MACRA Released

On Friday, CMS released the MACRA final rules, its innovative payment system for Medicare replacing the sustainable growth rate formula and the EHR Incentive Program for Medicare providers.

MACRA creates the framework for providers to participate in the CMS Quality Payment Program through either the Advanced Alternative Payment Models (Advanced APMS) or the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). The goal of these models is to reward value and outcomes, specifically supporting CMS’ goal of paying for quality and value. The MIPS program importantly consolidates components of PQRS, the Physician Value-based Payment Modifier (“VM”), and the EHR Incentive Program (aka meaningful use).

“As prescribed by Congress, MIPS will focus on: quality – both a set of evidence-based, specialty-specific standards as well as practice-based improvement activities; cost; and use of certified electronic health record (EHR) technology (CEHRT) to support interoperability and advanced quality objectives in a single, cohesive program that avoids redundancies. Many features of MIPS are intended to simplify and integrate further during the second and third years.”

Though the new rule becomes effective on January 1st, 2017, clinicians will be given a transition period in which to prepare for MIPS, with negative payment adjustments not occurring until January 1, 2019. MACRA will sunset payment adjustments under the Medicare EHR Incentive Program, PQRS and VM after CY2018. For those clinicians not ready to start on January 1st, 2017 they have until October 2, 2017 to commence participation. Regardless of when a clinician starts he/she needs to submit performance data by March 31, 2018.

CMS’ Quality Payment Program has the following strategic objectives:

(1) to improve beneficiary outcomes and engage patients through patient-centered Advanced APM and MIPS policies;

(2) to enhance clinician experience through flexible and transparent program design and interactions with easy-to-use program tools;

(3) to increase the availability and adoption of robust Advanced APMs;

(4) to promote program understanding and maximize participation through customized communication, education, outreach and support that meet the needs of the diversity of physician practices and patients, especially the unique needs of small practices;

(5) to improve data and information sharing to provide accurate, timely, and actionable feedback to clinicians and other stakeholders; and

(6) to ensure operational excellence in program implementation and ongoing development.

CMS also launched a new website with graphics to aid in understanding the MACRA regulations. The view the interactive website click here.

CMS has also provided a 24-page executive summary. Click here to view the executive summary.

If you have questions about MACRA please contact Elana Zana.

 

Overpayment Rule Sets 6 Year Lookback

Nearly 6 years after the passage of the Affordable Care Act, CMS published the final 60 day rule for Medicare Parts A and B overpayments. The rule requires a person who has received an overpayment to report and return the overpayment to HHS, the State, an intermediary, a carrier or a contractor within 60 days after the date the overpayment was identified or the due date of any corresponding cost report, as applicable. The final rule is codified at 42 CFR 401.301 – 305; 401.607. Failure to properly identify and return overpayments may lead to liability under the False Claims Act.

The Final Rule sets a 6 year lookback period and clarifies what it means to identify an Overpayment. Prior to publication of the Final Rule, CMS previously published final rules for Medicare Parts C and D. As we previously reported, the New York District Court considered the “identification issue” in Kane v. Healthfirst, Inc. Unlike the Final Rule, the Court in Kane did not allow for quantification of an overpayment prior to commencement of the 60 day clock.

A. Ten Year Lookback Burden ‘Reduced’ to Six Years.

As we described in a February 2012, blog post, CMS initially proposed a ten year lookback period. The final rule eases this burden and requires that an overpayment be reported and returned within six years of receipt of the overpayment. In CMS’s view, “[c]reating this limitation for how far back a provider or supplier must look when identifying an overpayment is necessary in order to avoid imposing unreasonable additional burden or cost on providers and suppliers. Yes, 6 years is better than 10, but CMS declined to adopt a 4 year lookback as contained in the current reopening rules at 42 CFR 405.980. In reaching the 6 year rule, it appears that CMS contemplated burden, statutes of limitation in enforcement statutes, and state law record retention rules that require providers to retain records for 6 or 7 years.

