Source: https://medicaidlawnc.com/tag/nctracks/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 11:25:11+00:00

Document:
North Carolina is mandating that health care providers link with all other health care providers. HIPAA be damned! Just another hoop to jump through in order to get paid by Medicaid – as if it isn’t hard enough!
If you do not comply and link your health care practice to NC HealthConnex by June 1, 2019, you could lose your Medicaid contract.
“As North Carolina moves into data-driven, value-based health care, the NC HIEA is working to modernize the state-designated health information exchange, now called NC HealthConnex.” About NC HealthConnex website.
North Carolina state law mandates that all health care providers who receive any State funds, which would include Medicaid, HealthChoice and the State Health Plan, must connect and submit patient demographic and clinical data to NC HealthConnex by June 1, 2019. The process could take 12 to 18 months. So you better get going. Move it or lose it, literally. If you do not comply, you can lose your license to participate in state-funded programs, including Medicaid.
I highlighted the Session Law that, according to the above, requires that health care providers who receive state funds must connect to NC HealthConnex. See above. However, when you actually read Session Law 2017-57, it is untrue that Session Law 2017-57 mandates that health care providers who receive state funds must connect to NC HealthConnex.
As you can plainly read, this clause only allots funds to provide training and assistance to providers eligible to participate in the Community Health Grant Program. The above clause certainly does not mandate that Healthcare providers who receive state funds connect to NC HealthConnex.
Session Law 2017-57, only mandates $150,000 for training and assistance for HealthConnex.
So what is the legal statute that mandates health care providers who receive state funds must connect to NC HealthConnex?
Ok, bear with me. Here’s where it gets complex.
A law was passed in 2015, which created the North Carolina Health Information Exchange Authority (NC HIEA). NC HIEA is a sub agency of the North Carolina Department of Information Technology (NC DIT) Government Data Analytic Center. NC HIEA operates the NC HealthConnex. The State CIO maintains the responsibility if the NC HealthConnex.
What part of the above clause states that health care providers are MANDATED to participate? So, please, if any of my readers actually know which law mandates provider participation, please forward to me. Because my question is – Is participation REALLY mandated? Will providers seriously lose their reimbursement rights for services rendered for failing to participate in NC HealthConnex?? Because I see multiple violations of federal law with this requirement, including HIPAA and due process.
Hospitals as defined by G.S. 131E-176(13), physicians licensed to practice under Article 1 of Chapter 90 of the General Statutes, physician assistants as defined in 21 NCAC 32S .0201, and nurse practitioners as defined in 21 NCAC 36 .0801 who provide Medicaid services and who have an electronic health record system shall connect by June 1, 2018.
All other providers of Medicaid and state-funded services shall connect by June 1, 2019. See changes in 2018 Session Law below.
Prepaid Health Plans (PHPs), as defined in S.L. 2015-245, will be required to connect to the HIE per their contracts with the NC Division of Health Benefits (DHB). Clarifies that PHPs are required to submit encounter and claims data by the commencement of the contract with NC DHB.
Clarifies that Local Management Entities/Managed Care Organizations (LMEs/MCOs) are required to submit encounter and claims data by June 1, 2020.
Dentists and ambulatory surgical centers are required to submit clinical and demographic data by June 1, 2021.
Pharmacies are required to submit claims data pertaining to State services once per day by June 1, 2021, using pharmacy industry standardized formats.
To meet the state’s mandate, a Medicaid provider is “connected” when its clinical and demographic information pertaining to services paid for by Medicaid and other State-funded health care funds are being sent to NC HealthConnex, at least twice daily—either through a direct connection or via a hub (i.e., a larger system with which it participates, another regional HIE with which it participates or an EHR vendor). Participation agreements signed with the designated entity would need to list all affiliate connections.
Let’s just wait and see how this computer system turns out. Hopefully we don’t have a second rendition of NCTracks. We all know how well that turned out. See blog and blog.
Medicaid participation continues to get more and more complicated. Remember the day when you could write a service note with a pen? That was so much cheaper than investing in computers and software. When did it get so expensive to provide health care to the most needy?
the 163rd day of the year. There will be 202 days left in 2018. It is the 24th Tuesday and the 85th day of spring. It is the Filipino Independence Day. And it is Recoupment Day for 80% or more of NC Medicaid dentists.
Over a year ago, the Division of Medical Assistance (DMA) and our fiscal agent, CSRA, identified defects in NCTracks that had resulted in overpayments to enrolled dental providers in 2013-2014. DMA has been working on a plan to implement two (2) NCTracks system recoupments (claims reprocessing) that will affect a fairly large number of providers. We believe that giving the NCSOMS, other dental professional organizations and our enrolled dental providers plenty of advance notice prior to the recoupment date is a good idea. The number of providers impacted will not be as large as the Medicaid for Pregnant Women (MPW) recoupment of 2015. You will find a summary of the notice below that will be sent to dental professional membership organizations as well as the two dental schools in the state.
DMA has gone through a lengthy process of identifying all providers who received overpayments and developing a plan for the NCTracks system recoupment.
I have seen the list of providers affected and we expect that a large majority (around 80%) will be able to repay the overpayment in one checkwrite based on their past claims activity. There will be some practices/providers who will be responsible for amounts approaching $25,000 or more. Practices with multiple offices will have multiple amounts recouped based on the multiple organization NPIs used for billing for each office. As you can see from the list of CDT codes that were overpaid below – diagnostic/preventive, restorative, denture repairs, extraction and the expose and bond codes (procedure codes where tooth numbers were reported and tooth surfaces were either reported or not reported) — we expect that general dentists, pediatric dentists and oral surgeons will be the dental provider types most affected by this recoupment.
