DOJ recovers $2.4B in healthcare fraud cases: 4 things to know

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issues/doj-recovers-2-4b-in-healthcare-fraud-cases-4-things-to-know.html

Image result for false claims act

The Department of Justice obtained $2.4 billion in fraud and false claims settlements and judgments in fiscal year 2017, marking the eighth consecutive year recoveries in the healthcare sector exceeded $2 billion.

Here are four things to know about the DOJ’s false claims and fraud recoveries.

1. The DOJ recovered more than $900 million from the drug and medical device industry in fiscal year 2017. That total includes Shire Pharmaceuticals’ $350 million settlement. The settlement resolved allegations Shire, a multinational pharmaceutical company with its U.S. headquarters in Lexington, Mass., and one of its subsidiaries paid kickbacks and used other unlawful means to induce physicians and clinics to use or overuse Dermagraft, a bioengineered human skin substitute approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. The settlement was the largest False Claims Act recovery by the federal government in a kickback case involving a medical device.

2. The DOJ also reported substantial recoveries from healthcare providers, including Cleveland, Tenn.-based Life Care Centers of America, which agreed to pay $145 million to settle allegations it caused skilled nursing facilities to submit fraudulent claims to Medicare for unnecessary rehabilitation services.

3. In another substantial settlement this year, Westborough, Mass.-based eClinicalWorks, an EHR vendor, and some of its executives and employees agreed to pay $155 million to resolve false claims allegations. The government alleged eClinicalWorks falsely obtained certification for its EHR software by withholding information from its certifying entity. Due to eClinicalWorks’ alleged misrepresentations, healthcare organizations using the company’s software submitted false claims for federal incentive payments, according to the DOJ.

4. In 2017, the DOJ continued to pursue physicians and healthcare executives involved in fraud cases to hold them personally responsible. For example, in 2015, Fort Myers, Fla.-based 21st Century Oncology paid $19.75 million to settle allegations it violated the False Claims Act by billing for medically unnecessary laboratory urine tests and paid bonuses to physicians based on the number of tests they referred to its laboratory. This year, the DOJ secured separate settlements with various urologists who allegedly referred unnecessary tests to one of 21st Century Oncology’s labs.

Editorial: Illinois’ home health care hustle

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-home-health-care-20171214-story.html

Image result for home health care fraud

For those who are ailing but hope to stay out of nursing homes or hospitals — and who wouldn’t? — there’s an increasingly popular alternative: home health care providers. These are doctors, nurses and other medical staffers who visit patients at home, with the goal of treating chronic conditions and keeping people healthy enough to avoid costly long-term stays in more intensive facilities. That saves patients, and the health care system, money.

But, as with all things in the health field, there are plenty of caveats for potential customers.

Illinois is a field of dreams for home health care fraud, the Tribune’s Michael J. Berens reports. Why? Because state public health regulators doled out too many home health licenses too fast in the past decade. The state allowed almost anyone with a $25 licensing fee to open a home health care business but fails to provide meaningful oversight on hundreds of operators. You can find Berens’ full report at chicagotribune.com/homehealth.

The upshot of lax oversight: In the last five years, area home health agencies have improperly collected at least $104 million in Medicare dollars, Berens reports. (Most patients in home health care are covered by Medicare.) Often the home health businesses did that by falsely certifying that Medicare patients were homebound and in need of nursing care.

But the problem here isn’t measured only in Medicare dollars wasted. It’s measured in patients at risk or harmed. Thousands of patients have been subjected to unwarranted procedures, therapies and tests; some were prescribed unneeded and powerful drugs, the Tribune analysis concludes.

So what can patients, and their families, do to protect themselves? How can someone in Illinois — or her family — shop smartly for a home health care provider? It’s not easy, but here are a few tips:

  • First, you can check a federal website that offers star ratings for home health providers at medicare.gov/homehealthcompare.
  • Then, be vigilant. Make sure a home health care agency coordinates care with your existing primary physician. If a home health care company makes lots of visits but does little more than check your blood pressure, be wary.
  • Check your monthly Medicare statement to monitor services that a home health care company claims to have provided.

