Experts in healthcare reimbursement and regulation,
providing customized consulting
and education services.

Training Programs

We bring the experts to you with a range of on-site education options and bootcamp style programs that teach how a firm grasp of the rules leads to operational excellence.

More information »

Audits & Assessments

Our team of specialized regulatory specialists can assist your organization in revving up your revenue cycle by auditing and assessing key processes for coding and billing.

More information »

Regulatory Monitoring

Our team is available for ongoing regulatory watchdog services that answer your questions and offer you the latest Medicare news, analysis and operational guidance.

More information »

Archive for October, 2008

Oct
23

News: Six Nevada doctors pay to settle Medicare fraud claims

Posted by: Compliance Monitor | Comments (0)
Email This Post Print This Post
Six Las Vegas area doctors agreed to collectively pay over $600,000 for their role in a Medicare fraud scheme, according to a report issued by KTNV, a Las Vegas news station.
 
The six doctors, Robert Shreck, MD, Tony Q.F. Chin, MD, Craig M. Jorgensen, MD, Wen Liang, MD, Mohammed Najmi, MD, and Edmund Pasimio, MD, allegedly referred patients to a nurse practitioner, Greg Martin, for medically unnecessary procedures.
 
Martin allegedly billed Medicare for the procedures and, upon receiving payment, split the amount with the referring physician.
 
To read the full KTNV story, click here
Oct
23

News: Louisiana Hospital pays $3.3 million to resolve Medicare fraud charges

Posted by: Compliance Monitor | Comments (0)
Email This Post Print This Post
West Jefferson Medical Center, a New Orleans area hospital, agreed to pay $3.3 million to resolve allegations of Medicare fraud, according to a Department of Justice (DOJ) press release.
 
The charges alleged West Jefferson Medical Center lied about its ability to provide critical care services at its pediatric intensive care unit. The alleged lie caused the hospital to receive overpayments from Medicare between March 1998 and October 2003.
 
Leslie Klemm, a former nurse at the hospital, filed the qui tam suit and will receive $627,000 as her share of the state and federal recovery.
 
To read the full DOJ press release, click here
Oct
22

Other CMS and OIG Issuances

Posted by: Medicare Weekly Update | Comments (0)
Email This Post Print This Post

OIG issues review of high-dollar payments for inpatient and outpatient claims processed by Riverbend Government Benefits Administrator for calendar years (CY) 2004 and 2005

On October 16, the OIG issued a report on high-dollar payments for inpatient and outpatient claims processed by Riverbend Government Benefits Administrator, a Medicare fiscal intermediary, for CYs 2004 and 2005. The OIG recommended that Riverbend recover overpayments totaling $4.9 million for 49 inpatient high-dollar claims and 51 outpatient high-dollar claims.

View the OIG report.

CMS issues final decision memo for percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) of the carotid artery concurrent with stenting

On October 14, CMS issued a final decision memo in which it made no changes to the national coverage determination for PTA of the carotid artery concurrent with stenting.

View the final decision memo.

Oct
22

CMS Transmittals and MLN Matters articles

Posted by: Medicare Weekly Update | Comments (0)
Email This Post Print This Post

CMS implements quarterly update to interest rate for Medicare overpayments and underpayments

On October 15, CMS issued a transmittal instructing Medicare contractors to implement an interest rate of 11.375% for Medicare overpayments and underpayments.

Effective date: October 22, 2008
Implementation date: October 22, 2008

View the transmittal.

CMS clarifies previous transmittal on the national coverage determination (NCD) for continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)

On October 15, CMS issued a transmittal clarifying a previous transmittal regarding the NCD for CPAP therapy for OSA.

Effective date: March 13, 2008
Implementation date: August 4, 2008

View the transmittal.

Oct
20

Hospitals absorb costs of treating uninsured immigrants

Posted by: Case Management Weekly | Comments (1)
Email This Post Print This Post

Hospitals in New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey are increasingly finding themselves providing uncompensated care to poor, uninsured, and sometimes illegal, immigrants.

These hospitals face a dilemma because they feel it is their ethical obligation to provide care to those who show up at their door, according to The New York Times, but some hospitals report losing up to $10 million a year caring for these types of patients.

Medicaid covers illegal immigrants in emergency situations, but other conditions, which may be debilitating but are not emergencies, are not covered.

Hospital officials say that providing care at the time the patient presents to the hospital, even if it’s not an emergency situation, can save the hospital money by dealing with the health issue before it becomes urgent. In addition, community education about available healthcare resources can prevent patients from coming to the hospital if they are aware of other options.

