Providers Should Exercise Caution When Handling Overpayments — More than Likely, You Can’t Keep It, Even if the Payor Doesn’t Want it Back

(July 15, 2010):  Since the May 2009 passage of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (FERA) and subsequent enactment of the PPACA, we’ve heard a lot about how the government looks at Medicare overpayments and how providers should handle them.  Two major misconceptions seem to underlie the public response to provisions clarifying that failure to timely refund Medicare overpayments can result in False Claims Act (FCA) liability.

I.          Historical Overview of the “Overpayment” Issue

Prior to the clarification and statutory reinforcement of the “overpayment” issue provided by PPACA, a number of providers have mistakenly believed that in the absence of a direct demand for repayment, an identified overpayment would belong to the provider.  Notably, this issue is not new.  In fact, the recent enacted provisions have merely reinforced the government’s long-standing position that a provider has a responsibility to voluntarily refund Medicare overpayments without an overpayment determination being made by the government.

As you will recall, the agreement to return any overpayments is fundamental to a provider’s eligibility to participate in the Medicare program.  Section 1866(a)(1)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 1395cc) requires participating providers to furnish information about payments made to them and to refund any monies incorrectly paid.  Implemented in 2006, the Medicare Credit Balance Report (CMS-838) is designed to ensure timely compliance with this obligation.

Secondly, PPACA Section 6402 echoes the requirements of CMS’ 2002 proposed rule that providers “must, within 60 days of identifying or learning of the excess payment, return the overpayment to the appropriate intermediary and carrier, at the correct address, and notify the intermediary and carrier, in writing, of the reason for the overpayment.”  (67 Fed. Reg. 3662 (January 25, 2002)).  A conservative reading of that proposed rule arguably suggested that HHS-OIG’s voluntary disclosure protocol may not be “voluntary” after all but a mandatory repayment may be required.  Thus, the government has long sought to clarify when, not if, overpayment refunds would be required.

Despite the publicity resulting from PPACA and its FCA implications, it is important to remember that this issue was addressed over a decade ago.  As set out in the 1998 holding in United States v. Yale University School of Medicine, Civil Action No. 3:97CV02023 (D.Conn.), the government intervened in a qui tam and obtained $1.2 million settlement based on alleged FCA  violations for failing to return credit balances.  In summary, providers who fail to promptly (within 60 days of identification) return an overpayment to the government do so at their own peril.

II.         Handling Non-Federal Overpayments

As an aside, even if the overpayment at issue is not owed to a Federal payor (such as Medicare or Medicaid), it is imperative to remember that virtually no overpayments belong to a provider.  In the case of non-Federal payors (such as a private insurance company), we are aware of numerous instances where the non-Federal payor has notified the provider that due to the administrative burden of applying an overpayment to a beneficiary’s account (typically due to the complexity of the payment history), the non-Federal payor has chosen to either “waive” collection of an overpayment or not to cash a check sent by the provider.  This also regularly occurs when the identified overpayment is under a certain amount (such as $25.00).  When faced with such a situation, a provider must review applicable State law to ascertain how an overpayment must be handled.  For instance, in Texas, Title 6 of the Property Code requires businesses and other entities holding unclaimed property to turn the property over to the Texas Comptroller’s Office after the appropriate abandonment period has expired.  As in most States, violation of these escheat laws can subject a provider to various penalties.

III.        Conclusion

The lesson to be learned here is quite clear – regardless of who the payor is, an overpayment can rarely, if ever, properly be retained by a provider, regardless of the amount in controversy.  A provider must carefully examine both Federal and State statutes when faced with this issue.  The best practice is to return an overpayment to the payor (Federal, State, or private patient), regardless of the amount, upon identification.  Should a provider be unable to identify who is owed an overpayment or cannot locate a valid address to return the overpayment (due to a variety of factors), your State’s escheat law must be considered.

This can be a complicated issue, especially when a large overpayment has been identified and it is owed to a Federal payor.  While time is of the essence, it is strongly recommended that you contact your legal counsel as soon as it appears that a potential large or complicated Federal overpayment has been found.  Your attorney can help guide you through this complex process.

Should you have any questions regarding these issues, don’t hesitate to contact us.  For a complementary consultation, you may call Robert W. Liles or one of our other attorneys at 1 (800) 475-1906.

