Medicare/caid Contracts Terminatations: “With” or “Without Cause. You May Need an Injunction

How is it already the second month of 2016? My how the time flies. As you can see below, I have started 2016 with my “best foot forward.”

image

Here’s the story (and why it’s been so long since I’ve blogged):

Santa Claus, whom I love, brought our 10-year-old daughter a zip line for Christmas. (She’s wanted one forever). My wonderful, exceedingly brilliant husband Scott miscalculated the amount of brakes needed for an adult of my weight for a 300-foot zip line. The brakes stopped, albeit suddenly, but adequately, for our 10-year-old.

However, for me…well…I went a bit faster than my 45-pound daughter. The two spring brakes were not adequate to stop my zip line experience and my out-thrown feet broke my crash…into the tree. (It was a miscalculation of basic physics).

On the bright side, apparently, my right leg is longer than my left, so only my right foot was injured.  Or my right foot is overly dominate than my left, which could also be the case.

Also, on the bright side, the zip line ride was AWESOME until the end.

On the down side, I tore the tendon on the bottom of my foot which, according to the ER doctor, is very difficult to tear. Embarrassingly, I had to undergo a psych evaluation because my ER doctor said that the only time he had seen someone tear that bottom tendon on their foot was by jumping off a building. So I have that going for me. I informed him that one could tear such tendon by going on zip line with inadequate brakes. (I passed the psych evaluation, BTW).

Then, while on crutches, I had a 5-day, federal trial in Fort Wayne, Indiana, the week of Martin Luther King, Jr., Tuesday through the next Monday. Thankfully, the judge did not make me stand to conduct direct and cross examinations.

But, up there, in the beautiful State of Indiana, I thought of my next blog (and lamented that I had not blogged in so long…still on crutches; I had not graduated to the gorgeous boot you saw in the picture above).

As I was up in Indiana, I thought, what if someone at the State Medicaid agency doesn’t like you, personally, and terminates your Medicaid contract “without cause?” Or refuses to contract with you? Or refuses to renew your contract?

Maybe you wouldn’t find it important whether your termination is “for cause” or “without cause,” but, in Indiana, and a lot of other states, if your termination is for “without cause,” you have no substantive appeal right, only a procedural appeal right. As in, if you are terminated “without cause,” the government never has to explain the reason for termination to you or a judge. If the government gave you the legally, proper amount of notice, the government can simply say, “I just do not want to do business with you.”

Many jurisdictions have opined that a Medicaid provider has a property right to their Medicaid contract. A health care provider does not have a property right to a Medicaid contract, but, once the state has approved that provider as a Medicaid provider, that provider has a reasonable expectation to continue to provide services to the Medicaid population. While we all know that providing services to the Medicaid population is not going to make you Richy Rich, in some jurisdictions, accepting Medicaid is necessary to stay solvent (despite the awful reimbursement rates).

Here in NC, our Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) have held a property right in maintaining a Medicaid contract once issued and relied upon, which, BTW, is the correct determination, in my opinion. Other jurisdictions concur with our NC ALJs, including the 7th Circuit.

Many times, when a provider is terminated (or not re-credentialed) “without cause,” there is an underlying and hidden cause, which makes a difference on the appeal of such purported “without cause” termination.

Because as I stated above, a “without cause” termination may not allow a substantive appeal, only procedural. In normal-day-speak, for a “without cause,” you cannot argue that the termination or refusal to credential isn’t “fair” or is based on an incorrect assumption that there is a quality of care concern that really does not exist. You can only argue that the agency did not provide the proper procedure, i.e., you didn’t get 60 days notice. Juxtapose, a “for cause” termination, you can argue that the basis for which the termination relies is incorrect, i.e., you are accusing me that my staff member is not credentialed, but you are wrong; she/he is actually credentialed.

So, what do you do if you are terminated “without cause?” What do you do if you are terminated “for cause?”

For both scenarios, you need an injunction.

But how do you prove your case for an injunction?

Proving you need an injunction entails you proving to a judge that: (a) likelihood of success on the merits; (b) irreparable harm; (c) balance of equities; and (d) impact on the community.

The hardest prongs to meet are the first two. Usually, in my experience, irreparable harm is the hardest prong to meet. Most clients, if they are willing to hire my team and me, can prove likelihood of success.  Think about it, if a client knows he/she has horrible documentation, he/she will not spring for an expensive attorney to defend themselves against a termination.

Irreparable harm, however, is difficult to demonstrate and the circumstances surrounding proving irreparable harm creates quite a quandary.

Irreparable, according to case law, cannot only be monetary damages. If you are just out of money and your company is in financial distress, it will not equate to irreparable harm.

Irreparable harm differs slightly from state to state.

Although, most jurisdictions agree that irreparable harm does equate to an imminent threat of your business closing, terminating staff, loss of goodwill, harm to reputation, patients not receiving medically necessary services, unfathamable emotional distress, the weights of loans and credit, understanding that you’ve depleting all savings and checkings, and understanding that you’ve exhausted all possible assets or loans.

