Articles Tagged with audit

Published on:

In August 2013, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a study addressing problems and vulnerabilities in Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) activities, as well as their oversight by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). RACs are tasked with identifying improper payments and are paid on a contingency fee basis according to their findings. RACs are also obligated to refer potential fraud to CMS.

The report addresses RACs’ efforts at identifying improper payments and potential fraud for the fiscal years (FYs) 2010-2011 and emphasizes the importance of effective CMS oversight over the RACs. The OIG set out to discover and report on four main objectives, including the extent to which:

1. RACs identified improper payments for services billed to the Medicare program;

Published on:

Ensuring comprehensive documentation procedures are in place has become increasingly vital for all providers. However, recently compliance plans have become even more important for sleep labs, sleep centers, hospital-based sleep service providers, and non-hospital-based sleep service providers seeking Medicare reimbursement. According to a FY 2013 Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) report, Medicare payments for sleep study services have dramatically increased since 2001, growing four-fold from $62 million in 2001 to $235 million in 2011. As a result of increased Medicare spending for sleep-related procedures, there is a spotlight on the appropriateness of Medicare-billed services.

Sleep study services encompass issues such as studies for obstructive sleep apnea (the most common sleep disorder), full-night sleep diagnostic studies, split-night studies, and full-night titration studies. Medicare reimburses sleep study providers at prearranged and set rates for polysomnography (the most popular tool utilized to diagnose sleep disorders), applicable services from the inpatient prospective payment system, the outpatient prospective payment system, the Physician Fee Schedule, and a range of sleep studies.

Sleep study service providers receiving Medicare payments should be prepared for the OIG’s scrutiny throughout 2013 by ensuring that claims are made according to Medicare regulations. In order to ensure proper compliance for full Medicare reimbursement, sleep study service providers must follow certain documentation and procedural requirements. Among other requirements, all documentation must provide rationale for services that were provided, as well as rationale for how providers arrived at a billing status. Detailed documentation is more important than ever.

Published on:

A recent June 2013 Office of Inspector General (OIG) report titled, “Medicare Inappropriately Paid for Drugs Ordered by Individuals Without Prescribing Authority,” revealed that Medicare mistakenly paid a sum of $5.4 million for 75,552 Part D drug prescriptions ordered by 14 prescriber types without the authority to prescribe in any State. The 14 selected prescriber types the OIG based its study on include practitioners such as massage therapists, athletic trainers, nutritionists, dental hygienists, and nutritionists. Medicare does not pay for prescriptions ordered by practitioners who are not licensed to prescribe drugs.

The OIG piloted this study as part of the OIG’s Spotlight on Drug Diversion and also complements last week’s hearing on “Curbing Prescription Drug Abuse in Medicare,” which was held by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on June 24, 2013.

According to the report, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) agreed to the OIG’s urge to heighten monitoring over Part D prescribers. Specifically, CMS has concurred with the OIG’s recommendations to:

Published on:

This morning, the Senate Finance Committee, a committee responsible for the oversight of Medicare, met with providers to discuss their experience with the Medicare Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs). The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) contract RACs to detect and recuperate improper Medicare program payments.

At the hearing, Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Ranking Member Orrin G. Hatch (R- Utah) urged the seriousness of the improper Medicare payments problem. The senators issued statements stressing the importance of RACs working efficiently to ensure the best use of the Medicare trust fund. They voiced their concerns at the high numbers of RAC decisions which are overturned on appeal and the senseless red tape which frustrates providers.

Two providers and one prominent contractor gave witness testimonies to the Committee. Jennifer J. Carmody, CPA, Director of Reimbursement Services for the Billings Clinic of Billing, Montana, discussed the time and expense her organization has incurred appealing inappropriate payment denials. In her witness testimony, she disclosed, “… the combined audit activity becomes overwhelming. In total, we are currently being audited by the Medicare RAC, Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, commercial payers and others.” The Billings Clinic pays an outside contractor, EHR, to assist the clinic with their overflow of audits and appeals. Amongst other recommendations, Ms. Carmody told the Finance Committee that clearer guidance, a limit to the number of record requests, and more effective supervision of the RACs’ performance would help improve the overall RAC process.

Published on:

Today the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report revealing new data on prescribers with questionable billing patterns under the Medicare Part D program. The OIG conducted this study to investigate rising concerns of Medicare prescriber fraud.

According to the OIG’s report, over 700 of nearly 87,000 general-care providers had “questionable” Part D prescribing patterns. A total of 2,238 general-care providers were labeled as outliers, but 736 doctors had what the OIG considered to be “extreme” prescriber patterns. A majority of these “extreme” outlier physicians ordered what the OIG considered to be extraordinary quantities of Schedule II or III drugs. Other examples of “extreme” patterns included doctors writing over 400 prescriptions for one patient and the number of pharmacies dispensing a single doctor’s orders. The OIG’s report noted that “Although some of this prescribing may be appropriate, such questionable patterns warrant further scrutiny.”