On average, some 10,000 Americans turn 65 every day. That means the market for home health will likely continue to surge, placing greater demands on regulators.

In 2013, the federal government banned Illinois from issuing new licenses. The feds said that fraud was rampant, driven by too many home health companies for too few patients. Still, Cook County has more home health companies than the entire state of New York.

Many companies provide excellent care for their customers. The industry’s trade association, the Illinois Homecare and Hospice Council, represents about 160 providers (among the 750 or so licensed in the state).

“We support the moratorium,” Executive Director Sara Ratcliffe told the Tribune. “We want more enforcement.”

So do we. This field of dreams needs to be weeded of fraudsters. At least 357 active home health companies in the Chicago area have been linked to potential financial fraud by federal investigators but never charged.

That’s a daunting fact for families and patients seeking home health care. The state could help prospective patients by posting disciplinary and enforcement actions on the web. More sunshine — readily available information on providers’ performance and disciplinary records — would help them make a wise choice.

 

20 charged in $146M healthcare fraud scheme in Brooklyn

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/antifraud/healthcare-fraud-scheme-164-million-brooklyn?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT1RZNE9HVmhObVZoTW1ReSIsInQiOiJJOVIwamhJUzZScW1XQVhjb09IakYzbWNrWVZcL1gzYlwvMm15RWllNnlxYlJkbzNoT09CblgwMWYrcVdXS2N4Q2tyeHBKa2hQeXBtRDNwQktDK0NSQ3NSOUpzRUV4VG91RjF1Z0lIdjZIK0NCaTY3UURTUHV2VnFxZzRHRjZlalJhIn0%3D&mrkid=959610&utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal

Money, handcuffs and a stethoscope

Twenty people—four of whom are doctors—are facing charges related to a massive fraud scheme that bilked Medicare, Medicaid and other managed care organizations out of $146 million.

Prosecutors from the Brooklyn District Attorneys Office said the defendants ran an enterprise in which recruiters offered cash to low-income and homeless patients to get them to undergo a series of medically unnecessary tests at participating clinics.

They then allegedly billed publicly funded insurance programs for performing those tests and laundered the fraudulently obtained funds through the bank accounts of a series of shell companies in far-flung countries such as Taiwan and Lithuania.

Once that money reached the defendants, prosecutors said, they used it to buy expensive real estate—such as a $3.25 million apartment in downtown Brooklyn, New York—and fund shopping sprees at high-end stores like Hermes and Bulgari.

“This massive scheme, which provided no patient care at all, wasted millions of taxpayer dollars dedicated to Medicaid and Medicare,” Acting Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez said in the announcement.

The investigation began following a referral from the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General. To uncover the alleged scheme, investigators employed undercover detectives, intercepted communications and conducted surveillance and financial analyses.

The defendants are facing charges including enterprise corruption, healthcare fraud, grand larceny and money laundering. Prosecutors said 35-year-old Kristina Mirbabayeva, of Brooklyn, was the ringleader of the scheme, and 53-year-old New Jersey resident Kevin Custis, M.D., was her business partner.

Another one of the doctors charged, 61-year-old Robert Vaccarino, was also employed as a New York Police Department surgeon, according to The Wall Street Journal. The police department said Tuesday that Vaccarino had been suspended.

At a news conference this week, representatives from the Brooklyn District Attorneys Office said the scheme was the biggest healthcare case in the office’s history, the article added.

In other antifraud news:

Prosecutors insist Florida eye doctor stole $136M from Medicaid

The attorney for Salomon Melgen, M.D., a Florida eye doctor who has been convicted of a $100 million Medicare fraud, argued at a sentencing hearing on Thursday that the government has only proven Melgen stole about $64,000.

Attorney Josh Sheptow said Melgen—who was charged separately with bribing New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez—injected patients with then-experimental drugs that are now approved, the Associated Press reported. Sheptow suggested Melgen may have falsified billing statements to get around the fact that Medicare doesn’t pay for experimental treatments—so since the treatments were actually legitimate, the government didn’t lose money on paying for them.

But Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexandra Chase argued that the judge should accept the government’s estimate that Melgen stole $136 million, noting that even if he stole half as much, he would be eligible for a life sentence. Prosecutors are asking for a 30-year sentence.

 

Broward Health counter-sues former CEO: 5 things to know

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issues/broward-health-counter-sues-former-ceo-5-things-to-know.html

Image result for conflicts of interest

Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-based Broward Health’s ex-CEO Pauline Grant sued her former employer in December 2016. The health system fired back in a counter-suit filed Dec. 1, alleging Ms. Grant violated the Anti-Kickback Statute.

Here are five things to know about the litigation.

1. North Broward Hospital District, which does business as Broward Health, claims Ms. Grant violated the system’s code of conduct by serving as secretary of the board of directors of a long-term care provider that had contracts with Broward Health, according to the Sun Sentinel.

2. The health system alleges Ms. Grant’s position on the board violated the terms of a corporate integrity agreement the hospital district entered into with the federal government in 2015. The agreement was put into place after Broward Health paid $69.5 million in September 2015 to settle allegations it violated the False Claims Act by holding improper financial relationships with physicians.

3. Broward Health also claims Ms. Grant violated the Anti-Kickback Statute while she was CEO of Broward Health North in Deerfield Beach, Fla., one of the health system’s six hospitals.

4. Broward Health’s board voted 4-1 on Dec. 1, 2016, to fire Ms. Grant. The board voted to remove Ms. Grant from her position after an independent counsel review showed potential violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute. A subsequent independent investigation found Ms. Grant “ran afoul” of federal anti-kickback law when awarding emergency room contracts to orthopedic physicians seeking to participate in Broward Health North’s on-call emergency department rotation.

5. Following her ouster, Ms. Grant sued Broward Health, accusing the system’s general counsel and four board members of violating the Florida open-meetings law to bring about her termination.

 

69 Indiana hospitals accused of retaining $324M in fraudulent EHR incentive payments

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issues/69-indiana-hospitals-accused-of-overbilling-for-medical-records-in-324m-scheme.html

Image result for false claims act

A recently unsealed lawsuit filed by attorneys under the qui tam, or whistle-blower, provision of the False Claims Act accuses Indiana hospitals of overcharging patients for their electronic medical records.

Here are eight things to know about the lawsuit.

1. After experiencing difficulty obtaining medical records from four Indiana hospitals in their work on personal injury and medical malpractice cases, attorneys from Anderson, Agostino & Keller sued the hospitals in September 2016. They alleged the hospitals falsely certified they were meaningful users of EHR technology.

2. Under meaningful use stage 1, hospitals could show compliance and receive incentive payments by filing attestation documents reporting compliance with core criteria requirements. The lawsuit against the Indiana hospitals focuses on core measure No. 11, which aimed to provide patients with electronic medical records within three business days of receiving a request from the patient or their agent.

3. To receive the incentive payments, hospitals had to show the number of medical record requests they received annually and if the records were supplied to those requesting them within three business days. Hospitals that failed to meet at least 50 percent of their requests within the time frame would not be eligible to receive incentive payments.

4. Based on their experience requesting records from the hospitals and after examining public disclosures, the lawyers alleged the hospital defendants falsely certified compliance with core measure No. 11.

5. The lawyers also claim the hospitals allowed CIOX Health, a company that provided medical records for the hospitals, to illegally profit from the release of the electronic medical records.

“CIOX routinely and repeatedly engaged in a practice, policy, and/or scheme to illegally and fraudulently over-bill patients for the provision of medical records,” the complaint states.

6. The lawyers added organizations operating an additional 65 hospitals to the lawsuit after examining disclosures and identifying a statistical trend that they argue indicates the same type of fraudulent reporting of core measure No. 11.

7. “In sum, these hospitals have been paid $324,386,169.32 in public funding from the citizens of the United States in return for the promise that patients would be provided with fast, cheap, easy access to their electronic health records, and these hospitals have failed to keep that promise,” the complaint states.