B. Clarification of Meaning of ‘Identification’ of An Overpayment.

When does the 60 day clock start? The ACA provides that an overpayment must be reported and returned by the later of (i) the date which is 60 days after the date on which the overpayment was identified; or (ii) the date any corresponding cost report is due, if applicable. The Final Rule clarifies that “a person has identified an overpayment 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.” 81 Fed. Reg. 7654. Conversely, the Final Rule provides that “a person should have determined that the person received an overpayment and quantified the overpayment if the person fails to exercise reasonable diligence and the person in fact received an overpayment.” 81 Fed. Reg. 7661, 7683. Moreover, it identifies specific examples of where an overpayment may be identified. 81 Fed. Reg. 7659.

1. Reasonable Diligence in Quantifying an Overpayment – The commentary to the Final Rule provides guidance on what constitutes reasonable diligence. In terms of quantifying an overpayment, reasonable diligence is demonstrated “through the timely, good faith investigation of credible information, which is at most 6 months from receipt of the credible information, except in extraordinary circumstances.” Extraordinary circumstances are fact specific but may include unusually complex matters. Reasonable diligence in the Final Rule replaced the concept of “all deliberate speed” in the proposed rule.

2. Reasonable Diligence Through Compliance Activities – Under the Final Rule, reasonable diligence includes both proactive compliance activities conducted in good faith by qualified individuals to monitor for the receipt of overpayments and investigations conducted in good faith in a timely manner by qualified individuals in response to obtaining credible information of a potential overpayment. The Final Rule admonishes the provider and supplier community to engage in meaningful compliance activities:

We believe that undertaking no or minimal compliance activities to monitor the accuracy and appropriateness of a provider or supplier’s Medicare claims would expose a provider or supplier to liability under the identified standard articulated in this rule based on the failure to exercise reasonable diligence if the provider or supplier received an overpayment.

81 Fed. Reg. 7661.

C. Reporting.

A person will satisfy the reporting obligations by making a disclosure under the OIG’s Self-Disclosure Protocol or the CMS Voluntary Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol. Otherwise, providers are required to use “an applicable claims adjustment, credit balance, self-reported refund, or other reporting process set forth by the Medicare contractor to report an overpayment.” Those SRDPs submitted prior to the effective date of the Final Rule will still be governed by the 4-year lookback period. Going forward the 6-year look back period will apply, though CMS still needs to modify this period with the OMB with regard to the financial analysis they are allowed to collect under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Therefore, at this point providers may voluntarily provide information for the 5th and 6th year. 81 Fed. Reg. 7673.

D. Conclusion.

In light of the Final Rule, providers should evaluate their compliance and auditing activities and evaluate the extent to which they could demonstrate “reasonable diligence.” In general, providers should work diligently to quantify and report overpayments by no later than 8 months (6 months to quantify, 2 months to report).

Adam Snyder is Chair of the Ogden Murphy Wallace Business Department and is a Part-time/Adjunct Faculty member of the University of Washington School of Law. For additional information regarding the Medicare 60 Day Overpayment Rule, Corporate Compliance, or internal investigations, please contact Adam Snyder.

Updated Meaningful Use Rules Released

After months of waiting, CMS and ONC finally issued final rules (with comment) pertaining to Stage 3 Meaningful Use, 2015-2018 EHR Incentive Program and 2015 edition of CEHRT certification.  CMS announced that the rules, numbering 750+ pages, are designed to “simplify requirements and add new flexibilities for providers to make electronic health information available when and where it matters most.”  CMS’ announcement also signaled more rules to come, CMS has opened a 60-day comment period for additional feedback about the EHR Incentive Programs and in particular the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA), “which established the Merit-based Incentive Payment System and consolidates certain aspects of a number of quality measurement and federal incentive programs into one more efficient framework.” Expected release for MACRA is spring 2016.

Highlights of the final rule include:

  • 2015 reporting for EPs and EHs is any continuous 90 day period within CY 2015 by Feb. 29. 2016, which may be extended to March if providers need additional time.
  • 2016 & 2017 new Medicare and Medicaid providers (and 2018 Medicaid providers) may report on any 90 days.
  • Most changes in the rule will not be required until 2018 (but providers who are ready may transition to the next phase in 2017).
  • 2015-2017 EPs will report on 10 objectives, EHs on 9 objectives, including one public health reporting objective.
  • Modified patient action measures in Stage 2 objectives.
  • 90 day reporting period for any provider moving to Stage 3 in 2017.
  • Finalization of the use of application program interfaces (APIs) which allow the use of new programs/functions that will help patients have access to their healthcare records, including on mobile devices.
  • Focus on interoperability in Stage 3 rules.

