NEWS AND VIEWS FOR PTs
A complimentary newsletter from
MAILLY INGLETT & BARMAK, LLC
Educators and Consultants to Physical Therapists
JANUARY, 2011 - Volume 2, Issue 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
False Claim: The Amount Falsely Billed Or The Amount Reimbursed? |
WHAT IF a healthcare provider / supplier intentionally submits a fictitious claim to Medicare for $1,500 but the real reimbursement to be expected is $300? Is the false claim considered to be $1,500 or $300?
WHAT IF the government conducts a sting operation in which the value of the services intentionally submitted for reimbursement is $300 but the real value of the services rendered is $0? Is the false claim considered to be $300 or $0?
WHAT IF the value of the product intentionally submitted to a liability insurance carrier is inflated to $20,000 but the real value is $2,000? Is the false claim considered to be $20,000 or $2,000?
Under United States Sentencing Guidelines, §2B1.1, the offense level for defendants convicted of fraud is increased commensurate with the amount of loss involved in the fraud. The commentary to §2B1.1 indicates that "loss" for purposes of the guideline is "the greater of the actual loss or intended loss." "Actual loss" is the reasonably foreseeable pecuniary harm resulting from the offense, and "intended loss" is the pecuniary harm that was intended to result from the offense. "Intended loss" includes "intended pecuniary harm that would have been impossible or unlikely to occur (e.g., as in a government sting operation, or an insurance fraud in which the claim exceeded the insured value)."
In other words, if a healthcare provider / supplier submits a claim that is known or should have been known to be fictitious or inflated, the amount billed to Medicare, Medicaid or any other government third party is considered prima facie evidence of the amount of the loss that the healthcare provider / supplier intended to cause. Courts will consider additional evidence to suggest that the amount billed either exaggerates or understates the billing party's intent; however, as the defendant in United States of America v. Hearne (U.S. v. Hearne, 09-60750, 5th Cir. 110-20-2010) found, claiming a lack of understanding the amounts that Medicare likely will pay - shifting responsibility for Medicare claims to his staff and claiming that he was generally uninformed about how Medicare reimbursement work - comes across as self-serving and lacks credibility. The trial court found:
It appears that he indiscriminately submitted false and fictitious bills in an effort to maximize reimbursements. It does not appear that he was focused on the mechanics of the program and, instead, was focused on [the] number of claims. Thus, even if he has some notion about caps and understood that full reimbursement was unlikely or impossible, the defendant [provider] still submitted claims with the intent that they would be paid.
Unless extraordinary evidence exists, the intended loss of a false claim is calculated to be the amount falsely billed to Medicare or other government third party payor rather than the amount a healthcare provider / supplier is reimbursed. This is a critical determination because the civil penalty for a false claim is three times the amount of the intended loss plus up to $11,000 per false claim plus attorneys' fees and costs.
|
Elements Of A Compliance Program |
An effective compliance program addresses the healthcare provider's / supplier's need to prevent fraud and abuse and carries the added benefit of improving the provision of quality health care at lower costs. A successful compliance program also openly demonstrates, to the government, employees and the public, the provider's / supplier's commitment to conducting its affairs honestly and responsibly.
Compliance programs encourage employees to report potential problems and permit the provider / supplier to conduct an internal investigation and take corrective action. An effective compliance program should increase the likelihood of preventing, identifying, and correcting unlawful, abusive or wasteful conduct at an early stage, minimizing financial loss to the government, to taxpayers, and to the provider / supplier.
Compliance programs must encompass billings, payments, medical necessity, quality of care, governance, credentialing and other risk areas that a provider / supplier, with due diligence, identifies. Specifically, an effective compliance plan should include the following elements:
1. Designation of a compliance officer responsible for the day-to-day operation of the compliance program; this employee should report directly to the provider's / supplier's chief executive and periodically report to the governing body (Board of Directors or Board of Trustees) on the activities of the compliance program;
2. Training and education of all affected employees and persons associated with the provider / supplier, including executives and governing body members, on compliance issues, expectations, and the operation of the compliance program; such training should occur periodically and should be made a part of the orientation of new employees and governing body members;
3. A communication process, such as a hotline, accessible to all employees, outside vendors, governing body members, patients or other users of the provider's / supplier's services, for the reporting of compliance issues; the lines of communication should allow for anonymous and good faith reporting of potential compliance issues as they are identified;
4. Disciplinary policies and standards that are distributed to all employees, which are fairly, evenly, and firmly applied, and encourage good faith participation in the compliance process, including policies that articulate expectations for reporting compliance issues and assist in their resolution and outline sanctions for: a. failing to report suspected problems; b. engaging in non-compliant behavior; c. encouraging, directing, facilitating or permitting either actively or passively non-compliant behavior.
5. A system for routine identification of compliance risk areas specific to the particular provider / supplier, for self-evaluation of such risks areas, including but not limited to internal audits and as appropriate, external audits, and for evaluation of potential or actual non-compliance as a result of such self-evaluations and audits, credentialing of providers / suppliers and persons associated with providers / suppliers, reporting, governance, and quality of care to patients.
6. A system for responding to compliance issues as they are raised; for investigating potential compliance problems; responding to compliance problems as identified in the course of self-evaluations, external evaluations and audits, correcting such problems promptly and thoroughly and implementing procedures, policies and systems as necessary to reduce the potential for recurrence; identifying and reporting compliance issues to federal and state officials, (Office of Inspector General, Medicaid Fraud Units, etc.); and refunding overpayments.
|
Revised And Updated Website Operated By The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Includes Physical Therapists In Its Database |
We suggest you review your own listing for accuracy!
