Wachler & Associates Health Law Blog

Hospice providers must always obtain written certification that a patient meets Medicare's hospice coverage criteria. Written certification of terminal illness needs to be obtained no later than 2 days after hospice care is initiated, and must be on file in the hospice patient's record prior to the submission of a claim to the Medicare contractor. Certification must be made by the medical director of the hospice and, if applicable, the patient's attending physician. Payment for hospice care will begin the date certification is obtained.

This initial certification satisfies the hospice certification requirement for the first 90-day period of coverage. Additional periods require recertification, which can be obtained 15 days prior to the next benefit period, but no later than 2 days after that period begins.

Per the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, the written certification must include:

1. A statement that the patient's medical prognosis is that their life expectancy is 6 months or less if the terminal illness runs its normal course;
2. Specific clinical findings and other documentation supporting a life expectancy of 6 months or less;
3. Signature(s) of physician(s), the date signed, and the benefit period that the certification or recertification covers; and
4. The physician's brief narrative explanation of the clinical findings that supports a life expectancy of 6 months or less as part of the certification and recertification forms, or as an addendum to the forms.

Additionally, if a hospice patient requires a third benefit period, hospice physicians or hospice nurse practitioners must complete and document a face-to-face encounter with the patient prior to that period. The face-to-face encounter must take place no more than 30 days prior to the benefit period, and must be documented by a properly executed attestation form signed by the performing hospice physician or nurse practitioner.

Due to the burdensome nature of this requirement, hospice recertification requirements have increasingly become an area of focus for Recovery Auditors. The Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) for Region D, HDI, recently added "Face-to-Face Evaluation for Recertification of Hospice Care" as an approved audit issue.

Failure to meet the face-to-face requirement results in the hospice's failure to recertify the patient's terminal illness eligibility, and the patient is then ineligible to receive the benefit. Hospice providers thus must have systems in place to ensure compliance with Medicare's hospice patient recertification requirements. The timing and proper execution of hospice recertification forms will continue to be a changing and essential aspect in obtaining full Medicare reimbursement.

Our firm assists hospice providers in the implementation of hospice compliance plans. We regularly represents hospice providers nationwide in then defense of RAC, Medicare, ZPIC and other audits. If you or your hospice entity have any questions regarding Medicare's face-to-face recertification requirements, or otherwise need assistance, please contact a Wachler & Associates attorney at 248-544-0888.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) is auditing physicians who have conducted in-office Drug of Abuse (DOA) screening test. The purpose of these BCBSM audits is to determine whether the services, treatment, devices, and procedures that the physician billed to BCBSM conformed to Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes at the time of billing.

In auditing physicians who billed drug screening procedure codes, BCBSM is alleging that those physicians have incorrectly billed under current CPT codes for dates of services prior to the effective date of the current billing policies. In these cases, BCBSM sent notices to physicians enclosing current copies of the Physician Office Laboratory List (POLL) - a list of payable laboratory services allowed to be performed in the physician office setting - instead of the relevant POLL covering the audited time period. The drug screening procedure code at issue is CPT code 80101 [drug screen, qualitative; single drug class method (e.g., immunoassay, enzyme assay), each drug class], which is not listed on the current POLL. Instead, BCBSM states that codes 80104 and G0434 are the proper and payable drug screening tests when performed in the physician's office. BCBSM is seeking returns of alleged overpayments from these physicians who billed 80101 in the office setting, as opposed to billing the lesser-paying drug screening procedure codes.

BCBSM may not hold physicians retroactively accountable for recent changes in billing. We are currently representing a number of physicians that have been audited by BCBSM. Based upon our review, we believe these audits can be successfully defended and the amount for overpayment substantially reduced. If you have been audited by BCBSM, we believe we can help, as we are currently representing physicians in similar cases and have been successfully defending providers against BCBSM audits since 1980. For further information on BCBSM audits, please contact an experienced Wachler & Associates healthcare attorney at 248-544-0888.

