CMS solicits applications for Rural Community Hospital Demonstration

CMS is soliciting applications for additional hospitals to participate in the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Program, which tests payment under a reasonable cost-based methodology for Medicare inpatient hospital services furnished by eligible rural hospitals. No more than 30 hospitals can participate in the program at the same time. Applications are due May 17, 2017, and CMS’ goal is to finalize selections by June 2017.

Section 410A of the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) (P.L. 108-173) originally authorized the demonstration for five years, and Sections 3123 and 10313 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (P.L. 111-148) extended it for another five-year period. Section 15003 of the 21st Century Cures Act (P.L. 114-255) again amended section 410A to require another five-year extension of the demonstration (see 21st Century Cures clears House, now set for Senate vote, December 1, 2016).

Eligibility

To be eligible to participate in the program, a hospital must: (1) be located in a rural area or be treated as such pursuant to Soc. Sec. Act Sec. 1886(d)(8)(E); (2) have fewer than 51 acute care inpatient beds, as reported in its most recent cost report; (3) make available 24-hour emergency care services; and (4) not be designated or eligible for designation as a critical access hospital pursuant to Soc. Sec. Act Sec. 1820.

Hospitals that were participating in the demonstration as of the last day of the initial five-year period or as of December 30, 2014 may participate in this second extension period, unless the hospital elects to discontinue participation. A newly selected hospital may be located in any state; however, priority will be given to hospitals located in one of the 20 states with the lowest population densities.

Payment

For discharges occurring in the first cost reporting period on or after the implementation of the extension, hospitals participating in the demonstration will receive payment for their reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services (except for services furnished in a psychiatric or rehabilitation unit that is a distinct part of the hospital). For discharges occurring during the second or later cost reporting period, hospitals will be paid the lesser of their reasonable costs or a target amount.

For most of the previously participating hospitals, there is a gap between the end date of the hospital’s participating in the first five-year extension and the enactment of the Cures Act on December 13, 2016 that the legislation did not address. In the fiscal year 2018 hospital inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) Proposed rule, CMS solicited comments on proposed terms of continuation for previously participating hospitals (see IPPS spending to increase $3B, LTCH PPS to decrease $173B, April 17, 2017).

The MMA requires the demonstration to be budget neutral. The IPPS proposed rule detailed the status of the demonstration and the methodology for ensuring budget neutrality.

Kusserow on Compliance: Factors OIG considers in deciding exclusions

The HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) has authority exclude any individual or entity engaging in prohibited activities from participation in the federal health care programs, and add him or her to their List of Excluded Individuals and Entities (LEIE). The effect of this is that no payment may be made for any items or services furnished by an excluded individual or entity, or directed or prescribed by an excluded physician. This authority is anchored in legislation going back to 1977; the OIG was delegated authority to impose civil monetary penalties (CMPs), assessments, and program exclusion on health care providers and others determined to have submitted, or caused the submission of, false or fraudulent claims to the Medicare or Medicaid programs. During my 11-year tenure as Inspector General (IG), the administrative remedies were broadened to address additional types of misconduct. This has continued over the years.  Passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (P.L. 111-148) amended and expanded the existing authority for the OIG to impose CMPs and exclusions.

 Factors in exclusion decisions

The LEIE database is very large, with 3,000 new exclusions being added annually. About half of the exclusions included in the database are for criminal convictions related to health care programs and for patient abuse or neglect. These are mandatory exclusion.  In addition, the OIG has discretionary authority to exclude for other types of misconduct, such as license revocation or suspension, exclusion or suspension from another federal or state health care program, provision of unnecessary or substandard services, fraud or kickbacks, and default on a health education loan.

Tom Herrmann, J.D. served over 20 years in the Office of Counsel to the Inspector General. He explained that when exercising its discretionary authority to exclude, the OIG takes into consideration a number of factors, including the following:

  • Nature and circumstances of conduct. This includes determining adverse physical, mental, financial, or other impact to program beneficiaries, recipients, or other patients.
  •  Financial loss. Conduct  that (1) was part of a pattern of wrongdoing; (2) occurred over a substantial period of time; (3) was continual or repeated; and (4) continued until or after the person learned of the Government’s investigation indicates higher risk.
  • Leadership role. If the individual organized, led, or planned the unlawful conduct.
  • History of prior fraudulent conduct. History of judgments, convictions, decisions, or settlements in prior enforcement actions, as well as (1) refusal to have entered into a corporate integrity agreement (CIA), (2) breach of a prior CIA, or (3) lies or failure to cooperate with the OIG while under a CIA.
  • Conduct during investigation. Any (1) obstruction in the investigation or audit; (2) taking any steps to conceal the conduct from the government; or (3) failure to comply with a subpoena.
  • Resolution. The inability to pay an appropriate monetary amount (including damages, assessments, and penalties) to resolve a fraud case.
  • Absence of compliance program. Absence of a compliance program that incorporates the seven elements of an effective compliance program.

Avoiding exclusion

There are a number of steps that can be taken to reduce the likelihood of the OIG exercising its discretion to exclude parties and put them on the LEIE. These include being able to evidence:

  1. Initiating internal investigation and sharing results before the government gets involved;
  2. Self-disclosing an internal investigation;
  3. Cooperating with the government, if it initiate an investigation;
  4. Taking appropriate disciplinary action against individuals responsible for bad conduct;
  5. Implementing an effective compliance program, prior to government investigation;
  6. Devoting increased/improved support for the compliance program; and
  7. Having in the past self-disclosed overpayments in good faith to the OIG and CMS.

