Kusserow on Compliance: OIG provides Medicaid fraud and overpayment update to Congress

The OIG testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs regarding Medicaid Fraud and Overpayments. Up front, it was noted that the Medicaid program has 67 million beneficiaries, costing $600 billion annually with projected improper Medicaid payments at about $59 billion. Key points of the testimony were:

  1. Complete and reliable national Medicaid data—which is necessary for effective program oversight and to quickly detect and address improper payments, fraud, waste, or quality concerns—is limited.
  2. Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS) data was mandated to address problems with national Medicaid claims and eligibility data. All states except Wisconsin and the District of Columbia have begun reporting data to T‐MSIS, but the data elements may not mean the same thing across states. CMS must ensure that the same data elements are consistently reported and uniformly interpreted across states.
  3. Eighty percent of all Medicaid beneficiaries receive part or all of their services through managed care entities who are required to report medical claims data to states who then report it to CMS via T‐MSIS. Without accurate and timely data, it is not possible to analyze costs, utilization or trends; evaluate benefits; or determine the quality of services being provided.  Medicaid managed care encounter data was found to be incomplete and CMS needs to ensure this corrected.
  4.  Lack of quality national Medicaid data to identify fraud schemes and other vulnerabilities that cross state lines is hampering enforcement efforts. Identifying schemes in one state can alert other states to patterns of fraudulent or abusive practices that may be occurring in their jurisdiction and can be referred to law enforcement agencies. CMS must improve Medicaid data to ensure T‐MSIS achieves its full potential.
  5. States have not fully enacted enhanced provider screening that prevents bad actors from entering the Medicaid program to reduce improper payments and protect patients from harm, such as conducting fingerprint‐based criminal background checks and site visits. States need timely, complete, and accurate data to identify the providers seeking access to Medicaid monies and patients. CMS must ensure that states timely and fully implement critical safeguards.
  6. The Medicaid improper payment rate is 10.1 percent and CMS is working with state Medicaid agencies to develop corrective action plans that address state‐specific reasons for improper payments as a part of CMS’s Payment Error Rate Measurement Program (PERM). Additional guidance to the states by CMS is needed. OIG has also identified a number of states that inflate payment rates to increase their Federal Medicaid funding and CMS needs to closely review state Medicaid plans and plan amendments for potentially inappropriate cost‐shifting from states to the federal government.
  7. The OIG has found that states are not always correctly determining Medicaid eligibility for beneficiaries. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) allowed states to expand Medicaid eligibility and claim a higher Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, but incorrectly determining beneficiaries’ eligibility could result in the improper shift of costs from the state to the federal government. States must comply with requirements to verify applicants’ income, citizenship, identity, and other eligibility criteria in order to verify eligibility criteria.
  8. Medicaid is overpaying for prescription drugs due to underpaid rebates. Manufacturers are generally required to pay rebates to the states for covered outpatient drugs under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program that includes reporting product and pricing information to CMS that is used to calculate the rebates owed. Manufacturer misreporting can result in manufacturers’ underpaying rebates, which inappropriately increases federal and state Medicaid costs. Overseeing states’ collection of manufacturer rebates remains a challenge for HHS.
  9. Medicaid must know with whom it is doing business, not only to prevent improper payments to ineligible providers, but also to protect beneficiaries from low‐quality care. The varying standards, and in some cases, minimal vetting, for Medicaid personal care services (PCS) providers, potentially expose the Medicaid program to financial fraud and Medicaid beneficiaries to abuse and neglect. CMS needs to improve states’ ability to monitor billing and care quality by enrolling PCS attendants as providers, or require them to register with their state Medicaid agencies, and assign each attendant a unique identifier.
  10. The OIG found that up to 99 percent of critical incidents of abuse and neglect of developmentally disabled were not reported to the appropriate law enforcement or state agencies as required. The OIG worked with the HHS Administration for Community Living, Office for Civil Rights, CMS, as well as with the DOJ and States to create a joint report entitled Ensuring Beneficiary Health and Safety in Group Homes Through State Implementation of Comprehensive Compliance Oversight. It features suggested model practices for states and CMS with four main aspects of handling critical incidents: investigation, reporting, correction, and transparency and accountability. It also detailed suggestions as to what actions states should take when group homes repeatedly fail to report incidents.
  11. The OIG partners with state Medicaid Fraud Control Units (MFCUs) which, last year, reported more than 1,500 convictions, nearly 1,000 civil settlements and judgments, and more than $1.8 billion in criminal and civil recoveries. The 50 existing MFCUs receive 75 percent of their funding on a matching basis from the federal government but often they encounter severe restrictions on their ability to maintain or expand staff.

