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: Four physicians charged in $200M prescription fraud scheme

A CEO and four physicians were charged in a superseding indictment in an investigation of a $200 million health care fraud scheme that involved a network of Michigan and Ohio pain clinics, laboratories, and other medical providers. Additional charges included wire fraud conspiracy, money laundering, and distribution of over 4.2 million medically unnecessary dosage units of controlled substances and medically unnecessary injections to Medicare beneficiaries, some of whom were addicted to narcotics. These included oxycodone, hydrocodone and oxymorphone. Some of the opioids were resold on the street.

When a medical review was made of the injection claims, it was found that 100 percent of the claims were not eligible for Medicare reimbursement. In order to conceal the continued billing of these fraudulent claims to Medicare, the defendants created new shell companies and continued to engage in the same billing of fraudulent claims, often changing only the name of the company on the door to the medical practice and/or inventing new suite numbers to conceal the continuation of the fraudulent practices at the same location. Defendants also owned a diagnostic laboratory to enable them to order medically unnecessary urine drug testing from the laboratory. When Medicare conducted a medical review of claims submitted by the laboratory, it determined that 95 percent of the claims were not eligible for Medicare reimbursement and ordered the diagnostic laboratory to repay $6.9 million in improper payments.

Another scheme involved money laundering in connection with a $6.6 million wire transfer and the withdrawal of $500,000 in cash, which was hidden in plastic bags in the closet of the house.  The indictment alleges that transferred proceeds derived from the conspiracy were used to allow the defendants to live an extravagant lifestyle and spend millions of dollars on luxury items—clothing from retailers like Hermes, rare Richard Mille watches, and exotic automobiles such as a Lamborghini and Rolls Royce Ghost. The proceeds were also used to purchase a mansion and other real estate in the Detroit, Michigan area and to sit courtside or in the first row of NBA basketball games, including the NBA Finals.

 

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: DOJ ‘Brand’ memorandum

One of the topics discussed at the recent HCCA Compliance Institute related to current DOJ positions regarding compliance guidance. Many questions have been raised since Atty. Gen. Sessions issued a memorandum at the end of last year that intended to implement the new administration’s goal of reducing overregulation. The AG stated, in the past, the DOJ had published guidance documents binding parties outside of the rulemaking process. Additionally, the AG stated that the DOJ was no longer engaged in this practice. Going forward, the DOJ is not to issue guidance documents that purport to create a right or obligation binding a person or entity outside the executive branch of the federal government. As such, guidance documents provided by the DOJ setting up voluntary standards need to clearly state that compliance with such standards would be voluntary—that failure to comply would not, in itself, result in enforcement action.

Earlier this year, Associate AG Rachel Brand issued a memo on behalf of the DOJ prohibiting certain DOJ uses of federal agency guidance documents in affirmative civil enforcement (ACE) cases (the “Brand Memo”). ACE cases include lawsuits brought by the DOJ on behalf of the United States to recover money lost to fraud or other misconduct, or to impose penalties for violations of Federal health, safety, civil rights or environmental laws, for example, False Claims Act (FCA) enforcement by the DOJ.  The Brand Memo stated that the DOJ is now prohibited from using its enforcement authority to effectively convert agency guidance documents into binding rules; and DOJ litigators may not use noncompliance with agency guidance documents as a basis for proving violations of applicable law in these cases. It also prohibits the DOJ from “using its guidance documents to coerce regulated parties into taking any action or refraining from taking any action beyond what is required by the terms of the applicable statute or lawful regulation.” The primary focus of the memorandum was on government contractor cases.

The long and short of this memorandum is that the DOJ can continue to use agency guidance documents  for “proper purposes,” but should not treat a party’s noncompliance with an agency guidance document as presumptively or conclusively establishing that the party violated the applicable statute or regulation.

 

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.