Category:

Physician Owned Hospitals Looming Large in Florida

June 4th, 2020 by

physician owned hospitalsBy: 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.” read more

Modifier 25 Requirements for Avoiding Potential Billing Fraud

February 7th, 2020 by

modifier 25By: Dave Davidson

On February 4, 2020, the Department of Justice announced a $1.5 million settlement with Southeastern Retina Associates, a 17 physician practice, with offices in Tennessee, Georgia and Virginia.  The sole basis of the claim was the alleged misuse of the Modifier 25 billing code and charging for exams at higher levels than warranted.  The claim was initiated by a whistleblower, who will receive $270,000 from the settlement.

Use and potential abuse of Modifier 25 is obviously not unique to retina surgeons.  In fact, the modifier can be very beneficial to providers, since it allows for payment for those patient visits when the care provided exceeds the scope of the scheduled appointment.  However, given the potential for abuse and the many watchful eyes of the government (the Southeastern Retina case was investigated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the HHS Office of Inspector General, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the FBI, and the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office) and wannabe whistleblowers, a periodic review of a provider’s billing practices is always a good idea. read more

CERT Review and Top Five Medicare Documentation Errors

June 10th, 2018 by

By: Matthew Fischer

In CMS’ latest “MLN Connects” newsletter, the agency discusses the Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) program and the top five documentation errors committed by providers.  Providers should pay close attention when CMS releases these types of notices.  If selected for CERT review, providers are subject to potential action such as post-payment denials, payment adjustments, or other actions depending on the results of the review.  Therefore, providers should ensure they fully understand Medicare’s documentation requirements and how to meet these demands.  read more

Role of Laboratories in Determining Medical Necessity

February 12th, 2018 by

medical necessity laboratoryBy: Karina Gonzalez 

A recent whistleblower action (by UnitedHealthcare Medical Director, Tina Groat) against Boston Heart (laboratory) was brought under the federal False Claims Act and deals with medical necessity issues.  As part of the analysis, the Court reviewed whether a laboratory [or supplier like DME] must determine the medical necessity of the ordering physician.  Boston Heart contended that a doctor, not a laboratory, determines the medical necessity of a test.  Boston Heart argued that when a laboratory bills Medicare for testing ordered by a physician, it must only maintain documentation it receives from the ordering physician and ensure that the information that it submitted with the claim accurately reflects the information it received from the ordering physician. It noted that the CMS-1500 form certification does not require that the billing lab to make the medical necessity determination. The lab certifies that the services are medically necessary by relying on the clinical determination of the treating physician. read more

Addiction Treatment Industry Becomes Familiar with Immunity

June 14th, 2017 by

I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer,

to treat everything as if it were a nail

–Abraham Maslow, “Toward a Psychology of Being”

By: Jeff Cohen & Randy Goldberg

The dominant forces of change in the addiction treatment industry are law enforcement and insurance companies.  The focus and impact of insurers is currently focused on the argument that what treatment providers do isn’t medically necessary.  This rationale is undeniably misguided  and is the biggest threat to the survival of many health care providers, including those at the forefront of adapting to the demands by implementing meaningful legal regulatory compliance.  This focus of this article is a parallel intervening factor in the addiction treatment industry:  that of law enforcement, most notably in Palm Beach County, Florida.  Consequently, providers in the addiction treatment space and their employees are becoming increasingly familiar with the concept of immunity as they are deal with law enforcement on a routine basis.

We assume there are bad-actors in the addiction treatment space.  There are bad-actors in every industry and profession.  No one can appreciate that more than this article’s co-author, Randy Goldberg.  He is a retired Florida law enforcement professional, who spent a significant portion of his career investigating law enforcement officers for alleged criminal misconduct, having been deeply involved in the arrest and successful prosecution of law enforcement officers who abused their authority and strayed to the dark-side of the law.  read more

Big Reimbursement & Balance Billing Changes in Florida Law

October 11th, 2016 by

VOBBy: Karina Gonzalez

Earlier this year, the Florida legislature passed prohibitions against balance billing by out-of-network providers for emergency services and where the patient goes to a contracted facility but does not have an opportunity to choose a provider such as emergency room physicians, pathologists, anesthesiologists and radiologists.

Specific reimbursement requirements went into effect on October 1, 2016 for certain out-of-network providers of emergency and non-emergency services, where a patient has no opportunity to choose the provider.

Under these circumstances, an Insurer must pay the greater amount of either:

(a)         The amount negotiated   with an in-network provider   in the same community where services were performed;

(b)        The usual and customary rate received by a provider for the same service in the community where service was provided; or

(c)         The Medicare rate for the service. read more

Out of Network VOB Process Hits a Speedbump

June 15th, 2016 by

VOBBy: Urgent Medical Billing, Guest Contributor

The verification process is an important step in the billing cycle. When done correctly the patient’s “VOB” will allow a healthcare provider to quickly determine if they can accept the patient for treatment or not. A good verification will tell a provider the general information about a patient’s insurance policy such as the deductible, the co-insurance and the out of pocket maximum. A very good verification will also include accreditation requirements, information on who would receive the payment for services, correct claims addresses for professional and facility charges and more. The quicker a verification is done, the sooner a patient can be brought into treatment. Speed and accuracy is the name of the game when it comes to insurance verification and United Healthcare, until very recently, was one of the quickest policies for an Insurance Verification Specialist to work with.  read more

Compounding Pharmacies and Alleged Tricare Abuses Back in the Spotlight

February 16th, 2016 by

compounding pharmacyBy: Jacqueline Bain

On Thursday, February 11, 2016, the United States Attorneys’ Office from the Middle District of Florida announced a $10 million settlement with 4 physicians and 2 pharmacies regarding alleged abuses of Tricare program.  The case against these physicians and pharmacies was prosecuted as part of the United States government’s large-scale effort to combat questionable compounding practices.  Investigations revealed that patients were often prescribed compounded drugs that they never used, and that Tricare paid a mark-up cost of nearly 90% for compounded drugs over and above the pharmacy’s actual costs of making the drug.  Roughly 40% of the claims submitted by the pharmacies in question were written by 4 physicians with an ownership or financial interest in the pharmacies.

Tricare is a federal health care program designed to insure active duty military service members, reservists, members of the National Guard, retirees, survivors and their families.  Tricare outpatient costs have almost doubled in the last 5 years, and compound drugs have accounted for a large portion of that increase.  read more

Managed Care Contracts: Watch Out for Definitions Section Pitfalls

January 13th, 2016 by

Contract CWBy: Karina Gonzalez

One of the most commonly overlooked components of a managed care contract is the definitions section despite the fact that what is contained here will affect the contracted provider on a daily basis.  Contract terms that are too generic so that they are not clearly defined and understood as they relate to a particular area of practice can have a direct influence on clinical decision making.  A patient may need a higher level of care but be approved for a lower level only.  The provider knows that a patient may suffer if the level approved will not treat the illness or that the patient’s condition could deteriorate without a higher level of care.

Let’s take, for example, the definition of medical necessity in a contract. Who decides medical necessity?  Is it the provider or is it the managed care organization (MCO)?  Many contracts state that the term “medical necessity” relates only to the issue of reimbursement.  Further, that the approval or denial of a claim is “for reimbursement purposes only” and should not affect the provider’s judgment on whether treatment is appropriate to treat the illness, symptoms or complaints of the patient.   read more