Fraud Soup

Clinical

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Oct 31, 2024 | Clinical, Regulatory, Waste Fraud and Abuse

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Everyone in the "Fraud Soup" Together

Perhaps you remember the CEO of a hospice in the Dallas area, Novus Health Care Services, who texted staff members urging them to administer drugs to patients to avoid exceeding per patient spending caps. He then sent texts praising them when patients passed away from the drugs he had urged them to administer: “Good job!” There were also accusations of recruiting ineligible patients and falsifying documentation. Ever wonder what happened to him and other staff members?

Well...Here's the Scoop!

Sixteen individuals from the hospice were indicted and at least eleven of them pled guilty.
Thirteen individuals involved in these activities were sentenced to a combined eighty-four years in prison.
The most recent sentence of four years in prison was imposed on the hospice’s marketing director.
The CEO of the Hospice was sentenced to thirteen years in prison.
Two Medical Directors decided to go to trial instead of pleading guilty. They were sentenced to thirteen years and ten years in prison.
A nurse involved in these activities was sentenced to eight and a half years in prison.
An LVN who received a text from the CEO saying “good job” after she administered drugs to a patient who then passed away was sentenced to eight years in prison.

A triage nurse was sentenced to seven years in prison.
The Director of Operations was sentenced to five and a half years in prison.
A Medical Director who pleaded guilty received a sentence of four years and nine months.
The VP of Patient Services was sentenced to three years in prison.
The VP of Marketing was sentenced to two years and nine months in jail.
A nurse was also sentenced to two years and nine months in prison.
An owner of a lab and home health agency was also sent to jail for eighteen months because she allowed the CEO to access potential patients’ confidential medical information in exchange for using services provided by her companies.

Far-Reaching Effects

Can you imagine the effect on professionals who surely also lost their licenses and their families? Not to mention patients and their families!

The lesson in this heartbreaking story is that fraud enforcement is not limited to owners and upper management. Enforcers will dump everyone who engaged in inappropriate conduct into the “fraud soup.” Therefore, when providers refuse to engage in fraudulent conduct, they are not only protecting themselves, but everyone else involved.

# # #

Elizabeth Hogue is an attorney in private practice with extensive experience in health care. She represents clients across the U.S., including professional associations, managed care providers, hospitals, long-term care facilities, home health agencies, durable medical equipment companies, and hospices.

©2024 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in Healthcare at Home: The Rowan Report. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com

No portion of this material may be reproduced in any form without the advance written permission of the author.

Hospice Fraud Oversight

Admin

by Kristin Rowan | Sep 12, 2024 | Admin, CMS, Hospice, Regulatory, Waste Fraud and Abuse

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

CMS Oversight in Fraud-Ridden States

In 2023, The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) cited research suggesting that hospices profit from fraud far too often. CMS has identified cases of hospices certifying benficiaries who are not terminally ill, providing little to no services, and still billing CMS. Four states have had rapid growth in fraudulent hospices: Arizona, California, Nevada, and Texas.

Churn-and-Burn

Some of the registered hospices had non-operational addresses. This information led to an investigation that resulted in evidence of the fraud dubbed “Churn and Burn.” This scheme involves registering a new hospice and billing for services until there is an audit or the agency maxes out on yearly payments. Then, the hospice closes, keeps the money, registers for a new Medicare billing number, and starts all over again.

Program Integrity Strategy

As a result of the findings of this research, CMS put more effort behing the hospice program integrity strategy to find and address fraudulent activity. Part of the strategy was unannounced visits to hospices nationwide. Hospices not active at listed addresses were deactivated and Medicare billing privileges were revoked. Of the more than 7,000 hospices visited, 400 had potential administrative action pending.

Enhanced Oversight

In the four states identified as having higher instances of fraud, CMS implemented a provisional period of enhanced oversight. During the provisional period, CMS conducted a medical review prior to payment for hospices in these states that have identified problems.

Nationwide Pilot Project

In addition to the provisional period for the four identified states, CMS started a pilot project to review hospice claims after a patient’s intitial 90 days of hospice care. This pilot project was not limited to the four states, but was implemented nationwide. CMS launched the program to help inform medical reviews in determining whether hospices are submitting claims for eligible patients.