HHS / CMS Issues Final “Meaningful Use” Objectives for Electronic Health Records (EHRs). Providers Should Exercise Extreme Caution Before Converting to an EHR System.

(July 14, 2010): Yesterday, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued its final regulations concerning what it means for eligible Medicare and Medicaid providers to be “meaningful users” of certified electronic health record (EHRs) technology in 2011 and 2012.  We are cautiously optimistic that HHS’ approach will allow small providers the flexibility they need to participate in the program if they choose but, as detailed below, are not convinced that CMS contractors are ready for the technology.

The rules support the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Aid Act (HITECH), which authorized incentive payments through Medicare and Medicaid to clinicians and hospitals when they use EHRs privately and securely to achieve specified improvements in care delivery.  According to HHS, the incentives could be as much as $44,000 (through Medicare) and $63,750 (through Medicaid) per clinician. Subsequent rules will govern later phases of the ten year program. 

The meaningful use objectives for 2011-12 are categorized in two tiers – core and menu objectives.  The first set of “core” objectives comprises basic items essential to creating any medical record, such as:

• Recording patient demographics;
• Maintaining active medication list; and
• Generating and transmitting permissible prescriptions electronically.

The second “menu” set is comprised of 10 additional important activities from which providers will choose any 5 to implement in the first two years.  They include:

• Implementing drug formularies;
• Incorporating clinical laboratory test results into EHRs as structured data; and
• Sending reminders to patients (per patient preference) for preventative and follow-up care.

For most of the core and menu items, the regulations also specify rates at which providers must use the functions to be considered meaningful users and how to report clinical quality measures.

HHS is establishing a nationwide network of Regional Extension Centers to assist providers in adopting and using certified EHR technology.  The full 864 page rule is available at http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2010-17207_PI.pdf

While the concept of EHR and electronic medical records (EMR) may sound great, a number of our clients have already experienced the dark side of EHR / EMR.  Unfortunately, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have completely disregarded (or remained completely ignorant of) the fact that a number of early adopters of this technology have found that Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) and Program SafeGuard Contractors (PSCs) (now being replaced by Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPICs)) appear to be inexperienced in their review of medical records that have been generated with the assistance of EMR / EHR software programs. 

In some cases, the Medicare contractors have mistakenly alleged that the records documenting the care provided are overly similar – erroneously concluding that the records were “copied” or “cloned.”  Every software program is different.  Nevertheless, many of the programs utilize “drop-down” menus that offer providers a number of different options for documenting their observations, the patient’s symptoms, or clinical findings.  While such an approach may facilitate the completion of an evaluation, progress notes, or other clinical service, it also inadvertently leads to “similar” wording or phrases among classes of documents generated.  When a significantly number of these clinical documents are reviewed by a Medicare contractor, in some cases the contractor has incorrectly concluded that instead of documenting individualized observations, these EMR / EHR-generated medical records are mere “copies” or “clones” of other medical records.  In reaching such a conclusion, PSCs / ZPICs have denied claims and then extrapolated the alleged damages to the universe of claims at issue.

Thus, providers should exercise extreme care before transitioning over to an EMR / EHR system.  Every effort should be made to ensure that your observations are individualized to the greatest extent possible.  Prior to choosing a software program, a provider should test the program with a significant number of claims to ensure that the end product generated by the program does not leave a third party reviewer with an incorrect picture of the care provided.

Should you have any questions regarding these issues, don’t hesitate to contact us.  For a complementary consultation, you may call Robert W. Liles or one of our other attorneys at 1 (800) 475-1906.

Texas Psychiatrist Indicted and Arrested

(July 9, 2010):  On June 14, 2010 the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas announced that a Federal Grand Jury had returned a 99-count indictment against a pain management physician who operated clinics in San Antonio and El Paso.  The physician was charged with 21 counts of health care fraud, 20 counts of false statements relating to health care fraud matters, 21 counts of mail fraud, 16 counts of wire fraud, 4 counts of unlawful distribution of a controlled substances and 16 counts of money laundering.  The indictment alleges that the physician “caused to be submitted claims for reimbursement of peripheral nerve injections, facet injection procedures and Level Four office visits–typically involving 25 minutes of face-to-face time between patient and physician–which never were performed.”  Instead, the U.S. Attorney’s Office alleges that the physician performed “prolotherapy” on his patients — a procedure that Federal health care benefit programs do not reimburse. 

