Tag: postpayment review

The Return of the Supplemental Medical Review Contractor

Written by Brian Werfel on March 2, 2017. Posted in Medicare, Reimbursement.

In a November 2016 member advisory, we discussed StrategicHealthSolutions, LLC (Strategic), the CMS Supplemental Medical Review Contractor (SMRC). The SMRC is tasked by CMS to perform a variety of tasks aimed at lowering the improper payment rates and increasing the efficiencies of the medical review functions of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. In other words, the Strategic is yet another audit contractor.

In our earlier member advisory, we indicated that the Strategic had sent letters to a number of ambulance suppliers requesting medical records for certain ambulance transports. Those letters indicated that the Strategic was tasked with performing postpayment reviews of “Part B therapy claims for providers with a high percentage of patients receiving therapy beyond the threshold as compared to their peers.”

At this point, you are probably asking what the physical therapy cap threshold has to do with claims for ambulance services. If so, you are not alone.

On behalf of the AAA, our firm contacted Strategic to request further clarification. Specifically, we asked whether the intent was to limit its review to physical therapy providers, or whether the intent was to audit ambulance suppliers. Strategic responded by indicating that it intended to limit its review to physical therapy services, and that these letters were sent to ambulance suppliers in error. To its credit, Strategic did contact the affected ambulance suppliers by telephone to notify them of its error. Strategic also sent letters to the affected ambulance suppliers formally rescinding the record request.

Score one for the good guys, right? Think again.

Over the past few days, we have been notified by numerous AAA members that they have received a letter from Strategic requesting records for certain ambulance transports. These letters indicate that these postpayment reviews are being directed by CMS, and are based on an analysis of national claims data.

The audit notification letters cite the HHS Office of the Inspector General’s 2015 report on question billing practices as the establishing “good cause” for reopening the claims being audited. That report identified 7 billing practices that the OIG considered “questionable.” Among the OIG findings being cited by Strategic are: (1) that CMS paid $17 million during the first half of 2012 for ambulance transports to and from a physician’s office and (2) that CMS paid $30 million over that same period for transports where there existed no record of the patient receiving covered Medicare services at either the pickup or drop-off locations on that date of service.

So, having cited two examples of improper payments from the industry as a whole as the basis to audit specific ambulance providers, one would naturally expect that the claims being audited would be limited to those instances, right? Unfortunately, when CMS and its contractors are involved, it is rarely that that simple.

Instead, Strategic appears to be consistently asking for samples of 40 or so claims. While it is difficult to discern a pattern from the handful of audit letters I have seen, one point of emphasis does appear to be ALS emergency claims, which typically represent more than half the sample being requested. However, in each case, the remaining claims come from each of the various base rates. In other words, it is possible that the claims being selected are truly random.

It is premature to speculate on how these audits turn out. However, the initial misstep by Strategic does not inspire confidence.

If you receive a letter from Strategic, it is important that you respond within the time frames set forth in your letter. If you are unable to meet that deadline, I would strongly recommend that you contact Strategic to ask for an extension. Typically, the contractor will grant an extension of 30 days as a courtesy. I would also use that time to obtain supporting documentation from the hospitals and SNFs. Given the scrutiny currently being paid to the patient signature requirement, I would review each claim to ensure that the requirement has been met. To the extent you are relying upon a facility signature, I would verify that the signature is legible (or accompanied by the signer’s printed name). If it is not, I would suggest obtaining a signature attestation from the individual that signed.

Please keep in mind that the best way to avoid a potential recoupment is to convince the contractor that the claim was properly paid in the first place. Maximum effort prior to your initial response is likely to pay big dividends down the road.

Have an issue you would like to see discussed in a future Talking Medicare blog? Please write to me at bwerfel@aol.com.

Understanding the GAO’s Recent Report on Medicare Prepayment and Postpayment Reviews

Written by Brian Werfel on June 1, 2016. Posted in Reimbursement, Talking Medicare.

On May 13, 2016, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) publicly released a report on the comparative effectiveness of the various audit programs used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and its various contractors. This report was requested by Senator Orrin Hatch, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who had asked the GAO to examine: (1) the differences between prepayment and postpayment reviews and the extent to which CMS contractors utilize each, (2) the extent to which contractors focus their reviews on particular types of claims, and (3) CMS’ cost per review, and the amount of improper payments identified by contractors for each dollar they are paid.

To briefly summarize the GAO’s findings:

The Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs) generally limited themselves to conducting postpayment reviews. The GAO attributed this to the fact that the RACs were paid contingency fees based on recovered overpayments, i.e., because prepayment reviews result in a claim never being paid in the first place, there is no “overpayment” to be recovered, and, therefore, no contingency fees to be paid. The GAO did note that from 2012 to 2014, CMS conducted a demonstration project in which the RACs conducted prepayment reviews (and were paid contingency fees based on the dollar amount of denied claims), which CMS considered to be a success.
The Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) generally limited themselves to conducting prepayment reviews.
Each contractor also tended to specialize in certain types of claims. For example, the GAO noted that during 2013 and 2014, the RACs tended to focus primarily on inpatient hospital claims. The GAO found that the MACs tended to focus on physician and durable medical equipment claims. Note: the GAO included claims for ambulance services within the larger category of “physician” claims.
The RACs identified a total of $4.5 billion in improper payments during 2013 and 2014. For their work, the RACs were paid contingency fees totaling $312 million, a return of approximately $14 in improper payments for every dollar paid to the RACs.
CMS lacked reliable data on the costs and effectiveness of its MACs program integrity reviews.

The GAO made two specific recommendations. First, it recommended that CMS seek legislation that would permit its RACs to conduct prepayment claims reviews. Second, it recommended that CMS develop written guidance on how its MACs should calculate the savings attributable to prepayment claims reviews. CMS disagreed with the first recommendation, believing it unnecessary in light of other programs intended to move CMS away from “pay and chase”, including prior authorization and enhanced provider enrollment screening. CMS agreed with the second recommendation.

Focus on the RACs

For the years 2013 – 2014, the GAO found that the RACs focused primarily on hospital inpatient claims. For example, the GAO found that 78% of the FY 2013 claims reviewed by the RACs were hospital inpatient claims. While this number declined to 47% in FY 2014, that decline was largely attributable to CMS, under its own authority and subsequent legislation, prohibiting the RACs from reviewing certain inpatient stays during the first part of FY 2014. If you look only at postpayment reviews, the numbers were even higher, 87% in FY 2013 and 64% in FY 2014.

So why were the RACs focused on hospital inpatient claims, largely to the exclusion of other types of claims? The GAO believes the answer lies in how the RACs are compensated for their work. Recall that the RACs are paid contingency fees (of between 9% – 17.5%) based on the amount of the recovered overpayments. Given this fee structure, the GAO believed it was logical for the RACs to focus on claims with higher average dollar amounts per claim. The following chart shows the average amount of the improper payment identified by the RACs on a per-claim basis:

As you can see, the average overpayment for an inpatient hospital claim was more than $3,000 in FY 2013, compared with slightly more than $300 for a physician (or ambulance) claim. Assuming a 10% contingency fee, this means the RAC could expect to receive $300 for each inpatient hospital claim it reviewed, compared with $30 for a physician claim. Given these financial incentives, the RACs decision to focus on inpatient hospital claims makes sense.

Focus on the MACs

In contrast to the RACs, the Medicare Administrative Contractors focused their program integrity activities almost exclusively on prepayment reviews. The following chart shows the breakdown of MAC reviews by provider type:

As you can see, the MAC largely focused on physician and DME claims, with physician claims (including ambulance claims) accounting for 49% of MAC reviews in FY 2013 and 55% of MAC reviews in FY 2014.

The efficacy of these reviews is unclear. This is largely due to the failure by CMS to collect consistent data on the savings from prepayment claims denials. At least 3 MACs failed to provide data on the specific funds they spent on prepayment and postpayment reviews. Instead, these MACs reported their costs as part of their broader claims processing activities. MAC also used different methods for calculating the savings from prepayment reviews. For example, 2 MACs used the billed amounts by providers to calculate total savings from denied claims, despite the Medicare allowables being significantly lower than the amounts normally billed by providers. 9 MACs used the total Medicare allowable, without differentiating between Medicare’s payment and the payments made by secondary insurers and/or patients. The remaining 5 MACs compared denied claims to similar claims that were paid to estimate what Medicare saved on claims denied as part of prepayment reviews.

Impact on Ambulance Providers and Suppliers

The key finding in this report is the GAO’s belief that prepayment reviews are generally more cost-effective in preventing improper Medicare payments. The GAO believes this is because prepayment reviews “limit the need to recover overpayments through the “pay and chase” process, which requires administrative resources and is not always successful.”

While the GAO and CMS are in agreement that Medicare should move away from postpayment reviews, they appear to disagree on how, exactly, to implement that transition. The GAO’s report makes clear its belief that CMS should devote greater resources to prepayment reviews, with the GAO specifically recommending that CMS seek legislative authority to empower its RACs to take a greater role in conducting prepayment reviews. By contrast, CMS appears to favor prior authorization programs.

Only time will tell which of these views gains prominence. In the meantime, ambulance providers and suppliers should expect to see the RACs take an increasing interest in our industry.

Have an issue you would like to see discussed in a future Talking Medicare blog? Submit your question!