Top waste, fraud, and abuse red flags, and how to identify them

http://managedhealthcareexecutive.modernmedicine.com/managed-healthcare-executive/news/top-waste-fraud-and-abuse-red-flags-and-how-identify-them?GUID=A13E56ED-9529-4BD1-98E9-318F5373C18F&rememberme=1&ts=17112017

Image result for red flags

 

In some cases of healthcare fraud, it’s easy to spot red flags. But in large healthcare organizations, or on the payer end, fraud and waste can be more difficult to detect through layers and layers of data.

During his presentation, “Using Analytics to Drive Payment Integrity and Reduce Fraud,” on November 16 at the annual National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association Annual Conference in Orlando, Ben Wright, AHFI, senior payment integrity solutions architect at SAS Fraud & Security Intelligence Global Practice, discussed how health systems and payers can  meet these challenges.

 “In larger healthcare organization, you want to make sure you are protecting from larger loss,” Wright said. “Waste and abuse are clearly much more expensive in most cases than intentional fraud.”

Managed care has not reduced fraud, waste, and abuse in the way it was hoped at inception, Wright he said, and the need to coordinate efforts and create enterprise-wide solutions has never been greater.

How technology can help

Analytics platforms can help identify subtle changes in behavior and practice that can be indicative of fraud, waste or abuse, Wright said. This can include identifying errors and duplicates in the billing system, and fraud and wasteful or abusive practices.

He noted three types of analytics that can help:

1.              Behavior analytics is the closest approximation of true fraud detection, he said. It can help systems identify behaviors that are most likely to indicate fraud. For example, a provider who prescribes outside of the norm for their specialty, or a practice that documents more patient encounters than makes sense.

2.              Claim analytics uses customized product or policy data to sift through abuses of rule sets, coding designations, prescription rates, and more.

3.              Clinical targeting reviews level of care issues.

They key to using these analytics, Wright said, is to view them as enterprise-wide and to coordinate efforts across platforms and services, not within silos.

A hybrid of the above analytics methods is most effective, he said, using behavioral analytics, payment policy and coding guidelines, and clinical targeting together.

Examples of big red flags

Wright shared with Managed Healthcare Executive several examples of service line issues or red flags to watch out for.

·      Provider specialty mismatch. A provider who has general medical training but a specialty in neurology might warrant closer investigation if he is prescribing outside his specialty’s norm. Say a neurologist is prescribing a lot of opioid medications, Wright said. Investigators may want to review what tests are being ordered and why. It may become clear that the tests ordered and the level of evaluation of the patients for which those medications were ordered does not match what you might expect from a neurologist. “If you find that the tests don’t match, that would be a behavior that would be atypical for a community of neurologists,” Wright said. “That provider might get additional scrutiny. It’s a combination of their behavior versus behavior that might be expected.”

·      Locum tenens physician rates. These physicians fill in for absent physicians, but sometimes can be used to increase patient volume and revenue. In one case, Wright said, a physician was seeing patients in an emergency department while a locum tenens provider saw the physician’s other patients in the office. All of patient visits were paid at the provider’s rate, but the locum tenens should have been paid at a lower rate. This is a violation of locum tenens rules, but also indicates oan inappropriate agreement between the provider and the hospital, as well as an exploitation of the locum tenens physician.

There is so much data at a plan or health system’s fingertips now, the key is managing it to get the information you need. Increased specificity of coding, for example, provides a lot of data on disease management, but not a lot toward improving payment integrity.

 “Intentional fraud is a very small percentage of the community, but it’ a huge amount of dollars,” Wright said. “Meanwhile, waste and abuse can happen on many levels.”

Dallas lab company accused of paying kickbacks fights to keep its federal licenses

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2017/09/04/dallas-lab-company-accused-paying-kickbacks-fights-keep-federal-licenses

Erik Bugen, defendant in medical kickback scam case.(Linkedin/Linkedin)

Erik Bugen, defendant in medical kickback scam case.

An embattled Dallas laboratory company accused of masterminding a $100 million fraud through bribes and kickbacks is fighting to keep its licenses to stay in business, according to a federal civil lawsuit.

Lawyers for Next Health and Medicus Laboratories filed a lawsuit on Aug. 18 against state and federal officials and agencies, seeking a temporary restraining order and injunction to stop them from suspending or revoking the company’s federal laboratory licenses.

Such a move would effectively put them out of business, the lawsuit says. Federal inspectors said they found regulatory violations without offering specifics, according to Next Health’s lawsuit.

That’s not the company’s only concern.

Two of Next Health’s principals, Andrew Hillman and Semyon Narosov, are currently facing federal bribery and kickback charges along with 19 others in connection with the former doctor-owned hospital chain Forest Park Medical Center. Prosecutors say the hospital paid about $40 million in bribes and kickbacks in exchange for patient referrals that generated $200 million in paid claims.

The $100 million fraud allegation against Next Health comes from a lawsuit UnitedHealthcare filed in February against the company, with allegations similar to those in the criminal case. The insurer alleges that Next Health paid bribes and kickbacks to doctors and other providers between 2011 and 2016 for overpriced and unnecessary drug and genetic tests.

Legal observers say laboratories are under intense federal scrutiny due to concerns that some are paying doctors to order genetic and drug tests that aren’t medically necessary.

