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: Summary of OIG fraud and abuse actions first half of 2017

The HHS OIG issued their Semi-Annual report for first half of fiscal year (FY) 2017 and summarized key accomplishments, significant problems, abuses, deficiencies, and investigative outcomes relating to the administration of HHS programs and operations that were disclosed during the reporting period. The following summarizes reported statistical accomplishments.

Criminal Actions (468). OIG reported 468 criminal actions against individuals or entities that engaged in crimes against HHS programs and 461 civil actions, which include false claims and unjust-enrichment lawsuits filed in Federal district court, civil monetary penalties (CMP) settlements, and administrative recoveries related to provider self-disclosure matters.  During the first half of FY 2017, OIG reported expected investigative recoveries of over $2.04 billion.

Health Care Strike Force (152 Criminal Actions). The Health Care Fraud Strike Force teams brought charges against 45 individuals or entities, 152 criminal actions, and $267 million in recoveries through investigations.

State Medicaid Fraud Control Units (MFCUs) (1,564 Criminal Actions).  The OIG has oversight responsibility for MFCUs and administers grants that provide federal funding for their operations. There are 50 MFCUs (in 49 States and the District of Columbia) totaled almost $259 million. The MFCUs employed 1,965 individuals. MFCUs reported 18,730 investigations, of which 15,509 were related to Medicaid fraud and 3,221 were related to patient abuse and neglect, including misappropriation of patients’ private funds. The cases resulted in criminal charges or indictments involving 1,721 individuals, including 1,249 for fraud and 472 for patient abuse and neglect. In total, 1,564 convictions were reported in FY 2016, of which 1,160 were related to Medicaid fraud and 404 were related to patient abuse and neglect. Civil judgments and settlements for FY 2016 totaled 998, and monetary recoveries in civil cases totaled over $1.5 billion. During this reporting period, OIG special agents partnered with MFCUs in conducting joint investigations on 714 criminal cases.

Program Exclusions (1,422). During this semiannual reporting period, OIG excluded 1,422 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, for patient abuse or neglect, or as a result of license revocation. OIG is also responsible for reinstating providers who apply and have met the requirements of their exclusions.

Sanction Authorities and Other Administrative Actions (1,504).  OIG sanctions include the exclusion of individuals and entities from federal health care programs and the imposition of CMPs for submitting false and fraudulent claims to a federal health care program or for violating the Anti-kickback statute, the Stark law, or the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), also known as the patient dumping statute. During this semiannual reporting period, OIG imposed 1,504 administrative sanctions in the form of program exclusions or administrative actions for alleged fraud or abuse or other activities that posed a risk to federal health care programs and their beneficiaries.

Civil Monetary Penalties Law (CMPL) ($26 million0. The CMPL authorizes OIG to impose administrative penalties on and assessments against a person who, among other things, submits, or causes to be submitted, claims to a federal health care program that the person knows, or should know, are false or fraudulent. In addition to administrative penalties and assessments, OIG can also exclude individuals for engaging in conduct prohibited by the CMPL. During this semiannual reporting period, OIG concluded cases involving more than $26.3 million in CMPs and assessments.

Self-Disclosure Programs ($23 million). Health care providers, suppliers, or other individuals or entities subject to CMPs can apply for acceptance into the Provider Self-Disclosure Protocol, a program created in 1998, to voluntarily disclose self-discovered evidence of potential fraud. During this semiannual reporting period, self-disclosure cases resulted in more than $23 million in HHS receivables.

 

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: 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.

Kusserow on Compliance: HHS Office of Inspector General adopts new Anti-kickback safe harbors

In a Final rule effective January 6, 2017, the HHS Office of Inspector General OIG amended the rules to the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) by adding new safe harbors that protect certain payment practices and business arrangements from sanctions under the AKS. The law provides criminal penalties for individuals or entities that knowingly and willfully offer, pay, solicit, or receive remuneration in order to induce or reward the referral of business reimbursable under federal health care programs. This law was so broad that, as Inspector General, I requested Congress to create an administrative alternative. Upon enactment, I was permitted to identify and create safe harbors that would identify practices that would not result in enforcement actions.  The changes created additional safe harbors that enhance flexibility for providers and others to engage in health care business arrangements to improve efficiency and access to quality care while protecting programs and patients from fraud and abuse. They include:

Changes to existing safe harbors for cost-sharing waivers. Changes were made to the definition of the term “remuneration,” allowing the waiver or reduction of certain patient cost-sharing obligations. Previously, there were cost-sharing waiver exceptions that included waivers for some amounts owed for inpatient hospital services, and amounts owed by individuals who qualified for subsidized services or amounts paid to federally qualified health care centers or certain other qualified health care facilities. The new rule expands these existing safe harbors to cover cost-sharing waivers issued to beneficiaries in all federal health care programs, which includs Medicare, Medicaid, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), TRICARE, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) program, and the Indian Health Service (IHS) program.

