Category Archives: Medicare Recoupment

Big Reimbursement & Balance Billing Changes in Florida Law

Posted on by

VOBBy: Karina Gonzalez

Earlier this year, the Florida legislature passed prohibitions against balance billing by out-of-network providers for emergency services and where the patient goes to a contracted facility but does not have an opportunity to choose a provider such as emergency room physicians, pathologists, anesthesiologists and radiologists.

Specific reimbursement requirements went into effect on October 1, 2016 for certain out-of-network providers of emergency and non-emergency services, where a patient has no opportunity to choose the provider.

Under these circumstances, an Insurer must pay the greater amount of either:

(a)         The amount negotiated   with an in-network provider   in the same community where services were performed;

(b)        The usual and customary rate received by a provider for the same service in the community where service was provided; or

(c)         The Medicare rate for the service. 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 →

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 →

Managing Managed Care

Posted on by

managed care moneyBy: Valerie Shahriari

While your healthcare business may be compliant with billing regulations and coding, this does not mean that your payer is compliant and has paid you correctly per your contract.  Providers know that Fraud and Abuse has been one of the largest areas of focus for payers and the government over the past 20 years.  Due to this attention, many healthcare businesses engage auditors to audit their compliance of claims quarterly or annually.  However, in addition to compliance audits, a provider should be auditing their payer interaction to create a dynamic blueprint of denial management and payment recovery.   The AMA states that a 5% denial rate for an average family practice equates to about $30,000 walking of the door.  A good benchmark for payer compliance would be a denial rate of 5-10%.  Often times, practices and healthcare businesses operate with a much higher rate, and even in the 20-30% range without even knowing it.

When auditing the payer interaction, several components should be included in the review including:

  • Denial rate percentage
  • Aging of claims paid for 30 day, 60 day, 90 day, over 120 day period as an Aggregate
  • Aging of claims paid for 30 day, 60 day, 90 day, over 120 day period by each Payer
  • Claims denied categorized by denial reason as an Aggregate for previous 12 months
  • Claims denied categorized by denial reason by each Payer for previous 12 months
  • Claims that have been appealed, the date submitted, the date of the outcome, the outcome by each Payer
  • Claims not paid according to fee schedule as an Aggregate for previous 12 months
  • Claims not paid according to fee schedule by each Payer for previous 12 months

Continue reading →

Tuomey Court Has A Lot to Say

Posted on by

bcbs lawsuit

 

By: Jeff Cohen

The Tuomey decision, U.S. Court of Appeals case out of South Carolina, contains important lessons for physicians, especially as it relates to (1) compensation arrangements with hospitals, (2) proper compensation arising in connection with the provision of designated health services (“DHS”), and (3) the advice of counsel defense.

The concept of DHS arises largely in the context of the federal Stark Law, which in pertinent part (1) forbids physicians from owning and referring to providers of DHS (e.g. PT, rehab, diagnostic imaging, home health, DME, clinical laboratory, inpatient and outpatient hospital services), (2) describes how medical practices can provide DHS to their own patients, and (3) forbids even physicians within a practice from allocating DHS profits on the basis of who ordered or referred to them.

The Tuomey case involves a whistleblower action filed against a not for profit hospital system.  The original jury in that case decided that the system didn’t violate the False Claims Act, but the appellate court set aside the verdict using facts and testimony that had be excluded from the jury trial, Tuomey Healthcare System was found to have knowingly submitted over 21,000 false claims to Medicare and the government was awarded over $237 Million (most of it in the form of punitive damages).  The government (which often advances the plaintiff’s—“relator” case in whistleblower cases) filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court granted and the appellate court affirmed.

The case involves the following: Continue reading →

Medical Necessity and Payment: Who Decides?

Posted on by

medical necessity kpgBy: Karina Gonzalez

There is nothing readily understood about the term medical necessity.  In healthcare it is the “overarching criterion for payment”.  There is no payment for services or supplies if there is no medical necessity to support it.   Today, every provider at some time is faced with a denial because of lack of medical necessity.  Physician providers will usually hear that payors do not get in the way of the physician-patient relationship.  Payors typically state that they never tell a physician how to practice medicine and a denial based on lack of medical necessity is for purposes of payment only.  However, what provider, on a routine basis, will continue to order care and services which medically unacceptable and not supported for payment purposes?

The definition of medical necessity varies from one commercial plan to another. Federal law such as Medicare has its definition and so does state law under programs such as Medicaid.  Various medical associations such as the AMA also define medical necessity.