As mandated by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, Medicare Part B outpatient therapy providers now face manual medical review of claims at or above a $3700 statutory cap. Due to some confusion in the provider community, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published a Frequently Asked Questions to clarify the new therapy manual medical review process.

In the FAQ, CMS explains that the manual medical review process is triggered when a beneficiary's services for that year exceed one of two threshold caps dictated in Section 603 of the Act. The cap for Occupational Therapy (OT) services is $3700 per year, per beneficiary. Separately, the combined cap for Physical Therapy (PT) and Speech Language Pathology (SLP) is $3700 per year, per beneficiary. CMS also points out that although physical therapy and speech language pathology services are combined to trigger the cap, the medical review of those claims will be conducted separately.

The FAQ states that the cap and manual medical review process applies to all Part B Outpatient Therapy settings and providers, including private practices, Part B skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), home health agencies (HHAs), outpatient rehabilitation facilities, rehabilitation agencies and hospital outpatient departments.

Therapy providers will continue to submit claims to their Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) but the manual medical review process will be completed by CMS' Recovery Auditors, who began processing manual medical review of PT claims on April 1st, 2013.

A distinction in the manual medical review process exists, however, depending on whether the provider is in a Recovery Auditor Prepayment Review Demonstration state or not. Therapy providers in the demonstration states - Florida, California, Michigan, Texas, New York, Louisiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina and Missouri - will receive their Additional Documentation Request (ADR) from the MAC but will send that additional documentation to the Recovery Auditor. The prepayment review then must, by law, be completed by the Recovery Auditor within 10 days of receiving the additional documentation. Providers in other states will face "immediate post-payment review." Their MAC will pay the claim once received and any ADR will come directly from the Recovery Auditor, who will again complete the manual medical review and notify the MAC of the payment decision within 10 days.

The CMS FAQ also acknowledged the existing $1900 therapy cap and made clear that "no Recovery Auditor is approved for therapy review between $1900 and $3700." CMS noted that such a review could occur in the future but that it is currently outside this mandate.

The outpatient therapy manual medical reviews and ADRs will be per claim. The Recovery Auditors will be paid a contingency fee and operate under existing policy guidelines. Of note, they are required to use Registered Nurses and/or therapists when conducting medical necessity and coverage decisions, and certified coders in coding determinations. Importantly, in CMS FAQ answer 19, CMS states that additional documentation limits will not apply to therapy pre and post payment reviews.

Therapy providers may appeal their adverse manual medical review determinations through their MAC, and the Medicare administrative appeals process remains unchanged. Providers must prepare for inevitable documentation requests and account for manual medical reviews in their Medicare audit compliance systems.

Wachler & Associates' healthcare attorneys regularly counsel therapy providers in a variety of matters. If you or your healthcare entity has any questions regarding CMS' new outpatient therapy manual medical review process, or otherwise need assistance with a Medicare audit or RAC compliance plan, please contact our healthcare attorneys at 248-544-0888.

On April 26, 2013, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a proposed rule to clarify when a Medicare beneficiary is appropriately admitted to a hospital as an inpatient and what is required for Medicare Part A payment of hospital inpatient services. In this rule, CMS proposes a time-based presumption of medical necessity for hospital inpatient services based on the beneficiary's length of stay. More specifically, RACs and other Medicare contractors would presume that hospital inpatient admissions are appropriate for payment under Medicare Part A if the beneficiary is admitted to the hospital pursuant to a physician order and receives care for at least two midnights. Similarly, there would be a presumption that hospital inpatient admissions spanning less than 2 midnights should have been provided on an outpatient basis, unless there is clear documentation in the medical record supporting the physician's order and expectation that the beneficiary would require care spanning more than 2 midnights or the beneficiary is receiving a service or procedure designated by CMS as inpatient-only. In contrast, CMS's current manual instructions indicate that physicians should use a 24-hour period and the expectation of a beneficiary's need for an overnight stay in the hospital as inpatient admission benchmarks. In reviewing inpatient stays that did not reach the 2 midnight threshold, RACS and other Medicare contractors will be instructed to employ factors similar to those currently included in the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual (MBPM) to determine the medical necessity of the inpatient admission. These factors include, for example, the severity of the signs and symptoms exhibited by the patient and the medical predictability of something adverse happening to the patient. Later in the proposed rule, however, CMS indicates that it will codify the general 2 midnight threshold rule at 42 CFR 412.3(c)(1) and that 42 CFR 412.3(c)(2) would include an exception stating that "...if an unforeseen circumstance, such as beneficiary death or transfer, results in a shorter beneficiary stay than the physician's expectation of at least 2 midnights, the patient may be considered to be appropriately treated on an inpatient basis, and the hospital inpatient payment may be made under Medicare Part A." This language tends to suggest that a Medicare contractor's review of an inpatient admission of less than 2 midnights will focus less on the clinical factors listed above, and more on "unforeseen circumstances." Clarification will likely be sought during the open comment period.