Notably, an indictment is merely a charge and is not considered to be evidence of guilt. In issuing this indictment, the Texas HEAT task force, comprised of Federal prosecutors and investigative agencies,  have continued to ramp up efforts to investigate and prosecute allegations of health care fraud.  Notably, the use of “prolotherapy,” a relatively new therapeutic approach, has been supported by some of the best known clinics and physicians in the country. 

While this case has yet to fully develop, it again points out that health care providers must take care when utilizing new approaches, despite the fact the therapeutic technique may be considered to be state-of-the-art.  Unfortunately, Medicare may take years to recognize and cover some techniques.  In the mean time, it is essential that providers take care when coding and billing for procedures that may not clearly qualify for coverage under applicable Medicare and / or contractor guidance.

Should you have any questions regarding these issues, don’t hesitate to contact us.  For a complementary consultation, you may call Robert W. Liles or one of our other attorneys at 1 (800) 475-1906.

PPACA Creates a Minefield for Medicare Providers Who Fail to Promptly Return a Medicare Overpayment

(July 9, 2010):  Does the failure to promptly return a Medicare overpayment warrant liability under the False Claims Act (FCA)?  Congress thinks so.  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) creates new obligations under the FCA whereby a Medicare provider who fails to timely report and refund an overpayment may be subject to substantial penalties and damages.

Section 6402 of the PPACA requires Medicare providers, including physicians and partial hospitalization providers, among others, to a) return and report any overpayment, and b) explain, in writing, the reason for the overpayment.

This law creates a minefield for physicians and other Medicare providers.  First, providers have only 60 days to comply with the reporting and refund requirement from the date on which the overpayment was identified or, if applicable, the date any corresponding cost report is due, whichever is later.  Of course, the PPACA does not actually explain what it means to “identify” an overpayment.

Nonetheless, the PPACA makes this reporting and repayment requirement an “obligation” under the FCA.  Pursuant to the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 (FERA) amendments to the FCA, an individual or entity may be liable if he or it “knowingly conceals or knowingly and improperly avoids or decreases an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government.”  Thus, providers who fail to meet their 60 day “obligation” may be subject to monetary penalities of up to $11,000 per claim, and treble damages.

Should you have any questions regarding these issues, don’t hesitate to contact us.  For a complementary consultation, you may call Robert W. Liles or one of our other attorneys at 1 (800) 475-1906.

Identity Theft “Red Flags” Rule Treating Doctors Like Banks Is Delayed Once Again

(July 5, 2010): The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has agreed to once again delay enforcement of its illogical and onerous “Red Flags” rule with respect to physicians. 

The “Red Flags” rule arises under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 and requires “financial institutions” and “other creditors” to develop written plans to detect identify theft in their day-to-day operations.  Under the FTC’s interpretation of the rule, physicians who permit patients to pay after they have rendered medical service are transformed into “creditors.”

Extension of the rule to physicians has been delayed several times as the extent of the burden on health care providers has become clear.  As recently as May 28, the FTC made note of the concerns:

“At the request of several Members of Congress, the [FTC] is further delaying enforcement of the ‘Red Flags’ Rule through December 21, 2010, while Congress considers legislation that would affect the scope of entities covered by the Rule….The Commission urges Congress to act quickly to pass legislation that will resolve any questions as to which entities are covered by the Rule and obviate the need for further enforcement delays.”

The June 25^th agreement arises in connection with a suit filed against the FTC last month by the American Medical Association (AMA) and others seeking to prevent enforcement of the “Red Flags” rule and alleging that the FTC overreached its bounds in seeking to enforce the rule against physicians.   A similar complaint by the American Bar Association (ABA) is currently making its way through the appeals process after the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia enjoined enforcement of the rule against lawyers.  Until a ruling is issued in the ABA case, the AMA case will be held in abeyance and physicians will be safe from the “Red Flags” rule.

Should you have any questions regarding these issues, don’t hesitate to contact us.  For a complementary consultation, you may call Robert W. Liles or one of our other attorneys at 1 (800) 475-1906.

Look at RACs — Part III: What Should Physicians and other Medicare Providers Know about Appeals and Recoupment?