The final rules will be officially published in the Federal Register on October 16, 2015.

For more information regarding the EHR Incentive Program and these new rules please contact Elana Zana.

Naughty or Nice – 60 Day Overpayment Reporting Rule

According to a recent New York District Court decision, whether providers are subjected to an enforcement action under the False Claims Act for failing to report and return an overpayment within the sixty-day window should turn on whether they have been naughty or nice after learning of the potential of an overpayment.  In this case, at least at the motion to dismiss stage, the court concluded that the providers had been naughty, which, based on the factual recitations seemed a pretty easy call.  Essentially, the providers were alerted to the potential of substantial overpayments by an employee tasked with examining an overpayment issue.  Four days after providing his employer with a spreadsheet detailing the overpayments, the employee was fired and his spreadsheet “filed”.  A couple months later, the employee filed his qui tam action in which the United States and the state of New York eventually intervened.

 

Naughty or nice became important because of the court’s analysis of what constitutes “identification” of an overpayment for purposes of triggering the 60 day report and return obligation.  In this regard, according to the decision, at least one thing is certain.  The answer is not when the amount of the overpayment is finally calculated with certainty.  In response to this argument by the defendants, the court observed this would create ” . . . a perverse incentive to delay learning the amount due . . . relegating the sixty-day period to merely the time within which they would have to cut the check.”

 

The Government took the position that an overpayment is identified when the recipient is put on notice that a certain claim may have been overpaid.  The court agreed that defining “identified”  ” . . . such that the sixty day clock begins ticking when a provider is put on notice of a potential overpayment , rather than when the overpayment is conclusively ascertained, is compatible with the legislative history of the FCA and the FERA highlighted by the Government.”

 

The court characterized the rule derived from a review of legislative history as “unforgiving”, noting that it provides no leeway for the recipient of an overpayment who ” . . . struggles to conduct an internal audit, and reports its efforts to the Government within the sixty-day window, but has yet to isolate and return all overpayments sixty-one days after being put on notice of potential overpayments.”  ”  . . .it nowhere requires the Government to grant more leeway or more time to a provider who fails timely to return an overpayment but acts with reasonable diligence in an attempt to do so.”  Any relief for the provider that is diligently attempting to determine whether the potential overpayment is factually and legally an actual overpayment and, if so, the amount of the overpayment to be returned rests with prosecutorial discretion, which according to the court, ” . . . would counsel against the institution of enforcement actions aimed at well-intentioned health care providers working with reasonable haste to address erroneous overpayments” because in such a  situation the provider would not have acted with reckless disregard, deliberate ignorance or actual knowledge of the overpayment, a requirement of a FCA claim.

 

In fact, in comments to the court in this case, the Government made clear that this was not a case of a provider working diligently on the claims and on the sixty-first day is still scrambling with its spreadsheets.  “You know, the Government wouldn’t be bringing that kind of claim.”

So the moral of the story is if a messenger notifies you of a potential overpayment, be nice, act with diligence to investigate and quantify any overpayment, and for goodness sake don’t shoot the messenger.

To learn more about refunding overpayments please contact Greg Montgomery or Adam Snyder.

 

WHOA ME! TUOMEY!

For the second time in the past three years, Tuomey Healthcare System found its fate in the hands of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals as a Qui Tam Defendant under the False Claims Act (“FCA”). Only this time it did not fare quite as well in what amounts to a crushing defeat. Back in 2012, pending retrial on allegations that Tuomey violated the FCA, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a $45 million judgment stemming from violations of the Stark Law, see prior article here.  Now, on July 2, 2015, the 4th Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision on retrial that Tuomey submitted 21,730 False Claims based on Stark Law violations and was thereby liable for $237,454,195 in damages and penalties. The 4th Circuit rejected Tuomey’s arguments that no reasonable jury could have concluded that Tuomey violated Stark or intended to submit False Claims and that it was entitled to a new trial based upon various assignments of error related to jury instructions and damages issues related to measurement and constitutional matters.

