Category Archives: Appeal

Wow! Did You Know That There Were All of These Different Medical and Dental Examination and Specialty Boards out There?

Patricia's Photos 013By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

Did you know there are many different medically-related examination and specialty boards out there screening applicants’ credentials and administering national examinations required for licensure? What is more, if an applicant is accused of some type of wrongdoing by that board (which may include allegations of “irregular behavior or conduct,” “cheating,” “compromising examination materials,” or other similar allegations) each has different procedures and appeals for handling investigations.


Types Of Medical Specialty Boards.

I have recently had to advise clients on or become involved in hearings or appeals for:

  • The Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG);
  • The National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners (NBOME);
  • The National Board of Chiropractic Examiners (NBCE);
  • The National Board of Pediatric Medical Examiners (NBPME);
  • The National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME);
  • The Joint Commission on National Dental Examinations (JCNDE)
    (which administers the National Board Dental Examination (NBDE));
  • The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP);
  • The American Board of Internal Medicine; and the
  • American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABO+G).

These are just the recent ones and don’t count the regular medical specialty boards about which we routinely consult clients.


The Intricacies of These Types of Boards.

Some of the boards don’t even have hearing procedures or appeal procedures set forth in a written policy or handbook. This makes it somewhat challenging to dispute an adverse decision against a client.

Nevertheless, because we have had such broad experience with such different boards, we are able to synthesize and extrapolate from the experiences we have had to obtain favorable results for clients, even when we are called upon to deal with a board with which we have not previously dealt.


Comments?

Were you aware that such specific boards existed? Do you have any experience or personal insight with any of these boards? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.


Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced with Investigations of Health Professionals and Providers.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm provide legal representation to physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, CRNAs, dentists, pharmacists, psychologists and other health providers in accusations of disruptive behavior, Department of Health (DOH) investigations, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigations, FBI investigations, Medicare investigations, Medicaid investigations and other types of investigations of health professionals and providers.

To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.


About the Author:
George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1999-2015 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

 

Physician Argues Definition of “Peer” at Formal Administrative Hearing

peer reviewFACTS: The Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) is responsible for administering Florida’s Medicaid program and conducting investigations and audits of paid claims to ascertain if Medicaid providers have been overpaid. With regard to investigations of physicians, section 409.9131, Florida Statutes, provides that AHCA must have a “peer” evaluate Medicaid claims before the initiation of formal proceedings by AHCA to recover overpayments. Section 409.9131(2)(c) defines a “peer” as “a Florida licensed physician who is, to the maximum extent possible, of the same specialty or subspecialty, licensed under the same chapter, and in active practice.” Section “109.9131(2)(a) deems a physician to be in “active practice” if he or she has “regularly provided medical care and treatment to patients within the past two years.”

Alfred Murciano, M.D., treats patients who are hospitalized in Level III neonatal intensive care units and pediatric intensive care units in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach County hospitals. His practice is limited to pediatric infectious disease. He has been certified by the American Board of Pediatrics in two areas: General Pediatrics and Pediatric Infectious Diseases. AHCA initiated a review of Medicaid claims submitted by Dr. Murciano between September 1, 2008, and August 31, 2010, and referred those claims to Richard Keith O’Hern, M.D., for peer review. Dr. O’Hern practiced medicine for 37 years, and was engaged in a private general pediatric practice until he retired in December of 2012. During the course of his career, he was certified by the American Board of Pediatrics in General Pediatrics, completed a one-year infectious disease fellowship at the The University of Florida, and treated approximately 16,000 babies with infectious disease issues. However, he was never board certified in pediatric infectious diseases, and at the time he reviewed Dr. Murciano’s Medicaid claims, Dr. O’Hern would have been ineligible for board certification in pediatric infectious diseases. In addition, Dr. O’Hern would have been unable to treat Dr. Murciano’s hospitalized patients in Level III NICUs and PICUs.

After Dr. O’Hern’s review, AHCA issued a Final Agency Audit Report alleging Dr Murciano had been overpaid by $l,051.992.99, and that he was required to reimburse AHCA for the overpayment. In addition, AHCA stated it was seeking to impose a fine of $210,398.60.