The Catch-22 of it all is by the time you meet the prongs of irreparable harm, generally, you do not have the cash to hire an attorney. I suggest to all Medicare and Medicaid health care providers that you need to maintain an emergency fund account for unforeseen situations, such as audits, suspensions, terminations, etc. Put aside money every week, as much as you can. Hope that you never need to use it.

But you will be covered, just in case.

Medicare RAC Audits Are Spreading in 2016

By now, however unwanted, health care providers are intimately acquainted with RAC audits. If you are one of the lucky providers who has not had the pleasure of undergoing a RAC audit and accept Medicare/caid, then you should go buy lottery tickets.

For Medicare providers, the RAC audits have been targeted to only Parts A and B. However, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) proposes to expand the RAC audits to Medicare Advantage. CMS has published the proposal and seeks comments by February 1, 2016.

I am reminded of the Bubonic Plague from the 14th century.

As these Medicare audits continue to spread nationwide, to more CPT codes, and to more health care services, providers are warned to wash your hands. It is the best way to prevent acquiring a Medicare audit.

So far, there is no indication when the RAC audits for Medicare Advantage will begin. However, remember that RAC auditors are financially incentivized to audit and find errors. Thus, those RAC auditors will be chomping at the bit to get going.

Wouldn’t you if you were  compensated 9-13% of amount found to be owed back to the state?

More to come…

Embezzlement at MCO Eastpointe and the Freedom of Information Act

How many times have I blogged about the unsupervised, unharnessed actions of the managed care organizations (MCOs) in our State, which happen to be managing billions of our tax dollars for Medicaid behavioral health care? These MCOs, which are in the process of consolidating to create even larger MCOs and to handle even more tax dollar money, are running rampant and unsupervised by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). See blog. And blog.

DHHS is the single state agency charged with managing Medicaid for NC. According to federal law, the single state agency may not delegate certain duties. Our 1915 b/c Waiver allows DHHS to waive some duties related to behavioral health, but not all. For example, it is, ultimately, DHHS’ duty to ensure that our Medicaid recipients have access to care.

It is, ultimately, DHHS’ duty to ensure that the MCOs are following the law.

However, recently, that duty was picked up by the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI). Thank goodness someone is reviewing the MCO’s books!

SBI arrested former Eastpointe CFO William Robert Canupp on December 16, 2015, for nine charges of financial fraud and embezzlement. Eastpointe is one of our MCOs and manages behavioral health care for Medicaid and state-funded programs in 12 counties. These allegations of fraud and embezzlement are from when Canupp worked at Eastpointe.

This recent arrest demonstrates a real need for accountability at the MCOs. While Eastpointe and the other MCOs are terminating health provider contracts and denying/reducing services, who is reviewing these decisions. Apparently, not DHHS.

What can you do?

As you should know, the MCOs are not private entities. They are agents of the state and receive funding from county, state, and federal funds. In other words, the MCOs manage and spend our tax dollars. Therefore, these entities are liable to us for all expenditures and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act or FOIA. The FOIA allows any one of you to request any financial record, any document showing access to care, any document showing monies spent on actual care versus administrative costs, or any other information you desire and the MCOs must provide it to you.

Here is a link to a sample public records request.

The MCOs are bound by NC General Statute, Chapter 132 and must allow you to examine any requested documents within a reasonable time.

Use the FOIA to get answers!

“A Modest Proposal for the ACA Employer Mandate”

We all know about the ACA employer mandate. It placed a tremendous burden on employers, many of whom will only feel this burden weighing them down as we ring in the new year because, starting in 2016, companies with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full time employees (those who work over 30 hours per week).

So how much does it cost you, as an employer, to hire an employee? Are there exceptions? Are there loopholes?

We will get to the first question in a second. The answer to the last two questions is a “yes,” which will be discussed further in this blog.

Cost of an employee

Employers have to pay Social Security tax, Medicare tax, state unemployment insurance, and, now in 2016, health care insurance benefits (if the company has 50+ employees).

Social Security tax is 6.2%. Medicare tax is 1.45%. State unemployment tax differs from state to state, but it can range from 0% to 12.27% (Massachusetts). For the sake of clarity, we will use 5%.

Health insurance benefits also can vary greatly depending on the plan. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research & Education Trust 2015 Employer Health Benefits Survey, annual premiums for employer-sponsored family health coverage reached $17,545 this year, up 4 percent from last year, with workers on average paying $4,955 towards the cost of their coverage.

This means that the employer, on average, is paying $12,490 per year per employee for health care benefits.

Assuming a base salary of $70,000, an employer would spend:

Social Security tax: $4,340

Medicare tax: $1,015

State unemployment tax: $350

Health care insurance benefits: $12,490

For a whopping total of $18,195 per year.