(July 2, 2010):  CMS’ Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) program is now permanent and nationwide.  As we discussed in Part I of this series, while small providers were largely ignored during the demonstration program, physicians, home health, hospice, and durable medical equipment (DME) suppliers should be on the lookout for increased attention.  In Part II, we discussed some ways providers can prepare for and respond to an audit request.

In this Part III, we will discuss a provider’s appeal options in the event that a RAC identifies an alleged overpayment as a result of its audit.  It is important to remember that RACs are paid on a contingency fee basis and so are highly incentivized to seek out overpayment errors. 

CMS’ enthusiastic trumpeting of the RAC demonstration program results seems to ignore the RACs’ reputation for overly aggressive auditing.  Indeed, a June 2010 CMS program update reveals that, when providers chose to appeal a RAC determination, providers won 64.4% of the time.  CMS has since implemented a requirement that the RAC remit its contingency fee if its audit determination is overturned at any level of appeal, not just the first level.  Whether this will improve RACs dismal win rate on appeal remains to be seen.

I.          What Are the Options to Appeal a RAC Determination of Overpayment?

First, providers that want to challenge the determination should be aware they have a  very limited period of time to file for redetermination appeal if they wish to avoid recoupment.  While a provider has 120 days to file for redetermination appeal, if they wait past day 30, the Medicare contractor (not the RAC) will initiate recoupment.  Additional information regarding recoupment is discussed below.

Appealing a RAC claims denial follows the uniform Medicare Part A and Part B appeals process.    The following deadlines are strictly adhered to.

Medicare Appeal Deadlines

Level	Stage	Reviewing Entity	Filing Deadline
1st	Redetermination	Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC)	120 days of receiving notice of initial determination
2nd	Reconsideration	Qualified Independent Contract (QIC)	180 days of receiving notice of redetermination decision
3rd	Hearing	Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)	60 days of receipt of the QIC’s decision
4th	Administrative Review (HHS)	Medicare Appeals Council (MAC)	60 days of receipt of the ALJ’s decision
5th	Judicial Review	Federal District Court	60 days of receipt of the MAC’s decision

 

Our experience has shown that ALJs are honest brokers who are the most willing to hear arguments from providers.  While they will follow the law and applicable coverage provisions, they tend to be much more thorough and consider the provider’s arguments in support of payment.  In many cases, this has been the first level that a fair and reasonable consideration of the evidence has occurred.

II.         What about Recoupment?

Notably, the deadlines above are filing deadlines only.  Medicare begins recouping funds well before the time frame for appeal has lapsed at each stage.  Medicare begins recouping funds only 30 days after the RAC’s initial determination and only 60 days after its redetermination decision.  This puts significant pressure on providers to file for first and second level appeals more rapidly than they otherwise might.  In later stages, recoupment cannot be stayed by filing the appeal.

Recoupment Timeframes
Day One – Initial Demand of a RAC Overpayment Determination	First Level Appeal	Second Level Appeal	Appeals to Administrative Law
The process begins when a Demand Letter, with appeal rights, is sent to Provider.  If there is no appeal and the provider does not remit the demanded amount, offset begins on day 41.	To avoid recoupment starting on day 41, the provider must request the 1st level appeal within 30 days from the date of the Demand Letter.  If an appeal is received after day 30 and recoupment started on day 41, the recoupment process will stop on the remaining balance.	To avoid recoupment beginning or resuming after a Redetermination, the provider must submit the 2nd level appeal request to the QIC within 60 days from the overpayment letter (if applicable) or from the decision letter.  If an appeal request is received after day 60, the recoupment process will stop on the remaining balance.	Limitation on recoupment ends after the 2nd level appeal. Recoupment shall begin 30 days from the appeal decision and will continue until debt is satisfied, whether or not the provider appeals to the ALJ or subsequent levels.

 

Separate from and prior to the appeals process, a provider may rebut any proposed recoupment action within 15 days of the notice of impending recoupment.  A provider may issue a statement to the claims processing contractor providing evidence as to why the overpayment action should not take place.  This process does NOT provide an opportunity to review the medical documentation or the audit determination itself.

Should you have any questions regarding these issues, don’t hesitate to contact us.  For a complementary consultation, you may call Robert W. Liles or one of our other attorneys at 1 (800) 475-1906.

A Look at RACs — Part II: How Should Physicians and Other Providers Respond to a RAC Audit?