In addition, the proposed rule also clarified the requirement that a patient is admitted as an inpatient only on the recommendation of a physician or licensed practitioner permitted by the State to admit patients to the hospital. The proposed rule explained that this requirement is understood to mean that a patient is admitted through an inpatient admission order given by the practitioner responsible for the care of the patient, provided that the practitioner, either a physician or other licensed practitioner, has been authorized by the State and granted admitting privileges by the hospital. However, CMS clarifies that although the Conditions of Participation (CoPs) do not specifically prohibit the delegation of an inpatient admission to a non-physician practitioner, for payment purposes CMS will clarify in regulation that the authority to admit cannot be delegated to an individual who lacks that authority in his or her own right.

This proposed policy is intended to address longstanding concerns from hospitals that they need more guidance on when a patient is appropriately treated and paid by Medicare as an inpatient. Although CMS' proposed rule provides some clarity on how a medically necessary inpatient admission would be defined by a Medicare review contractor, it raises other questions, particularly how Medicare review contractors will review inpatient admissions spanning less than 2 midnights. Please note that CMS will accept comments on the proposed rule until 5:00 p.m. EST on June 25, 2013. The comments must be received by that time and date, not postmarked. CMS will respond to comments in a final rule to be issued by August 1, 2013.

If you have any questions regarding CMS's proposed rule or questions regarding the RAC appeals process, please contact an experienced health care attorney at Wachler & Associates at 248-544-0888 or WAPC@wachler.com.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) plans to make significant changes to the Recovery Auditor (RAC) program. In doing so, CMS hopes to address providers' complaints and improve the RAC program through new Recovery Auditor contracts that will be awarded next year.

The most significant change is the creation of a fifth, nationwide Recovery Audit Contractor that is solely responsible for the identification and correction of improper payments for home health and hospice claims and payments for durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics and supplies (DMEPOS). The change leaves the existing four regional RACs in place to identify overpayments for all other Medicare A/B claims and provider types.

In the Statement of Work for DME and Home Health Recovery Auditors, CMS claims that the changes will further the Recovery Audit Program's goal of "efficient detection and correction," and assist the Agency in "lowering future error rates and identifying improper payments that will have the greatest impact on the [Medicare and Medicaid] Trust Fund."

Further, all Recovery Auditors will now be required to "support" CMS in the administrative appeals process and, if necessary, in appeals to federal court. Recovery Auditors must provide supporting documentation, including statutes, regulations, manuals and instructions. The RACs will also be required to represent CMS at "any hearings associated with the overpayment when requested by CMS." Specifically, the new Statement of Work states that RACs must participate and take party status in 25% of cases that reach the administrative law judge (ALJ) level.

These changes, among others, will be implemented through CMS' new recovery auditor contracts in early 2014. The new RAC contract period will run through 2018, and we suggest that all Medicare and Medicaid providers read through the modified RAC Statement of Work and also the new Statement of Work for DME, home health and hospice recovery auditors.

If you have any questions regarding how CMS' changes to the recovery audit contractor program affects your healthcare entity, or otherwise need assistance with Medicare or Medicaid recovery audits, please contact an experienced health care attorney at Wachler & Associates at 248-544-0888.