“A failure to properly track and report core measure 11 means that the defendant hospitals did not achieve ‘meaningful use’ as defined by the legislation and its ensuing rules. This means that they were not eligible to receive any funding under this program, and have sought and received the grant funding at issue in a fraudulent manner that constitute false claims for public funding.”

8. The Department of Justice declined to intervene in the lawsuit.

Why payers are flocking to the Medicare Advantage market

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/why-payers-are-flocking-to-the-medicare-advantage-market/510589/

Medicare Advantage (MA) and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchanges are both federal programs, but they couldn’t be more different in payers’ eyes. Insurance companies are entering or expanding their footprints in the MA market, while simultaneously pulling back or out of the ACA exchanges. They’ve found success in MA. Not so much in the ACA exchanges.

Payers see MA as a stable market. That’s evident in the fact that MA premiums are expected to decrease by 6% next year. Insurance companies like stability. Insurers increase premiums by double digits when there isn’t stability, which is the case with the ACA exchanges.

A large part of the ACA exchanges’ problems is linked to actions and inaction in Washington, D.C. President Donald Trump’s administration stopped paying cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers, cut the exchanges’ open enrollment in half, reduced the exchanges’ advertising budget by 90%, offered proposed rules and executive orders that hurt the ACA and threatened not to enforce the individual mandate that requires almost all Americans to have health insurance.

Congress, meanwhile, has tried and failed to repeal the ACA this year. All of this created an unstable exchanges market, which resulted in payers leaving the exchanges or jacking up premiums by 20% or more for 2018.

Meanwhile, the MA market is a picture of stability and payer success.

  • There is a steady stream of new people eligible for Medicare daily, and many choose MA.
  • People usually don’t switch back from MA plans after leaving traditional Medicare.
  • Payers can easily convert members from traditional Medicare to MA via marketing campaigns.
  • The MA demographics are usually people who once had an employer-based plan, so they know insurance and how healthcare works. That also means they usually don’t have pent-up healthcare needs.
  • The CMS pays MA plans upfront for covering people with high healthcare costs and payers have enjoyed stable MA payments from the CMS.

So, MA members are easier to get and keep, they usually have fewer health needs and payers like the MA payment structure better than the exchanges, which get compensated at the end of the year. All of that equals a stable market for payers.

One-third of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in an MA plan this year compared to 25% just six years ago. Enrollment grew by 8% between 2016 and 2017 and the CMS recently announced that MA membership will grow by 9% to 20.4 million members in 2018.

Gretchen Jacobson, associate director with the Kaiser Family Foundation’s (KFF) Program on Medicare Policy, told Healthcare Dive that more than half of those in Medicare will have MA plans in many counties next year.

That growth isn’t expected to slow — especially with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress and the White House, according to Steve Wiggins, founder and chairman of Remedy Partners.

“With Republican control of the federal government, it is conceivable that Medicare Advantage will become a centerpiece of CMS’ strategy to control spending growth,” Wiggins told Healthcare Dive.

What more MA members and payers mean for hospitals and providers

With more MA members expected next year, the continual shift to MA will have mixed benefits for providers. Jacobson said it’s not entirely clear how more MA members will affect hospitals and providers. “One of our studies recently showed that the provider networks for Medicare Advantage plans greatly varies and these networks will become even more important as enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans grows,” she said.

Fred Bentley, vice president at Avalere Health, told Healthcare Dive that MA’s growth will present a whole new set of challenges for hospitals and health systems.

Bentley listed two issues:

  • Narrow networks
  • Tighter utilization management compared to Medicare’s fee-for-service model

recent KFF report found that 35% of MA enrollees were in narrow-network plans in 2015. Payers have increasingly turned to narrow networks to control costs and improve quality of care. To take part in the narrower networks, physicians usually have to agree to payer demands concerning cost and quality.