Waivers or reductions by pharmacies. Pharmacies will now be allowed to reduce or waive cost-sharing amounts imposed under a federal health care program if the waivers or reductions are not offered as part of an advertisement or solicitation which could result in abusive steering of patients. Waivers or reductions offered to certain individuals eligible for Medicare Part D subsidies need only meet the no-advertising, no-solicitation requirement to fall within this safe harbor. For waivers or reductions offered to individuals not eligible for subsidies, the pharmacy must meet several additional requirements. It must not routinely waive or reduce cost-sharing amounts, and must only waive the cost-sharing amounts “after determining in good faith that the individual is in financial need or after failing to collect the cost-sharing amounts after making reasonable collection efforts.”  Providers should note that this rule only applies to pharmacies, and thus would not allow a physician to waive cost-sharing for Part B drugs.

Waivers or reductions for emergency ambulance services. Cost-sharing reductions or waivers for emergency ambulance services will now be allowed, but extend only to emergency ambulance services furnished by a state, municipality, or federally recognized Indian tribe. However, they must not take into account insurance or financial status of the beneficiary, nor can the ambulance provider shift costs to a federal health care program.

Free or discounted shuttle service and local transportation. A new safe harbor will allow eligible entities to provide free or discounted local transportation or shuttle services, as long as they meet defined requirements. An eligible entity is any individual or entity, except for individuals or entities (or family members or others acting on their behalf) that primarily supply health care items, such as durable medical equipment suppliers, pharmaceutical companies, and pharmacies. Transportation is divided into two categories: (1) a “shuttle service” provided by an eligible entity and (2)other transportation offered to federal health care program beneficiaries. Eligible entities must meet five standards: (1) have the availability of the free or discounted local transportation services set forth in a policy, applied uniformly and consistently and not determined in a manner related to volume or value of federal health care business; (2) not be air, luxury, or ambulance-level transportation; (3) not market or advertise the services, nor market health care items and services during the course of transportation, or pay drivers on a per-beneficiary-transported basis; (4) only make the transportation available to established patients; and (5) bear the cost of the transportation services and not shift the burden onto federal health care programs, other payers, or individuals. Simply put, hospitals and other eligible entities will be able to provide some forms of transport services for their patients without fear of violating the AKS, so long as they meet the applicable safe harbor requirements laid out above.

Protected remuneration between FQHCs and Medicare Advantage. Another safe harbor was created that will protect any remuneration between a federally qualified health center (FQHC) (or an entity controlled by such a health center) and a Medicare Advantage (MA) organization pursuant to a written agreement required by regulations. The payment to the FQHC must not be less than the level and amount of payment that the MA organization would make to a non-FQHC entity. Provision of free space by the FQHC to the MA organization would not be covered by the safe harbor, because arrangements must be related to MA plan enrollees being treated at the FQHC. Similarly, financial support from the MA to the FQHC for outreach services or infrastructure costs, for example, would not be covered.

Medicare Coverage Gap Discount Program. A new safe harbor was created that supplements the already-existing statutorily-based Medicare Coverage Gap Discount Program, which allows prescription drug manufacturers to enter into an agreement with HHS to provide access to discounts on drugs at the point of sale. “Applicable drugs” furnished to “applicable beneficiaries” under the Medicare Coverage Gap Discount Program will not be considered remuneration. The rule requires manufacturers to be “in compliance with the requirements of the Medicare Coverage Gap Discount Program,” rather than “in full compliance with all requirements” of the program. “A manufacturer that knowingly and willfully provided discounts without complying with the requirements of the Medicare Coverage Gap Discount Program could be subject to sanctions.”

Technical revision of the AKS. There is in the Final rule a technical correction pertaining to referral services, whereby the language was changed inadvertently in 2002 to say “. . . business otherwise generated by either party for the referral service . . .” and is now changed back to the 1999 language, “. . . business otherwise generated by either party for the other party”.

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 © 2016 Strategic Management Services, LLC. Published with permission.