double-dipping. I did see a few cases where hospitals were accused of double-dipping by collecting DSH payments to cover costs that had already been reimbursed, which seems like a topic for another day.
Increased Medicare Reimbursements and Nursing Home Audits
HEAR YE, HEAR YE: Medicare reimbursement rate increase!!
On April 27th, CMS proposed a rule to increase Medicare fee-for-service payment rates and policies for inpatient hospitals and long-term care hospitals for fiscal year (FY) 2022. The proposed rule will update Medicare payment policies and rates for operating and capital‑related costs of acute care hospitals and for certain hospitals. The proposed increase in operating payment rates for general acute care hospitals paid under the IPPS that successfully participate in the Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (“IQR”) Program and are meaningful electronic health record (“EHR”) users is approximately 2.8%. This reflects the projected hospital market basket update of 2.5% reduced by a 0.2 percentage point productivity adjustment and increased by a 0.5 percentage point adjustment required by legislation.
Secondly, a sample audit of nursing homes conducted by CMS will lead to more scrutiny of nursing homes and long-term care facilities. The sample audit showed that two-thirds of Massachusetts’s nursing homes that receive federal Medicaid and Medicare funding are lagging in required annual inspections — and MA is demonstrative of the country.
237 nursing homes and long-term care facilities in the state, or 63.7% of the total, are behind on their federal health and safety inspections by at least 18 months. The national average is 51.3%.
We cannot blame COVID for everything. Those inspections lagged even before the pandemic, the data shows, but ground to a halt last year when the federal agency discontinued in-person visits to nursing homes as they were closed off to the public to help prevent spread of the COVID.
Lastly, on April 29, 2021, CMS issued a final rule to extend and make changes to the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (“CJR”) model. You’ve probably heard Dr. Ron Hirsch reporting on the joint replacement model on RACMonitor. The CJR model aims to pay providers based on total episodes of care for hip and knee replacements to curb costs and improve quality. Hospitals in the model that meet spending and quality thresholds can get an additional Medicare payment. But hospitals that don’t meet targets must repay Medicare for a portion of their spending.
This final rule revises the episode definition, payment methodology, and makes other modifications to the model to adapt the CJR model to changes in practice and fee-for-service payment occurring over the past several years. The changes in practice and payment are expected to limit or reverse early evaluation results demonstrating the CJR model’s ability to achieve savings while sustaining quality. This rule provides the time needed to test modifications to the model by extending the CJR model for an additional three performance years through December 31, 2024 for certain participant hospitals.
The CJR model has proven successful according to CMS. It began in 2016. Hospitals had a “statistically significant decrease” in average payments for all hip and knee replacements relative to a control group. $61.6 million (a savings of 2% of the baseline)
A Study of Contractor Consistency in Reviewing Extrapolated Overpayments
By Frank Cohen, MPA, MBB – my colleague from RACMonitor. He wrote a great article and has permitted me to share it with you. See below.
CMS levies billions of dollars in overpayments a year against healthcare providers, based on the use of extrapolation audits.
The use of extrapolation in Medicare and private payer audits has been around for quite some time now. And lest you be of the opinion that extrapolation is not appropriate for claims-based audits, there are many, many court cases that have supported its use, both specifically and in general. Arguing that extrapolation should not have been used in a given audit, unless that argument is supported by specific statistical challenges, is mostly a waste of time.
For background purposes, extrapolation, as it is used in statistics, is a “statistical technique aimed at inferring the unknown from the known. It attempts to predict future data by relying on historical data, such as estimating the size of a population a few years in the future on the basis of the current population size and its rate of growth,” according to a definition created by Eurostat, a component of the European Union. For our purposes, extrapolation is used to estimate what the actual overpayment amount might likely be for a population of claims, based on auditing a smaller sample of that population. For example, say a Uniform Program Integrity Contractor (UPIC) pulls 30 claims from a medical practice from a population of 10,000 claims. The audit finds that 10 of those claims had some type of coding error, resulting in an overpayment of $500. To extrapolate this to the entire population of claims, one might take the average overpayment, which is the $500 divided by the 30 claims ($16.67 per claim) and multiply this by the total number of claims in the population. In this case, we would multiply the $16.67 per claim by 10,000 for an extrapolated overpayment estimate of $166,667.
