Articles Posted in Compliance

On May 4, 2011, the Seventh Circuit Court was faced with the issue of whether a doctor’s actions violated the anti-kickback statute (United States of America v. Borrasi). Dr. Roland Borrasi was convicted of Medicare fraud after he accepted payments in the form of a salary from a psychiatric hospital in exchange for referring patients to the facility. Over a time period of three years, Borrasi and four other physicians were paid a sum of $647,204 for referring hundreds of patients to the hospital.

In an effort to conceal these bribes, the physicians were placed on the hospital’s payroll, given false titles and job descriptions, and asked to submit false time sheets. Through testimonial evidence, the court found that the physicians were not expected to perform any duties listed in their job description. Moreover, the bribed physicians attended very few meetings, were rarely seen at the facility, and were not expected to perform any of their administrative duties. The facts of the case led the jury to find Borrasi guilty of Medicare-related bribery in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(b)(1).

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit denied Borrasi’s argument for interpreting the statute. Borrasi argued the court to adopt a “primary motivation” rule, where a defendant shall be found not guilty if the primary motivation behind the payments was to compensate for bona fide services provided. Instead, the court held that if part of the payment compensated past referrals or induced future referrals, that portion of the payment violates the statute. Therefore, so long as some amount of the payments made to Borrasi and the other physicians were made not pursuant to a bona fide employment relationship, then the statute has been violated.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently published a checklist for physicians and treating practitioners to follow in order to help them comply with documentation requirements for the face-to-face examination that must occur prior to the physician ordering a Power Mobility Device (PMD) for a Medicare beneficiary. The checklist contains the information that is essential for Medicare in determining whether payment should be made for a PMD. However, it is vital to note that the checklist is merely a guide and does not replace the underlying medical records. The following is the checklist offered by CMS:

• Signs/Symptoms that limit ambulation;
• Diagnoses that are responsible for these signs/symptoms;

Despite efforts by various groups to have the face-to-face  encounter requirement delayed for hospices and home health agencies, the requirement became effective as of April 1, 2011.  For more information regarding this issue, please see a recently authored article by Wachler & Associates attorneys Amy K. Fehn and Jennifer Colagiovanni entitled New Audit Risk for Home Health Agencies: Face to Face Certification Requirements.

CMS Recently released a proposed rule which would reverse the policy of heightening restrictions on suppliers of durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS).  The proposed rule relaxes previously onerous rules regarding the prohibition of telemarketing and beneficiary solicitation which were implemented on September 27, 2010.  If you have any questions about how this proposed rule will affect your current compliance program, please contact a Wachler & Associates attorney at 248-544-0888.

The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) released an unfavorable Advisory Opinion involving a transportation supplier’s proposal to offer skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) two payment plans for transportation of the SNF’s Medicaid-covered residents.  The OIG determined that the arrangement could potentially violate the Anti-Kickback Statute and that administrative sanctions could be imposed.

The transportation supplier (Requestor) provides transportation services in a state where SNFs receive a per-resident daily rate for ancillary and support services form the state Medicaid program.  SNFs that have residents which are eligible for Medicare and Medicaid are responsible for the amount not covered by Medicare that would otherwise be covered by Medicaid as a secondary payor.  The Requestor will offer two payment plans that respond to SNFs’ responsibilities:

(1) The first payment plan would be a capitated rate per resident per day for Medicaid transports regardless of whether the services were needed and whether Medicaid is the responsible payor.  For residents covered under Medicare and Medicaid, the payment would release the SNF from any further liability (including Medicaid deductibles).  The capitated payment would be less than the Requestor’s cost of transportation for Medicaid patients and more for Medicare patients. 

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported $25.9 billion of expected recoveries and savings in fiscal year (FY) 2010.  The large amount is a combination of audit receivables, investigative receivables and other legislative and cost-saving actions that OIG recommended. 

In addition, the OIG’s semiannual report documented that it initiated 647 criminal actions and 378 civil actions against individuals or entities that engaged in crimes against departmental programs.  These actions included lawsuits under the False Claims Act (FCA), the Civil Monetary Penalties Law (CMPL) settlement and other administrative recoveries related to self-disclosure. 

Finally, the report indicated the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team’s (HEAT) success in fighting fraud.  That program alone recovered $71.3 million in investigative receivables.