The result is stunning, and should give pause to health lawyers, consultants and healthcare executives who find themselves walking the tightrope between sound business judgment and the complicated maze of the Stark Law and other complex healthcare rules. Indeed, in his concurring opinion, Judge Wynn expressed distaste for the outcome:

But I write separately to emphasize the troubling picture this case paints: An impenetrably complex set of laws and regulations that will result in a likely death sentence for a community hospital in an already medically under-served area…..Health care providers are open to extensive liability, their financial security resting uneasily upon a combination of their attorneys’ wits [and] prosecutorial discretion.” [citations omitted]. Despite attempts to establish “bright line” rules,…the Stark law has proved challenging to understand and comply with.

This case is troubling. It seems as if, even for well-intentioned health care providers, the Stark Law has become a booby trap rigged with strict liability and potentially ruinous exposure – especially when coupled with the FCA.

Judge Wynn’s words were not lost on the majority:

Finally, we do not discount the concerns raised by our concurring colleague regarding the result in this case. But having found no cause to upset the jury’s verdict in this case and no constitutional error, it is for Congress to consider whether changes to the Stark Law’s reach are in order.

Short of congressional action, CMS recently announced Stark-related proposals [http://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Fact-sheets/2015-Fact-sheets-items/2015-07-08.html] that could ease the burden of the law. Tuomey will need to find its relief elsewhere.

Stark Generally.

A physician may not make a referral to an entity for the furnishing of designated healthcare services (“DHS”) if the physician has a financial relationship with the entity, unless an exception applies. DHS include inpatient and outpatient hospital services. A referral does not include any DHS personally performed or provided by the referring physician. There is a referral, however, when the hospital bills a facility fee in connection with personally performed services. A financial relationship may exist through ownership or a compensation arrangement.

Tuomey’s Reaction to Business Challenges.

Tuomey is a nonprofit community hospital in Sumter, South Carolina, a mostly rural, medically underserved area. In the early 2000s, like so many other community hospitals, Tuomey faced the challenge of dropping outpatient volumes due to physicians performing procedures in their own offices or in ambulatory surgery centers. Tuomey’s future looked bleak and tens of millions in lost revenue was predicted. Tuomey developed a strategy to enter into part-time employment agreements with several previously-independent physicians on its medical staff. The arrangements were problematic for several reasons, without considering their current $237 Million price tag:

 

  • Compensation that varied year to year based on collections;
  • A requirement that Physicians perform outpatient procedures at Tuomey facilities;
  • Productivity bonuses of eighty percent of collections and an additional incentive bonus up to 7 percent of the productivity bonus;
  • Physicians were paid more than their collections, despite fair market value opinions from valuation experts;
  • Tuomey provided malpractice coverage, and performed the billing;
  • Ten year terms with 2 year back-end non-competes;
  • Physician who refused the arrangement and raised specific Stark issues (e.g. the Qui Tam Plaintiff in this case, Dr. Drakeford); and
  • Competing expert legal opinions from top health lawyers who were kept in the dark from one another and rejection and lack of diligence regarding negative opinions from counsel

 

Following two trials and two appeals, the 4th Circuit affirmed the $237 Million jury verdict and concluded that the trial court correctly granted a motion for a new trial, and rejected Tuomey’s various claims of error. As discussed below, the Court considered and commented on several important Stark and FCA issues.

Significant Aspects of 4th Circuit’s Opinion

 

Testimony of Kevin McAnaney:

 

Following the first Tuomey trial in 2010, the jury found that Tuomey had violated the Stark Law, but not the FCA. The trial court granted a post-trial motion based on what it viewed as its substantial error in excluding the testimony of Tuomey’s Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Gregg Martin. The 4th Circuit agreed that a new trial was proper, but reached that decision on slightly different grounds – the trial court’s exclusion of Kevin McAnaney’s testimony. Mr. McAnaney, a lawyer in private practice, was retained by Dr. Drakeford and Tuomey to advise of the Stark Law risks. Mr. McAnaney previously wrote a substantial portion of the Stark Law regulations in his role as Chief of the Industry Guidance Branch of DHHS Office of General Counsel to the Inspector General. The Court and the jury, apparently, found the McAnaney testimony to be particularly probative of the knowledge element of the FCA. McAnaney advised that the Tuomey employment agreements raised significant “red flags” under the Stark Law, such as compensating physicians in excess of their collections, thus making the arrangement “an easy case to prosecute.”

