Kusserow on Compliance: Controls working to prevent Medicare Advantage capitation payments after beneficiaries’ death

The OIG released a report that stated CMS policies and procedures were generally effective in ensuring that capitation payments to Medicare Advantage (MA) organizations for Medicare Parts A and B services were not made on behalf of deceased beneficiaries after their death. The Medicare Access and Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2015 requires CMS to establish policies to ensure that payments are not made for Medicare services rendered after death of beneficiaries. In prior audits, the OIG identified problems in controls to prevent these kinds of Medicare payments. In this case, the OIG conducted an audit to determine effectiveness of CMS’s policies and procedures to prevent capitation payments to Medicare Advantage (MA) organizations for Medicare Parts A and B services after individuals’ dates of death.

Details of the audit report noted that during calendar years 2012 through 2015, CMS received updated beneficiary date-of-death information and then made approximately 1.8 million adjustments to capitation payments, thereby recouping $2.96 billion from MA organizations for Parts A and B capitation payments that had been made on behalf of beneficiaries who had died.  However, the OIG found that CMS did not identify and recoup all improper capitation payments. As of March 7, 2017, CMS had not recouped $2.4 million associated with 1,817 capitation payments that were made on behalf of 978 beneficiaries. The OIG noted these improper payments represented .0004 percent of the total capitation payments made to MA organizations and .08 percent of the total adjustments that CMS made after receiving information on beneficiaries’ dates of death.

The OIG recommended CMS (1) move to recoup the $2.4 million in capitation payments made to MA organizations on behalf of deceased beneficiaries and (2) implement system enhancements to identify, adjust, and recoup improper capitation payments in the future. CMS concurred with both of these recommendations and described corrective actions that it had implemented.

 

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: Use of temporary compliance and privacy officers

By now every health care provider is aware of the need for an effective compliance program under direction and management by a compliance officer, as well as a privacy officer to ensure HIPAA compliance. It is common these days for organizations to have compliance and privacy officer vacancies as result of a retirement, termination, someone changing jobs, or any other of a dozen reasons. Sometimes it may have been triggered by an audit or investigation by the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG), Department of Justice (DOJ), HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR), or a CMS contractor. In other cases, a board or new executive leadership may wish to use proven experts to promote and/or elevate the programs to a higher level. Regardless of the reason, the departure of a long time incumbent creates a vacuum that needs to be filled quickly for day to day management and responding to emerging issues to avoid serious problems and potential liability. The worst time to have a vacancy is when entering the holiday season and the end of the calendar year. For a variety of reasons, it is a time when many problems and issues arise needing prompt attention.

Steve Forman, CPA, is an expert on the subject with over 25 years as a healthcare compliance officer and consultant, including serving on multiple occasions as an interim compliance officer.  He notes that the sudden departure of a compliance or privacy officer makes the problem of finding someone properly qualified in a timely manner a serious issue. Confronted with a rapidly evolving regulatory and enforcement environment, health care organizations cannot afford to take the chance on having a gap in these positions. When such a gap occurs, engaging an expert on a short term engagement can hold the reigns of the program together, while a permanent replacement is found. Using a properly qualified outside expert presents a lot of advantages.  They can bring the experience of having served in other organizations and dealing with many of the same issues already addressed by prior jobs. It is also important that they have not been invested in any prior decisions, nor have they been aligned with any parties in the organization.  Most importantly, they bring “fresh eyes” to the program. They can provide objective assessment on the state of the compliance program, offer suggestions, and give guidance for improvements.

Suzanne Castaldo, JD, who specializes in providing interim compliance and privacy officers for healthcare clients, noted that clients to whom she has provided interim officers, usually take three to five months to find that hire a permanent replacement with necessary experience and qualifications. When they seek temporary officers, she provides experienced professionals with previous experience as a compliance or HIPAA privacy officer. Over the last 25 years, her firm has worked with over 3,000 health care organizations in building, evaluating, managing, and building compliance program that provide a unique level of knowledge and expertise. Using the right professional with a lot experience and technical skills can make significant improvements for any compliance program in a relatively short order.

Camella Boateng is another highly experience compliance professional who has served as an interim compliance and privacy officer for several organizations. She has found that organizations have a tendency to understate the needs in the vacant position.  In every case where she has been called upon to fill a vacancy, she has encountered serious problems that were hidden or not recognized by the organization. In fact, these unattended problems often were the reason for the departure of the incumbent. As such, those seeking temporary compliance or privacy officers require more than someone just to monitor and manage day to day work. They should look to added benefits and services an outside expert can bring, including providing an independent assessment of the status of the compliance program and high-risk areas warranting attention. Before leaving the engagement they can develop a “road map” for the incoming compliance officer to follow. All this can result in developing comprehensive briefings for management and board on the state of the program

Lisa Shuman is a consultant that has served as an interim privacy officer for organizations. She observed that the work flow is different from that of a compliance officer. She has found from her experience that most engagements can be part time with much of the work done remotely.  The first month usually involves focusing on reviewing adequacy of existing policies, procedures, controls, and training content. After that, the work focuses primarily on privacy violation investigations that arise, however, it is important that the interim privacy officer be available at any time to deal with issues

 

 

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: Questions Boards should be asking their compliance officer