OUTCOME: Dr. Murciano argued at the formal administrative hearing that Dr O’Hern was not a “peer” as that term is defined in section 409.9131(20)(c). The ALJ agreed and issued a Recommended Order on May 22, 2014, recommending that AHCA’s case be dismissed because it failed to satisfy a condition precedent to initiating formal proceedings. While recognizing that AHCA is not required to retain a reviewing physician with the exact credentials as the physician under review, the ALJ concluded Dr. O’Hern was not of the same specialty as Dr. Murciano.

On July 31, 2014, AHCA rendered a Partial Final Order rejecting the ALJ’s conclusion that Dr. O’Hern was not a “peer.” In the course of ruling that it has substantive jurisdiction over such conclusions and that its interpretation of section 409.9131(2)(c), Florida Statutes, is entitled to deference, AHCA stated that it interprets the statute “to mean that the peer must practice in the same area as Respondent, hold the same professional license as Respondent, and be in active practice like Respondent.” AHCA concluded that “Dr. O’Hern is indeed a ‘peer’ of Respondent under the Agency’s interpretation of Section 409.9131(2)(c), Florida Statutes, because he too has a Florida medical license, is a pediatrician and had an active practice at the time he reviewed Respondent’s records. That Dr. O’Hern did not hold the same certification as Respondent, or have a professional practice identical to Respondent in no way means he is not a ‘peer’ of Respondent.” AHCA’s rejection of the ALJ’s conclusion of law regarding Dr. O’Hern’s “peer” status caused AHCA to remand the case back to the ALJ to make the factual findings on the claimed overpayments that were not made in the Recommended Order because of the ALJ’s conclusion that Dr. O’Hern did not qualify as a “peer.”

On August 18, 2014, the ALJ issued an Order respectfully declining AHCA’s remand. AHCA then filed a Petition for writ of Mandamus in the First District Court of Appeal, asking the court to direct the ALA to accept the remand and to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to each overpayment claim. The court assigned case number 1D14-3836 to AHCA’s Petition, and the case is pending.
Source:

AHCA v. Alfred Murciano, M.D., DOAH Case No. 13-0795MPI (Recommended Order May 22, 2014), AHCA Rendition No. 14-687-FOF-MDO (Partial Final Order July 31, 2014)
About the Author: The forgoing case summary was prepared by and appeared in the DOAH case notes of the Administrative Law Section newsletter, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Dec. 2014), a publication of the Administrative Law Section of The Florida Bar.

Agency Attorney Prosecuting Case Should Not Also Be in Position of Advising The Agency; Possible Bias Denies Due Process

McAlpin appealed an order of the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (“Commission”) suspending his law enforcement certification for eighteen months. The Commission filed an administrative complaint alleging misconduct during the course of a criminal investigation. A formal administrative hearing was held and a recommended order was issued.

At the Commission hearing to consider the recommended order, the attorney who prosecuted the case against McAlpin was present and offered advice to the Commission. The Commission’s staff had prepared a memorandum to the Commission recommending an increase in the recommended penalty to revocation of McAlpin’s license. It was not clear who prepared the staff memorandum. However, it was clear the prosecuting attorney had prepared exceptions to the recommended order for the agency.

On appeal, the court reversed and remanded for a new Commission hearing. While the Commission did not ultimately adopt the agency’s recommendation of an increased penalty, the court held that the staff attorney’s enhanced access to the Commission undermined the Commission’s function as an unbiased reviewer of the recommended order.

The court did note that it was not inherently inappropriate to consolidate investigative, prosecutorial and adjudicatory authority in a single agency. Each case must be considered on its unique factual background.

Source:

McAlpin v. Criminal Justice Standards and Training Comm’n, 120 So. 3d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)(Opinion filed September 13, 2013).

About the Author: The forgoing case summary was prepared by Mary F. Smallwood, Esquire, of the Administrative Law Section of The Florida Bar. It originally appeared in the Administrative Law Section newsletter, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Dec. 2013).

