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

Following my post titled “Audit Defense-Part I: Monitoring Your Practices Medical Records,” I received several questions and comments concerning a medical practice’s best use of its medical records to fight audits, investigations or reviews. My answer is that the best course of defense is a medical practice’s “offensive” maintenance of clear, well-established, medical records and documentation.

Medical necessity, in terms of medical records and documentation, evaluates whether the services, tests and/or treatment provided to a patient were reasonable and necessary under the circumstances presented. When government and private payors evaluate medical necessity they use Current Procedural Terminology codes (“CPT Codes”) and International Classification of Diseases Diagnosis and Procedure Codes (“ICD Codes”) to conduct their reviews and audits. The CPT Codes and ICD Codes guide payors in determining whether the services provided to the patient were (a) furnished for the diagnosis, direct care and treatment of the patient’s medical condition and (b) compliant with the standards for good medical practices. 

There is no standard definition for medical necessity. For this reason, there is no single, foul-proof, approach to fighting a payor challenge based on “medical necessity.” However, most government and private payors use some variation of the definition used by Medicare and Medicaid (found in the Social Security Act), which reads:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no payment may be made under Part A or Part B for any expenses incurred for the items or services - (1)(A) which… are not reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis and treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member…]

Moreover, all medical practices participating in and submitting medical bills to Medicare and Medicaid, among other federally funded programs, must comply with Medicare’s documentation requirements, as follows:

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

These requirements are especially critical when providers receive Additional Documentation Requests (“ADR’s”) from Medicare contractors or are subject to an audit.  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. 

For more information on medical records and documents, please click here and here to review prior posts on this subject.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Health care providers who have been excluded from participation with certain insurance carriers often approach me for guidance concerning their options (if any) for continuing their existing relationships - and possibly treatment – with patients who are insured by the “excluding” insurance carrier. While the reasons for “exclusion” are quite varied and have differing degrees of severity (depending on the particular insurance carrier and type of exclusion that is involved), in almost all cases, exclusion from network participation means that the excluded provider cannot treat patients insured by the excluding insurance carrier, whether directly or indirectly. Provider arrangements made to circumvent exclusion may, among other things, be deemed the “fraudulent practice of medicine” and may carry serious, permanent, consequences for both the excluded provider and any provider assisting the excluded provider with the circumvention.

In the Matter of Josifidis v. Daines, 2011 NY Slip Op 7891 (decided November 10, 2011, Appellate Division, Third Department) the Third Department confirmed a determination of the Hearing Committee of the New York State Board for Professional Medical Conduct (the “Committee”) which, among other things, revoked the medical license of Petitioner Harry Josifidis (the “Excluded Provider”) for the fraudulent practice of medicine. In doing so, the Third Department confirmed the Committee’s finding that the Excluded provider circumvented “his exclusion from insurers’ networks by using another physician’s name.” 

The relevant facts underlying the Third Department’s decision are as follows:

“[The Excluded Provider] was excluded by certain health insurers from being reimbursed as an in-network provider for treatment rendered to their insureds as the result of a prior disciplinary action. [The Excluded Provider] thereafter entered into an agreement with another physician (hereinafter the other physician) by which the other physician’s name appeared on claims submitted to the insurers for [the Excluded Provider’s] treatment of in-network patients.

The Excluded Provider, in an effort to “explain” the legality of the circumvention arrangement, argued that “he relied on the other physician’s representations that their arrangement was ‘lawful and appropriate’” and that “he entered the agreement to provide his patients with continuity of care rather than for profit.”

The Third Department concluded that “[s]ubstantial evidence in the record shows that [the Excluded Provider] repeatedly submitted bills in the other physician’s name for services he had provided in order to receive payment from insurers who had specifically excluded him from being reimbursed for such services…. Accordingly, [the Third Department found] that the Committee properly rejected [the Excluded Provider’s] explanation and substantial evidence in the record supports its determination.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Over the past few years health care providers have reported an increasing surge in the outsourcing of medical billing and collections  to third party medical billing companies.  The outsourcing surge stems from a number of factors, most of which are focused on increasing revenue and surviving payor scrutiny.  

First, health care providers rely on medical billing companies to assist them with processing claims in accordance with applicable rules, regulations, laws and statutes (“health care laws”).  With the increasing complexity of the health care industry, the demand for familiarity with health care laws can be overwhelming for health care providers and will often require the education, knowledge and skill of an independent professional.

Second, health care providers are increasingly consulting with medical billing companies to provide them with timely and accurate advice regarding reimbursement matters and overall business decisions.  Medical billing companies normally support a variety of providers and organizations with different specialties and, therefore, have a unique insight to reimbursement issues, as well as diagnosis and procedure code utilization and optimization.  The critical component is a medical billing company’s ability to conduct practice-to-practice comparisons and data mining of coding, billing and collection patterns.

Third, medical billing companies normally have professionals dedicated to specific specialist and/or process areas, thereby increasing employee efficiency, skill and knowledge within the assigned area.  For instance, professionals skilled in collecting unpaid cardiology claims will have the benefit of uncovering and monitoring payor patterns of rejection and denial, and will have the insight to determine which coverage determinations are worth fighting or which coding practices to alter.  

Fourth, in most cases a medical billing company will consistently provide clients with customized practice reports and analytics that offer an in depth look at key metrics an allow the provider to make informed, strategic, decisions concerning billing, coding and collections.  While most of this data and analysis can be conducted in-house, is often underutilized or overlooked altogether with small physician practices. 

Finally, another issue that small physician practices face with in-house medical billing is hiring, training and maintaining an adequate medical billing staff.  Normally, small physician practices allocate one to two designated staff members for medical billing and collection purposes and suffer the consequences of insufficient and inefficient staff in the form of timely filing issues, timely appeal issues, lack of follow up and collections, contractual allowances and, ultimately, write offs.

It is important to note that third party medical billing companies significantly vary in terms of the type of services provided and the manner in which these services are provided for their respective clients. For example, some medical billing companies provide coding services for their clients, while others only process pre-arranged Superbills that have already been coded by the provider.  Additionally some medical billing companies offer a spectrum of management services, including patient intake support, accounts receivable management and debt collections. 

The main question to consider when determining whether to use an in-house medical billing professional or to outsource to a outside medical billing company is “what are you coding and billing, and why?” If the answer to this simple question is not supported by customized practice reports and analytics, strategic and informed, decisions concerning the coding, billing and collections choices made for each patient, and driven by the voluminous rules, regulations and statutes affecting health care practice, then the answer is flawed and is likely costing the practice critical revenue.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks