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.

Webinar provides triage tips for internal investigations

Health care compliance investigations are not like a fine wine, stressed Kashish Chopra—age may improve a wine, but waiting for an investigation will never make it go more smoothly. Chopra, along with former HHS Inspector General Richard P. Kusserow, both of Strategic Management Solutions, presented a webinar titled Best Practices for Internal Investigations, during which they provided pertinent information on internal investigations. The information included the goals of such investigations, key individuals who should be involved in the process, and necessary steps and precautions. They also provided listeners with a sample Protocol Policy to clarify the relationship between a compliance officer and legal counsel when they have overlapping responsibilities.

Kusserow and Chopra explained the importance of having an internal investigation program as part of a robust compliance program. Internal investigations are a form of risk management, as they can prevent costly mistakes and provide reassurance to everyone that problems and reports are taken seriously and examined carefully. The foundation of a successful investigation is to have a formalized process for everything, including even informal processes, to ensure that complaints can be received, investigated, and, if necessary, mitigated. Chopra noted that although most complaints that anonymous compliance hotlines receive are related to human relations (HR), the type of complaints that are most likely to lead to an investigation include allegations of harassment, discrimination, retaliation, privacy or security threats, theft or fraud, notice of litigation, and inquiries by government agencies or contractors.

It is important for all individuals involved in an investigation to have well-defined roles and to maintain communication and transparency. Kusserow explained how it is important, during an investigatory interview, to minimize note-taking and maintain eye contact; however, he reminded listeners to build in time between interviews to fill in gaps left by minimal note-taking to ensure adequate records are kept. They also provided tips on how to “triage” complaints—ranking tasks according to priority, which requires a quick, accurate assessment of each issue. They especially emphasized the importance of providing individuals the opportunity to report problems both confidentially and anonymously. The difference being that although anonymity is protected, there is no obligation for the compliance department to protect the job of an anonymous source, while confidential sources must be protected against retaliation.

Kusserow on Compliance: Free Webinar! Conducting Internal Investigation Interviews—Some Best Practices and Tips

Wolters Kluwer is hosting a complimentary webinar on January 26, 2017, entitled, “Best Practices for Conducting Internal Investigations.” The presenters are Richard P. Kusserow, former FBI executive and HHS Inspector General, and Kashish Chopra, JD. Both have extensive experience with conducting internal investigations. Today’s blog provides some tips on the most critical part of most investigations; conducting witness interview. This subject will be provided in more depth during the webinar.

Always project a professional image

This begins with how one is attired. An interview is a formal business meeting and those conducting them should dress accordingly. Dressing down in jeans or other casual clothing does not project a professional image. Those interviewed are not friends; and therefore investigators should not dress and act as if they were. The demeanor of interviewer is important to outcome of interview. If interviewer appears quietly competent and professional, it will encourage confidence in the individual being interviewed. It also reduces nervousness in innocent parties, increases nervousness in guilty ones. The manner should always be polite but firm. Cooperation is essential; intimidation is counter-productive and possibly disastrous in outcome. Treat those interviewed with dignity, respect, and courtesy; and avoid use of any investigative jargon or slang

Begin with why the person is being interviewed

Identify self and any others participating in the interview and explain the purpose of the investigation, along with the authority to conduct inquiry. Make it clear they have a duty to provide complete and accurate facts and explain their comments will be kept confidential to the degree possible

Take time to establish rapport

This is critical to the result of the interview. Beginning an interview with five or ten minutes of easy conversation has the advantage of reducing tension and increases better communication and cooperation. It also permits the investigator to observe the person and their behavioral patterns during this initial more relaxed discourse that often proves very valuable when assessing responses when questioning begins addressing more serious issue areas. Any rapport established can be easily lost by careless use of terms or phrases that may evoke negative connotations, or cause the person to become more defensive and less cooperative.

Best way to have a productive interview is to do one’s homework in advance

This means (a) knowing the objectives of the investigation; (2) having an investigative plan to achieve those objectives; (3) identifying facts needed to properly understand and assess the issues; and (4) what the person being interviewed may offer in terms of facts. It is useful to prepare the key points to be covered for use as a guide, but just going down a list of questions is a bad practice, as it turns the interview into something more akin to an interrogation. Use open-ended questions and allow the person to speak. Often they will cover many of the points on your guide in their discourse. At the end of the interview, review the guide to see if all the points were covered”.

