Articles Posted in Medicare

Published on:

by

In the recently issued Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) Proposed Rule for 2013, CMS is soliciting comments regarding policy changes that could be made on the issue of inpatient versus outpatient admission. (To view the CMS factsheet please click here.) CMS is seeking comments on potential changes which could provide some clarity for providers and hospitals regarding inpatient versus outpatient status for purposes of Medicare payment. Comments are due by September 4, 2012.

Currently, when a patient presents to the hospital in a short-stay case, the hospital must decide whether to admit the patient as an inpatient or treat him/her as an outpatient. This decision is not always clear in light of existing Medicare guidance, and the wrong choice can have severe repercussions for the hospital. If the provider orders an inpatient stay, and later, the Recovery Audit Contract (RAC) concludes that the care should have been provided at an outpatient level, the care is deemed not medically reasonable and necessary. Under the current system for reimbursement, the hospital is not reimbursed under Part B for the outpatient services provided unless the hospital undertakes an appeal of the claim denial and is successful before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).

Hospitals, in an effort to mitigate costs, err on the side of outpatient care. CMS notes that this practice has doubled in the last four years and that it has a detrimental effect on Medicare beneficiaries.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

On July 17, 2012 the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York issued a press release announcing the arrest of 48 individuals in what the release calls the largest single prescription drug diversion scheme ever charged at one time. The result of an organized effort by nearly a dozen state and federal agencies, the government has charged the defendants with operating a massive fraud scheme which diverted half a billion dollars’ worth of prescription drugs dispensed to Medicaid patients in the New York City area.

The government alleges the defendants participated in a scheme to buy prescription drugs from patients, to whom the drugs were legitimately dispensed, and then sell them up a chain of buyers where the drugs eventually ended up in the hands of large scale wholesalers. The defendants are alleged to have fraudulently repackaged and labeled the diverted drugs to make them appear as if they were new, before they sold them to unwitting end-users.. In some cases these diverted prescriptions included HIV/AIDS drugs that were expired and potentially no longer medically effective, yet were still dispensed to unknowing patients.

Because many of the patients who sold the drugs received them through a Medicare or Medicaid benefit, and many of the patients who received the drugs from illegal wholesalers used Medicare or Medicaid benefits to obtain the drugs, the press release is calling the alleged fraudulent scheme a double fraud on the health care system. Medicare and Medicaid essentially paid for these drugs twice, once for the legitimate patient who sold their medication, and then once for the end-user, who obtained the drugs from the wholesalers.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

On June 28, 2012 the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the Department of Health and Human Services issued a report to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that addresses instances of duplicative payments for prescription drugs for hospice beneficiaries. The report includes the results of an audit conducted by the OIG which identified instances where Part D payments were made for prescription drugs for hospice care, when the drugs were already covered under Part A hospice coverage, resulting in duplicate payments for the same drugs.

Hospice care provided under Part A has an all-inclusive per diem which covers all aspects of daily hospice care, including drugs specifically for that care. Some drugs may be used for both hospice and non-hospice care for the same beneficiary. Part A per diem coverage could pay for a drug used for hospice care, while Part D could pay for the same type of drug for the same beneficiary if used for non-hospice care. For instance, a beneficiary could receive pain relief medication for hospice care under Part A. If that beneficiary were to fracture a bone, they could receive the same type of pain relief medication that they already receive for hospice care, but if it is for pain relief associated with the broken bone it could be covered under Part D. The OIG audit and report examine drugs that have been paid for under Part D, but were already paid for under Part A hospice per diem.

The OIG audit, conducted during calendar year 2009, found that beneficiaries paid $3,835,557 in copayments on drugs through the Part D program that should have been covered under Part A per diem payments. During the audit period, Part D sponsors for five plans were contacted by the OIG. All five indicated that they had no procedures in place to identify drugs that should have been covered under Part A per diem payments.

Three recommendations were made to CMS in the report, two of which CMS concurred with:

1. Educate sponsors, hospices, and pharmacies that it is inappropriate for Medicare Part D to pay for drugs related to hospice beneficiaries’ terminal illnesses.

2. Perform oversight to ensure that Part D is not paying for drugs that Medicare has already covered under the per diem payments made to hospice organizations.

3. Require sponsors to develop controls that prevent Part D from paying for drugs that are already covered under per diem payments.

CMS did not concur with the recommendation that it perform oversight, stating that it requires conclusive evidence that there is an issue before making payment adjustments, and that implementing an oversight program would be costly and difficult. The OIG responded, stating that their audit work proved that duplicate payments were made and CMS should do more to address the issue.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

On July 6, 2012, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a 765 page proposed rule addressing changes to the physician fee schedule, payments for Part B drugs, and other Medicare Part B payment policies. (To view the proposed rule please click here .) Of particular interest to providers, CMS implemented face-to-face requirements as a condition of payment for certain durable medical equipment (DME) items.

Face-to-face encounters are required for those items that:

1) currently require a written order prior to delivery per instructions in [CMS’] Program Integrity Manual; 2) cost more than $1,000; 3) [CMS believes] are particularly susceptible to fraud, waste, and abuse; and 4) [CMS believes are] vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse based on reports of the HHS Office of Inspector General, Government Accountability Office, or other oversight entities.

CMS explained that it added the face-to-face requirement for certain DMEs because, after empirical study, billed DMEs of the above four characteristics often failed to meet coverage criteria.

The proposed rules are expected to be formally published July 30, 2012. Until then, the public is free to offer commentary.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Members of the United States House Energy and Commerce Committee sent a request on June 26, 2012 to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) requesting a study of redundancy in Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) contractor audits. The request included four specific questions that, at a minimum, the committee wants studied:

1. What process does CMS use to determine whether the contractors’ audit criteria and methodologies are valid, clear, and consistent?

2. How does CMS coordinate among these contractors to ensure that their interactions with providers are not duplicative? Is there any evidence of providers being subjected to multiple overlapping audits on the same topic? If so, how frequently does this occur? Is there any justification for a single provider being audited by multiple contractors at the same time?

3. What are the reasons for requesting that similar information be submitted to multiple contractors? Are there steps CMS is taking to limit duplicative audits, while still ensuring contractors have the tools necessary to pursue program integrity efforts?

4. Does CMS have a strategic plan to coordinate and oversee all of its audit activities and, if so, how is that plan implemented and overseen?

The request asks that all Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services contractors be studied, including Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs), Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs), Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPICs), Program Safeguard Contractors (PSCs), and Comprehensive Error Rate Testing Review contractors (CERTs).

The request asks that the GAO, “undertake a study that focuses on coordination among contractor efforts and CMS efforts to oversee these contractors to ensure that they are working efficiently and effectively while guaranteeing that beneficiaries are receiving care to which they are entitled.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

On June 8, 2012, Robert Vito, Regional Inspector General for Evaluation and Inspections at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Inspector General (OIG), testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee: Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. The testimony focused on the current OIG assessment of Medicare contractors’ efforts to counteract fraud at present and in the near future. The testimony focused on Zone Program Integrity Coordinators (ZPIC), who audit and investigate claims and providers enrolled in Medicare Part A and B, and Medicare Drug Integrity Contractors (MEDIC), who focus on Medicare Part C and D.

The testimony revealed that OIG reviews over the last 10 years have found recurring issues with Medicare contractor performance–issues that continue to persist. These issues include:

• Limited results from proactive data analysis.
• Difficulties in obtaining the data needed to detect fraud.
• Inaccurate and inconsistent data reported by contractors.
• Limited use by CMS of contractor-reported fraud and abuse activity data in evaluating contractor performance and investigating variability across contractors.
• Lack of program vulnerability identification and resolution.

One major area for concern for the OIG is proactive data analysis. Medicare contractors, like ZPICs and MEDICs, have continued to pursue a “pay and chase” model of benefit integrity activity, rather than the proactive approach that HHS would like to implement. Proactive analysis would potentially identify fraudulent or otherwise inappropriate claims before they are paid rather than after. Proactive and early identification of fraud and inappropriate payments accounted for only 7 percent of ZPIC investigations, according to a 2011 OIG report. The vast majority of ZPIC and MEDIC audit and investigative activity is based upon “reactive methods” like complaints from other sources.

Vito’s testimony also indicated inaccuracies and lack of uniformity in ZPIC and MEDIC data. System issues, reporting errors, and differing interpretations of fraud terms and definitions have caused drastically different reporting results from different Medicare contractors. In one case, one ZPIC reported 7 times more investigations originating from external sources than the other. This inconsistency prevented OIG from making a conclusive assessment of ZPIC and MEDIC activities.

OIG review found that despite the requirement that Medicare benefit integrity contractors identify and report systemic vulnerabilities in the Medicare program, some contractors are not reporting any vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities are defined by CMS as fraud, waste, or abuse identified through analysis of Medicare data. In 2009 a total of 62 program vulnerabilities were reported to CMS. Only 21 vulnerabilities included an estimated monetary impact as required. These 21 vulnerabilities totaled an estimated monetary impact of $1.2 billion. As of January 2011, CMS had taken no action on 75% of the vulnerabilities reported in 2009.

The testimony recommended the following continuing actions to improve benefit integrity contractor performance:

• Oversee proactive identification of fraud.
• Provide timely data access.
• Improve accuracy of contractor-reported fraud activity data.
• Assess variability in performance across contractors.
• Ensure program vulnerability identification and resolution.
• Improve overpayment identification and collection.