On April 2, 2013, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) held an Open Door Forum to discuss CMS's Administrator's Ruling (CMS-1455-R) and Proposed Rule (CMS-1455-P) that provide for significant changes to Medicare's Part B payment policy when a Part A hospital inpatient claim is denied as not medically necessary because the care was not provided in the appropriate setting.

During this Forum, CMS Representatives advised that hospitals do not have to wait until CMS's Change Request 8185 implementation date of July 1, 2013 to rebill Part B for Part A inpatient claims denied as not reasonable and necessary pursuant to the interim ruling. CMS Representatives stated that additional instructions for rebilling Part B claims will be released shortly and should be similar to those found in the now defunct Part A to Part B Rebilling Demonstration Program. CMS representatives also confirmed that the interim ruling does not apply to Medicare Advantage.

For those unable to attend the Open Door Forum, a recording of the Forum is available by phone beginning at 5:00 pm on April 2, 2013. To access the recording, dial 1-855-859-2056 and reference conference ID: 78861443. The recording expires after two business days. If you have questions regarding these recent developments or questions about the Medicare appeals process, please contact an experienced health care attorney at Wachler & Associates at 248-544-0888.

On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 (2:00-3:00 pm EST), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will be holding an Open Door Forum for stakeholders in the healthcare community to call in and discuss the recent changes to the Medicare Part B payment policy in light of recently issued CMS Ruling. The CMS Ruling allows for hospitals to submit a Part B claim when a Part A inpatient claim is denied as not reasonable and necessary.

Tuesday's Open Door Forum will be conference call only. To participate by phone, dial 1-800-837-1935 and reference conference ID: 78861443. Persons participating by phone do not need to RSVP. TTY Communications Relay Services are available for the Hearing Impaired. For TTY services dial 7-1-1 or 1-800-855-2880. A Relay Communications Assistant will help. Encore is an audio recording of this call that can be accessed by dialing 1-855-859-2056 and entering the Conference ID beginning 2 hours after the call has ended. The recording expires after 2 business days. The number for Encore is 1-855-859-2056; Conference ID: 78861443.

The Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA) has released its instructions and recommended request form for withdrawing a Part A appeal pursuant to the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Ruling 1455-R. On March 13, 2013, CMS issued Ruling 1455-R, which allows hospitals to bill for certain services under Part B when a Part A inpatient claim was denied as not reasonable and necessary. The Ruling remains in effect until the proposed rule becomes finalized. Under the Ruling, a hospital must withdraw its Part A appeal in order to submit claims for Part B reimbursement.

Wachler & Associates will continue to monitor the developments of CMS's revised policy on Part B billing following the denial of a Part A inpatient hospital claim. If you have any questions regarding these developments or questions regarding the RAC appeals process, please contact an experienced health care attorney at Wachler & Associates at 248-544-0888.

Medicare administrative contractors (MACs) are expected to begin recouping money for annual wellness visits (AWV) erroneously paid to both facilities and physicians for the same visit.

For the past two years, CMS has erroneously allowed an AWV on a professional and institutional claim for the same patient on the same day. In some cases, this resulted in double billing to CMS. The erroneous collecting began with dates of service processed on or after April 4, 2011, and could continue through March 31, 2013 because the new policy will not take effect until April 1, 2013. CMS will recoup the double payments made from January 1, 2011 through March 31, 2013 from whoever billed the second claim. The new policy, Change Request 8107, will only allow payment for the professional service, regardless of whether it is paid on a professional or institutional claim.

If you need assistance determining how this new policy may affect your practice, or if you have any other health care law questions, please contact an experienced health care attorney at Wachler & Associates at 248-544-0888.