As I indicated above, the messages that the dental professional organizations and the individual providers will be receiving over the next week or so will offer more detail than this email notice from me. If you have any questions or concerns regarding my email, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Issue: Some dental claims that processed in NCTracks beginning July 1, 2013 through April 20, 2014 paid incorrectly resulting in overpayments to providers.
Duplicate dental claims that included a tooth number and no tooth surface such as procedure codes D0220, D0230, D1351, D2930, D2931, D2932, D2933, D2934, D3220, D3230, D3240, D3310, D3320, D3330, D5520, D5630, D5640, D5650, D5660, D7111, D7140, D7210, D7220, D7230, D7240, D7241, and D7250, D7280, and D7283 processed and paid incorrectly in NCTracks between July 1, 2013, and April 20, 2014.
Additionally, duplicate dental claims for restorative services that included a tooth number and one or more tooth surfaces such as procedure codes D2140, D2150, D2160, D2161, D2330, D2331, D2332, D2335, D2391, D2392, D2393, and D2394 processed and paid incorrectly in NCTracks between July 1, 2013 through October 14, 2013.
Based on NC Medicaid billing guidelines, these duplicate claims should have denied. This caused an overpayment to providers.
Action: Duplicate dental claims identified with the two issues documented will be recouped and reprocessed in NCTracks to apply the duplicate editing correctly. Any overpayments identified will be recouped.
Timing: Applicable dental claims will be reprocessed in the June 12, 2018, checkwrite to recoup the overpayments.
Can DHHS recoup claims that are 4 and 5 years old? How about a mass recoupment without any details as to the reasons for the individual claims being recouped? How about a mass recoupment with no due process?
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Futile as the Caucus-Race?
How many of you have received Remittance Advices from NCTracks that are impossible to understand, include denials without appeal rights, or, simply, are erroneous denials with no guidance as to the next steps? While these were most prevalent in the first couple years after NCTracks was rolled out (back in July 2013), these burdensome errors still exist.
You are allowed to re-submit a claim to NCTracks for 18 months. How many times do you have to receive the denial in order for that denial to be considered a “final decision?” And, why is it important whether a denial is considered a final decision?
As a health care provider, your right to challenge the Department of Health and Human Services’ (via CSC or NCTracks’) denial instantly becomes ripe (or appealable) only after the denial is a final decision.
It reminds me of the Causus-race in Alice and Wonderland. “There was no ‘One, two, three, and away,’ but they began running when they liked, and left off when they liked, so that it was not easy to know when the race was over. However, when they had been running half an hour or so, and were quite dry again, the Dodo suddenly called out ‘The race is over!’ and they all crowded round it, panting, and asking, ‘But who has won?'” – Alice in Wonderland.
On behalf of all health care providers who accept Medicaid in North Carolina and suffered hardship because of NCTracks, at my former firm, I helped file the NCTracks class action lawsuit, Abrons Family Practice, et al., v. NCDHHS, et al., No. COA15-1197, which was heard before the NC Court of Appeals on June 12, 2015. The Opinion of the Court of Appeals was published today (October 18, 2016).
The Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs were not required to “exhaust their administrative remedies” by informal methods and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) prior to bringing a lawsuit in the State Court for damages because doing to would be futile – like the Caucus-race. “But who has won?” asked Alice.
Plaintiffs argued that, without a “final decision” by DHHS as to the submitted claims, it is impossible for them to pursue the denials before the OAH.
And the Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, agrees.
The Abrons decision solidifies my contention over the past 4-5 years that a reconsideration review is NOT required by law prior to filing a Petition for Contested Case at OAH…. Boom! Bye, Felicia!
Years ago, I informed a client, who was terminated by an managed care organization (MCO), that she should file Petition for Contested Case at OAH without going through the informal reconsideration review. One – the informal reconsideration review was before the very agency that terminated her (futile); and two – going through two processes instead of one costs more in attorneys’ fees (burdensome).
We filed in OAH, and the judge dismissed the case, stating that we failed to exhaust our administrative remedies.
I have disagreed with that ruling for years (Psssst – judges do not always get it right, although we truly hope they do. But, in judges’ defenses, the law is an ever-changing, morphing creature that bends and yields to the community pressures and legal interpretations. Remember, judges are human, and to be human is to err).
However, years later, the Court of Appeals agreed with me, relying on the same argument I made years ago before OAH.
N.C. Gen. Stat. 150B-22 states that it is the policy of the State that disputes between the State and a party should be resolved through informal means. However, neither 150B-22 nor any other statute or regulation requires that a provider pursue the informal remedy of a reconsideration review. See my blog from 2013.
I love it when I am right. – And, according to my husband, it is a rarity.
2. How many times do you have to receive the denial in order for that denial to be considered a “final decision”?
There is no magic number. But the Court of Appeals in Abrons makes it clear that the “final decision” must be rendered by DHHS, not a contracted party.
So which we ask – What about terminations by MCOs? Do MCOs have the authority to terminate providers and render final decisions regarding Medicaid providers?
I would argue – no.
Our 1915b/c Waiver waives certain federal laws, not state laws. Our 1915 b/c Waiver does not waive N.C. Gen. Stat. 150B.
“But who has won?” asked Alice.
“At last the Dodo said, ‘everybody has won, and all must have prizes.'” – Only in Wonderland!