The big question that normally crops up around extrapolation is this: how accurate are the estimates? And the answer is (wait for it …), it depends. It depends on just how well the sample was created, meaning: was the sample size appropriate, were the units pulled properly from the population, was the sample truly random, and was it representative of the population? The last point is particularly important, because if the sample is not representative of the population (in other words, if the sample data does not look like the population data), then it is likely that the extrapolated estimate will be anything but accurate.
To account for this issue, referred to as “sample error,” statisticians will calculate something called a confidence interval (CI), which is a range within which there is some acceptable amount of error. The higher the confidence value, the larger the potential range of error. For example, in the hypothetical audit outlined above, maybe the real average for a 90-percent confidence interval is somewhere between $15 and $18, while, for a 95-percent confidence interval, the true average is somewhere between $14 and $19. And if we were to calculate for a 99-percent confidence interval, the range might be somewhere between $12 and $21. So, the greater the range, the more confident I feel about my average estimate. Some express the confidence interval as a sense of true confidence, like “I am 90 percent confident the real average is somewhere between $15 and $18,” and while this is not necessarily wrong, per se, it does not communicate the real value of the CI. I have found that the best way to define it would be more like “if I were to pull 100 random samples of 30 claims and audit all of them, 90 percent would have a true average of somewhere between $15 and $18,” meaning that the true average for some 1 out of 10 would fall outside of that range – either below the lower boundary or above the upper boundary. The main reason that auditors use this technique is to avoid challenges based on sample error.
To the crux of the issue, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) levies billions of dollars in overpayments a year against healthcare providers, based on the use of extrapolation audits. And while the use of extrapolation is well-established and well-accepted, its use in an audit is not an automatic, and depends upon the creation of a statistically valid and representative sample. Thousands of extrapolation audits are completed each year, and for many of these, the targeted provider or organization will appeal the use of extrapolation. In most cases, the appeal is focused on one or more flaws in the methodology used to create the sample and calculate the extrapolated overpayment estimate. For government audits, such as with UPICs, there is a specific appeal process, as outlined in their Medical Learning Network booklet, titled “Medicare Parts A & B Appeals Process.”
On Aug. 20, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS OIG) released a report titled “Medicare Contractors Were Not Consistent in How They Reviewed Extrapolated Overpayments in the Provider Appeals Process.” This report opens with the following statement: “although MACs (Medicare Administrative Contractors) and QICs (Qualified Independent Contractors) generally reviewed appealed extrapolated overpayments in a manner that conforms with existing CMS requirements, CMS did not always provide sufficient guidance and oversight to ensure that these reviews were performed in a consistent manner.” These inconsistencies were associated with $42 million in extrapolated payments from fiscal years 2017 and 2018 that were overturned in favor of the provider. It’s important to note that at this point, we are only talking about appeal determinations at the first and second level, known as redetermination and reconsideration, respectively.
Redetermination is the first level of appeal, and is adjudicated by the MAC. And while the staff that review the appeals at this level are supposed to have not been involved in the initial claim determination, I believe that most would agree that this step is mostly a rubber stamp of approval for the extrapolation results. In fact, of the hundreds of post-audit extrapolation mitigation cases in which I have been the statistical expert, not a single one was ever overturned at redetermination.
The second level of appeal, reconsideration, is handled by a QIC. In theory, the QIC is supposed to independently review the administrative records, including the appeal results of redetermination. Continuing with the prior paragraph, I have to date had only several extrapolation appeals reversed at reconsideration; however, all were due to the fact that the auditor failed to provide the practice with the requisite data, and not due to any specific issues with the statistical methodology. In two of those cases, the QIC notified the auditor that if they were to get the required information to them, they would reconsider their decision. And in two other cases, the auditor appealed the decision, and it was reversed again. Only the fifth case held without objection and was adjudicated in favor of the provider.
Maybe this is a good place to note that the entire process for conducting extrapolations in government audits is covered under Chapter 8 of the Medicare Program Integrity Manual (PIM). Altogether, there are only 12 pages within the entire Manual that actually deal with the statistical methodology behind sampling and extrapolation; this is certainly not enough to provide the degree of guidance required to ensure consistency among the different government contractors that perform such audits. And this is what the OIG report is talking about.
