Kusserow on Compliance: OIG Work Plan items for May 2018

The OIG regularly updates its Work Plan as it continues to assess relative risks in HHS programs and operations that may lead to new projects. The most recent changes involved adding six new projects. In making these additions, the OIG considered a number of factors, including mandates set forth in laws, regulations, or other directives; requests by Congress, HHS management, or the Office of Management and Budget; top management and performance challenges facing HHS; work performed by other oversight organizations (e.g., GAO); management’s actions to implement OIG recommendations from previous reviews; and potential for positive impact.

New Projects Added

  1. The Impact of Authorized Generics on Medicaid Drug Rebates. Under final rules implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (P.L. 111-148), CMS directed primary manufacturers to include in their calculation of average manufacturer price (AMP) the sale of authorized generic drugs to secondary manufacturers in some circumstances (42 C.F.R. Sec. 447.506(b)). OIG plans to examine selected drugs with authorized generics and determine how including the sales of authorized generic drugs to secondary manufacturers affects Medicaid drug rebates.

 

  1. Noninvasive Home Ventilators – Compliance with Medicare Requirements. For items such as noninvasive home ventilators (NHVs) and respiratory assist devices (RADs) to be covered by Medicare, they must be reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member. Depending on the severity of the beneficiary’s condition, an NHV or RAD may be reasonable and necessary. NHVs can operate in several modes, i.e., traditional ventilator mode, RAD mode, and basic continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) mode. The higher cost of the NHVs’ combination of noninvasive interface and multimodal capability creates a greater risk that a beneficiary will be provided an NHV when a less expensive device such as a RAD or CPAP device is warranted for the patient’s medical condition. The OIG will determine whether claims for NHVs were medically necessary for the treatment of beneficiaries’ diagnosed illnesses and whether the claims complied with Medicare payment and documentation requirements.

 

  1. States’ Procurement of Private Contracting Services for the Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS). MMIS is an integrated group of procedures and computer processing operations designed to meet principal objectives such as processing medical claims. Medicaid reimburses states’ MMIS administrative costs at enhanced rates of 90 and 75 percent. Many states use private contractors to design, develop, and operate their MMIS. When procuring MMIS contracting services, states are required to follow the same policies and procedures used for procurements paid with non-federal funds. Additionally, states must receive CMS’s prior approval to receive enhanced federal matching funds for MMIS administrative costs related to private contractors. OIG plans to determine if selected states followed applicable federal and state requirements related to procuring private MMIS contracting services and claiming federal Medicaid reimbursement.

 

  1. Monitoring Medicare Payments for Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests – Mandatory Review. Section 216 of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA) requires CMS to replace its current system of determining payment rates for Medicare Part B clinical diagnostic laboratory tests with a new market-based system that will use rates paid to laboratories by private payers. Pursuant to PAMA, OIG is required to conduct an annual analysis of the top 25 laboratory tests by Medicare payments and analyze the implementation and effect of the new payment system. The OIG plans to analyze Medicare payments for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests performed in 2016 and monitor CMS implementation of the new Medicare payment system for these tests.

 

  1. Ensuring Dual-Eligible Beneficiaries’ Access to Drugs Under Part D: Mandatory Review. Dual-eligible beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicaid but qualify for prescription drug coverage under Medicare Part D. As long as Part D plans meet certain limitations outlined in 42 C.F.R. Sec. 423.120, plan sponsors have the discretion to include different Part D drugs and drug utilization tools in their formularies. The OIG is required to review annually the extent to which drug formularies developed by Part D sponsors include drugs commonly used by dual-eligible beneficiaries as required.

 

Richard P. Kusserow served as DHHS Inspector General for 11 years. He currently is CEO of Strategic Management Services, LLC (SM), a firm that has assisted more than 3,000 organizations and entities with compliance related matters. The SM sister company, CRC, provides a wide range of compliance tools including sanction-screening.

Connect with Richard Kusserow on Google+ or LinkedIn.