 

Supreme Court Rules that Government Regulators Can Sue Over Pay-for-Delay Agreements Between Brand and Generic Drug Manufacturers

George F. Indest III, Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

George F. Indest III, Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 17, 2013, that pay-for-delay agreements between brand name and generic drug manufacturers are subject to anti-trust scrutiny. These pay-for-delay agreements, or reverse payments, are usually a form of settlement between the two manufacturers in patent litigation. The Supreme Court decided that each instance must be considered on a case-by-case basis. This verdict rewrites the rules governing the release of generic drugs. It is likely to increase the number of generic drugs in the marketplace and reduce the price of generic drugs.

To read a previous blog on pay-for-delay agreements, click here.

What is a Pay-for-Delay Agreement?

Pay-for-delay agreements came as the result of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act gives generic drug manufacturers an incentive to challenge brand name drug patents because the first generic drug manufacturer to received U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to launch a generic copy of a brand name drug can receive a 180-day marketing exclusivity period for the product. The FDA cannot approve any other generic applications for the same drug until the first-to-file generic manufacturer has sold its product for 180 days or has given up its exclusivity period. Click here to read the Hatch-Waxman Act.

Brand name manufacturers often challenge generic drug manufacturers who try to sell their product prior to patent expiration. This results in litigation to determine whether the generic manufacturer is violating the brand name manufacturer’s patents.

Instead of going to court over this, brand name manufacturers often choose to pay a settlement to the generic drug manufacturers for agreeing to delay the launch of its competing product.

Why the Supreme Court Overruled Court of Appeals Decision.

The 5-3 vote overruled the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that said pharmaceutical companies can’t be sued unless the patent litigation is a sham or a generic drug maker agrees to delay introduction of a generic drug into the market even after the patent has expired.

A Med Page Today article lists the Supreme Court’s five reasons why the appellate court made a mistake in giving blanket immunity to pay-for-delay agreements from the decision written by Justice Stephen Breyer:

–  “A reverse payment, where large and unjustified, can bring with it the risk of significant anticompetitive effects.”

–  “One who makes such a payment may be unable to explain and to justify it.”

–  “Such a firm or individual may well possess market power derived from the patent.”

–  “A court, by examining the size of the payment, may well be able to assess its likely anticompetitive effects along with its potential justifications without litigating the validity of the patent.”

–  “Parties may well find ways to settle patent disputes without the use of reverse payments.”

Click here to read the entire Med Page Today article.

Pay-for-Delay Agreements Allegedly Cost Patients Millions of Dollars a Year.

According to Bloomberg, the high court’s decision may discourage brand name and generic pharmaceutical companies from reaching settlements. It’s been found that pay-for-delay agreements can delay a generic drug almost 17 months before it can be put on the market. In the meantime, patients must pay higher prices for the brand name version. This also impacts Medicare and Medicaid programs. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) claims pay-for-delay agreements cost consumers $3.5 billion a year in the form of higher drug prices.

To read the Bloomberg article, click here.

The Case of the FTC v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals.

The Supreme Court case center around AndroGel, a treatment for low testosterone in men, made by Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The FTC sued Solvay and three generic drug companies. According to Bloomberg, the FTC said that a payment made by Solvay, the holder of a patent on AndroGel, to the generic drug manufacturers represented an unlawful restraint of trade because it was intended to keep cheaper, generic versions of AndroGel off the market until 2020.

FTC Enthusiastic About the Decision.

In a statement, the FTC Chairwoman said the Supreme Court’s decision is a “significant victory for American consumers, American taxpayers and free market.” She also stated, “The court made it clear that pay-for-delay agreements are subject to antitrust scrutiny.”

Click here to read the full statement from the FTC.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Pharmacies and Pharmacists.

The Health Law Firm represents pharmacists and pharmacies in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, litigation, inspections and audits. The firm’s attorneys include those who are board certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.

