by Kristin Rowan | Jun 6, 2025 | CMS, Hospice, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory
Fraudsters Arrested, Oz Issues Warning
Fraudsters arrested in West Covina, CA this week were allegedly running a Medicare scheme. Authorities arrested hospice owner-operator Normita Sierra. They charged her with nine counts of health care fraud, one count of conspiracy, and four counts illegal remuneration (kick-backs) for health care referrals. The U.S. Attorney’s Office named co-conspirator Rowena Elegado. They also arrested her and charged her with one count of conspiracy and four counts of illegal remuneration for health care referrals.
Sierra and Elegado worked together to pay marketers to recruit patients who did not have a hospice referral from their PCP and who were not terminally ill. Some of the kickbacks paid to marketers were as high as $1,300 per patient per month. After six months, the patients were referred out to Sierra’s home health company.
According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, from 2018 to 2022, Sierra’s hospice agences submitted $4.8 million in fraudulent claims. Of those claims, Medicare paid approximately $3.8 million.
In a video statement, Dr. Oz explained how Medicare recipients are falling victim to scams. Sales people call, email, and even knock on your door, offering advice, free samples, and referrals. These marketers have one goal: get you sign a piece of paper. That paper signs you up for hospice care and agrees to allow a specific hospice agency to provide that care. The hospice agency then bills Medicare for services they never provide. Watch the video statement here.
HHS OIG Issues Consumer Alert
In a similar statement, HHS issued a consumer alert regarding DME companies. The alert warns that some DME companies are contacting Medicare beneficiaries. They claim to work for or on behalf of Medicare. Once they receive the patient’s Medicare number, they bill Medicare for unnecessary medical items. These items include urinary catheters, knee and back braces, orthotic braces, and prescription drugs, which may or may not ever be sent to the patient. HHS urges enrollees not to give their Medicare number to anyone. Further, they suggest regulary reviewing items charged to insurance, and refusing delivery of any medical supply not ordered by a physician.
Combating Waste, Fraud, and Abuse
Dr. Oz and CMS have spoken numerous times about combatting the waste, fraud, and abuse withing the Medicare and Medicaid systems. Originally a strong proponent for Medicare Advantage, Oz has promised to audit MA after discovering the government pays more for MA than traditional Medicare. Oz also promised to reduce the amount of prior authorization requests needed before a patient gets services. Oz responded to the Republican-backed House bill requiring more oversight on Medicaid eligibility. Oz indicated that some Medicaid patients are enrolled in more than one state and that Medicaid is paying for able-bodied patients. The waste, fraud and abuse across Medicare and Medicaid is costing the government between $1 and $10 billion and Dr. Oz plans to find it and make significant changes to the management of the system.
A Cautionary Tale for Hospice Providers
You may be thinking, “What does this have to do with me?” Unfortunately, even the most scrupulous hospice agencies can fall prey to marketers running schemes. There are legitimate referral resources in the market who can help your agency get more referrals and more clients. There are also underhanded marketers who know how the system works. These predators will promise new referrals (for a fee) and then enroll uneligible patients without your knowledge. If you are working with or looking for a referral partner for your hospice agency, use one that is referred by someone you trust, and/or do a lot of research on the company history before working with anyone. Be especially wary of the ones who promise much more than what most referral companies offer.
Kristin Rowan has been working at The Rowan Report since 2008. She is the owner and Editor-in-chief of The Rowan Report, the industry’s most trusted source for care at home news, and speaker on Artificial Intelligence and Lone Worker Safety and state and national conferences.
She also runs Girard Marketing Group, a multi-faceted boutique marketing firm specializing in content creation, social media management, and event marketing. Connect with Kristin directly kristin@girardmarketinggroup.com or www.girardmarketinggroup.com
©2025 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in The Rowan Report. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com
by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | May 16, 2025 | Admin, Regulatory
by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.
Shoot the Messenger at Your Own Risk
Shoot the messenger of fraud and abuse at your peril. Providers must take seriously the concerns of employees about possible fraudulent and abusive practices. Most whistleblowers take their concerns to their employers first, especially if they are required to do so by employers’ Compliance Plans. When employers ignore their concerns or, even worse, retaliate against employees or contractors for raising issues in the first place, employees may turn to outside enforcers for assistance in addressing their concerns. Providers must take employees’ allegations seriously whether or not they are valid. Thorough investigations are required in order to demonstrate to employees that there is no problem or that the problem has been corrected.
Private citizens may initiate so-called “whistleblower” or qui tam lawsuits to enforce prohibitions against fraud and abuse in the Medicare, Medicaid, and Medicaid Waiver Programs and other state and federal health care programs, such as VA and Tri-Care.
One of the federal statutes that allows for whistleblower actions is the False Claims Act (FCA). This Act generally prohibits providers from “knowingly” presenting or causing to be presented false or fraudulent claims for payment by the government. Whistleblowers continue to be a major source of information for government enforcers.