Generally, medical necessity refers to services or supplies which are required for the treatment of an illness, injury, diseased condition or impairment and which is consistent with a patient’s diagnosis or symptoms and are in accordance with generally accepted standards of medical practice.  Services or supplies must not be ordered only as a convenience to the patient or provider. Of course care and services which are investigational or unproven are not considered medically necessary. Continue reading →

How to Get Managed Care Companies to Pay For Your Practice’s Improvements

Posted on by

managed care moneyBy: Valerie Shahriari

Florida’s providers are buzzing with questions about value based care, asking why now? Is it a fad? Will it really ever be a widespread form of payment? Why does Florida seem farther behind the value based curve than other markets?

While there are more aggressive markets in other parts of the country, the bottom line is this: CMS changes are coming and they will not be stopped.  The government has invested too much money to turn around at this point.  Here are just a few examples of why:

  • The CMS Value Based Program with hospitals is already implemented;
  • Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation is piloting NUMEROUS programs covering many physician specialties
  • CMS expanded the Medicare Shared Savings Program to 3 tracks.
  • A new Merit-Based Incentive Payment for Physicians, Physician Assistants, Nurse Practitioners, Clinical Nurse Specialists, and Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists will be apply to payments for services furnished in 2019.

The train has left the station. Providers will now shift from fee for service to value based payments with CMS.  To be successful and still have a profitable business, clinical integration and quality improvements will need to be implemented to improve your practice whether you are hospital based or office based AND whether you are employed by a hospital or in private practice. These changes will be implemented for all of your patients as you will not distinguish in your level of service between patients with managed care as the payor rather than CMS.  This essentially means that managed care payors will reap the benefits of these improvements in your practice.  If you do not have a value based contract in place with the managed care payors they will not be sharing one dime with you.  They will reap the benefits of your improvements AND keep the money!  And by the time you get around to a managed care contract that is value based, the shared savings opportunities will be less than if you began those discussions now.  Continue reading →

How to Get Managed Care Companies to Pay for Your Practice’s Improvements

Posted on by

managed care moneyBy: Valerie Shahriari, via Healthcare Reimbursement Blog

Florida’s providers are buzzing with questions about value based care, asking why now? Is it a fad? Will it really ever be a widespread form of payment? Why does Florida seem farther behind the value based curve than other markets?

While there are more aggressive markets in other parts of the country, the bottom line is this: CMS changes are coming and they will not be stopped.  The government has invested too much money to turn around at this point.  Here are just a few examples of why:

  • The CMS Value Based Program with hospitals is already implemented;
  • Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation is piloting NUMEROUS programs covering many physician specialties
  • CMS expanded the Medicare Shared Savings Program to 3 tracks.
  • A new Merit-Based Incentive Payment for Physicians, Physician Assistants, Nurse Practitioners, Clinical Nurse Specialists, and Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists will be apply to payments for services furnished in 2019.

The train has left the station. Providers will now shift from fee for service to value based payments with CMS.  To be successful and still have a profitable business, clinical integration and quality improvements will need to be implemented to improve your practice whether you are hospital based or office based AND whether you are employed by a hospital or in private practice. These changes will be implemented for all of your patients as you will not distinguish in your level of service between patients with managed care as the payor rather than CMS.  This essentially means that managed care payors will reap the benefits of these improvements in your practice.  If you do not have a value based contract in place with the managed care payors they will not be sharing one dime with you.  They will reap the benefits of your improvements AND keep the money!  And by the time you get around to a managed care contract that is value based, the shared savings opportunities will be less than if you began those discussions now.  Continue reading →

Compounding Pharmacy Shells Out $3.775 Mil to Settle False Claims Suit

Posted on by

bonus calculationA Jacksonville compounding pharmacy has agreed to pay $3.775 million to settle false claims allegations that it defrauded TRICARE. MediMix Specialty Pharmacy billed TRICARE for compounding pain prescriptions that came from an improper referral source. MediMix’s top-prescriber over a period of five years was also married to one of MediMix’s senior vice presidents. MediMix itself was one of TRICARE’s top billers for compounded pain medications.

Since the federal law limiting physician self-referrals, 42 U.S.C. 1395nn (more commonly called the “Stark law”) does not apply to TRICARE, the government proceeded under a law entitled Administrative Remedies for Fraud, Abuse, and Conflict of Interest, 32 C.F.R. 199.9, which is applicable for claims submitted to CHAMPUS and TRICARE. This law is much more broad than the Stark law. While the Stark law contains specific exceptions, this law does not. Continue reading →