“Differences across plans, including provider networks, pose challenges for Medicare beneficiaries in choosing among plans and in seeking care, and raise questions for policymakers about the potential for wide variations in the healthcare experience of Medicare Advantage enrollees across the country,” KFF said.

Another issue for hospitals and providers is that more payers involved in capitated plans like MA will result in more pressure on providers and hospitals to focus on the cost of care, Michael Abrams, partner at Numerof & Associates, told Healthcare Dive.

“With Republican control of the federal government, it is conceivable that Medicare Advantage will become a centerpiece of CMS’ strategy to control spending growth.”

There’s also the issue of having too few MA payers in some regions. Aneesh Krishna, partner in McKinsey & Company’s Silicon Valley office, told Healthcare Dive the concentration of MA plans in certain markets is a worry for providers. “This concern would be magnified in markets where there is a similarly high concentration in commercial segments from the same payers, and where overall MA penetration is high,” he said.

There’s also a potential payment issue. MA generally reimburses at a slightly higher level than traditional Medicare, but utilization is managed more tightly. Krishna said providers willing and capable of sharing medical cost savings are “likely to see more benefit from the shift to Medicare Advantage plans.” However, MA networks are often narrow, which means providers will need to weigh the relative price/volume trade-offs of accepting MA.

More MA growth in the coming years

MA will have more payers and members than ever next year and the two largest payers, UnitedHealth and Humana, are expected to increase their footprint. Despite new payers showing interest in the market, Jacobson expects the market break down will look similar in 2018. She said small payers entering the market will offset the plans exiting MA next year.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and HHS both project MA enrollment will continue to grow over the next decade. The CBO estimated that about 41% of Medicare beneficiaries will have an MA plan in 2027. UnitedHealth even predicted half of Medicare beneficiaries will eventually have an MA plan.

MA’s popularity with payers is easy to understand — 10,000 people turn 65 every day. The CBO expects 80 million Americans will be eligible for Medicare by 2035.

There’s also an opportunity in the MA market to sign up members quickly. Rachel Sokol, practice manager of research at Advisory Board, told Healthcare Dive that utilizing a strong marketing engine allows payers to grow MA membership. This is quite different from the employer-based market, which relies on payers working with companies.

Potential MA barriers

The MA market is largely positive for payers, but it does face challenges, including:

  • A small number of payers dominate the market
  • The CMS expects improved efficiency and savings
  • There is increased federal oversight, especially concerning possible overpayments to MA insurers

CMS is all in supporting MA plans and its marketspace. The agency last week proposed a rule with an aim toward improving quality and affordability in contract year 2019. According to the agency, the number of plans available to individuals will increase from about 2,700 to more than 3,100.

The agency is proposing to expand the definition of quality improvement activity to include fraud reduction activities, changing the medical loss ratio (MLR) requirements for Medicare Advantage plans. This change should excite payers because they can add the administrative service to the MLR ratio they are required to spend on healthcare, which is at least 85%. CMS states it believes the service will help combat fraud.

For now, the MA market is consolidated around only a handful of payers. UnitedHealth and Humana have more than 40% of the market. UnitedHealth has one-quarter on its own. KFF said UnitedHealth, Humana and Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliates make up 57% of MA enrollment and the top eight MA payers constitute three-quarters of the market.

Also, CMS is imposing improved efficiency in the traditional Medicare program. This could ultimately affect MA. Accountable care organizations (ACO) and bundled payments will “put downward pressure on the benchmarks used to set payment rates for Medicare Advantage plans,” Wiggins said.

This pressure will result in MA payers needing to either cut costs or trim benefits. “The former is difficult, except through narrow networks, and the latter will diminish the attractiveness of Medicare Advantage plans,” he said.

Then there’s the 800-pound gorilla in the market — potential overpayments. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has joined whistleblower lawsuits against UnitedHealth Group concerning MA overpayments. The lawsuits allege that UnitedHealth changed diagnosis codes to make patients seem sicker, which resulted in higher reimbursements to the insurer. A federal judge threw out one of the lawsuits in October.