Sometimes, you just need to stop running and dry off.
Recently, hundreds of dentists across North Carolina received Tentative Notices of Overpayment (TNOs) from Public Consulting Group (PCG) demanding recoupment for reimbursements made to dentists who rendered services on Medicaid for Pregnant Women (MPW) eligible recipients. There was no dispute at this hearing that these women were eligible for MPW according to the Department of Health and Human Services’ (DHHS) portal. There was also no dispute that these woman had delivered their babies prior to the date of dental service. So the question becomes: If DHHS informs a dentist that a woman is MPW eligible on the date of the service, does that dentist have an individual and separate burden to determine whether these women are pregnant. And if so, what is it? Have them pee in a cup prior to dental services? See blog, and blog, and blog.
We do not have a definitive answer to the above-posed question, as the Judge has not rendered his decision. However, he did substantially limit these “nameless audits” or “non-RAC” audits to the RAC program limitations. In an Order on our Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that, even if the State does not agree that an audit is a RAC audit, if the audit conducted falls within the definition of a RAC audit, then the audit is a RAC audit.
The reason this is important is because RAC auditors yield such powerful and overwhelming tools against health care providers, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) limits the RAC auditors’ ability to look-back on older claims. For example, even though a provider is, generally, required to maintain records for six (6) years, the federal regulations only allow RAC auditors to look-back three (3) years, unless credible allegations of fraud exist.
Thus, when an auditor reviews documents over three-years-old, I always argue that the review of claims over 3-years-old violates the statute of limitations and federal law.
Well, an ALJ looked past the rhetoric and pleas by the State that “this is not a RAC” and held that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a RAC audit and, subsequently, the RAC audit limitations do apply.
In the case for this dentist, Public Consulting Group (PCG) audited claims going back as far as six years! The Department of Health and Human Services’ argument was that this audit is not a RAC audit. So what is it? What makes it NOT a RAC? Because you say so? We all know that PCG has a contract with DHHS to perform RAC audits. Is this audit somehow outside its contractual purview?
So I filed a Motion for Summary Judgment requesting the Judge to throw out all claims outside the three-year look-back period per the RAC limitations.
To understand this fully, it is important to first understand what the RAC program is and its intention. (“It depends on what the definition of “is” is”).
the State shall—(i) establish a program under which the State contracts (consistent with State law and in the same manner as the Secretary enters into contracts with recovery audit contractors under section 1893(h), subject to such exceptions or requirements as the Secretary may require for purposes of this title or a particular State) with 1 or more recovery audit contractors for the purpose of identifying underpayments and overpayments and recouping overpayments under the State plan and under any waiver of the State plan with respect to all services for which payment is made to any entity under such plan or waiver.
RAC is defined as an entity that “…will review claims submitted by providers of items and services or other individuals furnishing items and services for which payment has been made under section 1902(a) of the Act or under any waiver of the State Plan to identify underpayments and overpayment and recoup overpayments for the States.” 42 CFR § 455.506(a).
In this particular case, there were 15 claims at issue. Eleven (11) of those claims were outside the three-year look-back period!! With one fell swoop of an ALJ’s signature, we reduced the claims at issue from 15 to 4. Nice!
In DHHS’ Response to our Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, DHHS argued that, in this case, PCG was not acting as a RAC; therefore, the limitations do not apply. In support of such decision, DHHS supplied an affidavit of a DMA employee. She averred that the audit of this particular dentist was not per the RAC program. No rules were cited. No contract in support of her position was provided. Nothing except an affidavit of a DMA employee.
Obviously, it is my opinion that the ALJ was 100% accurate in ruling that this audit was a RAC audit and was limited in scope to a 3-year look-back period.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is not a donkey. No matter how much it pleads that it is, in fact, a donkey!
That is so NOT ok!
The story of The Three Billy Goats Gruff tells a tale of 3 billy goats, one puny, one small, and one HUGE. The first two billy goats (the puny and small) independently try to cross the bridge to a green pasture. They are blocked by a mean troll, who wants to eat the billy goats. Both billy goats tell the troll that a bigger billy-goat is coming that would satisfy the troll’s hunger more than the puny and small goats. The troll waits for the HUGE billy-goat, which easily attacks the troll to his death.
My moral: “You don’t always have to be HUGE, the puny and small are equally as smart.” – (They didn’t even have to fight).
The majority of Medicaid cards do not have expiration dates. Though we have expiration dates on many of our other cards. For example, my drivers’ license expires January 7, 2018. My VISA expires April 18, 2018.
Most Medicaid cards are annually renewed, as well. Someone who is eligible for Medicaid one year may not be eligible the next.
Our Medicaid cards, generally, have an issuance date, but not an expiration date. The thought is that requiring people to “re-enroll” yearly is sufficient for eligibility status.
Similar to my CostCo card. My Costco card expires annually, and I have to renew it every 12 months. But my CostCo card is not given to me based on my personal circumstances. I pay for the card every year, which means that I can use the card all year, regardless whether I move, get promoted, or decide that I never want to shop at CostCo again.
Medicaid cards, on the other hand, are based on a person’s or family’s personal circumstances.
A lot can happen in a year causing someone to no longer be eligible for Medicaid.