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: HHS OIG Spring 2018 semi-annual report on sanctions and exclusions

1,678 administrative sanctions

1,588 individuals and entities excluded

$35.5 million in CMPL penalties/assessments

The OIG released its first semi-annual report for 2018 that included the number of administrative sanctions, exclusion actions taken, and CMPL penalties imposed. There were a total of 1,588 individuals and entities excluded 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. The OIG has a number of Administrative Sanction authorities whereby they have added steadily to the LEIE database.  In the last three years the OIG added over 10,000 exclusions to the List of Excluded Individuals and Entities (LEIE). The OIG also imposed 1,678 administrative sanctions and Civil Monetary Penalty Law penalties and assessments involving more than $35.5 million.

Comments from experts concerning sanctions

Tom Herrmann, JD, served for 20 years in the OIG Counsel’s Office, including being the Chief of the Administrative Litigation Branch, responsible for the litigation of cases involving the imposition of civil monetary penalties and program exclusions.  He explained that the OIG has been delegated the authorities to impose Civil Monetary Penalties, assessments, and program exclusion on health care providers and others determined to have engaged in defined wrongdoing. The effect of an OIG exclusion 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. In almost all instances where the OIG’s imposition of program exclusion or CMPs is appealed, it is upheld by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Departmental Appeals Board (DAB), and federal courts. As such, it is absolutely essential to have ongoing sanction-screening of anyone engaged by a health care organization.

Jillian Bower-Concepcion is another highly experienced health care compliance consultant, who has assisted scores of clients in meeting the sanction-screening obligations through the Compliance Resource Center (CRC). She notes the OIG posts their exclusions on their LEIE and calls for screening of all individuals and entities engaged by or with whom they do business against that listing. CMS has also been very aggressive in calling for sanction screening, not only of the LEIE, but Debarments posted by the GSA, as well as pressuring state Medicaid Directors to establish exclusion databases and mandate monthly screening by their enrolled providers. In order to meet screening mandates, it is almost a necessity to use a vendor search engine tools to assist in sanction-screening. This saves organizations from downloading the sanction databases of all the entities and developing their own search engine. Using a vendor for this purpose is a step in the right direction; however the bulk of the work remains with the organization to do screening and resolving potential “hits” remains with the organization. Altogether this can be a considerable effort and many organizations have to dedicate one or many employees to meet all these obligations.  Alternatively, many just outsource the entire process, including verification and certification of results to a vendor.

 

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: OIG cases involving sanctioned parties and tips to avoid violations

Compliance Officers must screen employees against the List of Excluded Individuals and Entities (LEIE). This is stressed in all of the OIG’s compliance guidance documents. CMS makes it a condition of participation and enrollment. The LEIE continues to change and grow with more than 3,000 exclusions added annually. Failure to screen employees, medical staff, contractors, and vendors results in a great risk. The OIG may consider claims that include work or products from a sanctioned party to be false and fraudulent. Violations can result in monetary penalties. Most cases that deal with this issue are brought to the OIG’s attention through the “Self-Disclosure Protocol.”  In all the recent cases posted, the OIG imposed penalties, but the penalties were mitigated by the fact the matters were self-disclosed—as a result, none of these cases resulted in a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA). The OIG posts a number of these cases on its website. The following are examples of recent actions against organizations that engaged individuals they knew or should have known were excluded from participation in the federal health care programs:

  • Southwest Trinity Management, LLC (STM), in Oklahoma paid $141,986.36 in settlement for employing an excluded licensed practical nurse that provided items or services that were billed to Federal health care programs.
  • Diamonds & Pearls Health Services, LLC (DPHS), Cleveland, Ohio paid $75,471.92 for employing an excluded individual who was a scheduling/staffing coordinator, provided items or services to DPHS patients that were billed to Federal health care programs.
  • Center for Ear, Nose Throat & Allergy, P.C. (CENTA) in Indiana, paid $51,564.14 for employing an excluded medical records file clerk, provided items or services to CENTA’s patients that were billed to Federal health care programs.
  • MHMR, Fort Worth, Texas, paid $97,869.78 for employing a program director who had been excluded to provide items or services to clients who were receiving services funded by a Medicaid waiver program.
  • Shawnee Health Services (Shawnee), Carterville, Illinois, paid $107,761.08 as result of employing an excluded individual as a case manager, provided items or services to clients that were receiving services under a Medicaid waiver program.
  • Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) paid $39,343.61 as result of employing an excluded hospice social worker that provided items or services to patients of a community based hospice operated by ADH.
  • Century Pharmacy (Century), Brooklyn, New York, paid $10,000 for an employed excluded individual, who assisted in filling prescriptions in addition to performing other clerical tasks, provided items or services to Century patients that were billed to Federal health care programs.
  • Sundance Behavioral Healthcare System (Sundance), Texas, paid $49,183.48 for an employed sanctioned licensed vocational nurse that provided items or services to patients that were billed to Federal health care programs.
  • ASAP Professional Home Health (ASAP), Houston, Texas, paid $21,797.76 for an employed excluded attendant, provided items or services to ASAP patients that were billed to Federal health care programs.

Practical Screening Tips

  1. Ensure periodic sanction screening of employees, medical staff, contractors, and vendors against the LEIE—best practice is monthly screening.
  2. Inasmuch as most states have developed their own exclusion database, with many states mandating monthly screenings, care should be taken to understand and meet state screening requirements.
  3. Inasmuch as most LEIE exclusions arise from another underlying court, state agency, or licensure board action, it is advisable to also conduct background checks and seek written assurances in applications that prospective employees, contractors, and vendors have not been subject to any prior court or licensure board actions.
  4. It is common for individuals that may be the subject of an investigation, but not yet sanctioned with final actions, to be under investigation for considerable time, therefore it is a best practice to require as a condition of employment, gaining staff privileges, or engagement for the applicant to attest that they have not been, nor are they now, the subject of an investigation by any duly authorized regulatory or enforcement agency. It is also advisable to add a condition that they must promptly report any notice of investigation that involves them.
  5. Educate and inform management and employees on their obligation to promptly report any notification of an adverse action by any duly authorized regulatory or enforcement agency.

Daniel Peake of the Compliance Resource Center (CRC) works with many organizations in ensuring proper sanction screening and from that experience offers a number of practical tips to avoid creating an actionable violation.  He can be reached at dpeake@strategicm.com or (703) 236-9850.

 

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 testimony highlights opioid crisis actions

Gary Cantrell, HHS OIG Deputy Inspector General for Investigations, testified before a Senate Special Committee hearing on enforcement activities currently underway to combat the opioid crisis. He provided key policy recommendations to address the crisis. Opioid fraud encompasses a broad range of criminal activity from prescription drug diversion to addiction treatment schemes. Many of these schemes can be elaborate, involving complicit patients or beneficiaries who are not ill, kickbacks, medical identity theft, money-laundering, and other criminal enterprises. Some schemes also involve multiple co-conspirators and health care professionals such as physicians, nonphysician providers, and pharmacists. These investigations can be complex and often involve the use of informants, undercover operations, and surveillance. The OIG provided critical support in the establishment of the new Opioid Fraud and Abuse Detection Unit established by the Attorney General to focus on opioid-related health care fraud. This collaboration led to the selection of 12 judicial districts around the country where OIG has assigned Special Agents to support 12 prosecutors identified by the DOJ to focus solely on investigating and prosecuting opioid-related health care fraud cases.