(June 29, 2010): In Part I of this series, we reacquainted you with the design and purpose of the now permanent Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) Program.  Although RACs largely focused on inpatient care during CMS’ demonstration program, RACs are a real threat to small providers that don’t have the intensive compliance programs in place that most hospitals do.  In this Part II, we will look at how physicians, home health, hospice, and durable medical equipment (DME) suppliers can prepare for and respond to RAC audits.

Even if no demands are issued, the RAC audit process exposes providers to substantial risks and administrative costs.  Fortunately, both can be managed with thoughtful implementation of effective compliance measures and a well-planned response to an audit.

I.              How Should Physicians and Other Small Providers Prepare for a RAC Audit?

It is essential that the preparation for a RAC audit begins before the RAC ever knocks on the door.  Deadlines are tight and so physicians without effective compliance programs in place run the risk of claims being denied simply because they can’t show that they crossed all the “T’s” and dotted the “I’s” in time.

Physicians, home health, hospice, and DME suppliers can begin to target their compliance efforts by examining the reasons for denials issued during the recently concluded RAC demonstration program.  During the course of that program, of improper payments identified,

• 35% were the result of incorrect coding;
• 8% were the result of insufficient documentation (including failure to submit information on time or to submit enough information); and
• 17% were the result of other issues, such as basing claim payments on outdated fee schedules or duplicate claims.  Meanwhile,
• 40% were deemed medically unnecessary.

In other words, 60% of denied claims had nothing to do with patient care.  No one goes into health care to spend their time creating and perfecting paper trails but long experience with Medicare tells us that doing so cannot be avoided.

Thus, to prepare for a RAC audit, as a provider you can:

• Implement and continuously review your compliance plan;
• Review the documentation requirements for each item or service you provide;
• Maintain your files thoroughly and consistently;
• Do NOT rely on other suppliers or providers for record-keeping; and
• Make sure all your documentation is legible.

II.         How Should Physicians and Other Small Providers Respond to a RAC Audit?

The RAC audit process starts with a request for records, upon which the provider has a strictly enforced 45 days (plus mail time) to respond.  Upon receiving a request for records, providers can take several steps to protect yourselves: 

• Take care before conducting an internal review of the claims requested.  While an internal analysis can be invaluable, you want to avoid creating a non-privileged paper trail of identified problems that could later be referred to law enforcement if a RAC makes a fraud referral.
• Review past claims audits and evaluations to determine whether the requested claims have been previously evaluated.
• Remember that filing deadlines are strictly enforced so calculate early on when appeals must be filed and begin to gather supporting documentation.
• Consider retaining an expert in extrapolation.
• Do NOT assume the contractor’s arguments are meritorious.  Carefully review Medicare policy to see if the RAC cited it correctly.
• Retain duplicates of any information that you submit to the RAC.

III.        Is Anything Different in the Permanent Program?

Small providers with experience being audited in the demonstration program should be on the lookout for the several changes implemented under the permanent program that may help protect them.  For instance, 

• RACs’ Contractor Medical Directors are now required to speak with a provider regarding a claim denial, if requested, and a reviewer must provide credentials upon request.
• The reason for the review must be listed on a request for records letters and overpayment letters.
• The look-back period is reduced to 3 years from 4.
• CMS has set uniform limits on the number of records that can be requested in a 45 day period (sliding scale).

More details concerning these and other changes to the permanent program can be found in the CMS RAC Demonstration Evaluation Report, available at https://www.cms.gov/RAC/02_ExpansionStrategy.asp.

Should you have any questions regarding these issues, don’t hesitate to contact us.  For a complementary consultation, you may call Robert W. Liles or one of our other attorneys at 1 (800) 475-1906.

Enactment of “Doc Fix” Bill Offers Another Temporary Reprieve for Medicare Physicians

(June 28, 2010):  On Friday, June 25, 2010, President Obama signed the Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of 2010 (H.R. 3962), which provides yet another band-aid for our broken Medicare physician pay system.  The bill replaces the 21% Medicare physician payment cut that took effect at the beginning of this month with a retroactive 2.2% payment increase for the period from June 1 to November 30. 

What this increase means, of course, is that after November 30, 2010 physicians’ pay is expected to tumble 23%, instead of 21%.  This bill is just the latest in a series of Congress’ short-term “doc fix” budget maneuvers, designed to stave off the deleterious impacts of the fundamentally flawed Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR).  The fact is that the constant cycle of SGR-mandated pay cuts and uncertain legislative patches punishes doctors and patients.  