On March 13, 2013, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS") released a Proposed Rule and Administrator's Ruling that provide for significant revisions to Medicare's Part B payment policy when a Part A hospital inpatient claim is denied as not medically necessary because the care was not provided in the appropriate setting. CMS's Administrator's Ruling (CMS-1455-R) was issued to address the significant number of pending appeals of Part A hospital inpatient reasonable and necessary denials while the new Proposed Rule entitled, Medicare Program; Part B Inpatient Billing in Hospitals, (CMS-1455-P), which proposes a permanent policy that would apply on a prospective basis, goes through notice and comment rulemaking. As a result, the Part A to Part B Rebilling Demonstration Program has been terminated.

CMS's Interim Ruling and Proposed Rule differ in many important aspects from the Medicare Appeals Council's longstanding position articulated in In re: O'Connor Hosp., that hospitals are entitled to full Part B payment, including observation and underlying services, following a denial of Part A reimbursement and that any Part B payment is subject to the rules governing administrative finality and will not be time-barred. For example, although the Interim Ruling and Proposed Rule would allow a hospital to submit a Part B claim for more services than just the limited number of ancillary medical and other health services listed in Chapter 6, Section 10 of the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual ("MBPM"), services that require an outpatient status, such as observation services, will not be reimbursed for the time period the beneficiary spent in the hospital as an inpatient.

In addition, although the Interim Ruling explicitly waives the potential timeliness of filing requirements with regard to the billing of a Part B claim following the denial of a Part A claim and provides hospitals with 180 days from the denial to bill for an outpatient stay, the Proposed Rule, should it become final it its current form, would deny Part B claims if filed more than 12 months after the date of service. Accordingly, if a RAC waits 12 months to deny a claim or should 12 months elapse from the date of service while a hospital is in the appeals process, the hospital will be left empty-handed.

Last but certainly not least, CMS's Interim Ruling also establishes a standard process for handling pending appeals and billing for the additional Part B inpatient services that became effective as of yesterday. This ruling significantly limits the authority of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) and the Medicare Appeals Council when reviewing these and other, similar cases, by stating that the only issue before the adjudicator is the appropriateness of the Part A claim and prohibits the Appeals Council or ALJ from ordering full Part B payment, including observation and underlying care.

Wachler & Associates will continue to monitor the developments of CMS's revised policy on Part B billing following the denial of a Part A inpatient hospital claim. if you have any questions regarding these developments or questions regarding the RAC appeals process, please contact an experienced health care attorney at Wachler & Associates at 248-544-0888.

On January 31, 2013, the Senate Finance Committee released a report aimed at combating waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid. In May of 2012, the Senate Finance Committee invited interested stakeholders to submit white papers offering recommendations and innovative solutions to improve program integrity efforts, strengthen payment reforms, and enhance fraud and abuse enforcement efforts. In response, a variety of healthcare industry experts, including Wachler & Associates, submitted nearly 2,000 pages of input and recommendations. Wachler & Associates submitted instances of egregious contractor errors, including improper recoupment of alleged overpayments, contractors sending appeals correspondence to the wrong addresses and improper referral of alleged overpayments to the Department of Treasury. Based on the Finance Committee's review, the white papers discussed five broad themes: improper payments, beneficiary protection, audit burden, data management, and enforcement.

Improper payment issues were discussed by 44 percent of health insurers and providers who submitted white papers. Solutions regarding improper payment issues included allowing reimbursement at the outpatient service level if inpatient status is denied or for certain types of complex cases; and clarifying the guidance on or abolishing outpatient observation status. Beneficiary protection was discussed by 57 percent of insurers and providers, many of whom discussed the use of outpatient observation status by hospitals to avoid recovery audit contractor's (RAC) scrutiny of claims, as well as provider and patient frustration with payer documentation requirements, which may lead them to forfeit certain courses of treatment or care. Furthermore, 60 percent of providers and insurers discussed audit burden issues, and were specifically concerned with the number of audit entities involved, the volume and complexity of payment rules and regulations, whether payment rules are applied consistently and whether audit entities are inappropriately overturning medical necessity decisions, audit entities interactions with providers during the audit process, difficulty communicating with audit entities during the audit process, and financial burden of payment suspensions and the impact on business.