Think about this…if you offer your employee a salary of $70,000/year, he/she has to produce revenue for that company of, at least, $88,195 per year in order for you to break even. As you well know, successful companies are not in the business of breaking even, so you will expect your employee to create, at least, over $90,000 of profit in order to be paid a salary of $70,000.

None of the above contemplate a 401K plan. If you’re in a position to offer your employees a 401K plan, they will need to be that much more profitable.

So how can you, as the employer of a home health company, a long term care facility, a dentist practice, or other health care provider decrease the amount of money spent on health care benefits?

“A Modest Proposal for the ACA Employer Mandate”

Before we begin our journey of “A Modest Proposal for the ACA Employer Mandate,” I would like to give a bit of an English lesson on satire, lest one of you miss it. Satire is defined as, “the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.” It is burlesque. And so I write this blog in the vein of Jonathon Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” (for those of you who have not heard of it, I suggest you click on the link above). For the faint of heart, those easily offended, or those too lazy to click on the link, I suggest not reading further.

Below is my “A Modest Proposal for the ACA Employer Mandate.”

  1. Hire childless singles.

Childless singles are cheaper to insure. So screen your potential employees. Ask whether they intend to have children and warn them that you operate a non-child company. Explain that if you discover that any employee has a dependent child it will result in immediate termination. Bonuses for those who undergo voluntary hysterectomies or vasectomies.

2. Hire old people.

People over 65 are eligible for Medicare. They’re loyal; they don’t talk back. The only things they complain about are their ailments. Many expect little pay because they, or their parents, went through the Great Depression. You can be sure that they will not spend their time on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or other social media because they don’t know how. If the position involves driving, you can sure they will get no speeding tickets. Best of all, you know that you are not undertaking a long-term commitment.

3. Hire poor people.

People below the poverty line are eligible for Medicaid. They rarely talk on the phone to friends. Many even only talk to themselves, which is fantastic (and not creepy at all) in the workplace. They are never late with excuses of bad traffic; and their homes are, most likely, going to be very near by (and maybe right out front). They never try to “one-up” the Joneses’. You will never see them bragging about their new Iphones, Louis Vuitton bag, or Mercedes Benz.

5. Hire lazy people.

People who work under 30 hours per week do not get offered health care coverage. Hire employees who enjoy video games too excess. All the better if they own Assassin’s Creed: Victory, Battlefield: Hardline, and Dying Light. It’s an office party every day – no need to worry about them working over 30 hours per week – they like vodka, bourbon, and gin. It’s even better if they enjoy the occasional (daily) marijuana. Embrace a drug-friendly environment.

If you follow the above hiring tips, you too can avoid paying the ACA employer mandate. Remember, the key to success is to only hire childless singles, and old, poor, and lazy people.

And you’ve struck gold if you hire a childless, old, lazy, poor, single person….Goldmine!

Broken Promises Could Promise Disaster for Pediatricians! or “I Don’t Give a Damn” What the Law Is!

In 2013 and 2014, those of you who are primary health care physicians received a boost in Medicaid reimbursement rates up to the Medicare rates for E&M and vaccine administration CPT codes. Many of you self-attested to being primary care physicians. In other words, you determined that you act as a primary care physician. No official acting on behalf of the government reviewed your self-attestation and approved or denied your self-attestation.

What if the government decides, retroactively, that you did not qualify as a primary care physician and attempt to recoup the enhanced payments?? Is that allowed? “A retroactive take back?”

We all know that retroactive take backs occur in other types of audits!

This whole situation reminds me of my favorite movie of all time: Gone With the Wind…you know, Scarlett O’Hare, Rhett Butler, the Civil War…Over Thanksgiving, AMC had a Gone With the Wind marathon, and I must have watched it 4 times (I was sick, so I couldn’t do much else).

The plot is that Rhett is in love with Scarlett the entire movie, which spans over a fictious, “movie time” of two decades. And Scarlett is not in love with Rhett the entire movie until the very end.Once she finally realizes her love for Rhett, he is beyond frustrated and wants nothing to do with her.

She asks, “Rhett, oh, Rhett, what am I supposed to do?” To which he responds, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn!”

There are many themes found in Gone With the Wind, but the one most appropos is “You may think you understand reality, but, in the end, your reality may be a fictitious dream.”

Similarly, in 2013 and 2014, if you are a primary health care physician, you received a boost in Medicaid reimbursement rates up to the Medicare rates for E&M and vaccine administration CPT codes. You believed the rate hike to be reality.

This rate hike was a big deal for physicians, especially pediatricians. Pediatric practices rely heavily on Medicaid, usually from 20-100%. This rate hike took a reimbursement rate of approximately 78% of the Medicare rate, which, by the way, has been frozen by our legislature at the 2002 rate, plus an additional 3% reduction, followed by another 1% reduction to 100% of the Medicare rate. Quite an increase!

Well, that so blissful increase in Medicaid rates may come back to bite you!!! You thought that you were receiving higher Medicaid reimbursement rates, but, in the end, may you have to pay it back?

