Fraud & Abuse

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) issued a fraud alert on June 9, 2015, targeting physician compensation agreements that potentially violate the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b). The Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits remuneration of payment in exchange for referrals of patients receiving aid from federally funded healthcare programs (i.e. Medicare and Medicaid). The OIG alert references 12 recent settlements with individual physicians who entered into “questionable” medical directorship and office staff arrangements. The key concern in those cases centered on individual physicians entering into arrangements where the compensation did not “reflect [the] fair market value for bona fide services the physicians actually provide[d].”

Proposed Stark exception could impact hospital and physicians timeshare/ part-time agreement arrangements

In July 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) published a proposed rule pertaining to payment policies under the 2016 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (“Proposed Rule”) (80 Fed. Reg. 41,685). In addition to changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and other Medicare Part B payment policies, the Proposed Rule addresses modifications to the Stark Law and provides guidance on CMS’s interpretation of existing Stark Law exceptions.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion June 12, 2015, lambasting the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (“CMS”) rationale in implementing the ban on “per-click” space and equipment leases under the Stark Law. This ban, which went into effect Oct. 1, 2009, was effectively challenged by the Council for Urological Interests (“Council”), which was also behind the successful challenge against the application of the Stark Law to hospital lithotripsy services in 2002.

Among the more colorful descriptions used by the Court in describing CMS’s position were that it was “incomprehensible,” “tortured”, and “the stuff of caprice.” And on an even more scathing note, the Court described CMS’s reading of the legislative history of the Stark Law as belonging to the “cross-your-fingers-and-hope-it-goes-away school of statutory interpretation.”

A New York district court issued the first judicial opinion Monday, Aug. 3 on the Affordable Care Act’s “60-day rule,” which requires that a Medicare or Medicaid overpayment be reported and returned within 60 days of the date on which the overpayment was “identified.” The decision by Judge Edgardo Ramos provided a definition of what it means to “identify” an overpayment and thus begin the 60-day time period in which overpayments must be reported and returned. Given that the 60-day rule maintains that any person who knowingly fails to comply with this obligation within the 60-day timeframe has violated the False Claims Act (“FCA”), the potential implications of Judge Ramos’s decision are significant.

The District of Columbia reached a settlement agreement with Children’s Hospital, Children’s National Medical Center Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, “CNMC”) on June 15, 2015, to resolve allegations that CNMC violated the False Claims Act by submitting false cost reports and other applications to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”) as well as to the Virginia and District of Columbia Medicaid programs. Further details can be found in the Department of Justice’s press release announcing the settlement.

The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a special fraud alert on June 9, 2015, stating that physician compensation arrangements may result in significant liability. Hopefully this is not a surprise to any physician or entity that treats federal health plan beneficiaries. However, given that, historically, OIG regulatory actions largely (although not exclusively) focused on the entity from which a physician received compensation, such as hospitals, laboratories, durable medical equipment suppliers, pharmacies, etc., the June 9, 2015, fraud alert highlights the potential for physician liability in these arrangements.

The state of Georgia reached a civil settlement agreement on April 23, 2015, with Grady Health System based on allegations that Grady incorrectly coded claims for neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) patients, resulting in overpayments by Georgia Medicaid. For more details, read the Georgia Attorney General’s press release announcing the settlement.

Having no need to brandish bandanas to obscure identity or firearms to force entry, it was reported Wednesday that cyber bandits, in a sophisticated and well-orchestrated robbery, recently waltzed into the IT vaults of Anthem, the second-largest U.S. health insurer, and walked off with personally identifiable information on about 80 million current and former members, a population that comprises Anthem customers, employees and its CEO, Joseph R. Swedish. The haul is reported to have included names, birthdates, social security numbers, medical identification numbers, street and email addresses and employee income data. Fortunately, there’s no indication at this point that credit-card numbers, claims information, test results or diagnostic codes were compromised as part of the crime. That said, to minimize the potential harm, Anthem has called in the FBI and is notifying affected individuals and offering free credit and identity-theft monitoring.

The Texas Health & Human Services Commission’s (HHSC) final rules regarding physician billing for services provided by an APRN or PA became effective Jan. 1, 2015, and include limitations on such billing arrangements. See 39 Tex. Reg. 9884 (Dec. 19, 2014). The adopted rule requires that a physician billing for services provided by an APRN or PA under the physician’s Medicaid billing number must make a decision regarding the patient’s care or treatment on the same date of service as the billable medical visit and documented that decision in the patient’s record. See Tex. Admin. Code Tit. 1 §354.1062. If a physician billing for such services does not make a decision regarding the patient’s care or treatment on the same date of service, the physician must note on the claim that the services were provided by a supervisee. See Tex. Admin. Code Tit. 1 §354.1001.

Seemingly picking up where we left off in our recent white paper and Advisory Board article, the Obama administration released a 166-page draft plan January 30th intended to drive providers and patients toward a common set of electronic clinical information and a commitment to more fully connected EHR systems by the end of 2017.