Kusserow on Compliance: Continued confusion regarding the CMS preclusion list

Those on list are prohibited from MA Plans or Part D Sponsors payment

Questions continue arise concerning the CMS Preclusion List final rule. The Preclusion List is a list generated by CMS that contains the names of prescribers, individuals, and entities that are unable to receive payment for Medicare Advantage (MA) items and service and or Part D drugs prescribed or provided to Medicare beneficiaries. The rule mandates Part D sponsors, or their pharmacy benefit managers, to screen against the Preclusion List and reject any pharmacy claim prescribed by an individual or entity on it. MA plans must deny payment for a health care item or service furnished by an individual or entity on the list. Plans and sponsors must also notify impacted beneficiaries who received care or a prescription from a provider on the Preclusion List in the last twelve months. The list includes those who are currently revoked from Medicare, are under an active reenrollment bar, and whose underlying conduct CMS has determined to be detrimental to the Medicare program; or have engaged in behavior for which CMS could have revoked the prescriber and determined the underlying conduct would have led to the revocation. Such conduct includes, but is not limited to: felony convictions and OIG exclusions. CMS indicated that individuals or entities appearing on the List of Excluded Individuals/Entities (LEIE) and/or the System for Award Management (SAM) list would also be placed on the Preclusion List.

MA plans and Part D sponsors are required to access the list through an Enterprise Identity Data Management (EIDM) account with CMS. The list is updated monthly.  The causes for most of the confusion is that only plans approved by CMS are granted access to the Preclusion List. As a result, many if not most, organizations use a vendor for sanction screening services. However, the vendors are not always given access to the List.  The way around this obstacle has been for Plans to give their vendor the list and have them include it in their screening services. Another point of confusion is that technically, it is not a sanction list. It includes many parties who have not been formally sanctioned to be included on the OIG LEIE, although many on the list are also on the LEIE.

 

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 LinkedIn.

Subscribe to the Kusserow on Compliance Newsletter

Copyright © 2020 Strategic Management Services, LLC. Published with permission.

Kusserow on Compliance: OIG program exclusions reported for second half of 2019

Total of 2640 new exclusions added to the LEIE in 2019

Under the Social Security Act, the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) is able to exclude individuals and entities from participation in Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal health care programs. Exclusions are required (mandatory exclusion) for individuals and entities convicted of the following types of criminal offenses: (1) Medicare or Medicaid fraud; (2) patient abuse or neglect; (3) felonies for other health care fraud; and (4) felonies for illegal manufacture, distribution, prescription, or dispensing of controlled substances. The OIG is also authorized (permissive exclusion) to exclude individuals and entities on several other grounds, including misdemeanors for other health care fraud (other than Medicare or Medicaid); suspension or revocation of a license to provide health care for reasons bearing on professional competence, professional performance or financial integrity; provision of unnecessary or substandard services; submission of false or fraudulent claims to a federal health care program; or engaging in unlawful kickback arrangements. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) added another basis for imposing a permissive exclusion, that is, knowingly making, or causing to be made, any false statements or omissions in any application, bid, or contract to participate as a provider in a federal health care program, including managed care programs under Medicare and Medicaid, as well as Medicare’s prescription drug program.

During this semiannual reporting period, the OIG excluded 1,347 individuals and entities from Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health care programs. Most of the exclusions resulted from convictions for crimes relating to Medicare or Medicaid, patient abuse or neglect, financial misconduct, controlled substances, or as a result of license revocation. The OIG completed the deployment of a new service for State Medicaid Fraud Control Units (MFCUs) to report convictions through a central web-based portal for exclusion. This improved reporting from those agencies. A list of excluded individuals and entities can be found at https://exclusions.oig.hhs.gov/.

 

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 LinkedIn.

Subscribe to the Kusserow on Compliance Newsletter

Copyright © 2020 Strategic Management Services, LLC. Published with permission.

Kusserow on Compliance: CMS issues final rule on affiliation disclosure requirements for the provider enrollment process

CMS issued a final rule on September 10 that sets forth requirements mandating providers and suppliers who submit an application for enrollment or revalidation for Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) disclose current or previous (up to five years) affiliations with a provider or supplier who has uncollected debt; has been or is subject to a payment suspension under a federal health care program; has been excluded from participation from Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP; or has had billing privileges denied or revoked. CMS said a history of bad actors trying to escape the ramifications of inappropriate or fraudulent behavior by re-entering the program in some capacity, and/or shifting their activities to another enrolled Medicare provider or supplier with which they are affiliated, provided the motivation for the rule. In addition to furnishing the disclosure information, the provider must submit: (a) an organizational diagram identifying all of the entities listed in this section and their relationships with the provider and with each other; and (b) if the provider is a skilled nursing facility, a diagram identifying the organizational structures of all of its owners.

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 LinkedIn.

Subscribe to the Kusserow on Compliance Newsletter

Copyright © 2019 Strategic Management Services, LLC. Published with permission.

National review of Medicaid opioid prescribing not yet feasible

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has determined that limitations of the national Medicaid claims database, the Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS), makes a national review of opioid prescribing in Medicaid unfeasible. The system cannot yet identify all at-risk beneficiaries and providers, the OIG reported (OIG Report, No. OEI-05-18-00480, August 2019).

The OIG assessed the completeness of variables necessary to identify beneficiaries at risk of opioid misuse or overdose and the National Provider Identifiers (NPIs) of providers that ordered and dispensed opioids. According to the report, states were missing data necessary for a national review. Some states did not require NPI to be collected. Others included NPI in their data but incorrectly submitted the data or were unable to transmit the data to T-MSIS because of outdated systems. Without a provider NPI, it is not possible to identify all providers who may be overprescribing opioids and take appropriate action, or to identify providers for investigations of fraud, waste, or abuse, the OIG found.

Identification of beneficiaries can be impeded because a Medicaid beneficiary can have multiple IDs within a state or across states. If a beneficiary does have multiple IDs, prescriptions dispensed to the IDs would appear to be for multiple persons rather than one person. The OIG noted in the report that without a unique beneficiary ID, it is not possible to identify all at-risk beneficiaries in need of opioid-related treatment and conduct proper monitoring of services to protect beneficiaries from inadequate coordinated care.

States also have failed to report diagnoses codes for all services despite being required to do so. Without a diagnosis code, it is not possible to exclude all patients with cancer diagnoses for whom higher doses of opioids may be appropriate or to identify patients’ medical conditions to determine medical necessity for services.

The OIG noted in the report that in August 2018, CMS that all states were submitting T-MSIS data and that CMS was prioritizing T-MSIS data quality. According to the OIG, CMS indicated it would have research files available in 2019. CMS currently has been working with states to improve the quality of data submissions.

Recommendations

The OIG recommended that CMS strive to ensure that individual beneficiaries can be identified at a national level using T-MSIS. CMS should address instances in which a single beneficiary has more than one Medicaid ID within a state. CMS also should prioritize state reporting of prescriber NPIs and issue guidance to clarify the requirements for diagnosis codes.