 Upon signing the bill, the President issued a statement, noting that, “A 21-percent pay cut to physicians’ payments would have forced some doctors to [stop] seeing Medicare patients – an outcome we can all agree is unacceptable.”  We imagine that a 23% drop in December will be similarly unacceptable but, at this point, Medicare physicians (and patients) will be forced to continue operating without any certainty of a long-term solution.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have been processing claims at the lower rate since June 18 but will reprocess these and begin processing future claims at the increased pay rate by July 1.  Physicians should carefully monitor their claims for this period and ensure that CMS contractors make the necessary adjustments.

Should you have any questions regarding these issues, don’t hesitate to contact us.  For a complementary consultation, you may call Robert W. Liles or one of our other attorneys at 1 (800) 475-1906.

A Look at RACs — Part I: What Do Physicians, Home Health, Hospice, and DME Providers Need to Know?

(June 25, 2010): The purpose of this series of articles is to assess the Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) Program from the perspective of physicians, home health, hospice, durable medical equipment (DME) providers, and other relatively small Medicare providers.  As many non-hospital providers will acknowledge, early cries of wolf by law firms and consultants did a fine job of initially publicizing the RAC threat.  Unfortunately, the threat of a RAC audit now appears to be largely ignored by non-hospital providers due to the seemingly widespread sense that RACs will likely continue to focus their efforts on large, institutional Medicare providers – the ultimate “low hanging fruit” in terms of potential Medicare overpayments. 

RACs are, in fact, a real threat to physicians and other small Medicare providers, despite the fact the contractors have passed over these providers in the past. 

Over the last six weeks, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has sponsored nationwide conference calls titled “Nationwide RAC 101 Call” specifically aimed at physicians, home health, hospices, and DME providers. Further, CMS conducted two general nationwide conference calls discussing the RAC program that were open to all Medicare providers. 

These seemingly innocent informational calls were in fact extraordinarily significant, servicing almost as a “touchstone” for CMS and its RAC auditors.  With the completion of these nationwide teleconferences, outreach has now been completed and CMS can affirmatively state that these non-hospital providers have been given multiple opportunities to learn about the RAC program and prepare for a RAC audit.   All states are now eligible for review. 

While CMS must still approve “issues” prior to their widespread review by the RACs, the contractors now have the billing data that they need to analyze and identify possible targets.

As physicians and other non-hospital providers prepare for possible audit, it is helpful to review hospitals’ experiences when preparing for and responding to a RAC audit.  On June 22, 2010, the American Hospital Association (AHA) released its findings that the RAC program is having a widespread impact on almost all hospitals, even though many have not even been subjected yet to a RAC audit.[1]  In fact, for the first quarter of 2010 alone:

• 84% of responding hospitals reported that RACs impacted their organization;
• 49% of responding hospitals reported increased administrative costs; and
• 17% of the hospitals using external resources to address RACs hired consultants at an average cost of almost $92,000. 

 So, what do providers and non-hospital Medicare providers need to know about RACs?  This multi-part series will address the following:  First, the purpose and impact of RACs; Second, how to respond to RACs when they come calling; Third, some of the emerging issues for physicians and other small Medicare providers regarding RACs. 

I.              What’s a RAC?

The RAC program was created by Section 306 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA).  Operating under the direction of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), RACs are independent third-party contractors tasked with identifying and correcting improper past Medicare payments.  Each of four RACs has jurisdiction over a separate region of the United States.

After a three year demonstration in which RACs identified $1.03 billion in improper Medicare fee-for-service payments, the program became permanent earlier this year.  RACs join scores of other Medicare audit contractors.  CMS created the following table to clarify the role RACs are supposed to play compared to other contractors.[2]  However, as we will see later in this series, these roles are not clearly delineated and the overlap in the review process can create substantial confusion and waste.