Subscribe to the Kusserow on Compliance Newsletter

Copyright © 2017 Strategic Management Services, LLC. Published with permission.

Kusserow on Compliance: DOJ ‘Brand’ memorandum

One of the topics discussed at the recent HCCA Compliance Institute related to current DOJ positions regarding compliance guidance. Many questions have been raised since Atty. Gen. Sessions issued a memorandum at the end of last year that intended to implement the new administration’s goal of reducing overregulation. The AG stated, in the past, the DOJ had published guidance documents binding parties outside of the rulemaking process. Additionally, the AG stated that the DOJ was no longer engaged in this practice. Going forward, the DOJ is not to issue guidance documents that purport to create a right or obligation binding a person or entity outside the executive branch of the federal government. As such, guidance documents provided by the DOJ setting up voluntary standards need to clearly state that compliance with such standards would be voluntary—that failure to comply would not, in itself, result in enforcement action.

Earlier this year, Associate AG Rachel Brand issued a memo on behalf of the DOJ prohibiting certain DOJ uses of federal agency guidance documents in affirmative civil enforcement (ACE) cases (the “Brand Memo”). ACE cases include lawsuits brought by the DOJ on behalf of the United States to recover money lost to fraud or other misconduct, or to impose penalties for violations of Federal health, safety, civil rights or environmental laws, for example, False Claims Act (FCA) enforcement by the DOJ.  The Brand Memo stated that the DOJ is now prohibited from using its enforcement authority to effectively convert agency guidance documents into binding rules; and DOJ litigators may not use noncompliance with agency guidance documents as a basis for proving violations of applicable law in these cases. It also prohibits the DOJ from “using its guidance documents to coerce regulated parties into taking any action or refraining from taking any action beyond what is required by the terms of the applicable statute or lawful regulation.” The primary focus of the memorandum was on government contractor cases.

The long and short of this memorandum is that the DOJ can continue to use agency guidance documents  for “proper purposes,” but should not treat a party’s noncompliance with an agency guidance document as presumptively or conclusively establishing that the party violated the applicable statute or regulation.

 

Richard P. Kusserow served as DHHS Inspector General for 11 years. He currently is CEO of Strategic Management Services, LLC (SM), a firm that has assisted more than 3,000 organizations and entities with compliance related matters. The SM sister company, CRC, provides a wide range of compliance tools including sanction-screening.

Connect with Richard Kusserow on Google+ or LinkedIn.

Subscribe to the Kusserow on Compliance Newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Strategic Management Services, LLC. Published with permission.

Kusserow on Compliance: OIG cases involving sanctioned parties and tips to avoid violations

Compliance Officers must screen employees against the List of Excluded Individuals and Entities (LEIE). This is stressed in all of the OIG’s compliance guidance documents. CMS makes it a condition of participation and enrollment. The LEIE continues to change and grow with more than 3,000 exclusions added annually. Failure to screen employees, medical staff, contractors, and vendors results in a great risk. The OIG may consider claims that include work or products from a sanctioned party to be false and fraudulent. Violations can result in monetary penalties. Most cases that deal with this issue are brought to the OIG’s attention through the “Self-Disclosure Protocol.”  In all the recent cases posted, the OIG imposed penalties, but the penalties were mitigated by the fact the matters were self-disclosed—as a result, none of these cases resulted in a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA). The OIG posts a number of these cases on its website. The following are examples of recent actions against organizations that engaged individuals they knew or should have known were excluded from participation in the federal health care programs:

  • Southwest Trinity Management, LLC (STM), in Oklahoma paid $141,986.36 in settlement for employing an excluded licensed practical nurse that provided items or services that were billed to Federal health care programs.
  • Diamonds & Pearls Health Services, LLC (DPHS), Cleveland, Ohio paid $75,471.92 for employing an excluded individual who was a scheduling/staffing coordinator, provided items or services to DPHS patients that were billed to Federal health care programs.
  • Center for Ear, Nose Throat & Allergy, P.C. (CENTA) in Indiana, paid $51,564.14 for employing an excluded medical records file clerk, provided items or services to CENTA’s patients that were billed to Federal health care programs.
  • MHMR, Fort Worth, Texas, paid $97,869.78 for employing a program director who had been excluded to provide items or services to clients who were receiving services funded by a Medicaid waiver program.
  • Shawnee Health Services (Shawnee), Carterville, Illinois, paid $107,761.08 as result of employing an excluded individual as a case manager, provided items or services to clients that were receiving services under a Medicaid waiver program.
  • Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) paid $39,343.61 as result of employing an excluded hospice social worker that provided items or services to patients of a community based hospice operated by ADH.
  • Century Pharmacy (Century), Brooklyn, New York, paid $10,000 for an employed excluded individual, who assisted in filling prescriptions in addition to performing other clerical tasks, provided items or services to Century patients that were billed to Federal health care programs.
  • Sundance Behavioral Healthcare System (Sundance), Texas, paid $49,183.48 for an employed sanctioned licensed vocational nurse that provided items or services to patients that were billed to Federal health care programs.
  • ASAP Professional Home Health (ASAP), Houston, Texas, paid $21,797.76 for an employed excluded attendant, provided items or services to ASAP patients that were billed to Federal health care programs.

Practical Screening Tips

  1. Ensure periodic sanction screening of employees, medical staff, contractors, and vendors against the LEIE—best practice is monthly screening.
  2. Inasmuch as most states have developed their own exclusion database, with many states mandating monthly screenings, care should be taken to understand and meet state screening requirements.
  3. Inasmuch as most LEIE exclusions arise from another underlying court, state agency, or licensure board action, it is advisable to also conduct background checks and seek written assurances in applications that prospective employees, contractors, and vendors have not been subject to any prior court or licensure board actions.
  4. It is common for individuals that may be the subject of an investigation, but not yet sanctioned with final actions, to be under investigation for considerable time, therefore it is a best practice to require as a condition of employment, gaining staff privileges, or engagement for the applicant to attest that they have not been, nor are they now, the subject of an investigation by any duly authorized regulatory or enforcement agency. It is also advisable to add a condition that they must promptly report any notice of investigation that involves them.
  5. Educate and inform management and employees on their obligation to promptly report any notification of an adverse action by any duly authorized regulatory or enforcement agency.

Daniel Peake of the Compliance Resource Center (CRC) works with many organizations in ensuring proper sanction screening and from that experience offers a number of practical tips to avoid creating an actionable violation.  He can be reached at dpeake@strategicm.com or (703) 236-9850.

 

Richard P. Kusserow served as DHHS Inspector General for 11 years. He currently is CEO of Strategic Management Services, LLC (SM), a firm that has assisted more than 3,000 organizations and entities with compliance related matters. The SM sister company, CRC, provides a wide range of compliance tools including sanction-screening.

Connect with Richard Kusserow on Google+ or LinkedIn.

Subscribe to the Kusserow on Compliance Newsletter

Copyright © 2017 Strategic Management Services, LLC. Published with permission.

Kusserow on Compliance: OIG testimony highlights opioid crisis actions

Gary Cantrell, HHS OIG Deputy Inspector General for Investigations, testified before a Senate Special Committee hearing on enforcement activities currently underway to combat the opioid crisis. He provided key policy recommendations to address the crisis. Opioid fraud encompasses a broad range of criminal activity from prescription drug diversion to addiction treatment schemes. Many of these schemes can be elaborate, involving complicit patients or beneficiaries who are not ill, kickbacks, medical identity theft, money-laundering, and other criminal enterprises. Some schemes also involve multiple co-conspirators and health care professionals such as physicians, nonphysician providers, and pharmacists. These investigations can be complex and often involve the use of informants, undercover operations, and surveillance. The OIG provided critical support in the establishment of the new Opioid Fraud and Abuse Detection Unit established by the Attorney General to focus on opioid-related health care fraud. This collaboration led to the selection of 12 judicial districts around the country where OIG has assigned Special Agents to support 12 prosecutors identified by the DOJ to focus solely on investigating and prosecuting opioid-related health care fraud cases.