For example, a Medicaid recipient, Susan, could qualify for Medicaid on January 1, 2015, because Susan is a jobless and a single mother going through a divorce. She has a NC Medicaid card issued on January 1, 2015. She presents herself to your office on March 1, 2015. Unbeknownst to you, she obtained a job at a law office in February (Susan is a licensed attorney, but she was staying home with the kids when she was married. Now that she is divorced, she quickly obtained employment for $70,000/year, but does not contact Medicaid. Her firm offers health insurance, but only after she is employed over 60 days. Thus, Susan presents herself to you with her Medicaid card).
If Susan presents to your office on March 1, 2015, with a Medicaid card issued January 1, 2015, how many of you would double-check the patients eligibility in the NCTracks portal?
How many would rely on the existence of the Medicaid card as proof of eligibility?
How many of you would check eligibility in the NCTRacks portal and print screen shot showing eligibility for proof in the future.
The next question is who is liable for Susan receiving Medicaid services in March when she was no longer eligible for Medicaid, but held a Medicaid card and, according to the NCTracks portal, was Medicaid eligible??
Do you really have to be the HUGE billy goat to avoid troll-ish recoupments?
Susan’s example is similar to dental services for pregnant women on Medicaid for Pregnant Women (MPW). MPW expires when the woman gives birth. However, the dentists do not report the birth of the child, the ob/gyn does. Dentists have no knowledge of whether a woman has or has not given birth. See blog.
MPW expires upon the birth of the child, and that due date is not printed on the MPW card.
I daresay that the dentists with whom I have spoken have assured me that every time a pregnant woman presents at the dental or orthodontic offices that an employee ensures that the consumer is eligible for dental services under MPW by checking the NCTracks portal. (Small billy-goat). Some dentists go so far to print out the screenshot on the NCTracks portal demonstrating MPW eligibility (HUGE billy-goat), but such overkill is not required by the DMA Clinical Coverage Policies.
If the clinical policies, rules, and regulations do not require such HUGE billy-goat nonsense, how can providers be held up to the HUGE billy-goat standard? Even the puny billy-goat is, arguably, reasonably compliant with rules, regulations, and policies.
Is the eligibility fallacy that is confirmed by NCTracks, the dentists’ fault?
Well, over three (3) years from its go-live date, July 1, 2013, NCTracks may have finally fixed this error.
On Aug. 2, 2015, NCTracks began to deny/recoup payment of dental and orthodontic services for beneficiaries covered under the Medicaid for Pregnant Women (MPW) program if the date of service is after the baby was delivered. This is a longstanding N.C. Medicaid policy that was previously monitored through post-payment review.
For pregnant Medicaid-eligible beneficiaries covered under the Medicaid for Pregnant Women program class ‘MPW,’ dental services as described in this policy are covered through the day of delivery.
Therefore, claims for dental services rendered after the date of delivery for beneficiaries under MPW eligibility are outside the policy limitation and are subject to denial/recoupment.
Pregnant Medicaid-eligible beneficiaries covered under the Medicaid for Pregnant Women program class ‘MPW’ are not eligible for orthodontic services as described in this policy.
Therefore, claims for orthodontic records (D0150, D0330, D0340, and D0470) or orthodontic banding (D8070 or D8080) rendered for beneficiaries under MPW eligibility are outside of policy limitation and are subject to denial/recoupment.
Periodic orthodontic treatment visits (D8670) and orthodontic retention (D8680) will continue to be reimbursed regardless of the beneficiary’s eligibility status at the time of the visit so long as the beneficiary was eligible on the date of banding.
August 2, 2015, is over two years after NCTracks went live.
In essence, what DHHS is saying is that NCTracks was inept at catching whether a female Medicaid recipient gave birth. Either the computer system did not have a way for the ob/gyn to inform NCTracks that the baby was delivered, the ob/gyn did not timely submit such information, or NCTracks simply kept women as being eligible for MPW until, months later, someone caught the mistake. And, because of NCTracks’ folly, the dentists must pay.
How about, if the portal for NCTracks state that someone is eligible for MPW, then providers can actually believe that the portal is correct??? How about a little accountability, DHHS???
If you take MPW and want to avoid potential recoupments, you may need some pregnancy tests in your bathrooms.
DHHS is expecting all dentists to be the HUGE bill goat. Are these unreasonable expectations? I see no law, rules, regulations, or policies that require dentists to be the HUGE billy goat. In fact, the small and puny may also be compliant.
NCTracks: There’s a Hole in My Bucket !!
The song continues with Henry singing excuses and impediments to his ability to fix the hole in the bucket and Liza explaining to Henry how to overcome these excuses. The song goes around and around until, in order to fix the bucket, Henry would have to sharpen an ax on a stone that “is too dry,” and the only way to wet the stone is with the bucket that has a hole. “There’s a hole in the bucket…” And the songs starts anew and can be sung continuously, never-ending.
My husband and daughter audibly groan when I begin such song.
And you can’t blame them! It is discouraging and frustrating when something is caught in a never-ending circle with no end and no conclusion. It is human nature to try to resolve issues; it is also ingrained in Americans’ minds that hard work yields results. When hard work yields nothing but a big, fat goose-egg, it is exacerbating.
The problem persisted so long and I was contacted by so many providers that I instigated the NCTracks class action lawsuit, which is still pending on appeal, to the best of my knowledge, at my former firm. Although it was dismissed at the Business Court level, I believe it is on appeal. See blog.
Providers complained that, when they contacted CSC’s Help Desk regarding denied claims, the customer service representatives would have little to no understanding of the claims process and instruct them to re-file the denied claims, which created a perpetual cycle of unadjudicated claims.
“I was spending 20+ a week on NCTracks billing problems,” another said.