Role of Medicare Review Contractors
Improper Payment Function	Contractor Performing Function
Preventing future improper payments through pre-pay review and provider education	Medicare claims processing contractors
Detecting past improper payments	RACs
Measuring improper payments	CERT [Comprehensive Error Rate Testing]
Performing higher-weighted DRG [diagnosis related group] reviews and expedited coverage reviews	QIOs [Quality Improvement Organization]

 

RACs are highly incentivized to hunt for evidence of overpayments in high-cost categories of service and to needle out errors that have nothing to do with actual patient care.  RACs are paid on a contingency basis so it stands to reason that, during the initial program demonstration, only 4% of improper payments identified were underpayments.  This “bounty hunter” approach also helps to explain why prior audits have focused almost exclusively on high-cost inpatient care services. Recent GAO testimony shed light on this situation and may cause RACs or other contractors to shift their focus to entities that do not have hospitals’ long history of review and compliance, namely physicians and other relatively small Medicare providers.  Finally, a substantial percentage of overpayments collected by RACs during the demonstration program resulted from preventable coding errors, countering the myth that CMS is primarily focused on weeding out unnecessary service claims.

Providers in Region C may want to consider that the AHA found hospitals in that region, encompassing nearly 40% of all U.S. hospitals including those in Texas, Florida, and Virginia, reported the highest number of medical records requested, the highest amount of dollars targeted in medical record requests, and the highest number of denied claims (47% of the $2.47 million in denied claims reported in the first quarter of 2010). 

II.            Are There Any Safeguards to Protect Physicians and Other Small Group Providers?

Based on the demonstration program, numerous providers and others have expressed concern that RACs are overly aggressive auditors.  Despite some improvements, concerns about the RAC process are likely to persist.  As recent testimony by the GAO Health Care Director pointed out, the oversight of RACs leaves something to be desired.

Changes have been made to reduce the RACs unintended incentive to drive up fees (through the improper denial of claims). RACs are now required to pay back their contingency fee if the claim is overturned at any level of appeal, rather than just the first level as in the demonstration program.

Additionally, there are some limitations in place regarding the RACs ability to overwhelm providers with record requests.  RACs may not request records more frequently than every 45 days and, for institutional providers, their requests are limited to 1% of all claims submitted for the previous calendar year.  This is an overall limit, however, meaning that a RAC may determine the composition of the records in an additional document request.  They can – and do – request categories of records up to the limit even if the request is disproportionate the provider’s business.

Finally, none of these improvements address the concern that the first several levels of the appeals process do not provide meaningful recourse for the overly aggressive auditing.

Should you have any questions regarding these issues, don’t hesitate to contact us.  For a complementary consultation, you may call Robert W. Liles or one of our other attorneys at 1 (800) 475-1906.

---

[1] Available at http://www.aha.org/aha/content/2010/pdf/Q1RACTracResults.pdf

[2] Available at http://www.racaudits.com/uploads/RAC_Demonstration_Evaluation_Report.pdf.

HEAT Enforcement Update: Health Care Fraud Investigations and Prosecutions in Texas Increased in March 2010

(April 4, 2010): Notably, the number of publicly-disclosed investigations and prosecutions in Texas significantly increased last month.  Two of the cases disclosed involved mental health professionals.    

• A Psychologist was convicted of health care fraud and money laundering, in connection with various claims fraudulently billed to Medicare.  Instances of improper conduct included billing for more than twenty-four hours of services in a single day; billing for services in a single day which amounted to more than double the normal business hours of the Psychologist’s practice; billing for services allegedly rendered during weekends, holidays, and times that the Psychologist was known to be out of town and away from the practice; and, submitting claims for services and evaluations not actually performed by the Psychologist, as required by law.  
• An unlicensed Behavioral Health Counselor was charged with Medicaid fraud for allegedly engaging in aggravated identity theft.  The defendant allegedly improperly acquired Medicaid beneficiaries’ information, including names, addresses and Medicaid numbers, then used the information to file false claims through a behavioral counseling service the defendant owned.  These behavioral counseling services were billed to Medicaid but allegedly not provided to the beneficiaries for which they were billed.

Since being established approximately a year, Texas HEAT team investigations and prosecutions have significantly increased throughout the State.  Both enforcement efforts and the frequency of Medicare audits are anticipated to increase throughout 2010.  In addition to the increasing number of civil and criminal cases brought by the Texas HEAT Strike Forces, the number of administrative overpayment cases is anticipated to grow as well.  It is essential that CMHCs continue in their efforts to ensure that both business operations and billing practices fully comply with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. 

Should you have any questions regarding these issues, don’t hesitate to contact us.  For a complementary consultation, you may call Robert W. Liles or one of our other attorneys at 1 (800) 475-1906.

« Previous Page — Next Page »