The OIG collaborates with a number of HHS agencies, including CMS and the Agency for Community Living (ACL), on fraud- and opioid-related initiatives to educate providers, the industry, and beneficiaries on the role each one plays in the prevention of prescription drug and opioid-related fraud and abuse. The OIG is engaging ACL’s Senior Medicare Patrol and State Health Insurance Assistance Program through presentations on the prevention of fraud, waste, and abuse. The OIG is also working with the DEA to provide anti-fraud education at numerous Pharmacy Diversion Awareness Conferences held across the United States, which are designed to assist pharmacy personnel with identifying and preventing diversion activity.

OIG currently has numerous opioid-related audits or evaluations underway that address:

  • questionable prescribing patterns in Medicaid;
  • Medicaid program integrity controls;
  • Medicare program integrity controls in the prescription drug benefit;
  • CDC’s oversight of grants to support programs to monitor prescription drugs;
  • FDA’s oversight of opioid prescribing through its risk management programs;
  • SAMHSA’s oversight of opioid treatment program grants;
  • beneficiary access to buprenorphine medication-assisted treatment; and
  • opioid prescribing practices in the Indian Health

In the OIG’s data brief entitled Opioids in Medicare Part D: Concerns about Extreme Use and Questionable Prescribing and other reports, the OIG noted the following:

  • 60,000 individuals died from drug overdoses in 2016, of which two-thirds involved opioids
  • The CDC reported 75 percent new heroin users having abused prescription opioids prior to using heroin.
  • One in three Medicare Part D beneficiaries received opioids (14.4 million beneficiaries)
  • 500,000 beneficiaries received high amounts of opioids
  • 90,000 beneficiaries were at serious risk of opioid misuse or overdose for receiving extreme amounts of opioids and those who appeared to be “doctor shopping”
  • 70,000 beneficiaries received extreme amounts of opioids
  • 22,308 beneficiaries appeared to be doctor shopping for more opiods
  • 400 prescribers had questionable opioid prescribing for beneficiaries at serious risk
  • Prescribers with questionable billing wrote 265,260 opioid prescriptions for beneficiaries at serious risk at a cost under Part D for $66.5 million

The OIG is planning to release a new data brief on opioid use in Medicare Part D as a follow-up to a previous data brief, Opioids in Medicare Part D: Concerns About Extreme Use and Questionable Prescribing (OEI-02-17-00250) to: (1) determine the extent to which Medicare Part D beneficiaries received high amounts of opioids; (2) identify beneficiaries who are at serious risk of opioid misuse or overdose; and (3) identify prescribers with questionable opioid prescribing patterns for these beneficiaries.  In conjunction with this, they will release an analysis toolkit to assist the public and private sector in analyzing prescription drug claims data.  It will provide steps for using prescription drug data to analyze patients’ opioid levels and identify those at risk of opioid misuse or overdose or who appear to be doctor shopping.

The OIG has made numerous pending recommendations to improve HHS programs to better protect beneficiaries at risk of opioid misuse or overdose, including:

  • Restrict certain beneficiaries to a limited number of pharmacies or prescribers, implementing the new lock-in authority.
  • Require plan sponsors to report to CMS all potential fraud and abuse and any corrective actions they take in response; and provide guidance on how Part D sponsors identify and investigate these matters.
  • Improve Medicaid CMS does not have complete and accurate data needed to effectively oversee the Medicaid program, including opioids. OIG call for CMS to establish a deadline for when national T-MSIS data will be available for multistate program integrity efforts.

 

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.