Back to the $42 million that was overturned at either redetermination or reconsideration: the OIG report found that this was due to a “type of simulation testing that was performed only by a subset of contractors.” The report goes on to say that “CMS did not intend that the contractors use this procedure, (so) these extrapolations should not have been overturned. Conversely, if CMS intended that contractors use this procedure, it is possible that other extrapolations should have been overturned but were not.” This was quite confusing for me at first, because this “simulation” testing was not well-defined, and also because it seemed to say that if this procedure was appropriate to use, then more contractors should have used it, which would have resulted in more reversals in favor of the provider.
Interestingly, CMS seems to have written itself an out in Chapter 8, section 8.4.1.1 of the PIM, which states that “[f]ailure by a contractor to follow one or more of the requirements contained herein does not necessarily affect the validity of the statistical sampling that was conducted or the projection of the overpayment.” The use of the term “does not necessarily” leaves wide open the fact that the failure by a contractor to follow one or more of the requirements may affect the validity of the statistical sample, which will affect the validity of the extrapolated overpayment estimate.
Regarding the simulation testing, the report stated that “one MAC performed this type of simulation testing for all extrapolation reviews, and two MACs recently changed their policies to include simulation testing for sample designs that are not well-supported by the program integrity contractor. In contrast, both QICs and three MACs did not perform simulation testing and had no plans to start using it in the future.” And even though it was referenced some 20 times, with the exception of an example given as Figure 2 on page 10, the report never did describe in any detail the type of simulation testing that went on. From the example, it was evident to me that the MACs and QICs involved were using what is known as a Monte Carlo simulation. In statistics, simulation is used to assess the performance of a method, typically when there is a lack of theoretical background. With simulations, the statistician knows and controls the truth. Simulation is used advantageously in a number of situations, including providing the empirical estimation of sampling distributions. Footnote 10 in the report stated that ”reviewers used the specific simulation test referenced here to provide information about whether the lower limit for a given sampling design was likely to achieve the target confidence level.” If you are really interested in learning more about it, there is a great paper called
“The design of simulation studies in medical statistics” by Burton et al. (2006).
Its application in these types of audits is to “simulate” the audit many thousands of times to see if the mean audit results fall within the expected confidence interval range, thereby validating the audit results within what is known as the Central Limit Theorem (CLT).
Often, the sample sizes used in recoupment-type audits are too small, and this is usually due to a conflict between the sample size calculations and the distributions of the data. For example, in RAT-STATS, the statistical program maintained by the OIG, and a favorite of government auditors, sample size estimates are based on an assumption that the data are normally (or near normally) distributed. A normal distribution is defined by the mean and the standard deviation, and includes a bunch of characteristics that make sample size calculations relatively straightforward. But the truth is, because most auditors use the paid amount as the variable of interest, population data are rarely, if ever, normally distributed. Unfortunately, there is simply not enough room or time to get into the details of distributions, but suffice it to say that, because paid data are bounded on the left with zero (meaning that payments are never less than zero), paid data sets are almost always right-skewed. This means that the distribution tail continues on to the right for a very long distance.
In these types of skewed situations, sample size normally has to be much larger in order to meet the CLT requirements. So, what one can do is simulate the random sample over and over again to see whether the sampling results ever end up reporting a normal distribution – and if not, it means that the results of that sample should not be used for extrapolation. And this seems to be what the OIG was talking about in this report. Basically, they said that some but not all of the appeals entities (MACs and QICs) did this type of simulation testing, and others did not. But for those that did perform the tests, the report stated that $41.5 million of the $42 million involved in the reversals of the extrapolations were due to the use of this simulation testing. The OIG seems to be saying this: if this was an unintended consequence, meaning that there wasn’t any guidance in place authorizing this type of testing, then it should not have been done, and those extrapolations should not have been overturned. But if it should have been done, meaning that there should have been some written guidance to authorize that type of testing, then it means that there are likely many other extrapolations that should have been reversed in favor of the provider. A sticky wicket, at best.
