Category Archives: False Claims Act

Cigna Loses Texas Case Against Humble Surgical Hospital, Hit with $16 Mil Judgment

Posted on by

anti kickbackBy: Karina Gonzalez

Cigna recently sued a Texas hospital, Humble Surgical for overpayments.  Humble Surgical is an out-of-network (OON) provider.  Cigna alleged fraudulent billing practices and that the hospital engaged  in a scheme to defraud payors by waiving members’ financial responsibility.

While the suit involved many other  allegations  our article focuses on the arguments Cigna made on failure to collect co-payments, deductibles, and co-insurance and fee-forgiving practices by the hospital.   There were several other issues raised that are important to various practices that Cigna has engaged in with out-of-network providers.  Cigna has consistently audited South Florida providers alleging failure to collect patient financial responsibility or fee-forgiveness, then informing the provider that it was not entitled to any reimbursement because these practices fell within the exclusionary language of the member’s plan.

The suit brought under federal law, ERISA and also Texas common law seeking reimbursement for all overpayments. Cigna was seeking equitable relief including imposing a lien or constructive trust on  fees paid to the hospital.

Humble Surgical counter sued against Cigna for  nonpayment of patients’ claims, underpayment of certain claims and delayed payment of all claims in violation of ERISA, including other causes of action. Here’s what happened:  Continue reading →

The United States Supreme Court adopted an “Implied Certification Theory” in “some circumstances”

Posted on by

bcbs lawsuitBy: Karina Gonzalez

The Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar (decided 6/16/2016) extended the reach of the False Claims Act (FCA) to cover implied false certifications made “in certain circumstances” by healthcare providers in requesting payment for goods and services.

At issue was a theory of liability known as the “implied false certification theory” and whether this theory was valid under the FCA.  The implied false certification theory treats a payment request as an implied certification of compliance with relevant statutes, regulations or contract requirements that are a material condition of payment and treats a failure to disclose a violation as a misrepresentation that renders the claim false or fraudulent.  Continue reading →

The Final Overpayment Rule and Practical Steps for Compliance

Posted on by

compliance manualBy: James Saling

On February 11, 2016, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued the final overpayment rule commonly referred to as the “60 Day Rule”. Physicians, labs, hospitals, and other providers that receive reimbursement under Part A or B must comply with the 60 Day Rule or face penalties under the False Claims Act.

The 60 Day Rule requires that overpayments (e.g., payment for coding errors) be reported and returned to CMS within 60 days after the date on which the overpayment was identified. Identification of the overpayment was addressed at length in the regulation.  The 60-day clock to identify overpayments starts ticking “when the person has, or should have through the exercise of reasonable diligence, determined that the person has received an overpayment and quantified the amount of the overpayment.”  Reasonable diligence means that the provider takes steps to uncover overpayments and steps to quantify the amount of the overpayment. Continue reading →

Compounding Pharmacies and Alleged Tricare Abuses Back in the Spotlight

Posted on by

compounding pharmacyBy: Jacqueline Bain

On Thursday, February 11, 2016, the United States Attorneys’ Office from the Middle District of Florida announced a $10 million settlement with 4 physicians and 2 pharmacies regarding alleged abuses of Tricare program.  The case against these physicians and pharmacies was prosecuted as part of the United States government’s large-scale effort to combat questionable compounding practices.  Investigations revealed that patients were often prescribed compounded drugs that they never used, and that Tricare paid a mark-up cost of nearly 90% for compounded drugs over and above the pharmacy’s actual costs of making the drug.  Roughly 40% of the claims submitted by the pharmacies in question were written by 4 physicians with an ownership or financial interest in the pharmacies.

Tricare is a federal health care program designed to insure active duty military service members, reservists, members of the National Guard, retirees, survivors and their families.  Tricare outpatient costs have almost doubled in the last 5 years, and compound drugs have accounted for a large portion of that increase.  Continue reading →

Managed Care Contracts: Watch Out for Definitions Section Pitfalls

Posted on by

Contract CWBy: Karina Gonzalez

One of the most commonly overlooked components of a managed care contract is the definitions section despite the fact that what is contained here will affect the contracted provider on a daily basis.  Contract terms that are too generic so that they are not clearly defined and understood as they relate to a particular area of practice can have a direct influence on clinical decision making.  A patient may need a higher level of care but be approved for a lower level only.  The provider knows that a patient may suffer if the level approved will not treat the illness or that the patient’s condition could deteriorate without a higher level of care.

Let’s take, for example, the definition of medical necessity in a contract. Who decides medical necessity?  Is it the provider or is it the managed care organization (MCO)?  Many contracts state that the term “medical necessity” relates only to the issue of reimbursement.  Further, that the approval or denial of a claim is “for reimbursement purposes only” and should not affect the provider’s judgment on whether treatment is appropriate to treat the illness, symptoms or complaints of the patient.   Continue reading →

Physicians: Start Preparing for 2016 Changes in Healthcare

Posted on by

By: Jeff Cohen

Stepping into 2016, physicians and medical practices must continue to be vigilant about the changing landscape in healthcare.  Those who adapt quickly and smartly will thrive, while those who don’t will lose.  What can they do?

Stabilize

Stability for medical practices requires two things:  clear analytics and fixes.  Smart medical practices will examine threats outside the practice and within it.  As far as external threats go, the key area to focus on is competition.  Do you know what competitors are doing and how they’re different than you?

