Kusserow on Compliance: Oncology remains high federal enforcement priority

Oncology continues to be a high enforcement priority for the DOJ, OIG, FBI, and CMS.  The latest fraud investigation by the DOJ involves CCS Oncology, large and prominent providers of cancer care. The reported question being investigated relates to possible billing irregularities involving Medicare and Medicaid. As with most cases related to oncology irregularities, the predication was by a “whistleblower.” The complaint alleges CCS billed for more expensive procedures than were actually performed, billed for procedures that never were performed, and performed medically unnecessary procedures on patients, among other violations, according to the source. The stream of cases is long enough to outline key factors that have led to settlements with the DOJ and OIG. Compliance Officers, whose portfolio of responsibilities include oncology services may wish to review the following to ensure none of these factors are at work in a manner that may trigger investigation.

Common Oncology Enforcement Issues

  1. Employees knowingly submitted false records to Medicare and Medicaid to increase revenue
  2. Claims submitted for services performed without required physician supervision
  3. Offering unnecessary treatments and services to patients
  4. Recruitment and treatment of terminal patients that should have been referred to hospice care
  5. Re-treatment of patients in excess of prescribed dosage limits
  6. Claims for services when physician reviews had not taken place
  7. Claims where treatment occurred without prior required IGRT scan
  8. Physicians allowed registered nurses to fill out prescriptions for medications
  9. Offering inducements (“kickbacks”) to patients by waiving their co-pays
  10. Conducting not necessary fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) tests for bladder cancer
  11. Filing payment claims for GAMMA functions by improperly trained physicians and staff
  12. Seeking payments for tests whose results doctors had not reviewed
  13. Billing E&M services on the same day as a related procedure
  14. Double and over-billing Medicare for services that lacked supporting documentation
  15. Improperly billing for radiation treatment without proper physician supervision
  16. Submitting false claims for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) services
  17. Billing for services that were not documented in the patients’ medical records
  18. Billing twice for the same services
  19. Misrepresentation of the level of a service provided to increase reimbursement
  20. Routinely waived patient copayments as an inducement, then billing Medicare for them.
  21. Claims for services not performed, medically necessary, and/or properly documented
  22. Claims for services rendered to patients referred by physicians benefiting from referral
  23. Purchasing cancer treatments from unlicensed sources for oncology practice
  24. Diluting patients’ chemotherapy treatments and delivering in a manner designed to extend period of treatment time
  25. Claims for medically unnecessary or properly documented intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)
  26. Unsupported add-on claims for “special treatment procedures” and “specialty physics consults”
  27. Violating the Stark Laws and Anti-Kickback statute by rewarding referring physicians

 

Kusserow on Compliance: Extending and economizing compliance programs—tools, services and tips

Compliance officers are confronted with a host of ever increasing external regulatory and internal demands with most having inadequate resources to meet all the challenges.  Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly common to add responsibility for HIPAA Privacy to the portfolio of compliance officers’ duties. All of this results in ongoing efforts to find ways to extend capabilities, while being sensitive to limited available resources. There are finite options available. Of course, the preference is to handle all this with internal staff. However, unfortunately for most compliance officers, limitations on increased office staffing limits this option. In some cases, organizations turn to Out-Sourcing their compliance program. This is most often done as a measure to temporarily fill gaps with an Interim Compliance Officer (ICO) when an incumbent leaves, or smaller organizations contracting the function out to an individual or firm to assume responsibility by providing a Designated Compliance Officer (DCO). Co-Sourcing is a third option and “middle ground” between hiring new staff (In-Sourcing) and Out-Sourcing and may prove to be the best strategy available for compliance officers to take huge pressures away, if implemented correctly. It involves using limited vendor services and tools to address key elements in the compliance program.

Co-Sourcing Compliance Services/Tools

The key factor that separates Out-Sourcing from Co-Sourcing is the maintaining control and direction under the compliance officer. It involves using a third-party on an ongoing basis to supplement limited staff resources by carrying part of the workload. It can help bridge the gap without compromising the ability to easily return to a structure where the compliance officer reassumes full operation when staffing issues are resolved. This approach is also recognized by the OIG as a useful solution to where an organization is limited in-house compliance expertise and resources. Compliance Officers are increasingly employing this as a means as a practical solution when confronted with a staffing shortage and offers the advantage of using limited, rather than full time services. It also may permit gaining access to a range of specialist without having them full time on payroll.

Common Types of Co-Sourcing Tools/Services

Co-Sourcing Expert Services

There are a number of advantages of engaging outside experts for limited scope of work, especially to address staff shortage or obtaining technical skills that do not exist in-house. Careful use of vendors to supplement the Compliance Office can not only gain access to experts not available in-house, but can save time, money, and effort; while maintaining flexibility to end an arrangement at anytime, when no longer needed. The following are common examples of Co-Sourced services:

Co-Sourcing Tips

  1. Clearly define duties, tasks, responsibilities, and methodology for vendor to follow.
  2. Ensure the agreement is flexible to expand or contract levels of service as needed.
  3. Look for providers that have industry specific expertise.
  4. Check experience and seek references of the firm.
  5. Ensure individuals provided have the needed skills, experience, and expertise.
  6. Bigger is not always better, as smaller niche firms are more likely to provide better, less expensive services.
  7. If planning to Co-Source for multiple tools and services, consider seeking discounts for a “bundling” arrangement.