Regulatory Changes

CMS also proposed some regulatory changes to combat hospice fraud. Some of these regulatory changes were initially suggested by hospice providers. The proposals include:

- Prohibiting the transfer of Medicare billing privileges of a new hospice for 36 months
- Clarifying the definition of “Managing Employee” to include the administrator and medical director of a hospice
- Implementing a Special Focus Program to increase oversight on poor-performing hospices that have ongoing health and safety deficiencies
- Adding criminal background checks for owners when they initially enroll for Medicare billing privileges.

Prepayment Review Expanded

CMS has just announced that they will expand the prepayment review process in the four states beginning in September, 2024. Information from CMS is limited and states that prepayment review volume will start low to protect compliant hospices, but will increase if a hospice is found to be non-compliant. Consequences for non-compliance includes delays in payment, extended review, or additional administrative actions.

According to preliminary information we received from a hospice consultant, the expanded program puts all new hospices or hospices with ownership changes into prepayment review even if they have not had identified problems.

We have reached out to both CMS and some of our expert hospice consultants to get more information and will update this story as information becomes available.

# # #

Kristin Rowan has been working at Healthcare at Home: The Rowan Report since 2008. She has a master’s degree in business administration and marketing and runs Girard Marketing Group, a multi-faceted boutique marketing firm specializing in event planning, sales, and marketing strategy. She has recently taken on the role of Editor of The Rowan Report and will add her voice to current Home Care topics as well as marketing tips for home care agencies. Connect with Kristin directly kristin@girardmarketinggroup.com or www.girardmarketinggroup.com

©2024 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in Healthcare at Home: The Rowan Report. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com

Private Duty Home Care in Fraud Enforcers’ Crosshairs

Clinical

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Apr 18, 2024 | Clinical, Regulatory, Waste Fraud and Abuse

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Some owners and managers of private duty home care agencies mistakenly think that fraud and abuse prohibitions apply only to services paid for by the Medicare Program. In fact, fraud and abuse prohibitions apply to providers if they accept any state or federal funds, including, but not limited to, Medicaid, Medicaid waiver, VA, and Tri-Care. Many private insurers have adopted the prohibitions on fraud implemented by state and federal programs.

Private duty home care agencies are increasingly in the crosshairs of fraud enforcers if they receive reimbursement from Medicaid and/or Medicaid Waiver Programs. The reason for enhanced scrutiny is that both the federal government, which partially funds state Medicaid and Medicaid Waiver Programs, and state governments that also fund these programs are alarmed about the high costs of them.

Conventional wisdom says that there are big bucks to be saved if fraud and abuse in the Programs are controlled and ultimately eliminated. Conventional wisdom also says that enforcement actions in Medicaid Programs have just scratched the surface. According to this “wisdom,” there are big bucks to be recouped from “low-hanging fruit!”

A recent report from the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services seems to support this perception regarding private duty home care agencies based on the following:

Between 2014 and 2023, at least 34% of fraud convictions in some years were based on private duty home care services. In some years, this percentage was as high as 48%.
In fiscal year 2023, there were 279 criminal convictions related to private duty home care services compared to 66 for registered nurses and 43 for home health agencies.
Recoveries from private duty home care agencies in 2023 totaled $26.4 million.
The amount of civil recoveries reached a 4-year high in 2023 and the combined criminal and civil recoveries were $1.2 billion, resulting in a return on investment of $3.35 for every $1 spent.

The return on investment of more than three times the amount spent is perhaps the most important figure of all. With a three to one return, regulators will not hesitate to “beef up” enforcement actions.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF FRAUD AND ABUSE ARE SEVERE WHEN SERVICES ARE PAID FOR BY THE MEDICAID AND OTHER STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS!

Personal care private duty agencies, don’t believe the myth that only services paid for by the Medicare Program are subject to fraud and abuse enforcement. The consequences may be devastating, including the loss of businesses. Heads up!

©2024 Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. All rights reserved.
No portion of this material may be reproduced in any form without the advance written permission of the author.
©2024 This article appeared in The Rowan Report. All rights reserved.