Ninety-four percent of white papers included recommendations to combat waste, fraud, and abuse. Some of the recommendations included were:

• Clarifying the circumstances in which use of care and the setting for care is appropriate such as when it is appropriate to use inpatient care versus outpatient
• Making numerous process changes to how the various CMS audit contractors operate to ensure they are doing so efficiently and effectively
• Balancing the incentives for Medicare contractors to identifying overpayments with penalties for contractors whose findings are overturned on appeal through the CMS administrative process; and
• Creating an advisory panel to provide clinical input as a component of contractor oversight.

In light of the increased attention to support initiatives to detect fraud and abuse, now is the time for health care providers to analyze their current compliance programs and policies. If you need assistance in developing an effective compliance plan or appealing an adverse Medicare audit determination, please contact an experienced health care attorney at Wachler & Associates attorney at 248-554-0888.

The Health and Human Services Department (HHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) recovered a record $4.2 billion from healthcare fraud investigations last year, according to their jointly issued Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2012. DOJ and HHS reported that it deposited the $4.2 billion to U.S. Department of Treasury and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) accounts. On average over the last three years, the federal government has recovered $7.90 for every dollar it spends investigating healthcare fraud and abuse. This is the highest three-year average return on investment in the 16-year history of the Health Care Fraud and Abuse (HCFAC) Program.

The bulk of these recoveries, it appears, are from pharmaceutical and device manufacturers and wholesalers. In July 2012, GlaxoSmithKline paid over $3 billion in a settlement deal to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the company's failure to report certain safety data, its alleged false price reporting practices, and its unlawful promotion of certain prescription drugs. In November 2011, Merck Sharp & Dohme paid $950 million to resolve its criminal and civil liabilities related to its promotion and marketing of the painkiller Vioxx. In April 2012, McKesson Corporation paid $190 million to resolve claims that it violated the FCA by reporting inflated pricing information for a large number of prescription drugs, causing Medicaid to overpay for those drugs.

The DOJ also reported the number of its enforcement actions. In 2012, the DOJ opened 1,131 new criminal and 885 new civil healthcare fraud investigations. The DOJ also reported that 826 criminal defendants were convicted of healthcare fraud-related crimes during the FY 2012. Furthermore, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) excluded 3,131 individuals and entities based on criminal convictions for crimes related to Medicare and Medicaid, patient abuse or neglect, and as a result of licensure revocations.

HHS and the DOJ claim that the record recoveries stem from the new anti-fraud programs, including the anti-fraud task force implemented in 2009, the Health Care Enforcement Team initiatives and Strike Forces, and the CMS Command Center. The HCFAC report noted the success of Health Care Enforcement Team initiatives, including the Strike Forces of investigators and prosecutors in nine cities: Miami, FL; Los Angeles, CA; Detroit, MI; Houston, TX; Brooklyn, NY; Baton Rouge, LA; Tampa, FL; Chicago, IL; and Dallas, TX. According to the DOJ, these Strike Forces filed 117 criminal charges against 278 defendants; obtained 251 guilty pleas; litigated 13 jury trials (with guilty verdicts against 29 defendants); and sentenced 201 defendants to prison terms averaging more than 48 months of incarceration. Furthermore, CMS also established the Command Center to improve health care-related fraud detection and investigation, drive innovation, and help reduce fraud and improper payments in Medicare and Medicaid. From May 2011 through the end of 2012, more than 400,000 providers were subject to the new screening requirements and nearly 150,000 lost the ability to bill the Medicare program due to the Affordable Care Act requirements and other proactive initiatives.

In light of the record number in recovery amounts and the increased funding to support initiatives to detect fraud and abuse, now is a better time than ever for health care providers to analyze their current compliance plans and policies. If you need assistance in developing an effective compliance plan to detect and prevent fraud and abuse, or have any other health care law questions, please contact an experienced health care attorney at Wachler & Associates attorney at 248-544-0888.