Under the heading “Opportunity To Improve Contractor Understanding of Policy Updates,” the report also stated that “the MACs and QICs have interpreted these requirements differently. The MAC that previously used simulation testing to identify the coverage of the lower limit stated that it planned to continue to use that approach. Two MACs that previously did not perform simulation testing indicated that they would start using such testing if they had concerns about a program integrity contractor’s sample design. Two other MACs, which did not use simulation testing, did not plan to change their review procedures.” One QIC indicated that it would defer to the administrative QIC (AdQIC, the central manager for all Medicare fee-for-service claim case files appealed to the QIC) regarding any changes. But it ended this paragraph by stating that “AdQIC did not plan to change the QIC Manual in response to the updated PIM.”
With respect to this issue and this issue alone, the OIG submitted two specific recommendations, as follows:
- Provide additional guidance to MACs and QICs to ensure reasonable consistency in procedures used to review extrapolated overpayments during the first two levels of the Medicare Parts A and B appeals process; and
- Take steps to identify and resolve discrepancies in the procedures that MACs and QICs use to review extrapolations during the appeals process.
In the end, I am not encouraged that we will see any degree of consistency between and within the QIC and MAC appeals in the near future.
Basically, it would appear that the OIG, while having some oversight in the area of recommendations, doesn’t really have any teeth when it comes to enforcing change. I expect that while some reviewers may respond appropriately to the use of simulation testing, most will not, if it means a reversal of the extrapolated findings. In these cases, it is incumbent upon the provider to ensure that these issues are brought up during the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) appeal.
Programming Note: Listen to Frank Cohen report this story live during the next edition of Monitor Mondays, 10 a.m. Eastern.
KNICOLE EMANUEL TO HOST JANUARY WEBCAST ON PRFS AND RAC AUDITS
For healthcare providers looking to avoid any of the traps stemming from PRF (Provider Relief Funds) compliance, RACmonitor is inviting you to sign up for Knicole Emanuel’s upcoming webcast on January 21st, 2021. It is titled: COVID-19 Provider Relief Funds: How to Avoid Audits. You can visit RACmonitor download the order form for the webcast to save yourself a spot.
Webcast Description:
If your facility accepted Provider Relief Funds (PRFs) as a consequence of the coronavirus pandemic, you need to be aware of the myriad of rules and regulations that are associated with this funding or else face penalties and takebacks. A word of caution: expect to be audited. In Medicare and Medicaid, regulatory audits are as certain as death and taxes. That is why your facility needs to arm itself with the knowledge of how to address documentation requests from the government, especially while the Public Health Emergency (PHE) is in effect.
This exclusive RACmonitor webcast, led by healthcare attorney Knicole Emanuel, discusses the PRF rules that providers must follow and how to prove that funds were appropriately used. There are strict regulations dictating why, how, and how much PRFs can be spent due to the catastrophic, financial impact of COVID-19. Register now to learn how to avoid penalties and takebacks related to PRFs.
Learning Objectives:
- Rules and regulations relative to receiving and spending funds provided by the COVID-19 PRF
- Exceptions to COVID-19 PRF and relevant effective dates
- PRF documentation and reporting requirements
- The importance of the legal dates of PHE
- How to prove your facility’s use of funds is germane to COVID-19
Who Should Attend:
- CFOs
- RAC and appeals specialists
- RAC coordinators
- Compliance officers
- Directors and managers
About Knicole C. Emanuel, Esq.
Healthcare industry expert and Practus partner, Knicole Emanuel, is a regular contributor to the healthcare industry podcast, Monitor Mondays, by RACmonitor. For more than 20 years, Knicole Emanuel has maintained a health care litigation practice, concentrating on Medicare and Medicaid litigation, health care regulatory compliance, administrative law and regulatory law. Knicole has tried over 2,000 administrative cases in over 30 states and has appeared before multiple states’ medical boards.
She has successfully obtained federal injunctions in numerous states. This allowed health care providers to remain in business despite the state or federal laws allegations of health care fraud, abhorrent billings, and data mining. A wealth of knowledge in her industry, Knicole frequently lectures across the country on health care law. This includes the impact of the Affordable Care Act and regulatory compliance for providers, including physicians, home health and hospice, dentists, chiropractors, hospitals and durable medical equipment providers.