The DOJ is investigating other MA payers for the same reason, and Congress is also interested. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to CMS Administrator Seema Verma in April questioning what CMS is doing to “implement safeguards to reduce score fraud, waste and abuse.” Grassley said there was about $70 billion in improper Medicare Advantage payments between 2008 and 2013 because of “risk score gaming.”

It’s understandable that investigators and Congress have grown interested in MA payers. The federal government paid $160 billion to MA payers in 2014. The CMS estimated about 9.5% of those payments were improper.

The combination of billions being paid to insurers, the potential for fraud and growing membership numbers make MA ripe for oversight. The stability of the market, particularly compared to other options for payers, however, will mean growth continues.

 

New healthcare fraud trends managed care organizations need to watch

http://managedhealthcareexecutive.modernmedicine.com/managed-healthcare-executive/news/new-healthcare-fraud-trends-managed-care-organizations-need-watch?GUID=A13E56ED-9529-4BD1-98E9-318F5373C18F&rememberme=1&ts=17112017

Related image

 

Even traditional fraud schemes can be difficult to detect, and new methods will only make things more difficult for security teams watching healthcare dollars, says Shimon R. Richmond, special agent in charge at the Miami Regional Office in the Office of Investigations for the Office of the Attorney General.

Richmond gave a presentation on healthcare fraud trends on November 16 at the annual National Healthcare Anti-Fraud Association conference in Orlando, and says hypervigilance is key because obvious red flags are rare.

Where fraud is most prevalent

Richmond says these methods are often based in home health care, personal services, community-based services, and hospice care.

“We see a lot of unnecessary services and billing for services not provided. In the personal care services arena there are a lot of incestuous relationships in terms of who’s providing the care, who’s receiving the care, and who’s billing,” Richmond says. “One really kind of significant theme is pervasive and that’s the overwhelming influence of kickbacks in every area of fraud that we’re seeing.”

Kickbacks can be difficult to detect because this type of fraud often occurs outside of medical systems, he says. Data analytics systems can help, particularly if a system can recognize spikes in billing patterns or from certain providers.

“That’s a red flag. There are those anomalies that we can identify in a proactive manner. But the outside financial arrangements are really something that law enforcement is really only able to get into once we delve into an investigation,” Richmond says.

New fraud trends  

Emerging fraud trends are another challenge when counteracting fraud. It’s difficult to get in front of a new problem that hasn’t been seen before, and the game is always changing, Richmond says.

Recently, Richmond says he has seen an uptick in inappropriate prescriptions for  SUBSYS (fentanyl sublingual spray), which is meant to be prescribed to treat breakthrough pain in cancer patients.

“We’ve seen a huge issue lately where it is being marketed and prescribed to noncancer patients,” Richmond says. “Huge amounts of this drug are being prescribed, but the prescriber is not an oncologist.”

Pharmacies can also be involved in fraudulent activities by searching patient insurance plans to find high-cost prescriptions that can be filled and paid for. The pharmacies then target those consumers to push medications they don’t need, or bill for prescriptions that are never filled.

“A lot of times it’s a bait-and-switch type situation where they’ll do some kind of advertising for a knee brace or some other kind of thing just to get patients to call a number,” Richmond says. Once patients call, they are told the product they were interested in is not available but are offered a more expensive substitute. “There are a lot of marketing companies out there that are acting as lead generators where they are essentially selling to patients the idea of trying out these pains creams or scar creams.”

Hospitals and provider groups in financial distress are also becoming involved in fraud schemes, setting up in-house labs or working with outside labs to generate claims, often for fraudulent genetic testing or urine/drug screens. They may bill for unneeded tests with a kickback, or collect samples that never get tested but are still billed, he says.

Cyber threats and identity theft also continue to be a problem, Richmond says, with a huge spike in the area of telemedicine.

New fraudsters enter the arena

“We are seeing bulk cash transfers, weapons caches, and drug organizations migrating in as they develop their technological abilities and acumen in how to exploit electronic health records,” Richmond says. “This is kind of an evolving threat, and unfortunately, so much of the information is obtainable either online or through an employee that compromises the organization and practice.”