Effective compliance programs require top-down commitment beginning at the Board level to oversee and support its implementation and operations.  The Board should have a committee to do this. The OIG compliance guidance calls for a Board level committee to oversee the Compliance Program (CP). The HHS Inspector General, General Dan Levinson has noted that the best boards as those that are active, questioning, and exercise (constructive) skepticism in their oversight. He further stated that Boards have a duty to ask probing questions about the operation of the Compliance Program, including how the compliance reporting system works and what reports they can expect on the reporting of compliance issues. They have a duty to ask probing questions about the goals and objective of the compliance program. The problem for most Boards is to know what type of questions they should be asking. Compliance Officers should assist them with this problem; however they in turn should be prepared to provide full and complete answers to them. The OIG and American Health Lawyers Association developed specific suggested questions that Board’s should be asking about the compliance program that the compliance officer should be prepared to provide proper responses to them. They jointly produced “Corporate Responsibility and Corporate Compliance: A Resource for Health Care Boards of Directors” and “Corporate Responsibility and Health Care Quality (2007): A Resource for Health Care Boards of Directors.” The following are drawn from these advisory documents:

  1. Does the compliance officer have sufficient authority to implement the program?
  2. What are the resources necessary to properly implement operate the program?
  3. Has compliance officer been given the sufficient resources to carry out the mission?
  4. Have compliance-related responsibilities been delegated across all levels of management?
  5. What evidence is there that all employees held equally accountable for compliance?
  6. How has the code been incorporated into corporate policies across the organization?
  7. What evidence is there that the code is understood and accepted across organization?
  8. Has management widely publicized importance of the code to all of its employees?
  9. Are there compliance-related policies that address operational compliance risk areas?
  10. Are there policies/procedures for the compliance program operation?
  11. How often are compliance-related policies reviewed and updated?
  12. What is the scope of compliance-related education and training?
  13. What evidence is there of the effectiveness of compliance training is effective?
  14. What measures are taken to enforce training mandates?
  15. What evidence that employees understand what is expected of them regarding compliance?
  16. How is compliance risks identified?
  17. What is the evidence that identified compliance risks are being addressed?
  18. How is the compliance program structured to address such risks?
  19. Does the compliance program undergo periodical independent effectiveness evaluation?
  20. What is the process for the evaluation and responding to suspected compliance violations?
  21. What kind of training is provided to those who conduct investigation of reported violations?
  22. How does Compliance, HRM & Legal Counsel coordinate resolving compliance issues?
  23. What are the policies to ensure preservation of relevant compliance program documents and information?
  24. What policies address protection of “whistleblowers” and those accused of misconduct?
  25. What are the results of ongoing compliance monitoring by all program managers?
  26. How is ongoing compliance auditing being performed and by whom?
  27. How often is sanction-screening conducted with what results?
  28. What are the results from sanction-screening and are they certified by responsible parties?
  29. Has the compliance program been evaluated for effectiveness by a qualified independent reviewer?
  30. What evidence is there concerning hotline operation and follow-up investigations?
  31. What are the metrics being used to evidence compliance program effectiveness?
  32. What are the results of an independent review and assessment of the 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 © 2017 Strategic Management Services, LLC. Published with permission.

Kusserow on Compliance: The OIG on Health IT security

Many are not aware of the fact that the HHS OIG boasts having an A-class team that focuses on IT controls and engages in what they refer to as penetration testing or “hacking” into IT systems and networks. With 100 million health care records already compromised and medical records serving as a top target for hackers, healthcare related cybersecurity has become a high priority for the OIG. Health IT offers some unique challenges, in that health records are for a lifetime, whereas credit cards may have a shelf life, if they’re compromised, of just a day or two. This makes them very valuable for criminals that can often realize 60 times more than what a stolen credit card can yield on the dark web. Compromised health information could have wide-ranging consequences, including affecting credit and even someone filing a false tax return with the information. In addition to people’s personal information, there is concern about health care provider and managed care proprietary information.

The OIG IT audits begin with setting an audit objective, which varies according to what they are trying to accomplish. The OIG desires to provide transparent and objective assessments of the security posture of the systems within HHS and those that receive funding from HHS. The OIG engages in penetration testing, as a means to help strengthen IT vulnerabilities. By engaging in penetration testing or “hacking into” IT networks, the OIG is able to provide chief information officers, and sometimes CFOs, with information regarding particular vulnerabilities. Among the common testing of IT systems is determining whether passwords are being changed periodically.  The OIG stated guiding philosophy is that “what gets checked gets done.” By identifying vulnerabilities, they draw management attention to addressing them and raising their awareness to cybersecurity.

The OIG wants to ensure that funds for cybersecurity, and ultimate for technology, are being used judiciously, and overall the OIG is working every day to protect sensitive personal and proprietary data. The OIG is using its resources to enhance awareness around cybersecurity.  The OIG focuses much of its resources on IT controls for the Medicare enrollment database; however the OIG does not confine its work to the Medicare and Medicaid space. The OIG is also looking at IT security at NIH, Indian health hospitals throughout the country, and FDA information on drugs and medical devices. The OIG typically addresses reports to senior level personnel, such as the CEO and Chief Information Officer, and often addresses reports to state administrators for Medicare and Medicaid.

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.