Four Austin men, for example, were indicted in Dallas in July, accused of paying kickbacks to physicians for ordering bogus urine tests at North Texas labs. Another Texas lab company, Sky Toxicology, is fighting similar allegations from UnitedHealthcare in a lawsuit in San Antonio. Sky lawyer David Navarro said, “We intend to pursue our claims and vigorously defend against United’s counterclaims.”

Jeffrey Baird, a health care attorney in Amarillo, said many new testing labs have opened across the nation over the past two years. He said he advises his clients not to pay marketers any commissions to find specimens for testing due to the federal anti-kickback law.

“Anytime somebody figures out that a government program is paying money for something, you’re going to have folks try to figure out how to access that money,” he said.

Once federal authorities shut down one abusive practice, fraudsters figure out another way to bill for unnecessary medical services, he added. “It’s whack-a-mole. It’s almost this cat-and-mouse game,” Baird said.

Next Health is the majority owner of Medicus, a clinical testing laboratory that became a Medicare provider in 2010, court records say. UnitedHealthcare says in its lawsuit that Hillman and Narosov control Next Health.

Medicus in 2014 paid $5 million to settle a federal civil complaint that it defrauded Medicare over urine testing services. Next Health says Medicus has stopped certain testing “out of an abundance of caution” and also ceased operations at four other labs it owns because of the latest controversy.

Government overreach?

Next Health and Medicus allege that state and federal officials have a “premeditated intent to shut down the plaintiff’s business operations” and are not following their own rules and procedures.

Company representatives could not be reached for comment. But in court documents, they say they were not given time to correct “alleged deficiencies.”

A team of state and federal inspectors arrived at Medicus’ laboratory in April for a five-day inspection, reportedly in response to an anonymous complaint, the lawsuit said. The team also inspected five other labs owned in part by Next Health, the lawsuit said.

Next Health’s chief compliance officer, who accompanied the inspectors, noticed a copy of an email left in plain sight from one team member to others, saying the labs had received ample media attention and that the inspectors needed to find a way to pursue a “complaint investigation,” the lawsuit said.

“Defendants’ employees and agents were instructed to make findings that would close down plaintiffs’ operations before they even went to plaintiff’s laboratories,” the suit says.

The email is proof, the lawsuit says, that the inspection was not due to a complaint but part of an effort to shut down Medicus’ lab and prevent Next Health from running any other labs “through a regulatory ban.”

A May 10 letter from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to Next Health and Medicus officials — appended in the lawsuit — said inspectors found problems with testing.

“Your laboratory demonstrated systemic and pervasive problems throughout the laboratory which has led to the findings of immediate jeopardy,” the letter says.

A finding of immediate jeopardy allows CMS to suspend, limit or revoke a laboratory’s license to operate without a hearing or opportunity for the lab to refute the allegations, the lawsuit says.

A CMS representative said the agency does not comment on pending lawsuits.

Federal charges

It’s not the first time Hillman has been in trouble with the law over alleged health care fraud.

In 2005, Hillman and his high school friend, Jason White, were indicted on mail fraud and health care fraud charges for an alleged scheme to defraud workers’ compensation insurance companies by getting them to pay for unnecessary medical equipment.

The following year, the U.S. attorney’s office in Dallas dropped the charges against Hillman after White took blame for the fraud and said Hillman had nothing to do with it, according to court records. That came after White had already pleaded guilty to conspiring with Hillman to commit the fraud, court records show.

Hillman was indicted for a second time in November — in the Forest Park Medical case — along with Narosov, a licensed physical therapist.

The indictment says the hospital paid Hillman and Narosov about $190,000 in kickbacks and bribes for referring patients to Forest Park Medical for surgeries and other procedures.

Both men have pleaded not guilty in that case and have filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. Attorneys for Hillman and Narosov said in court filings that their clients are not part of the alleged conspiracy and that the five-year statute of limitations bars charges against their clients in the case.

Narosov’s lawyer declined to comment. Hillman and Next Health and their lawyers could not be reached for comment.

Gift cards for urine

One of Next Health’s former marketing contractors was implicated in an unrelated criminal case involving an alleged laboratory kickback scheme.

Erik Bugen, of Austin, was indicted in July. Prosecutors say a company he co-founded, the ADAR Group, drummed up unnecessary tests for different labs and got the military’s health care system, Tricare, to pay for them. Soldiers were given Wal-Mart gift cards in exchange for providing saliva and urine, the criminal filing said.

Bugen has pleaded not guilty. He and his lawyer could not be reached.

The ADAR Group also found specimens for Next Health by giving people $50 gift cards to urinate in cups at Whataburger restrooms, according to the UnitedHealthcare lawsuit. Next Health labs conducted the tests under the guise of a “wellness study,” the lawsuit alleges.

Next Health lawyers have filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, saying UnitedHealthcare has failed to show any evidence of fraud.

“UHC has failed to allege any facts demonstrating a ‘meeting of the minds’ necessary to establish a claim for ‘conspiracy to commit fraud,’” said Ernest Martin Jr., one of the Next Health’s attorneys, in the filing.

Martin said doctors referring specimens for testing at the Next Health labs “exercise independent professional judgment in determining what testing services are appropriate and necessary.”