The OIG will also continue to review Medicare benefit integrity issues, which include continuing evaluations of overpayments and Medicare debt collection, and examining the activities of MACs and RACs. Reviews of new enrollment procedures and prepayment identification of inappropriate claims will also begin.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

On May 29, 2012 the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina overturned the Medicare Appeals Counsel’s (MAC’s) decision regarding one evaluation and management (E/M) service claim.

Six years earlier, a CMS Program Safeguard Contractor audited Dr. Ojebuoboh. It was determined that the government had overpaid Dr. Ojebuoboh approximately $179,000. Dr. Ojebuoboh contested the overpayment through the five-step Medicare appeals process. Before the matter reached federal district court, the physician had managed to reduce the overpayment amount to $12,000.

On appeal to federal district court, Dr. Ojebuoboh argued, among other things, that the MAC reached the wrong decision as to services provided for three beneficiaries: WB, MT, and OW. At this stage, Dr. Ojebuoboh had the right to judicial review of specific claims, however; in order to overturn the prior holding he had to prove that the MAC’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. This is a difficult standard to prove as it presumes that the MAC’s decision is correct. The federal district court determined that the MAC must explain its reasons for denying the claims, yet; it need not thoroughly detail every element of every component.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced it will release a national provider Comparative Billing Report addressing Home Oxygen Services. The release is scheduled for June 26, 2012.

The CBRs are produced by Safeguard Services under contract with CMS and will provide comparative data to help show how these individual providers compare to other providers within the same field. These comparative studies are designed to help providers review their coding and billing practices and utilization patterns, and take proactive compliance measures. Providers should view CBRs as a tool, rather than a warning, as a way to aid them in properly complying with Medicare billing rules. It is also important to understand that CBRs do not contain patient or case-specific data, but rather only summary billing information as a method of ensuring privacy.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

On May 29, 2012, Connolly added new approved issues to its Approved Issues List for providers in Region C states. The new approved issues are across five categories and include:

• Medical Necessity: Other O.R. Procedure of the Blood & Blood Forming Organs MS-DRG 802, 803, 804 W/MCC, W/CC, w/o CC/MCC CMS Issue Number: C000672012. RACs will review documentation to validate the medical necessity of short stay, uncomplicated admissions. Medicare only pays for inpatient hospital services that are medically necessary for the setting billed and that are coded correctly. Medical documentation will be reviewed to determine that the services were medically necessary and were billed correctly for MS-DRG 802, 803 and 804.

• Medical Necessity: Disease and Disorders of the Female Reproductive System MS-DRG 750, w/o CC/MCC CMS Issue Number: C000642012. RACs will review documentation to validate the medical necessity of short stay, uncomplicated admissions. Medicare only pays for inpatient hospital services that are medically necessary for the setting billed and that are coded correctly. Medical documentation will be reviewed to determine that the services were medically necessary and were billed correctly for MS-DRG 750.

• Medical Necessity: Diseases and Disorders of the Kidney and Urinary Tract MS-DRG’S 656,659,662,665,671,686,687,709,710 and 711 W/CC, W/MCC, w/o CC/MCC CMS Issue Number: C000622012. RACs will review documentation to validate the medical necessity of short stay, uncomplicated admissions. Medicare only pays for inpatient hospital services that are medically necessary for the setting billed and that are coded correctly. Medical documentation will be reviewed to determine that the services were medically necessary and were billed correctly for MS-DRG’S 656, 659, 662, 665, 671, 686, 687, 709, 710 and 711.

For a full list of Approved Issues in RAC Region C, visit the Connolly website.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

As part of healthcare reform, Section 6401(a) of the Affordable Care Act requires all providers and suppliers who enrolled in the Medicare program prior to March 25, 2011 to revalidate their provider enrollment under the new screening criteria. Providers and suppliers who enrolled after March 25, 2011 do not need to revalidate at this time as they have already been screened.

Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) will be sending revalidation notices to individual providers and suppliers between now and March 23, 2015. Providers and suppliers must complete the enrollment forms within 60 days of receiving the request from the MACs. If a provider fails to submit the provider enrollment forms after receiving the request, it may lead to a suspension of the provider’s Medicare billing privileges.

Providers and suppliers may not revalidate their provider enrollment until they have received a revalidation notice from their MAC. The CMS website provides a list of all the providers and suppliers to whom revalidation notices have been sent (See “download” section). The notices are listed according to the month in which the revalidation notice has been sent, and CMS updates these lists on a bimonthly basis. In case a revalidation notice has been sent but never received, every provider is encouraged to check the list to determine whether or not they are currently expected to revalidate. If you are listed, but have not received the request, you should contact your Medicare contractor.
Continue reading

Contact Information
210 E 3rd St #204
Royal Oak, MI 48067
Phone: 248-544-0888
Fax: 248-544-3111

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2025, Wachler & Associates, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design