LEIE sanction screening

Screening individuals and entities prior to engagement and periodically thereafter is not optional–it is a necessity.   The best practice is to screen monthly against the LEIE and any state exclusion database where business is conducted, in that CMS has set this as a standard for Medicaid Directors.   In addition to screening against the LEIE, most states require screening against their database of sanction parties. Often there are delays in resolution of cases, so that a party may not be included in a sanction database at time of engagement, but is added later. Furthermore, inasmuch as most state Medicaid Fraud Control Units report their criminal actions to the OIG, that in turn includes them in the LEIE, resulting in frequent cases of multiple hits for the same underlying action. This is further complicated by the fact that there are delays when actions by state agencies are reported to the OIG for their determination to add them to 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 Google+ or LinkedIn.

Subscribe to the Kusserow on Compliance Newsletter

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

CMS delays implementation of bundled payment models

CMS has further delayed the implementation date of the Cardiac Rehabilitation (CR) Incentive Payment model and modifications to the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model by three months. This additional delay, CMS said, is necessary to allow time for additional review, to ensure that the agency has adequate time to undertake notice and comment rulemaking to modify the policy if modifications are warranted, and to ensure that in such a case participants have a clear understanding of the governing rules and are not required to take needless compliance steps due to the rule taking effect for a short duration before any potential modifications are effectuated.

CMS issued a final rule on the two models January 3, 2017. Pursuant to the Trump Administration’s “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” memorandum, on February 17, 2017, CMS issued a final rule that delayed the effective date of the January 3, 2017 final rule, for provisions that were to become effective on February 18, 2017, to March 21, 2017. CMS’ March 21, 2017, interim final rule postponed the effective date of the January 3, 2017 final rule from March 21, 2017, until May 20, 2017. The applicability date of the new regulations at 42 C.F.R. Part 512 and specific CJR regulations are delayed from July 1, 2017, until October 1, 2017. CMS sought comments on a longer delay of the model start date, including to January 1, 2018.

Under the CJR model, which began April 1, 2016, acute-care hospitals in certain areas receive retrospective bundled payments for episodes of care for hip and knee replacements. All related care within 90 days of hospital discharge from the joint replacement procedure is included in the episode of care. The January 3, 2017, final rule made several changes to the model.

Under the CR Incentive Payment model, acute care hospitals in certain geographic areas will receive retrospective incentive payments for beneficiary utilization of cardiac rehabilitation/intensive cardiac rehabilitation services during the 90 days following hospitalization for an acute myocardial infarction or coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

The American Hospital Association criticized the pace of these mandatory demonstration projects as “too much, too soon” and said, “We will continue to urge that any new bundled payment programs be of a voluntary nature.” In addition, HHS Secretary Tom Price has asserted that CMS exceeded its authority with bundled payment initiatives like the CR and CJR models.

Florida hospital improperly billed Medicare almost $300,000 over two years

For over two years, University of Florida Health Jacksonville did not comply with Medicare billing requirements, due to inadequate billing controls. The noncompliance resulted in overpayments of at least $273,000, according to an audit by the HHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG).

Claims

The 695-bed not-for-profit hospital submitted 11,134 inpatient claims during the audit period (January 2013 through September 2014). Medicare paid the hospital $167 million on those claims. The OIG audit evaluated 1,305 inpatient claims that were potentially at risk for billing errors. From those claims, the OIG selected a random sample of 154 paid claims, totaling $1,964,826. Although the OIG determined that the hospital complied with billing requirements for the majority of the claims (133), the audit revealed that the hospital failed to comply with Medicare billing requirements for 21 claims, resulting in a net overpayment of $63,881 for the audit period. Based upon the sample, the OIG extrapolated that the hospital improperly received overpayments of at least $273,346 between January 2013 and September 2014.

Errors

For 19 of the 154 claims, the hospital billed incorrect diagnosis-related group (DRG) codes. For example, in one case, the hospital submitted a claim with a secondary diagnosis code 599.0 (urinary tract infection), despite the fact that the patient’s medical record indicated the patient had no signs or symptoms of a urinary tract infection. In other words, the hospital had no basis to assign code 599.0. The hospital attributed the billing mistakes to human error. The noncompliance related to the DRG codes accounted for the vast majority of the errors and led to net overpayments of $47,165.

When a patient is discharged from an acute care hospital and readmitted to the same hospital on the same day for symptoms related to the prior stay, the hospital is required to combine the original and subsequent stay into a single claim. The OIG determined that for 2 of the 154 audited claims, the hospital incorrectly billed Medicare for related discharges and readmissions that occurred on the same day. The hospital attributed the improper billing to human error.

Recommendations

The OIG recommended that the hospital:

  • refund the estimated $273,346 in overpayments to the Medicare program;
  • identify and return similar overpayments; and
  • strengthen billing and coding controls to ensure future compliance.

 

Objections

The hospital objected to the findings regarding 11 of 21 inpatient claims. Additionally, although the hospital acknowledged that human error contributed to the 10 other errors, there was “no evidence to support systemic coding or billing concerns.” The hospital also challenged the OIG’s authority to extrapolate a payment error rate.