Over two years after the “go live” date, the Department has now (finally) informed providers that there is an informal reconsideration review process for denials from CSC.
You must request reconsideration review within 30 calendar days of the final notification. BUT what exactly is “final notification?” The initial denial? The second denial after re-submitting? The third? Or, what if, your claim is pending…for months…is that a denial? When CSC tells you to re-submit, does the time frame in which to file a reconsideration review start over? Or do you have to appeal every single denial for every single claim, even if the claim is re-submitted and re-denied 10 times?
This new informal appeal process is as clear as mud.
This means that, if you fail to appeal a denial within 30 days, then the claim is denied and you cannot request a reconsideration review. Theoretically, there is a legal argument that, once the “final decision” is rendered, even if it were rendered due to you failing to request a reconsideration review, you would have 60 days to appeal such final decision to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). Although, acting as the Devil’s advocate, there is an argument that your failure to request a reconsideration review and taking the appeal straight to OAH is “failing to exhaust your administrative remedies.” See blog. Which could result in your appeal being dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. This goes to show you the importance of having your attorney involved at the earliest juncture, otherwise you could risk losing appeal rights.
Let’s think about the “time limit for submission of request” in a real-life hypothetical.
You revise all 20 claims to include the first treatment date on the claim and re-submit them on September 9, 2015. Since you re-submitted prior to the September 10th cutoff, you expect payment by September 16, 2015, 12 days after the initial denial.
You receive your explanation of benefits (EOBs) and 5 claims were adjudicated and paid, while 15 were denied again.
You miss the September 17th cut-off because you were trying to figure out why these claims were denied. you submit them for payment for the September 29th checkwrite date (25 days after the initial denial).
At this point, if any claims are denied, you wouldn’t know until October 6th, 32 days after the initial denial.
In my scenario, when is the final adjudication?
If the answer is that the final adjudication is the initial denial, then, in my scenario, the provider would be required to appeal every single denial, even for the same claim and every time it is denied.
You can imagine the burden to the provider if my second scenario is correct. You may as well hire a full-time person whose only task is to appeal denied claims.
Regardless, this new “Informal Reconsideration Review” purports to create many more questions than answers.
So may rules are enacted with good intentions, but without the “real life” analysis. How will this actually affect providers?
Have an Inkling of a Possible Overpayment, You Must Repay Within 60 Days, Says U.S. District Court!
your agency was overpaid for Medicare/caid reimbursements over the past two years to the tune of $1 million!
This employee has been your billing manager for years and you trust her…but…she’s not an attorney and doesn’t have knowledge of pertinent legal defenses. You are concerned about the possibility of overpayments, BUT….$1 million? What if she is wrong? That’s a lot of money!
According to a recent U.S. District Court in New York, you have 60 days to notify and refund the government of this alleged $1 million overpayment, despite not having a concrete number or understanding whether, in fact, you actually owe the money.
Seem a bit harsh? It is.
With the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on March 23, 2010, many new regulations were implemented with burdensome requirements to which health care providers are required to adhere. At first, the true magnitude of the ACA was unknown, as very few people actually read the voluminous Act and, even fewer, sat to contemplate the unintentional consequences the Act would present to providers. For example, I daresay that few, if any, legislators foresaw the Draconian effect from changing the word “may” in 42 CFR 455.23 to “must.” See blog and blog and blog.
Another boiling frog in the muck of the ACA is the 60-Day Refund Rule (informally the 60-day rule).
What is the 60-Day Refund Rule?
In 2012, CMS proposed the “60-day Refund Rule,” requiring Medicare providers and suppliers to repay Medicare overpayments within 60 days of the provider or supplier identifying the overpayment. Meaning, if you perform a self audit and determine that you think that you were overpaid, then you must repay the amount within 60 days or face penalties.
If I had a nickel for each time a clients calls me and says, “Well, I THINK I may have been overpaid, but I’m not really sure,” and, subsequently, I explained how they did not owe the money, I’d be Kardashian rich.
It is easy to get confused. Some overpayment issues are esoteric, involving complex eligibility issues, questionable duplicity issues, and issues involving “grey areas” of “non”-covered services. Sometimes a provider may think he/she owes an overpayment until he/she speaks to me and realizes that, by another interpretation of the same Clinical Coverage Policy that, in fact, no overpayment is owed. To know you owe an overpayment, generally, means that you hired someone like me to perform the self audit. From my experience, billing folks are all too quick to believe an overpayment is owed without thinking of the legal defenses that could prevent repayment, and this “quick to find an overpayment without thinking of legal defenses” is represented in Kane ex rel. United States et al. v. Healthfirst et al., the lawsuit that I will be discussing in this blog. And to the billings folks’ credit, you cannot blame them. They don’t want to be accused of fraud. They would rather “do the right thing” and repay an overpayment, rather than try to argue that it is not due. This “quick to find an overpayment without thinking of legal defenses” is merely the billing folks trying to conduct all work “above-board,” but can hurt the provider agency financially.
Nonetheless, the 60-day Refund Rule is apathetic as to whether you know what you owe or whether you hire someone like me. The 60-Day Refund Rule demands repayment to the federal government upon 60-days after your “identification” of said alleged overpayment.
A recent case in the U.S. District Court of New York has forged new ground by denying a health care providers’ Motion to Dismiss the U.S. government’s and New York State’s complaints in intervention under the False Claims Act (FCA). The providers argued that the 60-day rule cannot start without a precise understanding as to the actual amount of the overpayment. Surely, the 60-day rule does not begin to run on the day someone accuses the provider of a possible overpayment!
My colleague, Jennifer Forsyth, recently blogged about this very issue. See Jennifer’s blog.
Basically, in Kane ex rel. United States et al. v. Healthfirst et al., three hospitals provided care to Medicaid patients. Due to a software glitch [cough, cough, NCTracks] and due to no fault of the hospitals, the hospitals received possible overpayments. The single state entity for Medicaid in New York questioned the hospitals in 2010, and the hospitals took the proactive step of tasking an employee, Kane, who eventually became the whistleblower, to determine whether, if, in fact, the hospital did receive overpayments.
At this point, arguably, the hospitals were on notice of the possibility of overpayments, but had not “identified” such overpayments per the 60-day rule. It was not until Kane made preliminary conclusions that the hospitals were held to have “identified” the alleged overpayments. But very important is the fact that the Court held the hospitals liable for having “identified” the alleged overpayments prior to actually knowing the veracity of the preliminary findings.
Five months after being tasked with the job of determining any overpayment, Kane emails the hospital staff her findings that, in her opinion, the hospitals had received overpayments totaling over $1 million for over 900 claims. In reality, Kane’s findings were largely inaccurate, as approximately one-half of her alleged findings of overpayments were actually paid accurately. Despite the inaccurate findings, the Complaint that Kane filed as the whistleblower (she had been previously fired, which may or may not have contributed to her willingness to bring a whistleblower suit), alleged that the hospitals had a duty under the 60-day rule to report and refund the overpayments, even though there was no certainty as to whether the findings were accurate. And the Court agreed with Kane!
the spreadsheet provided “some insight to the magnitude of the problem” (emphasis added).
The above-mentioned comments would further the argument that the hospitals were not required to notify the Department and return the money 60 days from Kanes’ email because Kane’s own language within the email was so wishy-washy. Her language in her email certainly does not instill confidence that her findings are accurate and conclusive.
The 60-day rule requires notification and return of the overpayments within 60 days of identification. The definition of “identification” is the crux of Kane ex rel. United States et al. v. Healthfirst et al. [it depends on what the definition of “is” is].
The Complaint reads, that the hospitals “fraudulently delay[ed] its repayments for up to two years after the Health System “knew” the extent of the overpayments” (emphasis added). According to the Complaint, the date that the hospitals “knew” of the overpayment was the date Kane emailed the inaccurate findings.
The hospitals filed a Motion to Dismiss based on the fact that Kane’s email and findings did not conclusively identify overpayments, instead, only provided a preliminary finding to which the hospitals would have needed to verify.
The issue in Kane ex rel. United States et al. v. Healthfirst et al. is the definition of “identify” under the 60-day rule. Does “identify” mean “possibly, maybe?” Or “I know I owe it?” Or somewhere in between?
The hospitals filed a Motion to Dismiss, claiming that the 60-day rule did not begin to run on the date that Kane sent his “preliminary findings.” The U.S. District Court in New York denied the hospitals’ Motion to Dismiss and stated in the Order, “there is an established duty to pay money to the government, even if the precise amount due is yet to be determined.” (emphasis added).
Yet another heavy burden tossed upon health care providers in the ever-deepening, regulatory muck involved in the ACA. As health care providers carry heavier burdens, they begin to sink into the muck.
Caveat: Take precautions to avoid creating disgruntled, former employees.
Have an experienced attorney on speed dial.
Self audit, but self audit with someone highly experienced and knowledgeable.
Understand the ACA. If you do not, read it. Or hire someone to teach you.
What are the qualifications of a Secretary of DHHS?
Let us analyze the qualifications of Wos that we came to witness over the last few years, as well as, review the qualifications of soon-to-be Sec. Brajer with information to which we are privy.
Wos: Yes. And, yet, maybe not. She is an M.D. Although I do not know whether she ever practiced medicine in North Carolina. According to Wikipedia, (which is never wrong) Wos “prides herself on her work in the field of preventing HIV and AIDS.” However, I was unable to find a single clinic in which Wos provided services. While, generally, an “M.D.” automatically bestows a certain aura of understanding health care, I question whether this “M.D.” automatically has a working knowledge of billing for and receiving reimbursements under Medicaid in North Carolina.
Wos: Prior to acting as the Secretary to DHHS, Wos served as the Ambassador to Estonia until 2006. What she did besides political functions between 2006 and 2012, I do not know. Acting as an Ambassador does not entail managing large entities. The most managerial skills that I can find in her background, prior to being appointed Secretary, are related to political fund-raising. Since I would not call her brief reign as Secretary of DHHS a success, I give Wos a “two thumbs down” on this criterion.
Brajer: He managed two companies. We can bicker as to whether these companies should be considered large…neither employed 17,000 employees. Regardless, the “successful” criterion appears to be lacking.
Wos: “You’re asking me without having all the data available to answer a question,” she told lawmakers on October 8, 2013. In her defense, she responded as such when asked whether the State was moving toward privatization for Medicaid. No one could know the answer, except, maybe, McCrory.
On the other hand, the implementation of NCTracks was nothing short of a catastrophe of epic proportion. See blog. See blog. Anyone with nominal knowledge of the Medicaid system would have, at least, paused to consider keeping HP Enterprises under contract during the switch to NCTracks or pushed back the go-live date.
Answer: Here’s to hoping that Brajer does. I’m cheering for you! Go! Fight! Win!
