Health Law

Published on: June 3, 2013

Medicaid fraud control units (MCFUs) to receive Federal funding for data mining activities to identify fraud

Effective June 17, 2013, state Medicaid fraud control units (MCFUs) will be authorized to receive Federal funding for data mining, an audit technique used to identify Medicaid provider fraud. The Department of Health and Human Services Department (HHS) released a final rule on May 17, 2013, which modified an existing regulation prohibiting MCFUs from Federal funding participation (FFP).

Data mining tools and methods electronically screen, sort, and analyze state Medicaid data to identify Medicaid fraud. Advances in data mining technology benefit MCFUs by increasing investigative effectiveness. According to interpretations of the 1978 FFP regulations, state MCFUs are prohibited from receiving federal funds for the use of data mining. As a result of the technological advances now available, this final rule modernizes the regulations adopted in 1978.

To ensure effective funding and use of data mining of MCFUs, MCFUs must adhere to three essential elements:

Published on: May 29, 2013

Hospital Lobbying Groups Push Congress to Pass RAC Bill

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

Hospital lobbying groups are pushing for Congress to pass the Medicare Audit Improvement Act of 2013, which would put a cap on the amount of document requests that Recovery Audit Contractors (RAC) may demand from providers. Specifically, the bill would limit RAC document requests to 2% of hospital claims and a maximum of 500 additional document requests over 45 days.

The legislation was introduced in the House on March 19, 2013 by Representatives Sam Graves (R-MO) and Adam Schiff (D-CA); and was introduced two months later in the Senate by Senators Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Mark Pryor (D-AK). On March 19, 2013, Graves stated in a press release that “[d]octors and nurses should be focused on caring for patients, not trying to comply with the ever-increasing requests for documents.” Graves also stated that small, rural hospitals will benefit from this new legislation the most, since they are often ill-equipped to handle extensive document requests.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) endorsed both bills, and since the new year, has spent $4.3 million thus far in lobbying efforts. In addition, the Federation of American Hospitals and six state hospital associations also joined the AHA in its lobbying efforts. Despite this significant lobbying, neither bill has gained momentum. The same bill was also introduced last year by Graves, but failed to move out of committee. A spokeswoman for the AHA stated that the House bill was not expected to move soon. As a result, lobbying efforts have been placed on increasing the number of co-sponsors of the bill. Last year, only 26 members of Congress co-sponsored the bill, whereas the current legislation has 70 co-sponsors.

Published on: May 28, 2013

Idaho State University Agrees to $400,000 Settlement For HIPAA Violation

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

On May 21, 2013, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released its settlement agreement with Idaho State University (ISU) for Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) violations. The $400,000 settlement agreement involves ISU’s self-reported breach of unsecured electronic protected health information (ePHI) of about 17,500 patients.

HHS received notification of ISU’s breach on August 9, 2011, and shortly thereafter began an investigation into ISU’s HIPAA compliance. Due to disabled firewall protections on ISU’s servers, about 17,500 patients’ ePHI were left unsecured for a minimum of 10 months. Furthermore, according to the investigation conducted by HHS, ISU’s security measures were not adequate and ISU did not evaluate the possibility of potential risks occurring.

Most importantly, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) which enforces HIPAA and oversees health information privacy in HHS, determined that processes for routine review were not in place at ISU. As a result, ISU was not able to detect the firewall breach as early as they could have if proper procedures were in place. Routine review is part of the HIPAA’s minimum necessary standard which every HIPAA covered entity must comply with.

Published on: May 23, 2013

HHS Announces Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) Payments to Providers Will Decrease

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

On May 17, 2013, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released an interim final rule, which lowers payments to providers for services furnished to individuals enrolled in the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP). The new rule will require providers to accept Medicare rates for services provided to PCIP participants instead of the commercial rates providers have received since the plan’s inception.

The PCIP was established under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) which was enacted in March 2010. The plan was intended to be a temporary bridge to provide health insurance to uninsured individuals with pre-existing conditions until 2014. In 2014, most health insurance providers will be required under PPACA to offer coverage to all individuals, regardless of pre-existing conditions. Initially, HHS predicted that up to 400,000 individuals would enroll in PCIP, and Congress provided $5 billion in funds for the program. In fact, only 135,000 individuals have enrolled in the program, but due to the cost of the claims per enrollee being higher than originally projected, most of the $5 billion provided by Congress has been exhausted.

Several changes have already been instituted since the PCIP’s creation in order to reduce costs, including ceasing referral payments to agents and brokers, changing provider networks, offering only a single plan option, increasing the maximum out-of-pocket limit for in-network services, and an increase in coinsurance once the enrollee’s deductible has been met. Furthermore, the federally administered PCIP suspended its acceptance of new enrollment applications on February 15, 2013 until further notice.

