Health Care Compliance Watch : New York Health Care Compliance Lawyer & Attorney : Ilana Sable : NY Physician Representation Law

Traditionally, it was only “doctors” that provided medical care to patients – likely with the help of some sort of unlicensed assistant – and doctors would, therefore, limit their billing (and revenue) to the services that they, individually, provided. In recent years licensed and/or certified non-physician practitioners (“NPP’s”) have begun to provide an increasing amount and variety of medical care to patients and, accordingly, increase the amount of reimbursement and revenue to health care practices that utilize the services of an NPP.

The regulations and statutes regarding NNP education, scope of practice, supervision and training are primarily based on state laws and, in many ways, differ from state to state. The designation and variety of NPP’s also vary from state to state, but, generally speaking, NPP’s can be categorized as follows:

• Advanced Practice Nurse
• Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist
• Clinical Nurse Specialist
• Clinical Psychologist
• Clinical Social Worker
• Nurse Midwife
• Nurse Practitioner
• Occupational Therapist
• Physician Assistant
• Physical Therapist
• Speech Pathologist
• Surgery Assistant

Billing and Reimbursement for Non-Physician Practitioner Services

Reimbursement received by health care practices for services provided by NPP’s varies substantially among federal, state and commercial payors, and should be thoroughly evaluated prior to submission of medical bills. For instance, Medicare will reimburse for services provided by certain NPP’s in private physician practices when:

(1) The bill for NPP services is submitted using the NPP’s own name and national provider identifier (“NPI”) number. The NPP is reimbursed at eighty-five (85%) percent of the Medicare physician fee schedule.

(2) The bill for NPP services is submitted using the supervising physician’s NPI as “incident to” the services provided by the physician. The NPP’s services will be reimbursed at One Hundred (100%) percent of the Medicare physician fee schedule. Further, if covered NPP services are furnished, then services and supplies furnished incident to the NPP’s services may also be covered.

In order for a health care practice to submit a bill to Medicare for NPP services provided “incident to” the services of the supervising physician, the following criteria must be met:

(a)   The NPP services must be performed under the direct supervision of the physician as an integral part of the physician’s personal in-office service (this does not mean that each occasion of an incidental service performed by a NPP must always be the occasion of a service actually rendered by the physician.

(b) There must be a direct, personal, professional service furnished by the physician to initiate the course of treatment of which the service being performed by the NPP is an incidental part, and there must be subsequent services by the physician of a frequency that reflects the physician’s continuing active participation in and management of the course of treatment;

(c)   The supervising physician must be physically present in the same office suite and be immediately available to render assistance if that becomes necessary;

(d) Also, a physician might render a physician’s service that can be covered even though another service furnished by a NPP as incident to the physician’s service might not be covered.

In practice, this translates to the following criteria:

(1) The supervising physician initially sees the patient (or sees the patient at a previous visit) and initiates the plan of care that the NPP is carrying out.

(2)The supervising physician remains involved in the patient’s care and continuously documents this involvement in the patient’s medical record.

(3)The NPP is an employee and/or independent contractor associated with the physician practice.

(4)The supervising physician (or another physician of the physician practice) must be in the medical office at all times that the NPP provides services and must be immediately available to intervene in the patient’s care if medically necessary.

Commercial payors, on the other hand, are free to set their own policies and guidelines for credentialing NPP’s and providing reimbursement for their services. Some commercial payors are willing to credential NPP’s and allow NPP services to be reimbursed using the NPP’s own provider number or instruct physician practices to bill for services provided by the NPP under the supervising physician’s provider number as “incident to” the services provided by the supervising physician. Other commercial payors simply refuse to reimburse for services provided by an NPP altogether. It is also important to note that a health care practice may be able to negotiate the reimbursement rate provided by certain commercial carriers for services provided by NPP’s.

Additionally, federal, state and commercial payors each have unique restrictions and guidelines concerning an NPP’s ability to examine and treat new patients, patients with new or worsening conditions, and so forth. Accordingly, health care practices should always request and keep on file each payor’s written policy concerning qualification, billing, coding and reimbursement of NPP services.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

While it is impossible to pinpoint the exact areas that Recovery Audit Contractors (“RACs") will target when reviewing medical bills sent to Medicare, each regional RAC is required to post its current “issues under review” and disclose to the public the specific codes and/or procedures currently being audited by automated reviews (where no medical record is involved in the review). 