Brajer: Unknown. Perhaps one of his former employees at Pro-nerve, LLC and LipoScience, Inc. is on Medicaid.
Answer: Gimme a ‘B’! B! Gimme a ‘R’! R! Gimme a ‘A’! A! Gimme a ‘J’! J! Gimme a ‘E’! E! Gimme a ‘R’! R! Whats that spell? Brajer!!
5. A working knowledge of clinical coverage policies, reimbursement rates, and regulations surrounding Medicaid.
Wos: Unknown. Whatever Wos’ knowledge of regulations and clinical coverage policies is or lacked, she, initially, made up for any knowledge lacked with the key hire and quick resignation of Carol Steckel. Unfortunately, Steckel’s experience was never replaced.
September 27, 2013: Steckel resigns. And blog.
Answer: B! R! A! J! E! R! Let’s go, Brajer!
6. Both the capacities to listen and speak and do both eloquently.
Wos: Wos brandished an ability to speak publicly with ease. Listening, on the other hand….eh?
Wos: She seems to think so. Her country club does not discriminate.
Answer: Go! Go! Go! Go! Go, Brajer!!
Wos: “My obligation as secretary is to find the best possible team in order to get the job done.” Les Merritt served as CFO of DMA on a $300,000-plus contract. Joe Hauck was paid over $228,000 for 6 months of advise to Wos. Matt McKillip was paid $87,500 to serve as chief policy maker without any health care background. Ricky Diaz pulled in $85,000 as communications director. Id. Wos has handed out $1.7 million in pay hikes to 280 staffers, many with “no career or educational experience for the jobs they hold.” Id. The implementation of the MCOs also fell under Wos’ watchful eye. The MCO system has created thousands upon thousands of high-paying jobs with our Medicaid dollars. I believe that in the “trim the fat” category, Sec. Wos scores a goose egg.
Answer: Please, Brajer! For the love of Pete!
9. Ability to communicate with both the Senate and the House and to be frank with both.
Answer: Brajer, Brajer, He’s our man! If he can’t do it…[gulp].
It concerns me that so many of future Sec. Brajer’s core abilities/habits to run and manage DHHS and the Medicaid program in a highly effective manner are unknown. Nothing like placing all your money on red! But we have HIGH hopes for Brajer!!! Don’t let us down!!
The whole point of this blog is to pause and really contemplate what characteristics would comprise a great Secretary for DHHS. Obviously, the Governor has the full authority to appoint the Secretary, meaning that we taxpayers have little to no input as to whether we deem a person qualified, except in the indirect method of voting or not voting for the Governor.
Call this blog an exercise in examining what habits, if in existence, would make the most highly effective Secretary of DHHS and an opinion as to whether these habits exist in our former and future Secretaries.
One fact about the future is that it is unknown.
Going to the Dentist? You May Need to Take a Pregnancy Test!
I go to the dentist for teeth cleaning. I go to an ob/gyn for my lady parts. They each are not entwined.
Recently, a number of dentists have contacted me they are receiving Tentative Notices of Overpayment (TNOs) stating that they owe money back to the state for dental services completed on women who had already given birth.
First, what is Medicaid for Pregnant Women?
Basically, Medicaid for Pregnant Women (MPW) is a self-defining type of Medicaid coverage. It is Medicaid coverage for pregnant women.
And routine dental services are covered for MPW recipients through the date of delivery.
But, the day after the child is born…BOOM…no routine dental visits.
Mary is pregnant and is covered by MPW. She makes a dental appointment for August 1, 2015. She is due September 1, 2015. She gives birth to a bouncing, baby boy, whom she names Paul on July 28, 2015. Even though Paul is early, he is healthy (this is a happy hypothetical). She shows up for her dental appointment with Dr. Peter on August 1, 2015.
Herein lies a delicate subject…due to its sensitive nature, I will now revert the hypothetical to myself, personally, and only for this narrow topic.
I had my beautiful 10-year old daughter at 28 weeks. She came three months early. Despite the early delivery, I had expanded in the stomach area at least as much as a normal pregnant woman, if not more so. Chalk it up to Harris Teeter birthday cakes. After my daughter was born, the insensitive, yet rule-following nurse actually had the audacity to place me on a scale (while I was conscious and alert!). I was horrified to discover that after all that I went through that I had lost a mere 4 pounds. She must have seen my look because she quickly explained that I had been pumped with so much fluid during the procedure that my weight was inflated. Likely story, I thought. The point of this short anecdote is that I looked the same after giving birth that I did prior to giving birth. Embarrassingly, my transition back to a normal, un-pregnant body extended for a much longer than expected period of time. Chalk it up to Harris Teeter birthday cakes.
Dr. Peter, undergoing all the due diligence that a dentist can be expected, has his assistant log on to NCTracks. According to NCTracks, Mary is eligible for MPW. No changes are noted on her eligibility. Satisfied with his due diligence, Dr. Peter cleans Mary’s teeth.
Two years later, Dr. Peter receives a TNO stating that he owes $10,000 back for services rendered to women after they gave birth.
Dr. Peter conducted his due diligence. Dr. Peter inquired as to the pregnancy status to the patient. Dr. Peter checked eligibility status with NCTracks.
What more would the state expect Dr. Peter do to determine whether his dental patients are indeed still pregnant? Ask them to pee in a cup? Hire a onsite ob/gyn?
You can imagine the consequences of each.
Yet, according to a number of dentists who have communicated with me, the state is placing the burden of knowing whether the dental patient is still pregnant on the dentist.