To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

What do you think of the Supreme Court’s ruling? Do you agree or disagree? What effect do you think it will have on the pharmaceutical industry? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Stohn, Greg. “Drugmakers Opened to ‘Pay for Delay’ Suits by High Court.” Bloomberg. (June 17, 2013). From: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-17/drugmakers-opened-to-pay-for-delay-suits-by-high-court.html

Frieden, Joyce. “Supreme Court Split on Pharma ‘Pay for Delay’ Deals.” Med Page Today. (June 17, 2013). From: http://bit.ly/18SfhKb

Kaplan, Peter. “Statement of FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in FTC v. Actavis, Inc.” (June 17,2 013). From: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2013/06/actavis.shtm

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2012 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

American Medical Association Joins Minnesota Medical Staff in Its Fight for Autonomy

7 Indest-2008-4By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

The American Medical Association (AMA) and several other physician organizations announced support of a court appeal by physicians at Avera Marshall Regional Medical Center in Minnesota. The medical staff at Avera alleged the hospital’s governing board amended the medical staff’s bylaws and took away the medical staff’s right to self-govern. On February 6, 2013, the AMA, the Minnesota Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Osteopathic Association and the Minnesota Academy of Family Physicians filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the hospital’s medical staff.

Click here to read the press release from the AMA announcing its support of the medical staff at Avera.

Background on the Case at Avera Marshall Regional Medical Center.

In January 2012, the Avera medical staff filed a lawsuit alleging the new bylaws created by the hospital’s governing board left the physicians without “nearly all rights and responsibilities” and gave Avera’s governing board controlling power in processes that required medical staff direction. On September 26, 2012, a Minnesota District Court judge issued a final order on a lawsuit refusing to recognize the medical staff’s lawsuit and refusing to recognize the bylaws as a contract.

To read more on the final order by the judge in the Minnesota District Court, click here.

AMA and Other Physician Organizations in Favor of Self-Governance by a Medical Staff.

The brief supports reestablishing the independence of the hospital’s medical staff to ensure their right and responsibility to uphold the quality of patient care, without interference by the hospital’s governing board. The AMA president said the judge’s ruling gave unchecked power to Avera’s governing board over the medical staff. The brief urges the state’s court of appeals to revise this ruling and allow the medical staff to present its case for self-governance. The AMA believes giving the medical staff the right to self-govern will restore balance between patient care and corporate interests at the hospital.

Click here to read the friend-of-the-court brief file by the AMA.

My Input on a Self-Governing Medical Staff.

By law the medical staff in a hospital is supposed to be self-governing. The AMA, along with other medical associations, created a minimum standard to govern hospitals and to lay out what health care professionals need to do to improve the quality of care in the hospitals. Self-governing includes allowing the medical staff to discipline its own members when necessary, conduct peer reviews, and take action when they see hospital issues.

To watch a video explaining medical staff self-governance in more detail, click here.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Health Care Professionals.

The Health Law Firm routinely represents pharmacists, pharmacies, physicians, nurses and other health providers in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, litigation, inspections and audits involving the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Health (DOH) and other law enforcement agencies. Its attorneys include those who are board certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.
To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

What are your thoughts on medical staff self-governance? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Mills, Robert. “AMA and Other Support Physician Fight for Autonomy.” American Medical Association. (February 15, 2013). From: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2013-02-15-physician-fight-autonomy.page

Medical Staff of Avera Marshall Regional Medical Center on Its Own Behalf and in Its Representative Capacity for Its Members v. Avera Marshall d/b/a Avera Marshall Regional Medical Center. Case No. A12-2117. State of Minnesota Court of Appeals. February 6, 2013. From: http://www.thehealthlawfirm.com/uploads/2012-12-05-amicus-brief-avera-marshall.2.pdf

Gau, Deb. “Judge Issues Final Order in Avera Lawsuit.” Marshall Independent. (September 26, 2012). From: http://www.marshallindependent.com/page/content.detail/id/536152/Judge-issues-final-order-in-Avera-lawsuit.html?nav=5015

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2012 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

You Must Challenge Overpayment Demands from Medicare and Medicaid Audits

6 Indest-2008-3By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

We have recently received numerous communications from health care professionals, including physicians, physical therapists, occupational therapists, mental health counselors, durable medical equipment (DME) providers, assisted living facilities (ALFs), group homes, and psychologists, who have been placed on prepayment review after failing to challenge Medicare or Medicaid audit results. The problem is that these providers, once placed on prepayment review, have their payments held up for many months and are often forced out of business. Sometimes it appears that this may actually be the goal of the auditing contractor or agency.

What Happens on Prepayment Review.

