Healthcare Law Blog

"Incident to" Billing - Easy to Get Wrong

Billing for medical services is never easy. Despite attempts by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) to simplify the rule regarding “incident to” billing for Medicare services, it remains misunderstood by a large swath of providers. This proves problematic, as incorrect billing practices may lead to overpayments and False Claims Act violations. Billing for “incident to” services is an important mechanism to reflect the actual value of mid-level services provided under the specific plan of a physician. When properly followed, the “incident to” rules allow physicians to bill for services provided by non-physician practitioners as if they were performed by the physician at physician reimbursement rates. Additionally, the non-physician provider can be an employee, an independent contractor or even a leased employee, provided that they are supervised by a physician and the requirements are met. Because of the confusing nature of allowing a physician to bill for services he or she did not directly provide to the patient, serious landmines exist that can create problems if the rules are not scrupulously followed and documented. More >

New Rule Brings Sweeping Changes to Physician Privacy, Part II

Earlier this week, we discussed the new U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) policy on disclosure of Medicare reimbursement to individual physicians.  The policy, set to take effect on March 18, 2014, enables the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to evaluate requests for physician pay information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and, in some cases, release the data. This new policy marks a fundamental shift in HHS’ commitment to protect physician privacy. More >

Sound Inpatient’s Unsound Practices Lead to $14.5 Million Settlement

On July 3, 2013, the United States Department of Justice announced Sound Inpatient Physicians, Inc. (“Sound Inpatient”) will pay $14.5 million dollars to settle allegations that it over-billed Medicare and other federal health care programs. The Washington-based company employs more than 700 hospitalists and post-acute physicians to facilities in twenty-two states. More >

OIG Updates Self-Disclosure Protocol, But Discourages Action, cont.

On Tuesday, the changes to eligibility and disclosure requirements for the OIG’s Self-Disclosure Protocol (“SDP”) were discussed. Now, let’s take a look at certain disclosures and what has changed from the ’98 version.

Disclosures Involving Excluded Persons

Many SDP disclosures involve violations of employing or contracting with individuals who are on OIG’s List of Excluded Individuals and Entities (“LEIE”).  With the update, OIG has specified what is needed for a complete disclosure of this violation. A disclosure must include, among other things, biographical information on the excluded party, description of the disclosing party’s screening process, and a description of how the conduct was discovered.  The disclosing party must also screen all current employees and contractors against the LEIE.

OIG has also provided guidance on calculating damages for this disclosure. For direct providers who bill separately, the disclosing party must provide the total amounts claimed and paid by federal health care programs for the items or services. If items or services are not billed separately, a formula will be used based on the excluded party’s total cost of employment or contracting. This amount will be multiplied by the disclosing party’s federal program payor mix.

Disclosures Involving Anti-Kickback and Stark Law

Since the 2009 Open Letter, conduct involving only potential violations of the Stark Law is not eligible for SDP. To qualify, violations must potentially involve both the AKS and Stark Law. It is the disclosing party’s responsibility to describe each disclosed arrangement and determine on their own why each arrangement may violate the AKS and, if applicable, the Stark Law.

If a disclosure is limited solely to the Stark Law, this potential violation should be disclosed to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) through their Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol (“SRDP”). Providers should be prepared for the possibility that OIG and CMS will work together.

A disclosing party must include the total remuneration provided through the agreement, but a party may explain why portions of the remuneration should not be considered by the OIG when determining the settlement amount.

Disclosures Involving False Billings

For potential improper claim disclosures, a disclosing party must estimate the total financial impact to government health care programs. To do this, a party can either disclose all claims with specific information or use a sample size. When using the latter method, a party must use a statistically valid sample of, at minimum, 100 claims and use the mean point estimate for calculating the effect. The ’98 version only required 30 claims and called for a “minimum precision level.”

The updated SDP does offer a short list of benefits for disclosing parties. Resolution will continue to occur in most matters without a corporate integrity agreement. This has been the general policy since the 2008 Open Letter. OIG will maintain its general practice to require a minimum multiplier of 1.5 times the single damages for many instances. Lastly, there will be a suspension of the obligation to report and return overpayments to the federal health care programs while the SDP is pending.

In evaluating the pros and cons of the updated SDP, the scales weigh heavily in favor of OIG and against self-disclosure. Entry into the SDP should be carefully considered. The new version offers only minor benefits while posing significant risks to a disclosing party who is seeking to come forth with potential violations.

Christopher J. Shaughnessy is a member at McBrayer law.  Mr. Shaughnessy concentrates his practice area in healthcare law and is located in the firm’s Lexington office.  He can be reached at cshaughnessy@mcbrayerfirm.com or at (859) 231-8780, ext. 1251. 

Services may be performed by others.

This article does not constitute legal advice.