Keep control of the interview by asking, not answering, questions

The interviewer is not the dispenser of information and, as such, they should not reveal the status of the work; offer opinions; indicate what has been found so far; or what has been said by others. Offer no opinions relating to the investigation. Losing sight of that principle often leads to losing control of the interview and is one of the major causes of bad outcomes in the process.

Always remember the interview purpose is to establish facts

It is critical that the investigator remain at all times focused on facts. It is common to have those being interviewed to drift off of facts, especially if they are uncomfortable with the direction of the interview. Therefore, always follow through on questions asked and not be diverted by other comments. Ensure basic questions such as who, what, where, when, how, and why have been addressed. Keep the questions simple and direct, avoiding compound sentences. Ask open-ended questions and allow the person to fully answer.

Take notes, discreetly

It is important to maintain the interview as much like a conversation as possible. Losing eye contact can throw the interview off and detract from results. As such, although it is critical to take notes throughout the interview, it should be done as discreetly as possible. This means writing only key words and phrases that can be filled out after the interview is over. Taking copious notes and losing eye contact risk turning the interview into something that may appear to the individual as an interrogation and makes individuals tighten up and be less forthright in their comments.

Click here to register.

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: Free Webinar! Best Practices for Conducting Internal Investigations

Channeling employees who wish to report allegations or complaints internally is critical to any effective compliance program, as well as to avoid the liabilities and other consequences to having them report externally. The HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) and Department of Justice (DOJ), as well as other enforcement agencies, continue encouraging “whistleblowers” by offering great bounties for successes from their information. In 2016, recoveries totaled $3 billion with whistleblowers receiving as their share—$519 million. In addition, nearly a quarter-million whistleblowers contacted the OIG directly or through the agency’s hotline during the same period. Wolters Kluwer is hosting a complimentary webinar on January 26, 2017 from 1:00-2:30 PM EST, entitled, “Best Practices for Conducting Internal Investigations.” The presenters are Richard P. Kusserow, former FBI executive and HHS Inspector General, along with Kashish Chopra, JD. Both have extensive experience with conducting internal investigations. Today’s blog focuses on the predication of internal investigations that is also addressed in the webinar in more detail. There are many ways be called upon to respond to a complaint or concern raised by an employee, including compliance officers, human resource management (HRM), legal counsel, privacy/security officers, and risk managers, among others; however, only a few complaints would rise to the level of requiring an investigation.

An investigation is a search to uncover facts and seek the truth of an issue (who, what, when, where, why, how) and involves a detailed inquiry or systematic examination to gather facts and information to solve a problem, or resolve an issue. Other activities can meet this definition, including conducting audits, evaluations, and inquiries. All these other activities involve a detailed examination of facts. The fact is that vast majority of hotline complaints can be resolved fairly quickly—within hours or a day or two—without a formal investigation. Many complaints, allegations, and concerns are routine in nature and may be resolved through normal management procedures or through HRM. In determining how to respond to complaints and allegations properly, it should be a standard practice to, in effect, “triage” all the facts known, similar to what medical staff does when a patient arrives at an emergency room at the hospital. This involves an analysis of the complaint and any allegations to determine who is best equipped to resolve the issues. It may be the multiple functions may need to be involved. From this initial analysis, an investigative plan can be developed.

However, when it is determined that a matter requires an investigation, the key is how to do this properly, preferably using properly trained individuals to conduct the investigation. Anyone called to conduct an investigation must understand how to plan an investigation, conduct proper interviews, organize evidence, prepare written reports, and document management. Is unrealistic to have professional investigators in compliance offices, but certain basic principles should be taught to anyone taking on the role of an investigator, whether they come from the compliance office, HRM, legal counsel, privacy office, etc. Anyone who is likely to conduct an internal investigation should have as a minimum a basic understanding of best practices and methods. The upcoming webinar is designed to provide some of the basic principles in conducting a proper investigation in a timely manner.

Click here to register.

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.