The reality of receiving higher Medicaid reimbursement rates may truly only have been a fictitious dream.

“Why,” you demand. “Why?” “Well,” says the government, “I don’t give a damn what the law is.”

Caveat lector: It is not 100% certain that you will be audited. This blog is only a warning as to a possibility. If, in fact, you are audited, then you have legal rights!

Let’s go over why there may be audits for those of you who self-attested to being primary care physicians…

In order to receive this increased rate hike, physicians had to self-attest that he/she :

  1. “Is Board certified as family medicine, general internal medicine, or pediatric medicine; and/or
  2. Has furnished evaluation and management services under codes described in paragraph (b) of this section that equal at least 60 percent of the Medicaid codes he or she has billed during the most recently completed CY or, for newly eligible physicians, the prior month.”

If you are Board certified in family medicine, general internal medicine, or pediatric medicine, there should not be a problem. There isn’t anything to argue. You are either Board certified or not.

However, if you are not Board certified, you will be relying on the government’s auditors to determine whether your practice comprises 60% of applicable Medicaid codes during the most recent calendar year.

Hmmmmmm…

Then, if the government’s auditors determine that your practice comprises of only 57% of applicable Medicaid codes, you may be charged with returning all the money you received as enhanced payments during 2013 and 2014.

And we all know how accurate some of our government’s auditors are…

So there you were, a physician, happy to self-attest to being a primary care provider, happy to receive higher reimbursements for two years, and with no thought of recoupments.

Then…BOOM…you are hit with the realization that you may be liable to the government for a recoupment of those enhanced reimbursements.

Because, frankly, my Dear, the government does not give a damn. Your reality was, in fact, a mere fictitious dream.

Medicaid Closed Networks: Can Waivers Waive Your Legal Rights?

Sorry for the lapse in blogging. I took off for Thanksgiving and then got sick. I hope you all had a wonderful Thanksgiving!!

While I was sick, I thought about all the health care providers that have been put out of business because the managed care organization (MCO) in their area terminated their Medicaid contract or refused to contract with them. I thought about how upset I would be if I could not see my doctor, whom I have seen for years. See blog for “You Do Have Rights!

Then I thought about…Can a Waiver waive a legal right?

Federal law mandates that Medicaid recipients be able to choose their providers of choice. Court have also held that this “freedom of choice” of provider is a right, not a privilege.

42 U.S.C. § 1396a states that Medicaid recipients may obtain medical services from “any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required… who undertakes to provide him such services….” Id. at (a)(23).

So how can these MCOs restrict access?

First, we need to discuss the difference between a right and a privilege.

For example, driving is a privilege, not a right. You have no right to a driver’s license, which is why you can lose your license for things, such as multiple DUIs. Plus, you cannot receive a driver’s license unless you pass a test, because a license is not a right.

Conversely, you have the right to free speech and the right to vote. Meaning, the government cannot infringe on your rights to speak and vote unless there are extraordinary circumstances. For example, the First Amendment does not protect obscenity, child pornography, true threats, fighting words, incitement to imminent lawless action (yelling “fire” in a crowded theater), criminal solicitation or defamation. Your right to vote will be rescinded if you are convicted of a felony. Furthermore, you do not need to take a test or qualify for the rights of free speech and voting.

Likewise, your choice of health care provider is a right. It can only be usurped in extraordinary circumstances. You do not need to take a test or qualify for the right. (Ok, I am going to stop underlining “right” and “privilege” now. You get the point).

Then how are MCOs operating closed networks? For that matter, how can Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) terminate a provider’s contract? Wouldn’t both those actions limit your right to choose your provider?

The answer is yes.

And the answer is simple for BCBS. As for BCBS, it is a private company and does not have to follow all the intricate regulations for Medicare/caid. 42 U.S.C.  § 1396a is inapplicable to it.

But Medicaid recipients have the right to choose their provider.  This “freedom of choice” provision has been interpreted by both the Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit as giving Medicaid recipients the right to choose among a range of qualified providers, without government interference (or its agents thereof).

What does this mean? How can a managed care organization (MCO) here in NC maintain a closed network of providers without violating the freedom of choice of provider rule?

The “Stepford” answer is that we have our Waivers in NC, which have waived the freedom of choice. In our 1915 b/c Waiver, there are a couple pages that enumerates certain statutes. We “x” out the statutes that we were requesting to waive.

It looks like this:

waiver1

Furthermore, federal law carves out an exception to freedom to choose right when it comes to managed care. But to what extent? It the federal carve unconstitutional?

But…the question is twofold:

  • Would our Waiver stand up to federal court scrutiny?
  • Can our state government waive your rights? (I couldn’t help it).

Let’s think of this in the context of the freedom of speech. Could NC request from the federal government a waiver of our right to free speech? It sounds ludicrous, doesn’t it? What is the difference between your right to free speech and your right to choose a provider? Is one right more important than the other?