Internal threats are general revealed in the form of (a) employees that need better training and communication, (b) employees that just need to go, and (c) creating a succession plan for the practice.  If the practice is top heavy with older physicians, what plan is in place to ensure that “new blood” is brought in?  What recruitment strategies are in place?  Can the practice go it alone or does it need a recruitment arrangement with a hospital that can demonstrate a community need?  How will the older physicians phase out?  Is there a plan in the corporate documents to make sure phase out is slow and planned?  What do departing physicians get?  What about billing and collection?  When was the last time that was analyzed?  And finally, coding analysis.  Is money being left on the table?  Far too many practices actually undercode visits and services out of fear of payer audit.  Apart from constituting a False Claims Act violation (though regulators are not fast to indict providers who are underpaid), the differential can mean the difference between a good year and a bad one.

Finally, in light of the fact that regulatory and recoupment activity has never been higher, practices would do well to ensure compliance via a self-audit and compliance plan.  This is a different animal than a coding audit.  This one looks at all contractual relationships to ensure compliance and augments coding compliance.   Continue reading →

Cigna Points to Tox Costs and Fraud in Quitting Florida Obamacare

Posted on by

gavelBy: Jeff Cohen 

Cigna just announced it is withdrawing from Florida’s Health Insurance Marketplace.  As reported by Carol Gentry in Health News Florida, Cigna blamed its decision to withdraw on fraud and abuse and on “out of network substance abuse clinics and labs.”  Interestingly, Cigna spokesman, Joseph Mondy, pointed to a recent article in the Palm Beach Post (“Addiction Treatment Bonanza:  How urine tests rake in millions”) in support of Cigna’s announcement.

Media reports regarding the treatment industry and Cigna’s announcement go unquestioned by reporters.  For instance, the Palm Beach Post article claims “the sky-high charges have exploited addicts and alcoholics seeking help, gouged insurers and spurred law enforcement interest….”  It pictures a young, tattooed man as a recovery business owner, but does not mention any wrongdoing or charges against him.  It restates claims in a lawsuit against a toxicology lab without any counterbalancing input from the lab that is the subject of the lawsuit.  It expresses certainty that insurers are being gouged, but does not mention that the rates actually paid by insurers for out of network services are determined entirely by the insurers, not the treatment providers.  It’s an article full of allegations and innuendos, but no meaningful coverage of any of the issues.      Continue reading →

Recent Governmental Enforcement and Regulatory Developments

Posted on by

Headshot - DDBy: Dave Davidson

The last few weeks have seen some significant examples of the federal government’s vigilance in policing the healthcare market.  These events serve as a reminder of the highly regulated and scrutinized industry in which we work.  They are also a reminder to physicians and other providers to make sure their practices and contractual arrangements can pass this scrutiny.

The most significant recent event is the $115 million settlement between the government and the Adventist Health System.  This settlement resolved two whistleblower cases brought against the system by three employees.  The lawsuits alleged that the Adventist Health System violated the Stark law, which generally prohibits payments to physicians for making referrals unless an exception to the law is met.  The specific allegations against the Adventist Health System were that the compensation paid by the health system to some of its employed physicians exceeded fair market value; that the structure of the practice of the employed physicians did not meet the “group practice” exception; that physician compensation improperly included payment work not performed by the physicians; and that the physicians were paid for making referrals to the system.  Continue reading →

The First False Claims Act Involving the Affordable Care Act (ACA) 60 Day Repayment Rule

Posted on by

By: Valerie Shahriari

While the False Claims Act (FCA) has been in existence for years, many providers do not know that the rule was extended in 2010.  As part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Congress created the “60 Day Rule” and extended the False Claims Act liability to health care providers who fail to report and return overpayments within 60 days of identification if that overpayment came from a federal program (i.e., Medicare and Medicaid).  United States ex rel. Kane et al. v. Healthfirst, Inc., et al (Case No. 1:11-cv-02325) (S.D.N.Y. August 3, 2015) is the first case in which the federal government intervened on an alleged violation of the 60 Day Rule.  Continue reading →

Provider Credit Balances Result in $6.8 Million Overpayment Settlement

Posted on by

bonus calculationBy: Karina Gonzalez

USA v. Pediatric Services of America –  settlement under the False Claims Act involving a health provider’s failure to investigate credit balances on its books to determine whether they resulted from overpayment by a federal health care program.

The U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia  announced that Pediatric Services of America Healthcare, Pediatric Services of America, Inc., Pediatric Healthcare, Inc., Pediatric Home Nursing Services (collectively, “PSA”), and Portfolio Logic, LLC agreed to pay $6.88 million ($6,882,387) to resolve allegations that PSA, a provider of home nursing services to medically fragile children, knowingly (1) failed to disclose and return overpayments that it received from federal health care programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, (2) submitted claims under the Georgia Pediatric Program for home nursing care without documenting the requisite monthly supervisory visits by a registered nurse, and (3) submitted claims to federal health care programs that overstated the length of time their staff had provided services, which resulted in PSA being overpaid.

“Participants in federal health care programs are required to actively investigate whether they have received overpayments and, if so, promptly return the overpayments,” said United States Attorney, John Horn. “This settlement is the first of its kind and reflects the serious obligations of health care providers to be responsible stewards of public health funds.” Continue reading →