Senators Charles Schumer (D- NY) and Sherrod Brown (D - OH) are co-sponsors of the "Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act of 2013 bill that would count observation stays toward the three-day minimum required for Medicare to cover the costs of follow up care after a serious hospitalization.

In recent years, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has expanded its auditing programs in order to control the cost of Medicare and to prevent fraud and abuse. The auditing program scrutinizes claims for care that was not medically necessary and reasonable. If a Medicare contractor concludes that a beneficiary was allegedly improperly admitted as an inpatient, the contractor will request that the hospital return the identified overpayment. Although hospitals may appeal to challenge a Medicare contractor's conclusion that an inpatient admission was not medically necessary and reasonable, it is evident that the audits have affected hospitals' inpatient admission rates. Specifically, the unfortunate consequence of Medicare audit contractors' aggressiveness is some hospitals may be motivated to place patients in observation status to avoid auditors' scrutiny and potential financial penalties. An indication that this consequence is being realized is that the number and length of observation stays have skyrocketed. A study by Brown University reports a 34% increase in observation stays from 2007-2009. Currently, in order to receive rehabilitation or in home nursing care after a hospital stay, a Medicare patient must have a three-day inpatient hospital stay. However, hundreds of thousands of seniors are being denied Medicare coverage for therapy each year because they are admitted to the hospital under observation status instead of inpatient status.

Senator Schumer claims that correcting this "observation stay loophole" will save seniors money and will allow hospitals to provide better care for patients. CMS would have to cover the additional cost of follow up services for patients who have had a three-day stay in observation status. In the midst of the national budget debate, it will be interesting to see if the Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act of 2013 will get any traction in Congress. In 2011 a similar act was introduced in both houses of Congress, but did not go anywhere.

If you need assistance in preparing for, or defending against RAC audits, or implementing a compliance program geared toward identifying and correcting potential risk areas related to RAC audits, please contact an experienced health care attorney at Wachler & Associates attorney at 248-544-0888.

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which became law on January 3, 2013, and is more widely known for addressing the fiscal cliff, also included a less publicized provision which changes the lookback period in the "Provider Without Fault" provisions of the Social Security Act from three years to five years. This provision is important for providers who are defending a Medicare audit. This provision previously provided that, absent evidence to the contrary, providers would be deemed to be "without fault" if an overpayment is discovered more than three years after it was paid. Thus, this provision could often be used as a defense in Medicare audits where the claims at issue were discovered more than three years prior to the audit results letter (although the "absent evidence to the contrary" language was sometimes difficult to overcome). The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 in Section 638 amends section 1870 of the Social Security to allow CMS a five year reopening period.

This provision appears to have been included in the Act in response to the Office of Inspector General's (OIG) assertions that the three year lookback period was an obstacle to overpayment recovery.

Providers should note that other provisions of the "Provider Without Fault" language in section 1870 of the Social Security Act may still present a viable defense to the extent that the provider complied with all pertinent regulations, made full disclosure of all material facts, and on the basis of the information available, had a reasonable basis for assuming that the payment was correct.

Continue reading "Fiscal-Cliff Agreement Gives Medicare Officials Five Years to Collect Overpayments" »

According to the latest figures released by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs) corrected a total of $2.4 billion in improper payments in fiscal year (FY) 2012, of which $2.29 billion was attributable to overpayments collected and $109.4 million was from underpayments returned. The amount of total corrections in FY 2012 was an enormous increase from the $939.3 million in total corrections reported in FY 2011. Since October 2009, the RACs have corrected a total of $3.43 billion, of which roughly 92% has been attributable to overpayments collected.

Medical necessity of cardiovascular procedures was reported to be the top issue for overpayments in RAC regions A, B and C. In RAC region D, the top issue for overpayments was found to be minor surgery and other treatments billed as inpatient. The top RAC issues for underpayments were not provided by CMS.

If you need assistance in preparing for, or defending against RAC audits, or implementing a compliance program geared toward identifying and correcting potential risk areas related to RAC audits, please contact an experienced health care attorney at Wachler & Associates attorney at 248-544-0888.