Published on: May 20, 2013

Bard Agrees to $48.26 Million Settlement for FCA Violations

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

On May 13, 2013, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that C.R. Bard Inc. agreed to pay the United States $48.26 million to resolve allegations that Bard knowingly caused false claims to be submitted to Medicare in violation of the False Claims Act (FCA). Bard is a corporation based out of New Jersey which develops, manufactures, and markets medical products. The claims that purportedly violated the FCA were for brachytherapy seeds used to treat prostate cancer.

The government alleged that from 1998 to 2006, Bard delivered illegal remuneration in the form of grants, rebates, fees, marketing assistance, and/or free medical equipment to customers and physicians to induce them to purchase Bard’s brachytherapy seeds, in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. The government argued that the hospital bills submitted to Medicare for these seeds were rendered false due to Bard’s illegal kickback activity. The government alleged that Bard was liable for causing the submission of those false claims.

This settlement also resolves a lawsuit filed by Julie Darity, a former manager at Bard. Darity brought her claim under the whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act, which allows private citizens to bring suits for false claims on behalf of the United States and share in the recovery obtained by the government. The former manager will receive $10,134,600 as her share of the civil settlement.

Published on: May 17, 2013

Jury Rules Tuomey Violated Stark Law and the FCA through Physician Employment Agreements

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

On May 8, 2013, in a retrial of a 2010 case, a federal jury found that Tuomey Healthcare System (Tuomey) in Sumter, SC violated both the Stark Law and the False Claims Act (FCA). The jury found that Tuomey violated the FCA by submitting 21,730 claims to the Medicare program that were tainted by illegal compensation arrangements which induced physicians to refer patients to the hospital in violation of the Stark Law.

The underlying employment arrangements were made for 19 surgeons who each received base pay, significant benefits, and potentially two bonuses. The jury agreed with the government’s contentions that the pay was not consistent with fair market value and was not commercially reasonable. The government argued that the excess compensation was evidence that the employment agreements took into account the volume or value of the physicians’ referrals to Tuomey.

The jury assessed damages against Tuomey in the amount of $39,313,065, which is the full amount of the Medicare claims at issue. In addition, under the FCA, the government may seek up to three times the amount of damages plus $11,000 per claim, meaning Tuomey could potentially face up to $357 million in liabilities under the FCA. However, since Tuomey is a community hospital, they are likely to receive a penalty less than that amount. Each side will now submit motions interpreting what they think are the appropriate amount of damages, with a final damage amount coming sometime in the future.

Published on: May 14, 2013

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Auditing Physicians Performing In-Office Drug Screens

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

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.

Published on: May 9, 2013

OIG Issues Special Advisory on Exclusion Issues

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

On May 8, 2013 the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) for the Department of Health and Human Services issued an Updated Special Advisory Bulletin on the Effect of Exclusion from Participation in Federal Health Care Programs (“the Updated Bulletin”) to replace and supersede a bulletin issued in 1999.

The Updated Bulletin reiterates, clarifies and/or provides guidance on many points, including the following with regard to the effect of exclusion on participation in Federal health care programs:

Payment cannot be made from a Federal health care program for items or services furnished by an excluded person or at the medical direction or on the prescription of an excluded person.

Published on: May 8, 2013

OIG Release Report Focusing on Hospice’s Use of General Inpatient Care

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

On May 3, 2013, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a memorandum describing hospice general inpatient care (GIP) provided to Medicare patients in 2011, for which Medicare paid $1.1 billion. According to the memorandum, the OIG will be conducting an in-depth medical record review to evaluate the appropriateness of GIP provided by hospices. The study will be focused on the accuracy of reimbursement for GIP and the proportion of GIP provided in different settings, specifically Medicare-certified hospice inpatient units, hospitals, and skilled nursing facilities.

This ongoing study is a continuation of prior studies released by the OIG, which show that the amount of GIP services provided differs significantly depending on the setting. For example, hospices that have their own inpatient units provided GIP to 35% of their Medicare patients. In contrast, hospices that have to outsource GIP care sent only 12% of their Medicare beneficiaries to receive that care. Furthermore, hospices that provided GIP in their own inpatient units recorded 50% longer patient stays and three times the proportion of Medicare payments for GIP services than did hospices that have to outsource GIP care.

The memorandum states that the OIG will begin a new study which will use actual beneficiary medical records to determine the accuracy of reimbursement. In addition to its own investigations, the OIG advised CMS to ensure that the hospices not currently providing GIP are still providing beneficiaries with appropriate access to the types and amount of care needed at the end of their lives. These studies are part of OIG’s continuing investigations related to Medicare hospice care. In 2011, Medicare paid $13.7 billion for hospice services on behalf of 1.2 million beneficiaries, and both of those numbers are expected to increase with the aging of the baby boomer generation.

Published on: May 6, 2013

Therapy Providers Face Manual Review of Outpatient Therapy Claims, CMS Releases FAQ

by Wachler & Associates, P.C.

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.