The answer is that no one has legally challenged our Waiver’s waiver of the right to freedom of provider with a federal lawsuit claiming a violation of a constitutionally protected right. It could be successful. If so, in my opinion, two legal theories should be used.

  1. A § 1983 action; and/or
  2. A challenge under 42 CFR 431.55(f)

Section 1983 creates a federal remedy against anyone who deprives “any citizen of the United States… of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” under the color of state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Supreme Court has explained that § 1983 should be read to generally “authorize[] suits to enforce individual rights under federal statutes as well as the Constitution.” City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Cal. v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113, 119 (2005).

Section 1983 does not authorize a federal remedy against state interference with all government entitlements, however; “it is rights, not the broader or vaguer ‘benefits’ or ‘interests,’ that may be enforced under the authority of that section.” Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 283 (2002). But the courts have already held that the freedom to choose your provider is a right.

In 2012, the Seventh Circuit confirmed that § 1983 authorizes Medicaid recipients to sue to enforce the right to freely choose among qualified health providers.

In Planned Parenthood, the court was confronted with an Indiana state law prohibiting state agencies from providing state or federal funds to any entity that performs abortions or maintains or operates a facility in which abortions are performed – regardless of whether there is any nexus between those funds and the abortion services. See Planned Parenthood, 699 F.3d at 967 (7th Cir. 2012). In other words, the law effectively prohibited entities that perform abortions from receiving any state or federal funds for any (non-abortion) purpose.

The Court found that the restrictions violated the Medicaid recipients’ right to freedom of choice of provider.

There are, as always, more than one way to skin a cat. You could also attack the Waiver’s waiver of the freedom to choose your health care provider by saying the NC is violating 42 CFR 431.55.

Notice the last sentence in subsection (d) in the picture above. In our Waiver, NC promises to abide by 42 CFR 431.55(f), which states:

(f) Restriction of freedom of choice—
(1) Waiver of appropriate requirements of section 1902 of the Act may be authorized for States to restrict beneficiaries to obtaining services from (or through) qualified providers or practitioners that meet, accept, and comply with the State reimbursement, quality and utilization standards specified in the State’s waiver request.
(2) An agency may qualify for a waiver under this paragraph (f) only if its applicable State standards are consistent with access, quality and efficient and economic provision of covered care and services and the restrictions it imposes—
(i) Do not apply to beneficiaries residing at a long-term care facility when a restriction is imposed unless the State arranges for reasonable and adequate beneficiary transfer.
(ii) Do not discriminate among classes of providers on grounds unrelated to their demonstrated effectiveness and efficiency in providing those services; and
(iii) Do not apply in emergency circumstances.
(3) Demonstrated effectiveness and efficiency refers to reducing costs or slowing the rate of cost increase and maximizing outputs or outcomes per unit of cost.
(4) The agency must make payments to providers furnishing services under a freedom of choice waiver under this paragraph (f) in accordance with the timely claims payment standards specified in § 447.45 of this chapter for health care practitioners participating in the Medicaid program.

Basically, to argue a violation of 42 CFR 431.55, you would have to demonstrate that NC violated or is violating the above regulation by not providing services “consistent with access, quality and efficient and economic provision of covered care and services.”

So, while it is true that NC has requested and received permission from the Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to restrict access to providers, that fact may not be constitutional.

Someone just needs to challenge the Waiver’s waiver.

NCTracks, MPW, and Eligibility: The Three Billy Goats Gruff

The story of The Three Billy Goats Gruff tells a tale of 3 billy goats, one puny, one small, and one HUGE. The first two billy goats (the puny and small) independently try to cross the bridge to a green pasture. They are blocked by a mean troll, who wants to eat the billy goats. Both billy goats tell the troll that a bigger billy-goat is coming that would satisfy the troll’s hunger more than the puny and small goats. The troll waits for the HUGE billy-goat, which easily attacks the troll to his death.

The moral: “Don’t be greedy.”

My moral: “You don’t always have to be HUGE, the puny and small are equally as smart.” – (They didn’t even have to fight).

The majority of Medicaid cards do not have expiration dates. Though we have expiration dates on many of our other cards. For example, my drivers’ license expires January 7, 2018. My VISA expires April 18, 2018.

Most Medicaid cards are annually renewed, as well. Someone who is eligible for Medicaid one year may not be eligible the next.

medicaid card

Our Medicaid cards, generally, have an issuance date, but not an expiration date. The thought is that requiring people to “re-enroll” yearly is sufficient for eligibility status.

Similar to my CostCo card. My Costco card expires annually, and I have to renew it every 12 months. But my CostCo card is not given to me based on my personal circumstances. I pay for the card every year, which means that I can use the card all year, regardless whether I move, get promoted, or decide that I never want to shop at CostCo again.

Medicaid cards, on the other hand, are based on a person’s or family’s personal circumstances.

A lot can happen in a year causing someone to no longer be eligible for Medicaid.