Failing to challenge, follow-up on, and appeal any adverse audit determinations can be very detrimental. An error rate in excess of fifteen percent (15%) will usually result in the provider being placed on prepayment review. While on prepayment review, the provider will be required to submit the documentation for medical records by mail to support each claim submitted and have that claim and its supporting medical records’ documentation audited, prior to any claims being paid. Often the auditing agency will come back to the provider again and again to demand additional information and documentation on claims instead of immediately processing them. This can hold up processing of the claim for months. Often the resulting termination of income flow will force the provider out of business. This saves the government lots of money, because the provider has then provided services to Medicare or Medicaid recipients for many months without ever getting paid for it.

These are some of the reasons why we recommend that physicians, physical therapists, occupational therapists, podiatrists, optometrists, psychologists, mental health counselors, respiratory therapists, and others always hire the Board Certified Health Law Attorney experienced in audits from the very beginning.

A Real-Life Example of the Trouble Caused by a Medicare Audit.

In one case we know of, a therapist was audited by Medicare. The audit by the Medicare administrative contractor (MAC) requested only 30 records. The therapist provided copies of the records he thought the auditors wanted. He did not number the pages or keep an exact copy of what he provided. The MAC came back and denied one percent (1%) of the claims audited. However, since the amount demanded back by the MAC was only a few thousand dollars, the therapist never hired an attorney and never challenged the results. Instead of retaining legal counsel and appealing the results, the therapist paid the entire amount, thinking that was the easy way out.

Unfortunately, because of the high error rate, the MAC immediately placed the therapist on prepayment review of all claims, assuming the prior audit had disclosed fraud or intentional false coding. Every claim the provider submitted from that point on had to be submitted on paper with supporting medical records sent in by mail. The MAC refused to make a decision on any of the claims, instead, holding them and requesting additional documentation and information from time to time. The therapist currently has most of his claims tied up in prepayment review, some for as long as five months with no decision. No decision means no review or appeal rights.

The therapist conveyed to me that he recently contacted the auditor to attempt to obtain decisions on some of his claims so that he could at least begin the appeal process if the claims are denied. He advised me that the auditor at the MAC expressed surprise that he was still in business.

Challenge Improperly Denied or Reduced Claims.

These situations are very unfair and unjust, especially to smaller health care providers. The reduced cash flow even for a month or two may be enough to drive some small providers out of business. Larger health care providers have vast resources sufficient to handle such audit situations on a routine basis. They may have similar problems but are better equipped and have more resources to promptly handle it. Rather than immediately pay whatever amount is demanded on an audit and waive any appeal/review rights, the provider should review each claim denied or reduced and challenge the ones that have been improperly denied or reduced. Otherwise you may wind up with a high error rate which will cause you to be placed into prepayment review. Once placed in prepayment review, it is difficult to get out of it. Often it takes six months or longer.

Don’t Get Caught Up in the Audit Cycle.

Another reason to challenge overpayment demands as a result of an audit is because the audit contractors will keep you on an audit cycle for a number of future audits if they are successful in obtaining any sort of significant recovery from you on the initial audit. This is similar to what happens if your tax return is audited by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recovers a significant payment from you because you did not have the documentation to support your deductions, you can expect to be audited for at least the next two years.

The value of competent legal representation at the beginning of an audit cannot be overestimated. It is usually long after the audit is over, and the time to appeal the audit agency’s findings has passed, that the health care provider realizes he should have retained an audit consultation.

Don’t Wait Until It’s Too Late; Consult with a Health Law Attorney Experienced in Medicare and Medicaid Issues Now.


The attorneys of The Health Law Firm represent healthcare providers in Medicare audits, ZPIC audits and RAC audits throughout Florida and across the U.S. They also represent physicians, medical groups, nursing homes, home health agencies, pharmacies, hospitals and other healthcare providers and institutions in Medicare and Medicaid investigations, audits, recovery actions and termination from the Medicare or Medicaid Program.

For more information please visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com or call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001.

Comments?

Have you ever been audited? What was the process like? Did you retain legal counsel to help with the process? Was having legal assistance worth it? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999. 