Security teams have to focus on trending information from data on encounters and billing practices, and analyze patterns just to try and keep up.

“I can’t emphasize enough the value of the investments in the analytics and proactive monitoring. That is crucial. Being in the law enforcement arena, a lot of our proactive efforts involve a combination of those analytics and looking for those outliers, or those parts that don’t make sense,” Richmond says. “At the end of the day, it’s all about hypervigilance.

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.”

Another Health-Care Fraud Judgment Includes Personal Liability

https://www.bna.com/healthcare-fraud-judgment-b73014471303/?utm_campaign=LEGAL_NWSLTR_Health%20Care%20Update_102717&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua&elqTrackId=b4c0d096790e4f62a8a465ccca33d352&elq=3924f09b80454e158ead21b0e1788481&elqaid=9961&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=7532

Related image

The Department of Justice has put another notch on its Yates memo belt in securing a $2 million judgment against a home health provider and its owner personally.

A federal district judge issued the judgment Oct. 20 against Dynamic Visions Inc. and its owner Isaiah Bongam. The court previously granted the DOJ judgment on the issue of liability against Dynamic, and agreed that Bongam should be held personally responsible for Dynamic’s activities, which included forging physician signatures on patient care plans that were submitted to the District of Columbia’s Medicaid program.

The DOJ’s litigation strategy in the False Claims Act lawsuit aligned firmly with the 2015 Yates memo directive to hold individuals personally responsible for corporate fraud. While the court said there wasn’t sufficient evidence to tie Bongam to the forged signatures directly, it instead ruled that Bongam should be held personally liable for Dynamic’s actions because he was in sole control of the corporation.

Holding a person responsible for corporate liability, known as “piercing the corporate veil,” is available when the corporation is determined to be a mere shell or alter ego of a person, and therefore not deserving of the legal protection generally accorded the corporate form.

In this case, the court said not piercing the corporate veil to reach Bongam personally would be an “inequitable result,” citing Bongam’s disregard for corporate formalities and intermingling of personal funds with Dynamic’s accounts.

The judgment itself consisted of $1.5 million in damages and an additional $517,000 in fines for each alleged false claims submission. The DOJ asked for, and the court gave, the maximum $11,000 per claim damages for the 47 false claims that Dynamic submitted to Medicaid based on Dynamic’s egregious behavior.

Bongam is now on the hook for that judgment, unless it’s overturned on appeal. Bongam’s attorney told me that he intends to file an appeal, so stay tuned for an update.

Part owner of proposed Chesapeake eye-surgery center faces allegations in kickback scheme, feds say

https://pilotonline.com/news/government/local/part-owner-of-proposed-chesapeake-eye-surgery-center-faces-allegations/article_dac450e3-d7b1-5e1d-87a1-54a39a5e8ddf.html

Proposed site for the Center for Visual Surgical Excellence in Chesapeake

A North Carolina-based physician and part owner of a proposed medical center in southern Chesapeake is facing allegations of involvement in a kickback scheme.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota is pursuing a civil action against Jitendra Swarup, an ophthalmologist at Albemarle Eye Center in Elizabeth City, N.C., a spokeswoman said Friday. She said the government’s complaint would be filed by a court-mandated mid-November deadline.

Swarup was among more than a dozen physicians and four companies listed as defendants in a 2015 complaint lodged by a “whistleblower” and former executive of Sightpath Medical. The lawsuit alleges physicians were bribed through travel, entertainment and “sham consultancy agreements” to use Sightpath products and services.

The company and its former CEO, James Tiffany, settled with the government and the whistleblower recently for $12 million, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota and court documents. The 2015 complaint, which was originally filed in 2013, claimed, among other things, that Sightpath paid Swarup consulting fees to induce referrals.

“We intend to vigorously defend Dr. Swarup, and we believe he will be completely exonerated,” Swarup’s lawyer, Marc Raspanti, said Friday. Raspanti said no criminal charges have been filed, and there is no criminal investigation. The spokeswoman in Minnesota wouldn’t comment on the existence of a criminal investigation, but to date, there has not been a criminal charge issued, she said.