For example, a Medicaid recipient, Susan, could qualify for Medicaid on January 1, 2015, because Susan is a jobless and a single mother going through a divorce. She has a NC Medicaid card issued on January 1, 2015. She presents herself to your office on March 1, 2015. Unbeknownst to you, she obtained a job at a law office in February (Susan is a licensed attorney, but she was staying home with the kids when she was married. Now that she is divorced, she quickly obtained employment for $70,000/year, but does not contact Medicaid. Her firm offers health insurance, but only after she is employed over 60 days. Thus, Susan presents herself to you with her Medicaid card).

If Susan presents to your office on March 1, 2015, with a Medicaid card issued January 1, 2015, how many of you would double-check the patients eligibility in the NCTracks portal?

How many would rely on the existence of the Medicaid card as proof of eligibility?

How many of you would check eligibility in the NCTRacks portal and print screen shot showing eligibility for proof in the future.

The next question is who is liable for Susan receiving Medicaid services in March when she was no longer eligible for Medicaid, but held a Medicaid card and, according to the NCTracks portal, was Medicaid eligible??

  • Susan?
  • You, the provider?
  • DHHS?
  • NCTracks?

Do you really have to be the HUGE billy goat to avoid troll-ish recoupments?

Susan’s example is similar to dental services for pregnant women on Medicaid for Pregnant Women (MPW). MPW expires when the woman gives birth. However, the dentists do not report the birth of the child, the ob/gyn does. Dentists have no knowledge of whether a woman has or has not given birth. See blog.

MPW expires upon the birth of the child, and that due date is not printed on the MPW card.

I daresay that the dentists with whom I have spoken have assured me that every time a pregnant woman presents at the dental or orthodontic offices that an employee ensures that the consumer is eligible for dental services under MPW by checking the NCTracks portal. (Small billy-goat). Some dentists go so far to print out the screenshot on the NCTracks portal demonstrating MPW eligibility (HUGE billy-goat), but such overkill is not required by the DMA Clinical Coverage Policies.

If the clinical policies, rules, and regulations do not require such HUGE billy-goat nonsense, how can providers be held up to the HUGE billy-goat standard? Even the puny billy-goat is, arguably, reasonably compliant with rules, regulations, and policies.

NCTracks is not current; it is not “live time.” Apparently, even if the woman has delivered her baby, the NCTracks portal may still show that the woman is eligible for MPW. Maybe even for months…

Is the eligibility fallacy that is confirmed by NCTracks, the dentists’ fault?

Well, over three (3) years from its go-live date, July 1, 2013, NCTracks may have finally fixed this error.

In the October 2015 Medicaid Bulletin, DHHS published the following:

Attention: Dental Providers

New NCTracks Edits to Limit Dental and Orthodontic Services for Medicaid for Pregnant Women (MPW) Beneficiaries

On Aug. 2, 2015, NCTracks began to deny/recoup payment of dental and orthodontic services for beneficiaries covered under the Medicaid for Pregnant Women (MPW) program if the date of service is after the baby was delivered. This is a longstanding N.C. Medicaid policy that was previously monitored through post-payment review.

According to N.C. Division of Medical Assistance (DMA) clinical coverage policy 4A, Dental Services:

For pregnant Medicaid-eligible beneficiaries covered under the Medicaid for Pregnant Women program class ‘MPW,’ dental services as described in this policy are covered through the day of delivery.

Therefore, claims for dental services rendered after the date of delivery for beneficiaries under MPW eligibility are outside the policy limitation and are subject to denial/recoupment.

According to DMA clinical coverage policy 4B,Orthodontic Services:

Pregnant Medicaid-eligible beneficiaries covered under the Medicaid for Pregnant Women program class ‘MPW’ are not eligible for orthodontic services as described in this policy.

Therefore, claims for orthodontic records (D0150, D0330, D0340, and D0470) or orthodontic banding (D8070 or D8080) rendered for beneficiaries under MPW eligibility are outside of policy limitation and are subject to denial/recoupment.

Periodic orthodontic treatment visits (D8670) and orthodontic retention (D8680) will continue to be reimbursed regardless of the beneficiary’s eligibility status at the time of the visit so long as the beneficiary was eligible on the date of banding.

Seriously? “Now I’m coming to gobble you up!!”

August 2, 2015, is over two years after NCTracks went live.

In essence, what DHHS is saying is that NCTracks was inept at catching whether a female Medicaid recipient gave birth. Either the computer system did not have a way for the ob/gyn to inform NCTracks that the baby was delivered, the ob/gyn did not timely submit such information, or NCTracks simply kept women as being eligible for MPW until, months later, someone caught the mistake. And, because of NCTracks’ folly, the dentists must pay.

How about, if the portal for NCTracks state that someone is eligible for MPW, then providers can actually believe that the portal is correct??? How about a little accountability, DHHS???

If you take MPW and want to avoid potential recoupments, you may need some pregnancy tests in your bathrooms.