Sources: HealthLeaders Media, The New York Times

Comments (1)
Oct
20

Eight indicted in South Florida AIDS/HIV infusion scheme

Posted by: Compliance Monitor | Comments (0)
Email This Post Print This Post
Federal and state Medicare Strike Force agents indicted eight individuals – Juan A. Marrero, a/k/a Tony Marrero; Orlando Pascual Jr.; Belkis Marrero; Dr. David Rothman; Luz Borrego; Dr. Keith Russell; Eda Milanes; and Jorge L. Pacheco – in the Miami area for alleged involvement in a scheme to defraud Medicare.
 
According to the Department of Justice press release, the scheme involved two Miami medical clinics—Medcore Group LLC and M&P Group of South Florida Inc. Tony Marrero, Pascual, and Belkis Marrero controlled day-to-day operations for those clinics.
 
According to the indictment, medical assistants Borrego, Pacheco, and Milanes administered unnecessary treatments and paid cash to patients. Rothman and Russell allegedly performed cursory examinations and signed the appropriate documentation to make it appear the infusions were medically necessary.
 
The indictment also alleges the defendants laundered a portion of the proceeds to pay the patients for their participation in the scheme.
 
To read the DOJ press release click here
Oct
20

IDENTITY THEFT: Facilities must be prepared

Posted by: Patient Access Weekly Advisor | Comments (0)
Email This Post Print This Post

Effective November 1, hospitals must have a plan in place to detect, mitigate, and prevent red flags that signal potential identity theft, according to the Identity Theft Red Flags and Address Discrepancies Under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (final rule).

There was confusion over whether the rule, which is primarily geared toward financial institutions and other lenders, also applied to healthcare providers. However, although the rule doesn’t specifically reference hospitals, it does imply that they may fit the legislation’s extremely broad definition of “creditor” because they permit a deferred payment of certain ongoing accounts.

Essentially, providers become “creditors” when they establish payment plan. Supplementary information published with the rule states the following: Creditors in the healthcare field may be at risk of medical identity theft (i.e., identity theft for the purpose of obtaining medical services) and, therefore, must identify red flags that reflect this risk.

Examples of red flags could include, but are not limited to, any of the following:

  • A mismatch between an individual’s address according to his insurance policy and what appears on his driver’s license
  • A photograph on a driver’s license or other ID that doesn’t match the individual presenting it
  • An address provided that is a P.O. box or mail drop
  • The telephone number provided is for a pager or answering service

To view the red flag rule, which was published in the November 9, 2007 Federal Register, visit this government Web site. For illustrative examples that hospitals can use when developing an identity theft prevention program, refer to Supplement A to Appendix J of the rule. Also refer to the World Privacy Forum Web site to view its latest report titled “Red Flag and Address Discrepancy Requirements: Suggestions for Health Care Providers,” released September 24.

Click here to view the report.

Oct
16

CHANGES COMING: Key differences in nationwide rollout

Posted by: The RAC Report | Comments (0)
Email This Post Print This Post

Now that you know which RAC will come to your facility, it’s time to prepare for some changes. CMS revamped the program after the three-year demonstration project, and providers can expect to see the changes reflected in the nationwide permanent program.

Chief among them are:

RAC medical director.
Demonstration RACs: Not required
Permanent RACs: Mandatory

Coding experts.
Demonstration RACs: Optional
Permanent RACs: Mandatory

Credentials of reviewers provided upon request.
Demonstration RACs: Not required
Permanent RACs: Mandatory

Discussion with CMD regarding claim denials if requested.
Demonstration RACs: Not required
Permanent RACs: Mandatory

AC validation process.
Demonstration RACs: Optional
Permanent RACs: Limited

External validation process.
Demonstration RACs: Not required
Permanent RACs: Mandatory

RAC must pay back the contingency fee if the claim is overturned on appeal.
Demonstration RACs: Only required if claim is overturned on the first level of appeals
Permanent RACs: Required if claim is overturned at all levels of appeals

Maximum look back date.
Demonstration RACs: None
Permanent RACs: October 1, 2007

RACs allowed to review claims in current fiscal year.
Demonstration RACs: No
Permanent RACs: Yes

RACs solely for MSP.
Demonstration RACs: Yes
Permanent RACs: No

RAC claim status Web page.
Demonstration RACs: Not required
Permanent RACs: By January 2010

Limits on number of medical records requested.
Demonstration RACs: Optional. Each RACs set own limit
Permanent RACs: Mandatory. CMS will establish uniform limits.

Editor’s note: For more differences in the permanent program, see the next edition of The RAC Report October 30, 2008.

Categories : RACs
Comments (0)