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) contracts with sponsors that provide drug coverage to beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Part D. In addition, CMS contracts with a Medicare Drug Integrity Contractor (MEDIC), a contractor responsible for detecting and preventing fraud and abuse. The OIG recommended that CMS heighten its oversight of the Medicare Part D program by working in conjunction with MEDIC and the private insurers. According to the report, CMS has agreed to the OIG’s following recommendations:

Published on:

All Medicare suppliers of Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics and Supplies (DMEPOS) must obtain and maintain a surety bond of at least $50,000 to participate in the Medicare program. A Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recent transmittal, effective February 21, clarifies this requirement and describes the procedures that DME Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) must follow when making claims against a provider’s surety bond.

Under 42 CFR § 424.57(d)(5)(i), a surety is liable to CMS for 1) the amount of any unpaid claim, plus accrued interest, for which the supplier of DMEPOS is responsible, and 2) the amount of any unpaid claim, civil monetary penalty (CMP) or assessment imposed by CMS or the Office of Inspector General (OIG) on the DMEPOS supplier, plus interest.

First, the DME MACs will notify the surety that payment of a claim must be made to CMS within 30 days. The letter must 1) identify the specific amount to be paid, 2) be accompanied by “sufficient evidence” of the unpaid claim, 3) state that payment shall be made via check or money order and that the Payee shall be the DME MAC, and 4) identify the address to which payment shall be sent. The DME MAC will notify the supplier when payment has been made.

DMEPOS suppliers must then obtain an additional surety bond within 30 calendar days of that letter, and submit to the National Supplier Clearinghouse (NSC) additional coverage of an amount that equals or, in the case of a final adverse action, exceeds $50,000. Suppliers must be aware that failure to submit such additional surety bond coverage within 30 days may result in the NSC revoking the supplier’s Medicare billing privileges.

If the DMEPOS supplier successfully appeals, CMS will notify the surety via letter and repay the surety within 30 days. Although a supplier may want to avoid the necessity of securing an additional surety bond, the DMEPOS appeals process may take longer than 30 days and prudent DMEPOS suppliers should obtain additional coverage to ensure continued Medicare billing privileges.

Continue reading

Published on:

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently published an important reminder for all providers and suppliers who provide services and items ordered or referred by other providers and suppliers. The reminder states that Medicare will only pay for items or services for Medicare beneficiaries that have been ordered by a physician or eligible profession enrolled in the Medicare program, and that the individual National Provider Identifier (NPI) of the referring provider or supplier must be included in any claim to Medicare. 

CMS also emphasizes that providers and suppliers must ensure that any items or services submitted in Medicare claims were referred by Medicare-enrolled providers of a specialty type authorized to order or refer such services. Further, Medicare will only reimburse for specific items or services ordered or referred by providers or suppliers that are authorized by statute and regulation. Specifically, CMS highlighted that:

  • Chiropractors are not eligible to order or refer supplies or services of Medicare beneficiaries. Consequently, all services ordered or referred by a chiropractor will be denied.
  • Home Health Agency (HHA) services may only be ordered or referred by a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.), Doctor of Osteopathy (D.O.) or Doctor of Podiatric Medicine (DPM). Thus, claims for HHA services ordered by any other practitioner specialty will be denied.
  • Portable X-Ray services may only be ordered by a Doctor of Medicine or Doctor of Osteopathy. Portable X-Ray services ordered by any other practitioners will be denied.

Through this “important reminder,” CMS emphasizes the necessary standards and documentation for healthcare providers and suppliers to successfully bill for providing referred services or items. The reminder demonstrates CMS’ continued focus on ensuring proper referral arrangements and supporting documentation.

Continue reading

Published on:

Recent Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) activity demonstrates that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) may soon allow RACs to target skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) with certain levels of Ultra High Therapy Resource Utilization Groups (RUGs). 

Although Ultra High Therapy Resource Utilization Groups are not currently a CMS-approved audit topic, RACs are permitted to audit “test claims” and suggest new audit activity based on the results. In a recent demand letter, the RAC stated that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has found an “overwhelming majority of error in assignments by providers under the RUGs categorization system to Ultra High Therapy RUGs, resulting in overpayments to SNFs.”

These claims arose out of a 2010 OIG report which alleged that 1) SNFs are increasingly billing higher-paying RUGs, 2) for-profit SNFs are more likely than nonprofit SNFs to bill for higher-paying RUGs, and 3) in general, many SNFs maintain questionable billing for therapy services.

Published on:

CMS has announced that it is requiring Medicare to reopen claims that contractors denied because Home Health Agencies (“HHA”) allegedly did not comply with “Face-to-Face” encounter requirements put in place by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), or Health Reform legislation.

The Face-to-Face encounter rules require that the physician certifying the patient’s need for home health care must have seen the patient “face-to-face” in order for Medicare to pay for a home healthcare episode. This encounter must take place either 90 days before the home health episode, or within 30 days of the beginning of home health care.

Providers brought to CMS’ attention that contractors were inappropriately denying claims based on the face-to-face requirement in two situations following an acute or post-acute stay: