On January 11, 2018, CMS released a Letter to Medicaid Directors outlining guidance that work requirements can be used as a basis for eligibility for certain adult Medicaid beneficiaries through 1115 waivers. Medicaid beneficiaries that can be subject to work requirements include non-elderly, non-pregnant adult Medicaid beneficiaries who are eligible for Medicaid on a basis other than disability. The guidance also outlines that exemptions/protections from work requirements must be made for individuals who are medically frail or have substance use disorders. It also details that states should outline how they would support beneficiaries with limited employment opportunities (economically depressed area, rural area, transportation limitations, etc.). The guidance suggests state could use good cause exemptions similar to those used in SNAP and TANF. Continue Reading CMS Guidance on Work Requirements for Medicaid Eligibility
While we continue to monitor Congressional efforts to repeal and replace the ACA, we are also monitoring CMS’s efforts to implement the administration’s Medicaid program goals without Congressional action. The future of the Medicaid program depends not only on the final outcome of a repeal and replace bill, but also on the Secretary Price’s and CMS Administrator Verma’s strategy and vision for the program. In two recent Letters to Governors from Secretary Price and Administrator Verma, we see how some legislative provisions from the AHCA that are still the subject of debate could be implemented despite the lack of legislative action. Continue Reading Medicaid Reform Beyond the AHCA
The waiver of copayments, coinsurance, and deductibles owed by patients treated by out-of-network laboratories and other providers is a hot topic in the health care industry. Despite the near absence of clear legal prohibitions on this practice, commercial insurers are aggressively pursuing out-of-network providers who fail to collect amounts owed by their members under a variety of statutory and common law theories.
For example, in 2015, Aetna filed suit against Health Diagnostic Laboratory (HDL), Tonya Mallory (HDL’s former CEO), and BlueWave Health Care Consultants (an independent sales group), alleging that they engaged in a variety of illegal actions, including the failure to collect any amounts owed by Aetna’s members, and that Aetna overpaid for services provided by HDL as a result. While HDL settled, Aetna continues to pursue its claims against Ms. Mallory, who recently failed in her efforts to have the case against her dismissed. However, a recent court decision may give providers some comfort. In June 2016, a Texas federal district court prevented Cigna from recovering funds paid to Humble Surgical Hospital, which allegedly waived amounts owed by Cigna’s members and engaged in other misconduct. The court dismissed all of Cigna’s claims and found that Cigna owed $13 million to Humble. Continue Reading Lessons Learned from FCA Settlement Involving Waiver of Medicare Coinsurance Amounts
Yesterday the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (the “OIG”) issued Advisory Opinion 15-04 (“Advisory Opinion”) in which it found that an exclusive arrangement between a laboratory and a physician practice could potentially generate prohibited remuneration under the Anti-Kickback Statute and also subject the laboratory to certain administrative sanctions. Notably, the OIG also concluded that the proposed arrangement could constitute grounds for permissive exclusion under the federal prohibition against charging the Medicare and Medicaid programs “substantially in excess” of usual charges.
The Proposed Arrangement
The Requestor – a multi-regional medical laboratory – proposed entering into exclusive agreements with physician practices whereby the laboratory would provide all required laboratory services (unless the patient chose a different laboratory) to the physician practices. According to the Requestor, some physician clients want this type of arrangement because they prefer to work with a single laboratory for ease of communication and consistency in the reporting of test results. However, some commercial insurance plans require their enrollees to use a particular laboratory and do not pay for out-of-network laboratory services (“Exclusive Plans”). The Requestor certified that approximately 70 percent of its physician practice clients had indicated that between 10 percent and 40 percent of their patients are enrolled in Exclusive Plans. As part of the proposed arrangement, the Requestor would not bill the patient, the physician practice, the Exclusive Plan, or any secondary insurer for services furnished to patients enrolled in Exclusive Plans. Nearly all other patients – whether covered by a federal health care program or a commercial insurance plan – would be billed in accordance with fee schedules or contracted rates.
Under the written agreement between the parties, each physician would be required to represent that neither the physician nor the practice would receive any financial benefit from the Requestor’s provision of free laboratory services to patients covered by Exclusive Plans, including any financial benefit received through an incentive program that would pay a bonus or impose a penalty based upon the utilization (or lack thereof) of laboratory services. The Requestor certified that it would not provide any items, services, or financial benefits, other than a limited-use electronic health records interface for submitting orders to and receiving results from the Requestor. Physician practices would be eligible to enter into the proposed arrangement only if they did not draw the samples and thus did not bill for the blood draw or the testing.
The OIG’s Analysis
The OIG found that the proposed arrangement could generate remuneration under the Anti-Kickback Statute. The OIG pointed to two facts that, taken together, supported its conclusion that the proposed arrangement would “reduc[e] administrative and possibly financial burdens associated with using multiple laboratories.” First, the OIG claimed that physician practices would gain certain efficiencies because they would receive test results with consistent reference ranges (which might not be the case if they used multiple laboratories). Second, although a physician practice typically does not pay for the EHR interface itself, the OIG believed that the proposed arrangement would relieve physician practices from having to pay monthly maintenance fees charged in connection with any EHR interface that it currently maintained with one or more other laboratories. The OIG thus concluded that it could not rule out with sufficient confidence the possibility that the Requestor would be offering remuneration to induce the referral of federal health care program beneficiaries. The OIG also noted that the Requestor had failed to provide any evidence of quality or safety improvements that would justify the proposed arrangement, or of any safeguards that would make the remuneration low risk under the Anti-Kickback Statute. In fact, the OIG noted that the Proposed Arrangement could be construed as causing the inappropriate steering of patients, including federal health care program beneficiaries.
In a footnote, the OIG acknowledged that any remuneration offered to patients through the proposed arrangement presents a low risk of fraud and abuse under the Anti-Kickback Statute due to the lack of connection to services payable by a federal health care program.
Finally, the OIG concluded that the proposed arrangement may justify use of the OIG’s permissive exclusion authority under Section 1128(b)(6)(A) of the Social Security Act, which is often referred to as the “substantially in excess” provision. This statute authorizes permissive exclusion authority for the OIG in cases where a provider or supplier charges the Medicare and Medicaid programs amounts that are “substantially in excess of” their “usual charges to other payors for the same items or services.” Although the OIG has stated previously that providing discounted or free services to uninsured or underinsured patients does not implicate the statute, it noted that the proposed arrangement involved the provision of free services to insured patients. The OIG thus found that the proposed arrangement could potentially cause more than half of the laboratory’s non-Medicare and non-Medicaid patients to receive free services while Medicare and Medicaid would be charged at the regular rate.
Notably, the OIG has only opined on this permissive exclusionary authority on only a handful of occasions, and the most recent was in 2013. The last time the OIG concluded that an arrangement could trigger exclusion under this section was in Advisory Opinion 99-13, which concerned client billing arrangements between laboratories and their physician clients. The OIG later issued clarifying letters on April 20, 2000 and April 26, 2000. The OIG has tried and failed on multiple occasions to implement regulations interpreting the substantially in excess provision. Its last attempt was on September 15, 2003, but it withdrew the proposed rule in 2007.
The reasoning applied in this negative OIG advisory opinion is difficult to comprehend. The OIG’s conclusion that the proposed arrangement would amount to remuneration apparently is based only on the fact that the physician practices would receive intangible, non-quantified benefits from consistent reference ranges and an untested presumption that the physician practices had other interfaces that resulted in charges for monthly maintenance fees, which may or may not be the case. We note that the OIG has long been critical of the relationships between laboratories and physician practices, as evidenced most recently by a June 2014 Special Fraud Alert addressing payments by laboratories to physicians.
Written by: Stephanie D. Willis
Fridays are for fraud and abuse news-related releases, yet again. Last Friday, the HHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a notice (Notice) informing the public that it has delayed the release of a final rule regarding applicable fraud and abuse law waivers for ACOs participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP). Accordingly, the OIG extended the application of the waivers from the fraud and abuse laws stated in the November 2011 Interim Final Rule (IFR) for another year (until Nov. 2, 2015). The waivers from the IFR essentially allow ACOs participating in the MSSP to test out innovative relationships among participating providers with a “pass” from the OIG and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) with regard to their authority to enforce the Physician Self-Referral Law, the Anti-Kickback Statute(AKS), the Gainsharing Civil Monetary Penalty Law (CMP), and the Beneficiary Inducement CMP.
In the Notice, the OIG has acknowledged that it “would benefit from additional input from stakeholders” on the following four topics:
- How and to what extent ACOs are using the IFR’s waivers;
- Whether the IFR’s waivers currently serve the needs of ACOs and the Medicare program;
- Whether the IFR’s waivers “adequately protect the Medicare program and beneficiaries from the types of harms associated with referral payments or payments to reduce or limit services;” and
- Whether there are new or changed considerations that should inform the development of additional notice and comment rulemaking.
The OIG has not established a deadline for receiving stakeholder comments.
Written by Bridgette A. Wiley
Because health care companies operate in such a heavily regulated environment, the advice of legal counsel is integral to ensuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Fortunately the attorney-client privilege generally protects legal advice from disclosure to regulatory agencies, enforcement authorities, and opposing parties in litigation, including whistleblowers in False Claims Act cases. This protection is crucial because it allows health care companies to seek legal guidance on potential compliance issues without fearing that their proactive efforts to comply with the law could be used against them in a legal proceeding.
Karen Lovitch, Brian Dunphy, and I recently published an article on this topic in the G2 Compliance Advisor published by Bloomberg BNA. The article, Keeping Legal Advice In-House: Protecting the Attorney Client Privilege, provides an overview of the privilege; examines how the privilege applies (or does not apply) to communications to and from in-house counsel, outside counsel, and compliance professionals; discusses common privilege issues; and offers practical tips for protecting the privilege.