Whistleblower Requirements
In order to bring a qui tam action under the FCA, private parties must have direct and independent knowledge of fraud by providers against whom suits are filed. Thus, current or former employees who are familiar with providers’ practices may often initiate whistleblower actions under the FCA. As you can imagine, employees and contractors who are ignored or retaliated against when they bring possible violations to the attention of employers or partners by firing them, for example, are likely to initiate whistleblower suits.
In United States ex rel. Chorches v. American Medical Response [No. 15-3920 (2d Cir. July 27, 2017)], Paul Fabula worked as an emergency medical technician (EMT) for American Medical Response. Fabula realized that his employer fraudulently sought reimbursement from the Medicare Program by falsely claiming that ambulance services were medically necessary when they were not. Specifically, EMTs were asked to falsify electronic Patient Care Reports (PCRs) to make it appear that services were medically necessary. Supervisors printed copies of PCRs, revised them, and directed staff members to sign the revised forms.
In one instance, Fabula provided services with another staff member who prepared the PCR. A supervisor instructed the staff member to fraudulently revise the form. When the staff member refused, the supervisor directed Fabula to sign the revised form. When Fabula refused, he was fired.
Don't Shoot the Messenger
What did Fabula do? Why, of course, he filed a whistleblower suit! The message from this case and numerous others is clear: don’t shoot the proverbial messenger who brings information about possible fraud and abuse violations. Listen up!
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.
©2025 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.
©2025 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in The Rowan Report. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com
by Tim Rowan | Nov 8, 2024 | Clinical, CMS, Editorial, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory
by Tim Rowan, Editor Emeritus
OIG Accuses Medicare Advantage Providers of Padding Patient Assessments...Again
“Hello, this is your Medicare Advantage company calling. I am one of their clinicians and it is time for us to update your health assessment. If you will agree to a home visit, we will send you a $50 gift card to CVS.”
This phone call my brother received is typical, increasingly common, and not necessarily on the up-and-up, according to a new report to CMS from the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (OIG). OIG found that these home visits, known in the insurance industry as “Health Risk Assessments,” (HRA) when coupled with HRA-related claims data, increased Medicare Trust Fund payments to MA companies $7.5 billion in 2022 and twice that in 2023. Most of it went to the top 20 companies.
The October 2024 report, “Medicare Advantage: Questionable Use of Health Risk Assessments Continues to Drive Up Payments to Plans by Billions,” accuses the industry as a whole of improperly padding payments by “finding” new health conditions during these HRA’s that may indicate the need for additional care at additional cost to the company. It questions the use of MA plan employees doing these assessments instead of relying on the customer’s primary care physician’s reports.
OIG references CMS’s own report, “Part C Improper Payment Measure (Part C IPM) Fiscal Year 2023 (FY 2023) Payment Error Rate Results,” to determine that gross overpayments to Medicare Part C plans in 2023 amounted to just over six percent of total payments, or $14.6 billion. The net increase to MA plans, after adjusting for underpayments, brought the percentage to 4.62. Total 2023 payments to MA plans came to $275,605,962,817.
The report also points out that identifying additional customer need during an HRA does not necessarily translate into the insurance company paying for additional care.
In addition to implementing prior OIG recommendations, the new report asks CMS to:
-
- Impose additional restrictions on the use of diagnoses reported only on in-home HRAs or chart reviews that are linked to in-home HRAs for risk-adjusted payments,
- Conduct audits to validate diagnoses reported only on in-home HRAs and HRA-linked chart reviews, and
- Determine whether select health conditions that drove payments from in-home HRAs and HRA-linked chart reviews may be more susceptible to misuse among MA companies.
CMS concurred with OIG’s third recommendation but rejected the other two.
While the entire 38-page report is well-worth reading, OIG has also published a one-page summary.
At this year’s annual conference of The National Alliance for Care at Home, the new merger of NAHC and NHPCO, a number of education sessions were devoted to teaching Home Health agency owners how to negotiate with Medicare Advantage plans in order to minimize losses and better care for patients who chose those plans. Comments included the high rate of care denial, unreasonable prior authorization policies, and slow payments as compared to traditional Medicare. Other healthcare entities have chosen a potentially more effective response: Just Say No.
Hospital systems have had enough
According to a roundup of recent decisions by large and small healthcare systems in Becker’s Hospital CFO Report (10/25/24), no fewer than 30 healthcare providers are severing their relationships with one or more MA plans, with another 60 who told Beckers they are seriously considering the same move.
A sister publication, Becker’s Payer Issues, reported in its October 23 edition that more and more states are issuing fines against MA plans for violations ranging from excessive denied claims to collection of co-pays when none was required.
All of this demands a serious question. How much longer will Home Health continue to tolerate abuse by these giant, for-profit payers now that a different path forward has been paved by hospital systems and state regulatory arms? The loudest voice for Home Health to join the “Just Say No” movement over the last few years has been that of Bruce Greenstein, CTO of LHC Group. Following his company’s acquisition by UnitedHealth’s Medicare Advantage division, Optum, his less loud message is to work with MA plans to teach them what Home Health is and what it can do for them.