For instance, the “issues under review” identified by Region A - Diversified Collection Services (which audits New York and New Jersey, among other states) are:

•         IV Hydration

•         Bronchoscopy services

•         Blood transfusions

•         Untimed Codes

•         Neulasta: J2505; injection, Pegfilgrastim, 6mg

•         Once In A Lifetime codes

•         Newborn/Pediatric codes (i.e. newborn pediatric codes Billed for patients exceeding age limits)

•         New patient visits

•         Duplicate claims - Part B only

•         Global billing of radiology or diagnostic tests in the facility setting

•         Add-on codes

If your medical practice provides services that are identified as “issues under review,” the first step in any internal review and self-audit is to have the practices medical biller(s) and performing physician(s) review: (a) the applicable local coverage determinations (“LCDs”) and (b) the “issue description” and “issue references” disclosed with the specific “issue under review.” In most cases, the practice can easily correct the “issue” being audited by using an alternate code, submitting claims that are more detailed and/or limiting the services to allowable: beneficiaries, duration, frequency or levels.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

All medical pracites participating in and submitting medical bills to the Medicare program must comply with the following documentation requirements:

1. There must exist sufficient documentation in the provider’s records to verify that the services were provided to eligible beneficiaries;
2.  Medicare’s coverage and billing requirements must be met (including that requirement that the services be reasonable and necessary); and
3. Services must be provided at the appropriate level of care and must be coded correctly.

These requirements are especially important when providers receive Additional Documentation Requests (“ADR’s”) from Medicare contractors or are subject to an audit. It is important to note that, upon request by a Medicare contractor (including a Recovery Audit Contractor), medical documentation must be submitted within forty-five days of the date of the request. If the provider (a) fails to submit documentation or (b) provides insufficient documentation for the services billed, Medicare takes the position that that there is no justification for the services or level of care billed and will either deny the claim or consider any prior payment an “overpayment” and request that the provider repay the amount previously paid on the claim. Moreover, now that Medicare’s RAC program has been extended to each state, ensuring that your medical practice is compliant with Medicare’s documentation requirements is an absolute necessity.

In addition to Medicare and Medicaid, medical practices must be mindful of documentation requirements imposed by their specific state as well as insurance carriers.  Accordingly, when evaluating a practice’s medical records and medical documentation, providers are encouraged to conduct internal audits and investigations, and identify corrective actions that promote compliance with all of the administrations and agencies that regulate medical practices.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

When implementing the Recovery Audit Contractor (“RAC”) program, Medicare incorporated a variety of limitations and requirements that RACs are required to abide by when conducting audits of Medicare providers. Most significantly, Medicare providers should be aware of the following mandates when being audited by a RAC:

1. When conducting audits, RACs are limited to looking back up to three years from the date a claim was paid, with a maximum look back date of October 1, 2007.

2. RACs are limited in the number of medical records that they can request from a provider within a forty-five day period (medical record limits depend on the type and size of the practice).

3. RACs must accept and review extension requests if providers are unable to submit documentation in a timely manner.

4. After submission of an Additional Documentation Request (ADR) letter, RACs must initiate at least one additional contact with the provider before issuing a denial for failure to submit documentation.

5. When reviewing Evaluation and Management (“E/M”) services, RACs cannot look for incorrect levels of service (reviews of E/M services are limited to, among other things, reviews for duplicate claims and/or payments, unbundling and violations of global surgery rules).

6. RACs are prohibited from reviewing claims that were previously reviewed by another Medicare contractor (i.e. Medicare Administrative Contractors (“MACs”) or that underwent a Prepayment Review.

These points are not exhaustive and demonstrate the need for providers to understand their rights and protections when going through the audit process. The RAC program was designed with ample controls and provider protections, and it can be extremely costly and time consuming (if not debilitating) when Medicare providers fail to enforce their rights and protections when being audited by a RAC.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On June 4, 2010 the U.S. Department of Justice announced the recovery of $2.85 million dollars from three New York City ambulance companies – SEZ Metro Corp., SEZ North Corp. and Big Apple Ambulance Service Inc. – to resolve false claims made to Medicare under the False Claims Act (“FCA”). The FCA gives the federal government (as well as private citizens) a cause of action against those who submit false claims to the government by and through its various agencies and/or departments. In this case, the Justice Department alleges that the ambulance companies used, or caused the use of, false records to appeal a large scale Medicare program refund demand.

Under Medicare rules, ambulance companies can lawfully bill the Medicare program for non-emergency transports only if a patient cannot be transported by any other means. Here, Medicare audited the ambulance companies past billings – audits that can go as far back as seven years under some circumstances – and concluded that the ambulance companies had charged Medicare tens of millions of dollars for ambulance trips that did not meet the standards required by the Medicare rules. When Medicare demanded a refund the ambulance companies proceeded by disputing Medicare’s decision through the Medicare appeals process and, in support of their appeals, submitted false claims by causing hundreds of forged letters purported to come from health care providers that attested to the need and medical necessity of the non-emergency ambulance transports.

This action was originally filed by a whistleblower – a private citizen who was the former financial officer for one of the ambulance companies – under the qui tam provision of the false claims act. The qui tam provisions permit private citizens to file suit on behalf of the United States and share in any recovery. Here, the former financial officer’s share of the settlement will be $618,450.00.

It is unclear whether the original Medicare audit that prompted this case was a product of Medicare’s recently instituted Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) program.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks