By: Zach Simpson
While reviewing EOBs practices need to determine if a trend can be established that identifies the root cause for why claims are being denied. Trends can be established by asking if most denials are originating in your patient access and registration departments, or are denials occurring because of insufficient documentation, or due to billing or coding errors?
By: Zach Simpson
With the current healthcare environment many providers looked to alternative methods of treating patients and achieving outcomes this past year due to the pandemic. To meet the needs of their patients, and their financial obligations many providers implemented services that were not customary to their practice, or their billing departments. As is the case for any office that begins to provide something new there is always the potential for error in any aspect of the practice involved with the patient or claim. Therefore, I believe it is a great time to refresh providers on the procedures for reporting and returning Medicare overpayments as they are discovered moving forward.
As many of you are aware in 2016 the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published a final rue pursuant to Section 1128J(d) of the Social Security Act (the Act), as amended by the Affordable Care Act, that requires Medicare Parts A and B health care providers to report and return overpayments 60 days after the date an overpayment is identified, or the due date of any corresponding cost report, if applicable, whichever is later. If credible information indicates that an overpayment exists, the rule requires that a reasonably diligent inquiry must be performed.
By: Jeff Cohen
Florida may become the “next Texas” on the issue of physician owned specialty hospitals. “Next Texas,” since there are a number of examples where the concept launched (and also flopped). Done right, such facilities could be a better fit for many patients, depending of course on patient co morbidity issues. In theory, they would be the perfect bridge between surgery centers and regular acute care hospitals. But the ability of such specialty focused care suggests a better staffing model and more targeted and efficient overhead, instead of the broad-based overhead of an acute care hospital at is spread out aver all cases, including those where overhead allocation is viewed as “just an expense.” Continue reading
By: Matt Fischer
Litigation involving out of network claims by providers, also referred to as “non-participating” or “non-par”, continues to be rampant into 2019. Complexity of plan administration, increased state and federal rule making, and rising costs are resulting in increased litigation. A recurring issue: unpaid claims disputes.
Many physicians come to the conclusion that some contracts aren’t worth entering. More and more physicians are opting out of participating provider contracts or have chosen not to participate in the first place. Reimbursement is usually the prime reason. The law that controls much of the litigation surrounding these disputes is the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). ERISA is a federal law that sets minimum standards for most plans along with fiduciary responsibilities for plan sponsors. Under ERISA, a “Summary Plan Description” must be created for each plan that sets forth the rights and benefits of each plan member and importantly, how out-of-network reimbursement is determined. Continue reading
By: Susan St. John
As noted in Opting Out of Medicare Part I, opting out of Medicare may be an option for some physicians and practitioners. After determining whether you are eligible for opt-out or if it is financially feasible, there are a few other considerations. Part I discussed the Private Contract a physician must enter into with each Medicare beneficiary he or she treats; here, we will address the opt-out affidavit and other nuances of opting out. Let’s get started!
The Medicare Opt Out Affidavit
Provisions in an Opt Out Affidavit are similar to provisions that must be included in the opted out physician’s or practitioner’s private contract with Medicare beneficiaries. The opt-out affidavit must state that the physician or practitioner will only provide services to Medicare beneficiaries with whom they have a written and signed private contract and that the physician or practitioner will not submit claims to Medicare on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries. Medicare does allow for an exception here, but that is only when an opted out physician or practitioner treats a Medicare beneficiary who is not under private contract, and that beneficiary presents with a medical emergency or urgent care problem. Keep in mind, that if a Medicare beneficiary presents with a medical emergency or urgent care problem, the physician or practitioner cannot require that patient to sign a private contract at that time.Continue reading
By: Matt Fischer
A recent lawsuit seeking class action status that targeted Zone Program Integrity Contractor (ZPIC), AdvanceMed along with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has been dismissed. The plaintiff, an Illinois home health agency (HHA), filed suit in federal court requesting a writ of mandamus (i.e. an order directing a party to perform a specific act) and damages based on claims of fraud and non-compliance with Medicare’s regulations. With many wanting an overhaul with regards to ZPIC authority, this case has been watched closely. What does this decision mean going forward? Consequently, this decision solidifies the formidable hurdle and requirement to exhaust all administrative remedies before challenging a ZPIC in court.