Raspanti, a Philadelphia-based attorney, said he is “cautiously optimistic” the government can be persuaded to “spend their time elsewhere.”

Swarup and Chesapeake ophthalmologist Paul Griffey want to build an outpatient surgery center on about 1.5 vacant acres off Carmichael Way in Edinburgh. Twelve surgeons are committed to what’s being called the Center for Visual Surgical Excellence, Griffey told council members last week. Services would include cataract, retinal and other surgeries, city planning documents say.

According to a certificate of public need issued for the center last month by the Virginia Department of Health, the capital costs of the project are $3.7 million, with financing costs of $1.4 million. It’s scheduled for completion by October 2018. A condition of the state’s certificate is that the center must provide “an appropriate level” of charity services, according to department documents.

City staff and the Planning Commission have recommended approval of a conditional-use permit. City Attorney Jan Proctor said Friday the City Council is aware of the civil lawsuit, but it is not a factor in the land-use issue.

“Dr. Swarup vigorously denies the allegations, and they provide no basis to deny the (permit) whether or not true,” Grady Palmer, the attorney for the project, wrote in an email to council members Sept. 1. The council will consider the proposal tonight.

Swarup, a Suffolk resident, told council members last week that he’s been practicing for 20 years in northeastern North Carolina, where Albemarle Eye Center has five offices, including two on the Outer Banks. He is licensed in Virginia and North Carolina, according to state medical board websites, and is affiliated with hospitals in both states.

Settlement documents say Sightpath Medical supplies medical facilities with products that ophthalmologists use for surgeries in ambulatory surgical centers and hospitals.

Federal payers, including Medicare, reimburse the facilities and the physicians, documents said. Sightpath offered and paid illegal remuneration to physicians to promote the use of its products and services, which resulted in the submission of false claims, the settlement documents said.

The 2015 complaint contends that Swarup began receiving $8,000 a month around 2002 as a consultant for Sightpath, but that he “does not perform commercially reasonable services for these payments.”

Instead, the payments were made to gain Swarup’s business in North Carolina and induce referrals, the documents say. Swarup sought these payments, which continued until at least 2008, as a “quid pro quo for arranging for hospital administrations to utilize Sightpath’s services and equipment,” court documents say.

Swarup was also a guest of a company executive on at least one “luxury” fishing trip to Budd’s Gunisao Lake Lodge in Manitoba, Canada, in 2006, according to the 2015 complaint.

Raspanti said Swarup was a consultant for Sightpath from 2002 or 2003 to late 2014, but Sightpath is still contracted with hospitals in which Swarup operates. He said most of those facilities had contracts with the medical service provider before Swarup came to North Carolina to practice.

Swarup made roughly $80,000 a year in consulting fees with Sightpath, Raspanti said, which included discussions on ways to improve products and services and the training of technicians who assisted Swarup with his procedures.

“The contract, as far as we’re concerned, was legal and honored for many years by both sides,” Raspanti said. It was neither unusual nor inappropriate, he said, and contracts like it exist in other medical disciplines.

There were “half a dozen trips” over the course of Swarup’s contract with Sightpath, Raspanti said. Swarup paid for some and contributed to others, and most were requested by Sightpath executives and were part of Swarup’s contractual obligation. Executives also visited Swarup at his North Carolina home, Raspanti said.

“Just because you see an allegation doesn’t mean it’s true,” Raspanti said, noting there have been “no allegations of inappropriate surgeries, no allegations of lack of medical necessity, no allegations of bad medical outcomes.” He said Swarup has not been excluded from Medicaid or Medicare or any private insurance company.

Raspanti, a health care lawyer for many years, said his client – the only local doctor named in the 2015 complaint – has been targeted because he is an active and prolific surgeon. Raspanti said he has told Swarup to do whatever he needs to do to run his practice, including his pursuit of a new venture.

“I have told him to move full speed ahead on it,” Raspanti said.