Pay Attention to Fraud Reports

Admin

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Feb 14, 2024 | Admin, Waste Fraud and Abuse

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Two former Amedisys employees claim that they were fired in retaliation for alerting management to possible violations of the federal False Claims Act. They then filed a whistleblower, or qui tam, lawsuit [Pilat v. Amedisys, Inc., No. 23-566 (2d Cir. Jan. 17, 2024)]. In their whistleblower suit, the employees claim that they complained internally to supervisors about suspected fraudulent practices and refused to engage in such practices.

The employees, for example, recommended against recertifying patients, but supervisors overruled the recommendations and recertified patients again. One of the employees then refused instructions from his supervisors to recertify the patient yet again. The employee said that the patient was completely independent and it would be “unethical” to do so.

The employees also expressed concern to supervisors about the inability of nurses and therapists to keep up with a large volume of patients. One employee said he had to schedule visits for three times as many patients as was safe. The employees explained that many patients were seen for only a few minutes rather than an appropriate amount of time. The employees said that one nurse was assigned to make eighty-six visits during one week and another was assigned to make seventy-eight visits. Amedisys billed for the visits anyway.

In addition, former employees identified multiple specific instances in which clinicians were instructed to document false information about patients. The false documentation was then used to support treatments for which patients did not qualify or to recommend unnecessary treatments. Supervisors, for example, instructed employees to fraudulently document that a fifty-year-old man whom an employee was treating was not independent and needed assistance to climb stairs. The patient did not need such assistance.

The employees further claimed that a female patient in her late fifties with early onset Parkinson’s disease received services during an episode of care. The severity of her condition was overstated in order to continue treatment.

Perhaps the most vivid example provided by the employees involved a female patient who was approximately seventy years old who had a neurological disorder that limited her mobility. The patient’s condition did not prevent her from leaving home or from driving. Supervisors repeatedly overruled employees’ recommendations to reduce visits even though she was completely independent and it would be “unethical” to provide more intensive treatment. The employees were also told not to document a leg injury that the patient suffered in a car accident because documentation of the accident would make it clear that she was not actually homebound and that she did not meet eligibility requirements of the Medicare Program.

Providers must take seriously employees’ concerns regarding possible fraudulent and abusive practices. Most whistleblowers take their concerns to their employers first. It is only when employers ignore their concerns or, even worse, retaliate against employees for raising issues in the first place, that employees turn to outside enforcers for assistance in pursuing their concerns. Whether or not the allegations of employees are valid, providers must take them seriously. Thorough investigations are required in order to demonstrate to employees that there is no problem or that the problem has been corrected.

Although this case involves home health services, the message applies to all types of providers. The message from this case and numerous other lawsuits is clear: Don’t shoot the proverbial messenger who brings information about possible fraud and abuse violations. There is a very heavy price to be paid.

No portion of this material may be reproduced in any form without the advance written permission of the author.

Why Every Provider Must Establish and Maintain a Fraud and Abuse Compliance Program

Admin

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Jan 31, 2024 | Admin, Regulatory, Waste Fraud and Abuse

by Elizabeth E Hogue, Esq.

Providers may have heard or read about the importance of Fraud and Abuse Compliance Plans in their organizations. Despite the wealth of available information about Compliance Plans, many providers continue to express uncertainty about their value. Here are some of the questions providers commonly ask about Compliance Plans:

Why should we have a Fraud and Abuse Compliance Plan?

First, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has clearly stated that, consistent with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as described below, all providers are now expected to have current Compliance Plans that are fully implemented.

As a practical matter, when providers establish and maintain Compliance Plans, it clearly discourages regulators from pursuing allegations of fraud and abuse violations.

Technically speaking, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines make it clear that establishment and implementation of Compliance Plans is considered to be a mitigating factor. That is, if accusations of criminal conduct are made, the consequences may be substantially less severe because of a properly implemented Compliance Plan.

In addition, providers with Compliance Plans are more likely to avoid fraud and abuse. This is because Plans routinely establish an obligation on the part of every employee to report possible instances of fraud and abuse, and Plans include training for all employees.