 

On McAnaney’s testimony, the 4th Circuit observed and concluded the following:

 

In the first trial, the jury did not hear from McAnaney and found for Tuomey on the FCA claim. When the case was retried, McAnaney was allowed to testify and the jury found for the government. Coincidence? We think not.

Indeed, it is difficult to imagine any more probative and compelling evidence regarding Tuomey’s intent than the testimony of a lawyer hired by Tuomey, who was an undisputed subject matter expert on the intricacies of the Stark Law, and who warned Tuomey in graphic detail of the thin legal ice on which it was treading[.]

Jury Reasonably Found Stark Violations:

 

It is unremarkable in a general sense that the 4th Circuit refused to set aside a jury verdict and find that no reasonable jury could have concluded that Tuomey violated Stark. Tuomey argued, unsuccessfully, that the only question that should have gone to the jury was whether the contracts, on their face, took into account the value or volume of anticipated referrals. The Court concluded that two components of the physicians’ compensation varied with the volume or value of referrals. The physicians were paid a base salary that was adjusted upward or downward in the subsequent year depending on collections from the prior year. The physicians were also paid a productivity bonus that was set at eighty percent of their collections. The Court concluded that it was “plain that a reasonable jury could find that the physicians’ compensation varied with the volume or value of actual referrals.” The Court also recalled its earlier opinion where it noted that the tainted referrals were the “facility component of the physicians’ personally performed services, and the resulting facility fee billed by Tuomey based upon that component.”

False Claims Act

 

The Court rejected Tuomey’s claim that no reasonable jury could have found a violation of the FCA because it acted on the advice of counsel. The court again pointed to the testimony of attorney McAnaney and amplified the District Court’s conclusion that a “reasonable jury could have found that Tuomey possessed the requisite scienter once it determined to disregard McAnaney’s remarks.” Tuomey’s ‘advice of counsel’ defense ultimately failed because it was unable to show that there had been a full disclosure of all pertinent facts to and among legal counsel, and a lack of good faith reliance on just the favorable legal advice. The Court was not persuaded by Tuomey’s claims that it had, following Mr. McAnaney’s negative view, retained top national health lawyers from reputable firms to complete the transaction.

Tuomey Unsuccessfully Challenges Jury Instructions and Damages Award

 

The Court rejected Tuomey’s various claims of error related to jury instructions. Tuomey argued that the trial court failed to limit the jury’s inquiry to whether or not the contracts, on their face, took into account value or volume of anticipated referrals. The Court emphasized that the jury could consider the parties’ intent to determine if an arrangement took into account volume or value of referrals, but intent alone would not be enough to create a violation.

 

Tuomey argued that the jury should have been separately instructed on the knowledge element in the indirect compensation arrangement definition under Stark and in the FCA. The court found that any such error here was harmless since the jury’s conclusion that Tuomey possessed the requisite scienter under the FCA and also possessed knowledge that the Physicians’ aggregate compensation varied with referrals, a necessary element of the definition of an indirect compensation arrangement under Stark. 42 U.S.C. § 411.354 (c)(2)(iii).

 

Tuomey claimed that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that disputed legal questions are not false claims under the FCA. As with all providers who bill Medicare, Tuomey was required to certify its compliance with laws, to include the Stark Law. Because the jury found that Tuomey violated the Stark Law, the certification of compliance was false, and therefore all tainted claims were false. This seems like fertile ground for further appellate challenge.

 

The Court rejected Tuomey’s challenge to the trial court’s failure to give an instruction that Tuomey was entitled to rely on legal advice even if it turned out to be wrong. The Court found that other jury instructions regarding knowledge under the FCA already were sufficient to cover Tuomey’s concern in this regard.

 

Finally, the Court rejected various challenges by Tuomey regarding the whopping $237,454,195 judgment. It argued that the trial court improperly calculated the penalty, that it incorrectly measured damages, and that the award violated the 5th and 8th Constitutional Amendments. The Court rejected all of Tuomey’s arguments, and found that the jury was properly instructed to consider all tainted hospital claims – both inpatient and outpatient, to determine prohibited referrals. The Court further concluded that the Government was allowed to rely on summary evidence of referrals, perhaps due in part to the fact that Tuomey did not offer its own expert as to damages calculations. The court rejected Tuomey’s challenge that the Government was not damaged, and rejected Tuomey’s claims that the award was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clcause of the 5th Amendment and the Excessive Fines Clause of the 8th Amendment.