The links below will take you to the recently revised and updated Physician Compare website operated by The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). This searchable database includes Physical Therapists, and is intended to provide information about your Medicare enrollment. We strongly encourage you to review your own listing for accuracy. You may be surprised at what you find.
To locate physical therapists listing, after clicking on link, select "Other Healthcare Professionals".
Link to Physician Compare website:
http://www.medicare.gov/find-a-doctor/provider-search.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
or
http://tinyurl.com/247u839
|
For Your Information Q & A |
Question:
I have a Medicare billing question. If I was to bill Medicare:
1 unit of gait training
1 unit of therapeutic exercise
1 unit of Manual therapy
Am I saying that I was one-on-one with the patient for 39+ minutes, or that I spent the greater than 8 minutes doing each of the defined modalities with the patient?
Response:
Actually, you are saying both. In order to justify the billing of 3 timed CPT codes to Medicare, your total time spent in one-to-one treatment must be at least 38 minutes, and may last as long as 52. If the time devoted to one of these timed codes was less than 8 minutes, you could bill 2 units of one of the other 2 services for which you spent more time than the other.
Question:
When a person has Medicare as their secondary insurance (meaning they are over 65 and still employed), is there a requirement for a signed plan of care along with the rest of the Medicare guidelines if Medicare is only being billed for the co-insurance of the primary? Not sure I'm asking the question correctly!
Response:
Keep in mind that whether Medicare is the primary or secondary payer on a claim, the same coverage criteria apply. When you are submitting a claim where Medicare will be the secondary payer (MSP), you are not submitting a dollar amount, you are submitting a claim for services (or portions of those services) not covered by the primary. Therefore the same coverage criteria would apply to that claim, including the need for physician certification, in order for Medicare to cover that claim as the secondary payer.
Please also note that the fact that a patient is over 65 and still employed does not automatically mean that they have Medicare as their secondary insurance.
|
|
|
|
|
Mailly Inglett & Barmak, LLC |
|
|
Ken Mailly, PT, MPA, NJ Lic. # NJ40QAOO335900
Ken is a graduate of the State University of New York at Downstate Medical Center, and completed his Master's in Public Administration at Seton Hall University, with a concentration in Health Care Policy and Management. He is also certified as an Ergonomic Specialist, and as a Rehabilitation Agency Medicare Surveyor.
In addition to his graduate studies, with well over 2,500 hours of continuing physical therapy education, Ken has amassed an extremely diverse and extensive knowledge of the clinical practice of physical therapy, rehabilitation, and practice management. Ken's primary clinical focus is in orthopedics, chronic soft tissue disorders, and management of patients with bleeding disorders.
Along with this clinical knowledge base, Ken has devoted the last 10 years to the study of regulation, legislation, and reimbursement for physical therapy & rehabilitation services. He has served as an expert witness, on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants, in numerous malpractice cases. He has also been consulted on state, federal, and third party payer inquiries regarding physical therapy and rehabilitation billing, regulatory, and legal issues.
Ken is a partner in Mailly & Inglett Consulting. His focus is on compliance with professional standards, state and federal regulations, as well as practice management strategies.
Barry G. Inglett, PT, CHT, Cert. MDT, NJ Lic # NJ40QA00146200
Barry is a graduate of Columbia University, a Certified Hand Therapist and a Credentialed McKenzie Therapist. He is a physical therapist and co-owner of Wayne Physical Therapy & Spine Center, a private practice established in 1977. Barry is also a partner in Mailly & Inglett Consulting, working with both physical therapists and Payers.
Barry is a guest lecturer for UMDNJ's Physical Therapy Program as well as a clinical instructor for several colleges including Columbia University, New York University, Temple University, Stockton State College, Kean College and the University of Medicine and Dentistry's Physical Therapy Program. He is also an instructor for HMW (Human Mechanical Wellness) Seminars, specializing in mechanically oriented treatment programs for the spine and extremities.
Barry has been retained by numerous insurance companies as well as the New Jersey Attorney General's Office offering expert witness testimony in physical therapy practice. He has been involved in utilization review and reimbursement issues in physical therapy for over 20 years. Barry also instituted, and was retained as the lead expert, in the largest PT fraud case in NJ history (Cobo v. MTF). He also served as a physical therapy consultant from 1997-2005 for Horizon Healthcare running the NJ Plus pre-certification program. Barry has served on the New Jersey Board of Physical Therapy Examiners in the past for eight years and has also served as the Chairman of the Board of Physical Therapy Examiners.
David S. Barmak, Esq.
David S. Barmak, Esq. received a JD from Cornell University and a BA from Duke University. The Law Offices Of David S. Barmak, LLC was established in 1984. David is licensed to practice law and has clients in the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Connecticut.
David's legal focus is in the areas of corporate compliance, risk management, human resources and operational legal affairs.
David has a strong background in operations, having served as both the Associate Administrator and General Counsel for a large New York Certified Home Health Agency, initiating and directing a New York Licensed Home Care Services Agency as well as owning and operating a Durable Medical Equipment company. David also provides defense of enterprises, directors, officers and other professionals accused of misconduct.
For more information, please contact us:
|
|
| © Copyright, 2011. Mailly Inglett & Barmak, LLC. All rights reserved. No portion of these materials may be reproduced by any means without the advance permission of the author. |
|
|
|