Kusserow on Compliance: CMS Preclusion list

Those on Preclusion List are prohibited from MA Plan or Part D sponsor payment

Effective April 2019, under a final rule published by CMS, Part D sponsors, or their pharmacy benefit manager must screen against the Preclusion List and reject any pharmacy claim prescribed by an individual or entity on the Preclusion List. Additionally, effective April 2019, 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, where CMS has determined that the underlying conduct is 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. Only health care plans approved by CMS will have access to the Preclusion List. MA plans and Part D sponsors will be required to access the list through an Enterprise Identity Data Management (EIDM) account with CMS.  The List will be updated around the first business day of each month. 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.

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

Kusserow on Compliance: New anti-kickback law for clinical labs

– Law creates new compliance risk areas for 2019

– Compensation of sales personnel affected

– Not limited to federal health care programs

For the new year, compliance officers should recall Congress passing into law the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act of 2018 (EKRA), which became effective October 24, 2018. It applies to Medicare and Medicaid, as well as many commercial health insurance plans. It has the effect of eliminating “safe harbors” used by clinical labs in marketing services. The law was intended to be part of the effort to target the national opioid crisis. It makes it a criminal offense to solicit or receive any remuneration, directly or indirectly, in return for referring a patient or patronage to a recovery home, clinical treatment facility or clinical laboratory; or to offer or pay a kickback to “induce” a referral of an individual to a recovery home, clinical treatment facility or clinical laboratory, or in exchange for an individual using the services of a recovery home, clinical treatment facility or clinical laboratory. Penalties for each violation can include a fine of up to $200,000 and imprisonment of up to 10 years. The law has seven “safe harbors,” some of which are similar to the safe harbors under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute that is generally applicable to Medicare and Medicaid services, however the safe harbor for employees and independent contractors under the law expressly excludes from safe harbor protection any payment made to an employee or independent contractor that is determined or varies by:

  • the number of individuals referred;
  • the number of tests or procedures performed; or
  • the amount billed or received.

The EKRA adds an all payor (public and private) provision that enables the federal government to monitor provider arrangements intended to generate business for any laboratory services, not only those related to individuals in treatment for substance abuse disorders, payable by a federal health care program or commercial health insurer.

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: Meeting long term care compliance program legal mandates

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) included a mandate that long term care (LTC) skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and nursing homes adopt and implement an effective compliance and ethics program as a condition of participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Facilities have until November 28, 2019 to meet the compliance program requirements. At that time, state survey agencies will begin assessing facility compliance with implementation of an effective compliance and ethics program following the CMS State Operation Manual “Guidance to Surveyors for Long Term Care Facilities.”  CMS requires annual review of its compliance and ethics program to ensure that modifications are made to reflect changes in laws, regulations, and to reduce violations.

Tom Herrmann, J.D., served over 20 years in the OIG Office of Counsel and for the past ten years has been a compliance consultant, specializing in nursing home compliance programs. He explains that the new mandate parallels the HHS OIG Compliance Program Guidance for Nursing Facilities and those that followed the guidance will have little problem in meeting the new mandate, but those who didn’t have only months to come into compliance. For those organizations with weak programs, he suggests the most cost effective method to begin catching up is to have a compliance expert perform a gap analysis to identify elements needed for the compliance program and how be able to evidence program effectiveness. A gap analysis should provide a “road map” and step-by-step plan for bringing a facility into compliance with the mandates. Those that have already implemented their compliance program should consider having an effectiveness evaluation conducted by experts to verify it will meet mandated standards.

Kash Chopra, J.D., has assisted many smaller LTC organizations in answering the challenge of meeting the mandate challenge by providing Designated Compliance Officers (DCOs) that assume the responsibility of being the Compliance Officer, including the building and managing of the program. The OIG recognizes using DCOs when the wide range of compliance responsibilities become a serious problem for smaller organizations and a full time Compliance Officer is unaffordable. The OIG’s position is that “For those companies that have limited resources, the compliance function could be outsourced to an expert in compliance.”  The OIG further recognize that an outsourced party can provide services on a part time basis.  Using highly experienced experts can lower fixed costs, reduce staff loads, and avoid using someone who is less qualified. Also, most of the work can be done remotely. Using an outside expert part-time, can accomplish more than a lesser experienced full time employee. She advises comparing the cost of hiring a compliance officer against that of a part time expert acting as the DCO.

For more information on this subject, Kash Chopra can be reached at kchopra@strategicm.com or via telephone at (703) 535-1413. Also see https://compliance.com/blog/contracting-compliance-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 © 2018 Strategic Management Services, LLC. Published with permission.

Kusserow on Compliance: Understanding and addressing whistleblowers

The vast majority of the cases resolved by the Civil Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) were cases brought by “whistleblowers” under the qui tam provision of the False Claims Act (FCA). Whistleblowers are responsible for an even higher percentage of cases resulting in OIG Corporate Integrity Agreements (CIAs). Although most compliance officers are well aware of this program, many remain unclear as to how the process works. Tom Herrmann, J.D., who served over 20 years in the Office of Counsel to the OIG and as an Appellate Judge for the Medicare Appeals Board, explained that Congress permitted a whisltleblower called the “Relator” to file a case with the DOJ under the FCA.  Since this provision of law went into effect in 1986, there have been over 10,000 qui tam cases filed with a current average of one such case being filed every day of the year. The intent was to create incentives for private parties to detect and pursue fraud under the FCA. In return for reporting this information, Relators receive a portion (usually about 15 to 25 percent) of any recovered damages.  Once the lawsuit is filed, it is placed “under seal”, meaning that it is kept secret from everyone but the government, in order to give the DOJ enough time to investigate the allegations in deciding whether to join (“intervene”) in the case. Intervention by the DOJ occurs only in about one in five qui tam lawsuits, leaving whistleblowers the option to pursue cases on their own, however the chances of success are much lower than in cases when the government joins. Most successful qui tam cases are resolved through settlement negotiations rather than a court trial, although trials may occur.

Kash Chopra, J.D., noted that the overwhelming number of cases that result in a CIA, arise from whistleblowers and these, in turn, are based upon violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS). It is the government’s position that all claims arising from a corrupt arrangement violating the AKS or in some cases, the Stark Law, are considered fraudulent. This is even when the services rendered were needed and provided appropriately.  She advises here clients that the best ways to manage the whistleblower risk is to ensure that they are channeled through internal communication channels and their complaints are promptly evaluated, investigated, and resolved.  It is worth considering the following:

  1. Using outside experts to independently audit arrangements with physicians and evaluate compliance communication channel effectiveness.
  2. Ensuring a 24/7 hotline operated externally by experts in recognizing health care compliance issues.
  3. Reviewing/updating hotline-related polices/procedures (confidentiality, anonymity, non-retaliation, duty to report, etc.).
  4. Making sure that the duty to report suspected wrongdoing is explained in the Code, policies and training.
  5. Having trained and competent people on hand to conduct prompt and competent investigations of matters raised through the hotline.
  6. Moving quickly to use CMS and OIG self disclosure protocols when there is credible evidence of violations; and not wait until the DOJ gets involved.

For more information on this subject, Kashish Parikh-Chopra can be reached at kchopra@strategicm.com or via telephone at (703) 535-1413.

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.