 

The Court rejected Tuomey’s argument that if it submitted false claims that the only false claims were its annual cost report submissions and not the 21,730 UB-92/04 forms that it submitted. The Court concluded that Tuomey violated the FCA each time it submitted a claim for reimbursement because it was knowingly asking the government to pay an amount that, by law, it could not pay. Again, look for this issue to be prominently featured in a future appellate review of this case.

 

Takeaways from Tuomey

While Tuomey presents staggering results, it does represent a somewhat unusual set of facts. While it provides a strong reminder that hospitals should critically view their arrangements with referring physicians, it does not preclude the development of sound business and legal strategies within a complicated regulatory legal framework. The following are among the valuable lessons learned from Tuomey:

 

  • Courts and juries may look beyond the four corners of an agreement to determine if an arrangement takes account of volume or value;
  • Courts and juries may look beyond supporting items such as self-serving appraisals to find legal violations; Lawyers and their clients are best-advised to validate the assumptions supporting such appraisals;
  • There is a reason that nearly every FCA matter settles and that is due to the shear potential downside, as evidenced by this case;
  • Review arrangements with physicians and consider them and their fair market value support in the context of the history and intent that lead to the arrangements, to determine if they would pass Tuomey-like scrutiny;
  • Take care when bringing in the next lawyer to rule out a prior negative legal opinion or to break the tie between two competing legal opinions – who is the client? Where is the attorney-client privilege? How will all lawyers’ opinions be considered by the lawyers and the client?

 

Adam Snyder is Chair of the Ogden Murphy Wallace Business Department and is a Part-time/Adjunct Faculty member of the University of Washington School of Law. For additional information regarding Tuomey, Stark, or the False Claims Act, please contact Adam Snyder or Greg Montgomery.

 

ICD-10, Two-Midnight Rule, RAC Audits, SGR Delayed

The Senate passed this evening the “Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014“, which creates a 12 month delay for pending Medicare cuts pursuant to Medicare’s sustainable growth rate (SGR) payment formula. This bill avoids the 24% Medicare cuts physicians were facing starting on April 1st (this will be the 17th delay of the SGR).  Another significant component of the Act includes the delay in ICD-10 implementation, until at least October 1, 2015.

In addition to these significant postponements, the Act also delays until March 2015 the implementation of the “two-midnight” rule and the recovery audits of unnecessary claims.

Increased OIG Focus on Kwashiorkor Claims

In its recently released 2014 Work Plan, the OIG has announced that it will investigate hospital billing for Kwashiorkor.  Kwashiorkor is a form of severe protein malnutrition that generally affects children living in tropical and subtropical parts of the world during periods of famine or insufficient food supply. This syndrome is characterized by retarded growth, changes in skin and hair pigment, edema, and pathologic changes in the liver.

This extreme form of malnutrition, however, is very rare in the United States, which is why Kwashiorkor billing at hospitals is a target of the OIG. Because a diagnosis of Kwashiorkor on a claim also substantially increases a hospital’s reimbursement from Medicare, the OIG stated it would review Medicare payments based on Kwashiorkor claims to determine whether the diagnosis is adequately supported by documentation in the medical record.

Recently, for example, the OIG found that Wellspan York Hospital incorrectly billed Medicare inpatient claims with Kwashiorkor, resulting in overpayments of $204,000 over two years. The hospital attributed the errors to a misinterpretation of the coding guidelines for malnutrition because of a lack of clarity in the guidance.  Other hospitals, like Mercy Medical Center, have attributed Kwashiorkor errors to encoder software which incorrectly assign diagnoses of protein malnutrition to ICD-9-CM 260 (Kwashiorkor).

In light of the increased OIG focus on Kwashiorkor claims, hospitals should strengthen its controls to ensure that coding software and staff comply with Medicare billing requirements. Additionally, if there is in fact a Kwashiorkor diagnosis, hospitals should ensure that the medical record (e.g. discharge summary) substantiates the use of a Kwashiorkor diagnosis code.