Copyright © 1996-2012 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Ambulance Company in Tennessee Settles A $2 Million Overpayment Lawsuit

George F. Indest III, Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law and Dr. Thu Pham, O.D., Law Clerk, The Health Law Firm Attorney

A Tennessee ambulance company and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) announced a settlement in a case over a post payment audit for more than two million dollars in May 2012. Back in March of 2010, the Nashville ambulance company sued the DHHS after being sent a $2.65 million overpayment demand, according to the Nashville Business Journal.

To see the Nashville Business Journal article on the lawsuit, click here.

Huge Fine Found Using Error Rate Extrapolation Formula.

According to the lawsuit, the ambulance company claimed that the fine was based on incorrect accounting by a Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) for the DHHS. The contractor reviewed “a small sample of claims and determined that many did not meet Medicare coverage criteria.”

The actual overpayment on those claims was $10,764, which was determined to be an error rate of fifty-one percent (51%). The error rate was then used to extrapolate and obtain the $2.65 million figure which was demanded from the ambulance company.

Ambulance Company Files Administrative Appeal.

Upon administrative appeal, the ambulance company said most of its claims were determined to be appropriate, yet the error rate was never recalculated and the company was still stuck with a large bill.

Disputes of payments included bills for transporting dialysis patients by ambulance. The DHHS said those trips were not valid because they were not emergencies. The ambulance company refuted this contending that the trips did not have to be emergencies because they were ordered by a doctor.

Click here to read the entire lawsuit.

What You Should Know About the Use of Statistical Sampling and Extrapolation Formulas.

In both state Medicaid audits and in Medicare audits, we have experienced increased reliance by the auditing agency on use of mathematical extrapolation formulas to estimate the amount that should be repaid. The formula used usually takes the overpayment that has actually been found and, based on several factors, multiplies it out to many times the actual overpayment amount, as is the example in this case. We have seen ratios of as high as 1 to 150 (or 150 times the actual disallowed claims amount) calculated.

Things you should know about this are as follows:

1.  Neither the Medicare program nor the state Medicaid programs should use an extrapolation formula, unless:

  a. There is a “high” error rate in the claims that have been submitted; or

  b. There have been prior educational efforts or prior audits of the provider, and the provider

has failed to correct the problems in claims submission previously found.

2.  The states each have different guidelines, rules or regulations on when they will apply the statistical formula. Some do not use it at all. Some use a higher percentage error rate to prompt use of the formula and some lower. For example, North Carolina uses one of the lowest percentage error rates we have encountered; an error rate of more than five percent (5%) will prompt its Medicaid agency to apply the statistical extrapolation to the recovery amount.


Two Parties Settle.

On May 25, 2012, the United State District Court announced the ambulance company and the DHHS had settled and compromised. The lawsuit was dismissed against the DHHS without prejudice for a period of ninety (90) days.

Click here to see the order of dismissal.

Don’t Wait Until It’s Too Late; Consult with a Health Law Attorney Experienced in Medicare and Medicaid Issues Now.
The attorneys of The Health Law Firm represent health care providers in Medicare audits, ZPIC audits and RAC audits throughout Florida and across the U.S. They also represent physicians, medical groups, nursing homes, home health agencies, pharmacies, hospitals and other healthcare providers and institutions in Medicare and Medicaid investigations, audits, recovery actions and termination from the Medicare or Medicaid Program.

For more information please visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com or call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001.

Sources:

Nashville Business Journal. “Ambulance Company Sues Over $2.65M Bill.” Nashville Business Journal Online. (March 15, 2012). From: http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/stories/2010/03/15/daily2.html

First Call Ambulance Service, Inc., v. Department of Health and Human Services, Case Number 3:10-0247, Order of Dismissal, May 25, 2012 available at: http://www.thehealthlawfirm.com/uploads/First%20Call_Dismissal.pdf

First Call Ambulance Service, Inc., v. Department of Health and Human Services, Case Number 3:10-cv-0247, First Call Ambulance Service, Inc., Sues Department of Health and Human Services Over $2.65 Million, March 20, 2010 available at: http://www.thehealthlawfirm.com/uploads/First%20Call%20Case.pdf

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law.  He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice.  Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area.  www.TheHealthLawFirm.com  The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone:  (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.

Copyright © 1996-2012 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.