DHHS is expecting all dentists to be the HUGE bill goat. Are these unreasonable expectations? I see no law, rules, regulations, or policies that require dentists to be the HUGE billy goat. In fact, the small and puny may also be compliant.

“You don’t always have to be HUGE, the puny and small are equally as smart.”

Alphabet Soup: RACs, MICs, MFCUs, CERTs, ZPICs, PERMs and Their Respective Look Back Periods

Worth a re-blog. Audits concerning Medicaid eligibility is coming tomorrow!!

medicaidlaw-nc

I have a dental client, who was subject to a post payment review by Public Consulting Group (PCG). During the audit, PCG reviewed claims that were 5 years old.  In communication with the state, I pointed out that PCG surpassed its allowable look back period of 3 years.  To which the Assistant Attorney General (AG) said, “This was not a RAC audit.”  I said, “Huh. Then what type of audit is it? MIC? ZPIC? CERT?” Because the audit has to be one of the known acronyms, otherwise, where is PCG’s authority to conduct the audit?

There has to be a federal and state regulation applicable to every audit.  If there is not, the audit is not allowable.

So, with the state claiming that this post payment review is not a RAC audit, I looked into what it could be.

In order to address health care fraud, waste, and abuse…

View original post 953 more words

As the 31st State Expands Medicaid: Do We Need to Be Concerned About a Physician Shortage?

Recently, Montana became the 31st state, including D.C., to expand Medicaid. Discussion regarding Medicaid expansion is ongoing in one state: Utah. Nineteen (19) states have rejected Medicaid expansion, including NC.

When Medicaid expansion was first introduced, it was a highly polarized, political topic, with Republican governors, generally, rejecting expansion and Democrat governors, generally, accepting expansion.

Now, however, many Republican governors have opted to expand Medicaid. There are currently 31 Republicans, 18 Democrats, and one independent that hold the office of governor in the states. Yet, 31 states have expanded Medicaid. Here is an extremely, difficult-to-read chart outlining the states that have opted to expand, those that have opted to reject expansion, and the one state (Utah) still discussing:

caid expansion1medicaidexpansion2

I know, it’s hard to read. Feel free to go to the actual Kaiser website to see the chart readable by humans. (Microsoft’s “Snipping Tool” leaves much to be desired; Apple’s “Screen Shot” is much better, in my opinion).

An interesting fact is that, in its first week with Medicaid expansion, Montana had over 5,500 people sign up for Medicaid.

Another interesting fact is that, approximately 18,078 physicians graduate from medical school in America per year.  But in Montana?

montana

N/A…as in, none. Not applicable. You see, Montana does not have a medical school. It does participate in the Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho collaborative program. However, the collaborative program does not do a stellar job at recruiting physicians to Montana. It tries. But the statistics are stacked against Montana.

“Sixty-eight percent of doctors who complete all their training in one state end up practicing there,” according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Yet Montana has no medical school. And expanded Medicaid. If any of you ever took economics, there is this accepted theory called, “supply and demand.”

supplyanddemand

Supply and demand dictates that, when supply is low and demand is high, the product, whatever it is, can be sold at the highest price. Medicaid expansion, however, is creating an anomaly. Medicaid expansion expects a higher demand to meet the lower supply without increasing the reimbursement rates. This is a fundamental flaw in Medicaid expansion. If, on the other hand, Medicaid expansion was premised on an increase in reimbursement rates, we may see an uptick in supply. When demand is high and supply is low, many people “demanding” get nothing.

Let’s think about how many patients each primary care physician can handle.

“According to a 2013 survey by the American Academy of Family Physicians, the average member of that group has 93.2 “patient encounters” each week — in an office, hospital or nursing home, on a house call or via an e-visit. That’s about 19 patients per day. The family physicians said they spend 34.1 hours in direct patient care each week, or about 22 minutes per encounter, with 2,367 people under each physician’s care.” See article.

physician need

“The baseline projections from BHPr’s physician supply and requirements models suggest that overall requirements are growing faster than the FTE supply of physicians (Exhibits 51 and 52). Between 2005 and 2020, requirements are projected to grow to approximately 976,000 (22 percent), while FTE supply is projected to grow to approximately 926,600 (14 percent). These projections suggest a modest, but growing, shortfall of approximately 49,000 physicians by 2020 if today’s level of health care services is extrapolated to the future population. ” See article.

This is not the first time I have noted the increasing physician shortage with Medicaid expansion. There is a huge difference in giving someone a Medicaid card and providing a person with quality health care. A card is a piece of paper. If you cannot find a physician..or psychiatrist…or pulmonologist….or neurosurgeon who will accept Medicaid, then your Medicaid card is simply a piece of paper, not even worth the paper upon which it is printed. See blog. And blog. And blog.

The same can be said with the shortage of dentists. See blog.

With a shortage of approximately 49,000 physicians in 2o20, I pray that I am not holding a Medicaid card.

If I am, I will be another victim of high demand with low supply.