Talk about accountability! If NCTracks shows that the patient is eligible for MPW, shouldn’t NCTracks be held liable instead of the dentist?
Call me crazy, but I may or may not be extremely angry if my dentist asks me to pee in cup.
Massive Medicaid Metamorphosis: Providers Beware! Be Proactive NOT Reactive!
Medicaid is ever-changing. But every 5 years or so, it seems, that a substantial section of Medicaid is completely revamped. Sometimes to the detriment of many uninformed, un-suspecting providers. For providers, it is imperative to stay above the curve…to foresee the changes in Medicaid, to plan for those changes, and to morph your own practice into one that will persevere despite the changes to come.
We are on the brink of a massive Medicaid metamorphosis.
Medicaid modifications have happened in the past. For example, a substantial shift in Medicaid occurred when DHHS switched from HP Enterprises to Computer Science Corporation (CSC) as its billing vendor. When the NCTracks system went live, the new NCTracks system forced office managers to re-learn how to bill for Medicaid. It was a rough start and many office managers spent countless hours inputting information into NCTracks, only to get erroneous denials and high blood pressure.
Another example of a Medicaid modification was the implementation of the managed care organizations (MCOs) which came on the heels of the new CABHA certification requirements. Only a couple of years after the shellshock of CABHA certification and thousands of providers going out of business because they could not meet the demands of the CABHA standards, behavioral health care providers were again put through the wringer with new standards created and maintained by the MCOs.
Think about it…Ten years ago, we never used the acronym MCO.
Enter [stage left]: A NEW ACRONYM!!
Don’t you love acronyms? My family has this game called Balderdash. It is one of my favorite games. The object of the game is to have the best fabricated answer. For example, if the category is “Acronym,” the “Dasher” will read the acronym, say, “PLE.” All the players draft their fake renditions of what “PLE” really means.
In the Medicaid/care world, we play alphabet soup constantly. MCO, DD, SAIOP, DHHS, BWX, MID CPT….Throw out a few letters, and, most likely, you will have said some acronym that means something to someone. See my acronym page for a list of those pertinent to us (and it is ever-growing).
The most recent new acronym to the Medicaid arena here in North Carolina that I have seen is PLE, which is the crux of the new, upcoming massive Medicaid metamorphosis.
House Bill 372’s short title is “Medicaid Modernization” and has passed in the House.
On June 25, 2015, the Senate passed the House Bill on its first read!
I waited to blog about HB 327 until the Senate had an initial reaction to it. If you recall, the Senate and House has been on contradictory sides when it comes to Medicaid reform. However, it appears that HB 327 may have some traction.
b. An entity with the primary purpose of owning or operating one or more providers.
Over the last couple years, the Senate and the House have stood divided over whether Medicaid should be managed by ACOs (House) or MCOs (Senate). It appears from the definition of a PLE, that a PLE could be a much simpler version of an ACO, which has had my vote since day 1. The whole concept of an ACO is a provider-run entity in which the providers make the decisions instead of utilization reviews, which have little to no contact with the patients, and, sometimes little health care experience, especially on the provider side.
From my cursory review of the proposed PLEs, it seems that a PLE would mimic an ACO, except, and, further federal research is needed, without some of the highly-regulated mandates that the federal government requires for MCOs (it will still be highly-regulated).
Is this just a question of semantics? Is this just a question of changing its name?
“What’s in a name? that which we call a rose, By any other name would smell as sweet.” Romeo and Juliet, Act II, Scene II.
Let’s look again at the definition of a PLE, according to Version 3 of House Bill 372.
Any provider? Does that provider need to ask to become a PLE or is it automatic? Does being a PLE give enhanced benefits other than being just a provider?
The answer is that all providers are not PLEs and providers will need to undertake significant legal and administrative steps to become a PLE.
“Full risk” is not defined in HB 372, although, I believe that the definition is self-evident.
Interestingly, this definition for “capitation payment” is found in the same section of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as all the managed care regulations. Part 438 of the CFR applies to managed care.
We have managed care organizations in our state now managing the behavioral health care aspect of Medicaid. Will the same provisions apply to MCOs…to ACOs…to PLEs?
What else does House Bill 372 purport to do?
• Within 12 months, the Department shall request a waiver from CMS to implement the components of this act.
• Within 24 months, the Department will issue an RFP for provider-led entities to bid on contracts required under this act.
• Within 5 years, 90% of all Medicaid services must be provided from a PLE, except those services managed by the MCOs , dental services, pharmaceutical products and dispensing fees. The Department may implement a pilot within 3 years.
As a provider, if you want to continue to serve the Medicaid population, then you may want to insert your company or agency into the creation of the PLEs, whether you sell, merge, acquire, or create a conglomerate.
It is my prediction that those providers who are reactive, instead of proactive, will lose business, consumers, and, potentially, a lot of cash. It is my “predictive recommendation” [as you are aware, we do not have an attorney/client relationship, so no recommendation of mine is tailored for you] that those providers who proactively seek mergers, acquisitions, and/or business agreements with other providers to morph into PLEs will be more successful, both financially and in serving their consumers better.
The PLEs will, effectively, absorb the Medicaid dollars for recipients across the entire state and provide care for all physical health needs of Medicaid recipients.
In this environment, providers need to be proactive, not reactive!
If House Bill 327 passes into law, our next Medicaid metamorphosis will be monumental! And the state will issue an RFP for providers within 2 years!

References: v. 
 § 455
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.