For additional information regarding Kwashiorkor billing or the 2014 OIG Workplan please contact Adam Snyder or Jefferson Lin.

 

Medicare EHR Incentive Program Deadline Extended

CMS announced last week that it has extended the registration and attestation deadline for the Medicare EHR Incentive Programs to March 31, 2014 for eligible professionals.  This month long extension will aid eligible professionals in compiling their meaningful use data from 2013 and filling out the registration process (which can be time consuming).

In addition, CMS is offering to assist eligible hospitals who experienced difficulty with their attestation.  This assistance will allow eligible hospitals to submit their attestation retroactively to avoid the 2015 payment adjustment.  To do so, hospitals must contact CMS by March 15, 2014.  Eligible hospitals are instructed to contact CMS at EH2013Extension@Provider-Resources.com  no later than 11:59 PM EST on Marfch 15, 2014.

  1. Type “EH 2013 EXTENSION” in the subject line of the email note
  2. Include the following information:
    • CCN;
    • hospital name;
    • contact person name;
    • contact person email; and
    • contact person phone number.

CMS will then contact the designated individual to discuss the retroactive extension.

As a reminder, these extensions are for the Medicare EHR Incentive Program only, and do not apply to the Medicaid EHR Incentive Program.  In Washington, the deadline to apply for the Medicaid EHR Incentive Program remains February 28, 2014.

For more information about the EHR Incentive Programs or meaningful use generally please contact Elana Zana.

OIG’s Report Highlights Enforcement Successes in 2014

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) recently published its Semiannual Report to the U.S. Congress. This Report summarizes the OIG’s enforcement activities from March, 2013 to September, 2013.

The Report highlights the OIG’s significant efforts in the enforcement of fraud and abuse laws.  For fiscal year (FY) 2013, the OIG is expecting total recoveries of $5.8 billion, consisting of nearly $850 million in audit receivables and about $5 billion in investigative receivables.

Additionally, for FY 2013, the OIG brought 960 criminal and 472 civil actions against individuals or entities that engaged in health-care-related offenses.   Compared with FY 2012, the number of criminal actions in FY 2013 rose by 182 cases, and the number of civil cases rose by 105 cases.

According to the OIG, these enforcement results are partially due to the successes of the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Action Team (HEAT).  HEAT is a partnership between Federal, State, and local law enforcement to identify fraudulent health care schemes.   The program combines sophisticated data analysis and investigative intelligence to move quickly against violators of fraud and abuse laws such as the False Claims Act.

There is no doubt that the OIG’s accomplishments in FY 2013 will motivate investigators to root out more health care fraud and overpayment schemes in FY 2014.  To avoid a costly investigation and potential prosecution, providers should take extra care that they are following Medicare and Medicaid laws and properly billing for services rendered to patients.

You can read the entire OIG Semiannual Report here.

For more information about health care fraud and abuse laws, please contact Casey Moriarty.

Want to Get Paid for Inpatient Admissions? Follow CMS Certification Requirements.

In its final regulations for the 2014 Inpatient Prospective Patient System, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services emphasized the importance of physician certifications. Under the regulations, Medicare will only pay for an inpatient admission if a physician certifies the medical necessity for the stay. The first piece of such certification is for the physician to complete an inpatient order when he or she expects that the patient will require a stay that crosses at least two midnights.

In addition to the order, physician certification for the inpatient stay also must include the following information:

  • Certification that the inpatient services were ordered in accordance with the Medicare regulations governing the order;
  • The reasons for either: (1) hospitalization of the patient for inpatient medical treatment or medically required inpatient diagnostic study; or (2) special or unusual services for cost outlier cases under the inpatient prospective payment system;
  • The estimated time the beneficiary requires or required in the hospital;
  • The plans for post hospital care, if appropriate, and as provided in the Medicare regulations; and
  • For Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs), the physician must certify that the patient will reasonably be expected to be discharged or transferred to a hospital within 96 hours after admission to the CAH.

Physicians must complete all certification for the inpatient stay prior to patient discharge. In order to help ensure Medicare payment for inpatient admissions, hospitals should educate physicians on the importance of certifications, and provide assistance to physicians in gathering necessary documentation.

CMS has prepared a guidance document about hospital inpatient admission orders and certification. For more information about inpatient admission certification, please contact Casey Moriarty.