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 reports on the Senior Medicare Patrol (SMP) program

The OIG issued a report on the 2016 performance data for the Senior Medicare Patrol (SMP) program. It is a little known program for many people designed to empower and assist Medicare beneficiaries, their families, and caregivers to prevent, detect, and report health care fraud, errors, and abuse through outreach, counseling, and education. SMPs are grant-funded projects of HHS, U.S. Administration for Community Living (ACL). They play a unique role in the fight against Medicare errors, fraud, and abuse. SMP volunteers and staff are viewed as “eyes and ears” in their communities, educating beneficiaries to be the first line of defense; a sort of ‘neighborhood watch” team. Their work involves conducting presentations to groups, exhibit at events, and work one-on-one with Medicare beneficiaries; engaging volunteers to protect elderly person’s health, finances, and medical identity while saving precious Medicare dollars is a cause that attracts civic-minded Americans; and receiving beneficiary complaints and determining whether it may involve fraud, errors, or abuse. When fraud or abuse is suspected, they make referrals to the appropriate state and federal agencies for further investigation.

The OIG used five performance measures pertaining to recoveries, savings, and cost avoidance; and another five performance measures relating to volunteer and outreach activities.  In 2016, there were 53 SMP projects that had a total of 6,126 total active team members who conducted a total of 26,220 group outreach and education events that reached an estimated 1.5 million people.   The projects also had 195,386 individual interactions with, or on behalf of, a Medicare beneficiary.  The projects reported $163,904 in cost avoidance on behalf of Medicare, Medicaid, beneficiaries, and others. Savings to beneficiaries and others totaled $53,449. Expected Medicare recoveries totaled $2,672. Further, two projects provided information to federal prosecutors that resulted in settlements totaling an additional $9.2 million in expected Medicare recoveries. There were no expected Medicaid recoveries.

Compared to 2015, the projects reported much higher amounts for cost avoidance ($163,904, up from $21,533) and somewhat higher amounts of savings to beneficiaries and others ($53,449, up from $35,059). However, the projects reported significantly lower expected Medicare recoveries ($2,672, down from $2.5 million). The projects reported no Medicaid recoveries in either year. Some common examples of suspected Medicare fraud or abuse identified by the SMP include:

  • Billing for services or supplies that were not provided
  • Providing unsolicited supplies to beneficiaries
  • Misrepresenting a diagnosis, beneficiary’s identity, service provided, or other facts
  • Prescribing or providing excessive or unnecessary tests and services
  • Violating the participating provider agreement with Medicare by refusing to bill Medicare for covered services or items and billing the beneficiary instead
  • Offering or receiving a kickback (bribe) in exchange for a beneficiary’s Medicare number
  • Requesting Medicare numbers at an educational presentation or in an unsolicited phone call
  • Routinely waiving co-insurance or deductibles

The OIG noted that the projects may not be receiving full credit for recoveries, savings, and cost avoidance attributable to their work. It is not always possible to track referrals to Medicare contractors or law enforcement from beneficiaries who have learned to detect fraud, waste, and abuse from the projects. In addition, the projects are unable to track the potentially substantial savings derived from a sentinel effect, whereby Medicare beneficiaries’ scrutiny of their bills reduces fraud and errors.

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: August update on OIG Work Plan—four new projects added

The OIG Work Plans set forth various audits and evaluations that are underway or planned during the fiscal year and beyond. In June this year, the OIG announced the adjusting of its Work Plan on a monthly basis, rather than semi-annually as has been done previously to ensure that it more closely align with the work planning process. The updates include the addition of newly initiated Work Plan items and the removal of completed items. In conducting its work, the OIG assesses relative risks in HHS programs and operations to identify those areas most in need of attention, including responding mandates set forth in laws, regulations, or other directives; and requests by Congress, HHS management, or the Office of Management and Budget.  The following are four new work plan projects added for this year:

  1. Review of the Patient Safety Organization Program (PSO) [OEI-01-17-00420]. The PSO program established federally to work with health care providers to improve the safety and quality of patient care; and created the first and only comprehensive, nationwide patient safety reporting and learning system in the United States. The OIG plans to determine the reach and value of the PSO program among hospitals and will also oversight and challenges of the PSO program.
  2. Duplicate Drug Claims for Hospice Beneficiaries [W-00-17-35802; A-06-17-xxxxx]. Hospice providers are required to render all services necessary for the palliation and management of a beneficiary’s terminal illness and related conditions, including prescription drugs. Medicare Part A pays providers a daily per diem amount for each individual who elects hospice coverage, and part of the per diem rate is designed to cover the cost of drugs related to the terminal illness. The OIG auditors plan to determine whether Part D continues to pay for prescription drugs that should have been covered under the per diem payments made to hospice organizations, following up on previous work performed in this area related to Part D drug claims for hospice benefits under Part A.
  3. Medicare Part B Payments for Psychotherapy Services [W-00-17-35801; A-09-17-xxxxx]. Medicare Part B covers the treatment of mental illness and behavioral disturbances in which a physician or other qualified health care professional establishes professional contact with a patient.  In calendar year 2016, Part B allowed approximately $1.2 billion for these psychotherapy services. The OIG will review Part B payments for psychotherapy services to determine whether they were allowable in accord with Medicare documentation requirements.
  4. Ventilation Devices: Reasonableness of Medicare Payments Compared to Amounts Paid in the Open Market [W-00-17-35803; A-05-xx-xxxxx]. Medicare reimbursement for ventilation devices has risen from $51 million in 2011 to $72 million in 2015. OIG auditors plan to determine the reasonableness of the fee schedule prices that Medicare and beneficiaries pay for ventilation devices compared to prices on the open market to identify potential wasteful spending in the Medicare program.

 

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.