Statement from Dr. Landers
In his inaugural address to The Alliance last month, new CEO Dr. Steven Landers called for our entire industry and everyone taking a paycheck from it to join him in advocacy. We fully support that call to action, recognizing that no national association can influence lawmakers and CMS regulators without member support, but he was referring to Medicare rules and payment structures. As we know, that includes less than half of Medicare beneficiaries today. Thanks to deceptive TV ads during open enrollment every year, that number will continue to shrink.
We need to turn at least part of our advocacy focus to the dominant payers, the MA divisions of insurance companies. Read the Beckers report on the 30 healthcare systems that have torn up their MA contracts. Read the companion report about the epidemic of care denials. Yes, it is a David vs. Goliath story, with even the largest organizations in Home Health dwarfed by the size of the payers. As so many hospital systems have shown, however, it is possible to switch from begging for a few more cents per visit to forcing a plan to beg you to take their patients.
It will only work though if everyone does it. We have already lost LHC Group, and Optum is in the final stages of adding Amedisys to their stable. Out of 11,000 HHAs, there is still a chance we have a united voice loud enough to be heard and taken seriously.
One of their improper cost-cutting tactics is routine care denial. For example, the Labor Department alleged that UnitedHealth subsidiary UMR denied all urine drug screen claims from August 2015 to August 2018 without determining whether a claim was medically necessary. In my brother’s case, following his wife’s HRA by her MA company, with no additional care offered, he made the tough choice to put her on in-home hospice care. The assessing nurse immediately detected she had a UTI and ordered the appropriate antibiotics. She responded quickly and may be discharged from hospice soon. Hospice care, of course, is paid by traditional Medicare, not Medicare Advantage.
Tim Rowan is a 30-year home care technology consultant who co-founded and served as Editor and principal writer of this publication for 25 years. He continues to occasionally contribute news and analysis articles under The Rowan Report’s new ownership. He also continues to work part-time as a Home Care recruiting and retention consultant. More information: RowanResources.com or contact Tim at Tim@RowanResources.com
©2024 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in Healthcare at Home: The Rowan Report.homecaretechreport.com One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@homecaretechreport.com
by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Oct 31, 2024 | Clinical, Regulatory
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?
- 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.
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
©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.
by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Sep 20, 2024 | Admin, Regulatory
by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.
Bring on the Fraud Enforcers
Oh, but you do! Statements like this from providers are cringe-worthy. If you have said it before, please don’t ever say it again.
Here’s why:
First, many providers think that when fraud enforcers are required to show intent they must show that providers sat down at their desks on a Friday afternoon, for example, and decided to engage in fraud. On the contrary, enforcers can demonstrate intent by showing that there was fraudulent conduct that providers knew about or should have known about. This is a game changer! It’s not hard to imagine fraudulent conduct that providers should have known about, but have not identified and corrected.
In addition, George Will points out in his Washington Post column, “Have you committed a felony yet? Probably so.” that the volume of legal requirements has skyrocketed. Here is what Mr. Will says:
“Less than a century ago, …a single volume contained all federal statutes. By 2018, they filled 54 volumes – about 60,000 pages. In the past 10 years, Congress has enacted about 2 million to 3 million words of law each year. The average length of a bill is nine times what it was in the 1950s. Agencies publish their proposals and final rules in the Federal Register, which began at 16 pages in 1936, and now expands by an average of more than 70,000 pages annually. By 2021, the Code of Federal Regulations filled about 200 volumes. And in a recent 10-year span, federal agencies churned out approximately 13,000 guidance documents.”
Mr. Will goes on to point out that ignorance of the law is, therefore, inevitable. Congress has added an average of 56 new federal crimes each year so that there are not more than 5,000 federal statutory crimes. In addition, at least 300,000 regulations of federal agencies include criminal sanctions.
Here are some common examples:
-
- If you are a discharge planner/case manager in a hospital or skilled nursing facility you may not know about guidance from the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that says you can’t accept gift cards from post-acute providers that want referrals.
- If you are a home care/private duty provider and accept payments from the Medicaid Program, you may have repeatedly violated technical requirements, such as recording the time caregivers arrive and leave patients’ homes.
- If you provide home health services and use the services of consulting physicians as Medical Directors, chances are very good that fraud enforcers will demonstrate that you violated at least one of a multitude of requirements that govern these relationships.
- Finally, hospice providers know all too well that enforcers are going to claim that their patients are not terminally ill.
Mr. Will says in his column that James Madison predicted our current situation in which laws are “so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood” and “undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow.”
So, don’t even think that you have nothing to hide, much less say it!
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
©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.
by Kristin Rowan | Sep 12, 2024 | Admin, CMS, Hospice, Regulatory
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Apr 18, 2024 | Clinical, Regulatory
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.
by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Feb 14, 2024 | Admin
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.
©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.
by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. | Jan 31, 2024 | Admin, Regulatory
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.
©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.