Compliance Plans may help to prevent qui tam or so-called “whistleblower” lawsuits by private individuals, rather than by government enforcers, who believe that they have identified instances of fraud and abuse. There are significant incentives to bring these legal actions since whistleblowers receive a share of monies recovered because of their efforts. Some whistleblowers have received millions of dollars. Compliance Plans make it clear that employees have an obligation to bring any potential fraud and abuse issues to the attention of their employers first. Compliance Plans provide a clear path to resolve fraud and abuse issues internally.

In addition, the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires providers to have Compliance Plans. In short, it’s the law!

Finally, the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) requires providers who receive more than $5 million in monies from state Medicaid Programs per year to implement policies and procedures, provide education to employees, and put information in their employee handbooks about fraud and abuse compliance. These requirements can be met through implementation of Fraud and Abuse Compliance Plans.

We don’t receive reimbursement from the Medicare or Medicaid Programs. Do we still need a Compliance Plan?

Statutes and regulations governing fraud and abuse also apply to providers who receive payments from any federal and state healthcare programs, including Medicaid, Medicaid waiver and other federal and state health care programs, such as TriCare and the VA. Many private insurers have followed the federal government’s lead in terms of fraud and abuse enforcement. Therefore, providers that don’t receive reimbursement from the Medicare Program must have compliance plans, too.

We hear that the OIG of the U.S. Department for Health and Human Services has provided guidance for various segments of the healthcare industry regarding Compliance Plans.

Specifically, the OIG has already published guidance for clinical laboratories, hospitals, home health agencies, hospices, physicians’ practices, third-party billing companies, and home medical equipment companies. Should we just use the model guidance that is applicable to us?

The answer is, “No!” Guidance from the OIG is not a model Compliance Plan. Guidance from the OIG consists of general guidelines and does not constitute valid Compliance Plans. In addition, the OIG has made it clear that Plans must be customized for each organization.

We have read that, before implementing Compliance Plans, providers must conduct expensive internal audits that can take many months to complete. Is this true?

While beginning the compliance process with an extensive internal audit is certainly one way to proceed, it is not the only viable way to work toward compliance. It is equally valid to begin with Compliance Plans that are customized for the organization and include training for all employees about fraud and abuse, and Compliance Plans. Then all staff members can subsequently participate in internal compliance activities, including audits, with a process in place to handle any issues that arise as a result of the audits.

We have all sorts of policies and procedures in our organization. Why do we need something else called a Compliance Plan?

Compliance Plans are specific types of documents that routinely address fraud and abuse issues that providers do not usually cover in internal policies and procedures. In addition, providers may not gain benefits under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines described in paragraph one (1) above if there is no formal document called a Compliance Plan.

We just spent a lot of money to become accredited or reaccredited. Doesn’t certification mean that we are in compliance?

On the contrary, Compliance Plans appropriately address potential fraud and abuse issues. They also include mechanisms for helping to ensure compliance, such as processes for identification and correction of potential problems that are not addressed during the certification process. In other words, organizations may be accredited, but fail to meet applicable compliance standards for fraud and abuse.

Will the fact that our organization has a Compliance Plan make any difference regarding the outcome of fraud and abuse investigations and the imposition of Corporate Integrity Agreements (CIA’s)?

Yes, it may make a considerable difference, based on statements from the OIG. If providers have Compliance Plans in place during investigations that are current and fully implemented, the OIG may be less aggressive in pursuing potential violations. Enforcers are likely to ask for information about Compliance Plans and related policies and procedures. Enforcers are now also likely to ask providers to show them how much money they have spent on fraud and abuse compliance activities!

When the OIG discovers problems with fraud and abuse in organizations, providers are usually asked to develop and implement a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA). The OIG often requires CIA’s to include a process for stringent monitoring by the OIG on a continuous basis. These monitoring activities can be extremely burdensome to providers in terms of both time and money. Providers with valid Compliance Plans may not be asked to develop and implement CIA’s.

Now is the time for all providers to recognize and act upon the need to establish and maintain Compliance Plans. “Working on it” is no longer good enough.

No portion of this material may be reproduced in any form without the advance written permission of the author.