Personal service care fraud; a growing problem for Medicaid

Medicaid personal care service (PCS) fraud cases made up a “substantial and growing” portion of cases investigated by the Medicaid Fraud Control Units (MCFUs) and greater oversight is recommended by the HHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG). In a report covering the PCS work of MFCUs over fiscal years 2012-2015, the OIG found that these cases comprised over 12 percent of the total investigations and accounted for 34 percent of the convictions (OIG Report, OEI-12-16-00500, December 6, 2017).

Background

Personal care services are those services that support consist daily living activities, including bathing and dressing, meal preparation, and transportation. PCS providers assist the elderly, people with disabilities, and individuals with chronic or temporary health conditions, allowing these persons to remain living in their homes and communities. PCS are typically delivered through either an agency-directed PCS or a self-directed PCS, through which beneficiaries hire and supervise their own provider. PCS are offered either as an optional benefit through a Medicaid State plan or through demonstration projects and waiver programs. States are required to develop their requirement and qualification standards for PCS providers, resulting in widely varying requirements across the country.

Growing percentage

The OIG found that during the three-year review period, PCS fraud cases made up a substantial and increasing number of MFCU cases and outcomes. In FY 2015, such cases made up 12 percent of total investigations and over the review period, they made up 38 percent of indictments, and 34 percent of convictions. Furthermore, during the review period, indictments increased 56 percent and convictions increased 33 percent. Payments to PCS providers represented $13 billion out of $524 billion total Medicaid expenditures during FY 2015.

Recommendations and challenges

MCFUs have recommended that State Medicaid either enroll PCS attendants as Medicaid providers, or include PCS attendants in a provider registry. This would allow for the assignment of unique provider identification number to PCS attendants to include on claims for reimbursement. Some form of enrollment or registration is needed, as the inability to identify individual PCS attendants restricts the ability to identify fraudulent providers. MCFUs have suggested that enrolling PCS attendants in Medicaid would better inform them about Medicaid procedures and requirements.

MCFUs have also recommended the use of background checks for attendants. They found that the current, minimal, background check requirements could put vulnerable beneficiaries at risk. For example, a PCS attendant in Arizona pleaded guilty to theft and financial exploitation of a vulnerable adult, after having stolen checkbooks, cash, credit cards, and personal items belonging to the beneficiaries. The PCS agency checked for felony arrests and found none; the attendant had, however, numerous misdemeanor convictions and had previously lost her nursing assistant license.

The MCFUs have also recommended using additional documentation requirements, such as requiring require PCS attendants to provide detailed or standardized timesheets and to show the start and stop times for the services. The currently minimal PCS documentation means that PCS claims data may not contain the identity of the PCS attendant, the number of hours worked, or the time of day during which the services were provided.

Lastly, the MCFUs recommended that State Medicaid agencies implement a variety of controls regarding oversight of PCS providers and their services. These controls include more frequent in-home supervisory visits, training for PCS attendants and cross-reference attendant and beneficiary location. For a variety of reasons, beneficiaries may be reluctant to report abuses and more frequent in-home visits could curtail fraud.

Funding issues

The units reported that their efforts to protect beneficiaries are hamstrung by their ineligibility to receive Federal funding to investigate and prosecute complaints in nonfacility settings. Such complaints are often referred to other agencies. Those agencies often do not receive the same level of training on patient abuse and neglect that MCFU staff receives and may have severely strained resources.

Conclusions

The report found that the volume and increase of MFCU investigations and prosecutions indicates that PCS remain vulnerable to fraud. The report noted that the recommendations are similar to those made in previous reports and states that it is crucial that federal funding authority be expanded to allow MFCUs to investigate and prosecute cases of patient abuse and neglect in nonfacility settings.

States try to manage expectations for Medicaid managed care

When CMS updated regulations regarding Medicaid managed care in May 2016, it was the first significant update to these regulations since 2002. Over the past year, as speakers at the American Health Lawyers’ Association Institute on Medicare and Medicaid Payment on March 29, 2017, noted, states have started the multi-year process of complying with the new rules, while dealing with resources issues at the state level and political change in Washington, D.C.

About 80 percent of the 73 million Medicaid enrollees are in some kind of managed care program, according to Lindsey Browning with the National Association of Medicaid Directors. Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia have contracted with managed care entities to deliver care to all or some of their Medicaid beneficiaries.

Four options

Prior to the issuance of the revised regulations (81 FR 27498, May 6, 2016) states had basically one option for putting a managed care plan in place—requesting a Medicaid state plan amendment from HHS. Under the revised regulations states now have four options to implement managed care waivers under various provisions of the Social Security Act: (1) a Sec. 1932 state plan waiver; (2) a Sec. 1915(a) waiver (waiving competitive procurement process); (3) a Sec. 1915(b) waiver, requiring all enrollees, including dual eligibles and children with special health care needs to enroll in managed care; and (4) a Sec. 1115 waiver (which may permit coverage of services not otherwise covered in Medicaid) (see CMS modernizes Medicaid managed care, Health Law Daily, May 6, 2016).

James Golden, director, Division of Managed Care Plans at CMS, noted that full implementation of the revised regulations will take three to five years, and that the key to success is how well states work with affected stakeholders—both managed care entities and beneficiaries. “CMS expects the states to take the lead in setting standards,” Golden said.

State challenges

Browning highlighted two key challenges that states face – setting up adequate networks of providers so managed care beneficiaries can actually access health care; and limited staff capacity to drive expansion of Medicaid managed care alongside a number of other Medicaid related regulations.

Impact of new administration

A further complication, Browning noted, is the new Trump Administration and new leadership for HHS and CMS. She noted that the new CMS Administrator, Seema Verma, indicated an interest in re-examining all recent rules related to Medicare and Medicaid during her confirmation hearing. Browning also pointed to the Executive Order issued by President Trump which requires all agencies to create a Task Force to review existing regulations with the goal of repealing many of them. Browning noted that both Verma and HHS Secretary Tom Price are interested in increased state flexibility around health programs.

In addition, Browning said that any changes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (P.L. 111-148) may impact the new Medicaid managed care regulations, for example, she noted that a key goal of the managed care rule was alignment with qualified health plan requirements under the ACA. Would this change if the ACA’s health insurance Exchanges are eliminated? Finally, she said that any structural changes to Medicaid would likely require revised managed care rules.