The OIG collaborates with a number of HHS agencies, including CMS and the Agency for Community Living (ACL), on fraud- and opioid-related initiatives to educate providers, the industry, and beneficiaries on the role each one plays in the prevention of prescription drug and opioid-related fraud and abuse. The OIG is engaging ACL’s Senior Medicare Patrol and State Health Insurance Assistance Program through presentations on the prevention of fraud, waste, and abuse. The OIG is also working with the DEA to provide anti-fraud education at numerous Pharmacy Diversion Awareness Conferences held across the United States, which are designed to assist pharmacy personnel with identifying and preventing diversion activity.

OIG currently has numerous opioid-related audits or evaluations underway that address:

  • questionable prescribing patterns in Medicaid;
  • Medicaid program integrity controls;
  • Medicare program integrity controls in the prescription drug benefit;
  • CDC’s oversight of grants to support programs to monitor prescription drugs;
  • FDA’s oversight of opioid prescribing through its risk management programs;
  • SAMHSA’s oversight of opioid treatment program grants;
  • beneficiary access to buprenorphine medication-assisted treatment; and
  • opioid prescribing practices in the Indian Health

In the OIG’s data brief entitled Opioids in Medicare Part D: Concerns about Extreme Use and Questionable Prescribing and other reports, the OIG noted the following:

  • 60,000 individuals died from drug overdoses in 2016, of which two-thirds involved opioids
  • The CDC reported 75 percent new heroin users having abused prescription opioids prior to using heroin.
  • One in three Medicare Part D beneficiaries received opioids (14.4 million beneficiaries)
  • 500,000 beneficiaries received high amounts of opioids
  • 90,000 beneficiaries were at serious risk of opioid misuse or overdose for receiving extreme amounts of opioids and those who appeared to be “doctor shopping”
  • 70,000 beneficiaries received extreme amounts of opioids
  • 22,308 beneficiaries appeared to be doctor shopping for more opiods
  • 400 prescribers had questionable opioid prescribing for beneficiaries at serious risk
  • Prescribers with questionable billing wrote 265,260 opioid prescriptions for beneficiaries at serious risk at a cost under Part D for $66.5 million

The OIG is planning to release a new data brief on opioid use in Medicare Part D as a follow-up to a previous data brief, Opioids in Medicare Part D: Concerns About Extreme Use and Questionable Prescribing (OEI-02-17-00250) to: (1) determine the extent to which Medicare Part D beneficiaries received high amounts of opioids; (2) identify beneficiaries who are at serious risk of opioid misuse or overdose; and (3) identify prescribers with questionable opioid prescribing patterns for these beneficiaries.  In conjunction with this, they will release an analysis toolkit to assist the public and private sector in analyzing prescription drug claims data.  It will provide steps for using prescription drug data to analyze patients’ opioid levels and identify those at risk of opioid misuse or overdose or who appear to be doctor shopping.

The OIG has made numerous pending recommendations to improve HHS programs to better protect beneficiaries at risk of opioid misuse or overdose, including:

  • Restrict certain beneficiaries to a limited number of pharmacies or prescribers, implementing the new lock-in authority.
  • Require plan sponsors to report to CMS all potential fraud and abuse and any corrective actions they take in response; and provide guidance on how Part D sponsors identify and investigate these matters.
  • Improve Medicaid CMS does not have complete and accurate data needed to effectively oversee the Medicaid program, including opioids. OIG call for CMS to establish a deadline for when national T-MSIS data will be available for multistate program integrity efforts.

 

Richard P. Kusserow served as DHHS Inspector General for 11 years. He currently is CEO of Strategic Management Services, LLC (SM), a firm that has assisted more than 3,000 organizations and entities with compliance related matters. The SM sister company, CRC, provides a wide range of compliance tools including sanction-screening.

Connect with Richard Kusserow on Google+ or LinkedIn.

Subscribe to the Kusserow on Compliance Newsletter

Copyright © 2017 Strategic Management Services, LLC. Published with permission.