The False Claims Act: Are You Just Shaking a Magic 8 Ball?

Often we read in the news stories of hospitals or health care providers paying inordinate amounts to settle cases in which credible allegations of fraud or allegations of false claims preside. Many times the providers actually committed fraud, waste, or abuse. Maybe medical records were falsified, or maybe the documents were created for Medicaid/care recipients that do not exist. Maybe the services claimed to have been rendered were not. In these cases, the provider can be held liable criminally (fraud) and/or civilly (false claims). And these providers should be held accountable to the government and the taxpayers.

It appears that this is not the case for an Ohio hospital that settled a False Claims Act case for $4.1 million last month. Do not get me wrong: The False Claims Act is no joke. Possible penalties imposed by the False Claims Act can be up to $10,000 per claim “plus 3 times the amount of damages which the Government sustains because of the act of that person.” 37 USC §3729. See blog for more explanation.

In the Ohio hospital’s case, the penalty derived from Dr. Abubakar Atiq Durrani, a spinal surgeon, performing spinal surgeries that, allegedly, were not medically necessary.

According to what I’ve read, there is no question that Dr. Durrani actually performed these surgeries. He did. On actual people who exist. Instead, the allegation is that the surgeries were not medically necessary.

I have blogged about medical necessity in the past. Medical necessity is a subjective standard. Medical necessity is defined as reasonable, necessary, and/or appropriate, based on evidence-based clinical standards of care.

But it is still a subjective standard. When you receive news that you suffer from a debilitating disease, what do you do? You get a second opinion. If one doctor recommends brain surgery, what do you do? You get a second opinion.

After that, you grab a handy, dandy Magic 8 Ball and give it a shake. Kidding. Kinda.

replyhazy

My point is that 2 physicians can recommend two different courses of treatment. One physician may practice more defensive medicine, while another may be more cautious. Surgeons will, generally, recommend surgery, more than non-surgeons; it’s what they do.

Going back to Dr. Durrani, who was arrested in 2013 for allegedly “convinc[ing] [patients] they needed spine and neck surgery. However, other doctors later determined those surgeries as unnecessary and damaging to the patient’s health.”

I find two points striking about this case: (1) The allegation that this physician “convinced” people to undergo spine surgery; and (2) The fact that the hospital settled for $4.1 million when no fraud existed or was alleged, only questions as to medical necessity, which is subjective.

As to the first, I am imagining my doctor. I am imagining that I have horrible, chronic back pain. My doctor recommends spinal surgery. There is no way, at all, ever, in this universe, that any doctor would be able to convince me to undergo surgery if I did not want surgery. Period. Who allows themselves to be peer pressured into surgery? Not to knock on my own profession, but I have a sneaky suspicion that this allegation was concocted by the  plaintiffs’ attorney(s) and the plaintiffs responded, “Oh, you are right. I was persuaded.”

As to the second…Why did the hospital settle for such a high amount? Couldn’t the hospital have gone to trial and convinced a jury that Dr. Durrani’s surgeries were, in fact, reasonable and/or appropriate, based on evidence-based clinical standards of care?

signspointtoyes

According to the Magic 8 Ball, “signs point to yes.” Why cave at such a large number where no fraud was alleged?

Whatever happened to Dr. Durrani because of this whole mess? “Following his arraignment, Durrani allegedly fled the United States and remains a fugitive.”

In sum, based on allegations of questionable medical necessity, not fraud, a hospital paid $4.1 million and a U.S. physician fled into hiding…allegedly.

I question this outcome. I even question whether these types of allegations fall within the False Claims Act.

The False Claims Act holds providers liable for (abridged version):

  • knowingly presenting a fraudulent claim to the Government;
  • knowingly making a fraudulent record or statement to the Government;
  • conspiring to do any of the referenced bullet points;
  • having possession of Government money and knowingly delivering less than the amount;
  • delivering a certified document intending to defraud the Government without completely knowing whether the information was true;
  • knowingly buying or receiving as a pledge of debt, public property from the an employee of the Government who does not have the right to pledge that property;
  • knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used, a false record material to an obligation to pay the Government, or knowingly concealing or decreasing an obligation to pay the Government.

I see nothing in the False Claims Act punishing a provider for rendering services that, perhaps, may not be medically necessary.

I actually find questions of medical necessity to be easily defensible. After all, who do we look to for determinations of what are reasonable and/or appropriate services, based on evidence-based clinical standards of care?

Our physicians.

Sure, some physicians may have conflicting views as to what is medically necessary. I see it all the time in court. One expert witness physician testifies that the service was medically necessary and another, equally as qualified, physician testifies to the contrary.

Unless I’m missing something (here, folks, is my “CYA”), I just do not understand why allegations of questionable medical necessity caused an U.S. physician to become a fugitive and a hospital to settle for $4.1 million.

It’s as if the hospital shook the Magic 8 Ball and asked whether it would be able to defend itself and received:

outlooknotsogoos

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,362 other followers