CMS Issues Proposed Rule on Reporting and Returning Overpayments

One of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) that has gotten a great deal of attention is Section 6402(a), which requires a person who receives an overpayment to report and return the funds within 60 days after the overpayment is identified (or the date any corresponding cost report is due, if applicable.) The provision is significant because the failure to report and return overpayments creates False Claims Act liability, exposure to Civil Monetary Penalties, and potentially exclusion from participation in the federal programs.

On February 16, 2012, CMS released a proposed rule (77 Federal Register 9179) to implement the requirements of Section 6402(a), and if finalized in its current form it will guide providers on what is required when information indicating a potential overpayment comes to light. While the ACA already creates the obligation to report and return overpayments, the proposed rule imposes additional burdens in an attempt to clarify and define key terms of the statute.

The most significant burden in the proposed rule is a new ten-year look-back period, which would require providers to report and return any overpayment that is identified within ten years from when it was received. CMS stated in the preamble to the rule that the ten-year period was chosen to “further our interest in ensuring that overpayments are timely returned to the Medicare Trust Fund.”

The proposed rule defines an “overpayment” just as the ACA: any funds received or retained under the Medicare program to which the person, after applicable reconciliation, is not entitled. This includes, but is not limited to, payments for non-covered services. An overpayment will be considered “identified” if the provider has actual knowledge of the existence of the overpayment or acts in “reckless disregard” or “deliberate ignorance” of the overpayment. “Reckless disregard” and “deliberate indifference” essentially mean that a provider cannot ignore information brought to his/her attention that a potential overpayment exists. The provider is thus required to make a “reasonable inquiry” to confirm whether or not an overpayment exists.

The definition of “identified” and the lack of guidance regarding “reasonable inquiry” introduce significant uncertainty. What is a “reasonable inquiry”? The preamble to the proposed rule seems to state that this means self-audits, compliance checks, or other research and suggests that such inquiry must be taken with “all deliberate speed.” When considered alongside the proposed ten-year look-back period, it is unclear whether CMS intends to obligate providers who recognize a problem to consider whether this same problem has occurred over the course of the last ten years with regard to similar claims. Is that enough information to trigger the obligation to investigate with all deliberate speed? If it is, this rule places a significant burden on providers to engage in extensive retrospective audits and generates substantial difficulties where information regarding ten-year-old claims may not be readily available.

The proposed rule contains other provisions, such as an explanation of the impact of the Anti-Kickback Statute and how the sixty-day reporting period is tolled when a provider submits a self-disclosure to either the OIG (Self-Disclosure Protocol) or to CMS (Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol).

Again, this rule is not final. The health care industry has an opportunity to comment and potentially impact the final rule’s requirements. Comments are due on April 16, 2012.

The proposed rule can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=CMS_FRDOC_0001-0905

Reverse False Claims-The Latest in False Claims Act Exposure

Earlier this week, the Department of Justice announced that it had its second largest annual recovery of civil fraud claims in history, securing $2.4 billion in settlements and judgments in cases involving fraud against the government in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2009. In making this announcement, Tony West, the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, reiterated that “rooting out fraud” remains one of the Justice Department’s highest priorities.” The government thanked its partners in these recovery efforts, mentioning the cooperation it receives from whistleblowers, State Departments of Justice, Medicaid Fraud Control Units, and Congress.

The reference to Congress’ role in assisting with fraud recovery efforts cannot be minimized. With the enactment of the Fraud Enforcement Recovery Act of 2009 (“FERA”) and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA,” sometimes referred to as the Healthcare Reform Act) in March of this year, Congress has significantly expanded the scope of liability for individuals and entities that receive government funds.

As a result of these reforms, one area where we are seeing considerable exposure for healthcare providers is with “reverse false claims.” There is no longer any doubt that the knowing retention of Medicare and Medicaid overpayments can serve as the basis for False Claims Act liability.

Under PPACA, health care providers are required to “report and refund” any overpayment by within 60 days after the date on which the overpayment was identified (or the date any corresponding cost report is due, whichever is later). The definition of overpayment under PPACA includes any funds received or retained under Medicare or Medicaid to which the provider is not entitled. And PPACA expressly makes the retention of any overpayment an obligation under the False Claims Act.

The Justice Department’s announcement last week that “A top priority for this administration is fighting health care fraud.” should come as no surprise to healthcare practitioners. In fiscal year 2009, health care fraud recoveries reached $1.6 billion, two-thirds of the year’s total. With the recent expansion to the Justice Department’s arsenal of recovery weapons, we will continue to see an increase in recovery efforts. Now more than ever it is essential to be vigilant in avoiding risk related to billing and collections.

Health Care Reform Requires Immediate and Longer Lead Time Changes Regarding CT, MRI and PET Scans

As we continue to review the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, what is immediately striking is the broad range of regulatory requirements that will impact health care providers. Some of these requirements will not go into effect for a year or more. However, one requirement that became effective immediately upon the President signing the bill relates to in-office referrals for CT, MRI or PET scans. The Act requires a physician who refers an individual for CT, MRI or PET (which is being provided under the in-office ancillary services exception to the Stark Law) to “inform the individual in writing at the time of the referral that the individual may obtain the services for which the individual is being referred from a person other than” the referring physician or medical practice. In addition, any medical practice providing these diagnostic imaging services must “provide [their patient] with a written list of suppliers (as defined in section 1861(d)) who furnish such services in the area in which such individual resides.”

Again, this requirement is now in effect. Be aware that another recent change regarding CT, MRI and PET will soon impact health care providers. As required by the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA), by Jan. 1, 2012, all suppliers of the technical component of advanced diagnostic imaging procedures must be accredited by an accreditation organization designated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. MIPPA specifically defines advanced diagnostic imaging procedures as including diagnostic CT, MRI and PET scans.

The accreditation requirement applies to physicians, non-physician practitioners, and physician and non-physician organizations that are paid for providing the technical component of advanced imaging services under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. The accreditation requirement will apply only to the suppliers furnishing the imaging services, and not to the physician’s interpretation of the images.

CMS has designated three national accreditation organizations – the American College of Radiology (ACR), the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC), and The Joint Commission (TJC) - to accredit suppliers furnishing the technical component of advanced diagnostic imaging procedures.

CMS has promised to issue further guidance to suppliers about meeting the accreditation requirements. CMS plans to undertake a provider education outreach program to ensure that all affected suppliers understand the requirements and are able to comply with them prior to the Jan. 1, 2012 accreditation deadline.