What occurred in this case is not uncommon. AdvanceMed conducted a review of a number of patient charts which led to a suspension of Medicare payment “based on reliable information that an overpayment exists or that the payments to be made may not be correct.” In response to the suspension notice, the HHA submitted a rebuttal statement with additional supporting documentation. The ZPIC later informed the HHA that the documentation had been reviewed and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) decided to continue the suspension. In subsequent discussions between the parties, an AdvanceMed representative surprising stated that it was not their policy to review rebuttals nor was it obligated to review the additional documentation. The representative further indicated that CMS concurred with their position. As a result, the HHA filed a lawsuit. Continue reading
By: Matt Fischer
Since the implementation of the ZPIC audit and RAC audit programs, healthcare providers and suppliers have experienced increased scrutiny in the pursuit of overpayments and fraud. Medicare’s most vital tool in its progressive search is the use of statistical sampling. In theory, statistical sampling offers a reliable and low cost approach to addressing large volumes of claims. However, this process gives the government a huge advantage as it places a heavy assumption on a large number of claims without actual review of the claims. Thus, it is important for providers and suppliers to understand the process and know how to challenge such studies in order to minimize potential repayment obligations and retain their revenue.
Statistical sampling draws a random sample from a universe of claims and extrapolates or projects the results of the sample to the entire universe of claims. In other words, the Medicare contractor will select a sample of claims to review from a look back period or examination period of typically two or three years. For this example, let’s say that the review finds a 40 percent error rate in the sample, meaning 40 percent were not found to meet Medicare requirements for payment. In this case, a contractor will apply the 40 percent finding to the entire two years’ worth of claims and deny these claims based on the sampling results.Continue reading
By: Matt Fischer
Medicare payment suspension can place serious financial strain on a company’s operations. As a result, many companies face the risk of closing its doors when a suspension is initiated. Nevertheless, CMS is able to issue such suspensions by meeting a relatively low threshold. Additionally, suspension decisions are not appealable leaving affected providers and suppliers with little options. Therefore, it is important to understand the suspension process and how to counter if a notice of suspension is received.
CMS can suspend payments to providers and suppliers based on “reliable information” of any of the following: (1) fraud or misrepresentation; (2) when an overpayment exists but the amount has not yet been determined; (3) when reimbursement paid to a provider or supplier may be incorrect; or (4) when a provider or supplier fails to submit requested records needed to determine amounts due. Suspensions are initiated by a request to CMS’ Office of Program Integrity by either law enforcement or a Medicare administrative contractor. Continue reading
By: Karina Gonzalez
The US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports that as part of its 2017 Work Plan it will be reviewing Medicare Part B payments for telehealth services. These services support rural access to care and Medicare pays telehealth services provided through live, interactive videoconferencing between a Medicare beneficiary located at an origination site and a healthcare provider located at a distant site.
The OIG is reviewing Medicare claims that have been paid for telehealth services that are not eligible for payment because the beneficiary was not at an originating site when the consultation occurred. A beneficiary’s home or office is not an originating site, an eligible originating site must be a practitioner’s office or a specified medical facility.Continue reading
By: Jeff Cohen
One of the biggest challenges faced by addiction treatment providers today, especially in Palm Beach County, Florida, arises in the context of unprecedented pressure by law enforcement via the Sober Home Task Force, newspapers and insurers. The threat of being targeted by law enforcement is an enormous thing in itself. Add to that the mainstream media’s insatiable desire for readers, the industry’s drop into insurer red flagging and recoupment, the political football nature of addiction and addiction treatment, and treatment providers can lapse into a state of paralyzed tunnel vision, a sort of mass hypnosis. Here’s the problem: providers dealing with the current compliance crisis environment have a lot to lose if they take their eye off the bigger picture. The more absorbed they become in “crisis mode,” the more likely they will miss important addiction treatment compliance details in an increasingly regulated and changing industry. Losing the ability to see the entire picture (and trends) and quickly adapting to it can have costly (and even deadly) consequences.
The addiction treatment industry is like any other healthcare provider—enormously and increasingly regulated, highly scrutinized and always dynamic. The moment it took on features of traditional healthcare (e.g. lab and physician services), it left the relatively warm and fuzzy comfort of behavioral health providers, sorta. “Sorta” because medical behavioral health (e.g. psychology and counseling) has not had it easy in the past 10 years, as it came under crushing price compression with managed care driven networks and other price cutting middlemen that have often been owned or controlled by insurance companies. Addiction treatment providers in the pure behavioral health space were “saved” from all this till about three years ago because they were out of network and not the focus of insurer driven price cuts. As payors (and their price cut incentivized middle men) looked for more ways to drive up profits, the competitive and disorganized addiction treatment sector became a natural (and unprepared) sector to hit. And they hit it hard! Clearly, the Perfect Storm. Addiction treatment providers now have no option but to learn to swim hard and fast in the ever changing river of the healthcare business industry.Continue reading