Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

CLIENT ALERT: Prohibition on Recoupment Prior to Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

In April, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Family Rehabilitation, Inc. v. Azar No. 17-11337 (5th Cir. 2018), held that district courts are authorized to enjoin the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) and its contractors from recouping alleged overpayments prior to the completion of the administrative appeal process.

As many people who routinely handle government claim appeals know, recoupment on the alleged overpayment cannot be stayed after a decision is rendered at the reconsideration level (Level 2). Meaning, recoupment can begin while three (3) additional stages of appeal remain to be exhausted. See MLN Matter Number: MM6183, as revised.  This rule significantly impacts providers subject to recoupment because it often takes three (3) to five (5) years before the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) (Level 3) renders a decision on appeal.  Meaning, if the claims were correctly billed, the government will have already recouped the reimbursement on the claims by the time the case presents itself to the ALJ.

For many providers, including Family Rehabilitation, Inc., by the time the ALJ renders a decision, the negative impact of the recoupment will have significantly affected the operation budget of the practice. This may result in a practice or provider closing the business and/or filing for bankruptcy before the final decision on the overpayment is ultimately rendered.

The potential impact on providers from the ALJ’s backlog preventing timely decisions on appeal is demonstrated from Family Rehabilitation, Inc.’s allegations. Family Rehabilitation, Inc. is a provider in Texas that receives approximately 94% of its revenue from Medicare claims. In 2016, the Zone Program Integrity Contractor (“ZPIC”) audited claims and determined that Family Rehabilitation, Inc. had been overpaid on 93% of the 43 claims submitted for review.  The ZPIC extrapolated this amount and rendered an ultimate overpayment decision of $7.89 million. Family Rehabilitation, Inc. timely appealed to the Medicare Administrative Contractor (“MAC”), which denied the request for redetermination, and the request for reconsideration was subsequently denied. This outcome at the first two levels of appeal is not uncommon as contractors are routinely paid based on the amount of overpayments that they determine.

Thereafter, Family Rehabilitation, Inc. timely appealed the denials to the Administrative Law Judge who, because of an enormous backlog of appealed claims, determined that it would be at least three (3) to (5) years before Family Rehabilitation, Inc.’s appeal could be heard and decided. In the interim, Medicare was authorized to begin recoupment on the $7.89 million, essentially preventing any payment to Family Rehabilitation, Inc. by Medicare.

By the time the ALJ would hear the case and render a decision, Family Rehabilitation, Inc. would likely be bankrupt or shutdown because of the lack of payments from Medicare. Therefore, Family Rehabilitation, Inc. filed for a restraining order and preliminary injunction. The District Court for the N.D. of Texas decided that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because Family Rehabilitation, Inc. did not yet exhaust its administrative remedies, which would take at least another three (3) to five (5) years.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit decided that Family Rehabilitation, Inc. could proceed with its motion for injunctive relief, staying the overpayment recoupment, under the “collateral-claim” judicial exception, ultimately waiving the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies.

Although the Fifth Circuit’s decision does not require the District Court to grant the injunctive relief on overpayment recovery,[1] this decision does give providers a path to seek injunctive relief while they wait for their claims to be heard by the ALJ. If injunctive relief is granted, it may stop the recoupment of claims while appeals are pending before the ALJ.

If you are a provider or practice facing recoupment while your claims are stalled in the administrative appeal process, please contact us, and we discuss your options for appeal and to apply for injunctive relief to enjoin further recoupment efforts.

Should you have any questions concerning the recoupment process and the administrative appeal process in general, please contact Amanda L. Waesch, Esq. (alwaesch@bmdllc.com) or Bryan E. Meek, Esq. (bmeek@bmdllc.com), who are attorneys in Brennan, Manna & Diamond’s Provider Relations, Audits, and Appeals Unit, a division of BMD’s Healthcare Department.

 

[1] As of May 18, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the N.D. of Texas has yet to rule on Family Rehabilitation, Inc.’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Injunctive Relief.

New York, Kansas, Massachusetts, and Delaware Become the latest States to Adopt Full Practice Authority for Nurse Practitioners

While the COVID-19 pandemic certainly created many obstacles and hardships, it also created many opportunities to try doing things differently. This can be seen in the instant rise of remote work opportunities, telehealth visits, and virtual meetings. Many States took the challenges of the pandemic and turned them into an opportunity to adjust the regulations governing licensed professionals, including for advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs).

Explosive Growth in Pot of Gold Opportunity for Bank (and Other) Cannabis Lenders Driving Erosion of the Barriers

Our original article on bank lending to the cannabis industry anticipated that the convergence of interest between banks and the cannabis industry would draw more and larger banks to the industry. Banks were awash in liquidity with limited deployment options, while bankable cannabis businesses had rapidly growing needs for more and lower cost credit. Since then, the pot of gold opportunity for banks to lend into the cannabis industry has grown exponentially due to a combination of market constraints on equity causing a dramatic shift to debt and the ever-increasing capital needs of one of the country’s fastest growing industries. At the same time, hurdles to entry of new banks are being systematically cleared as the yellow brick road to the cannabis industry’s access to the financial markets is being paved, brick by brick, by the progressively increasing number and size of banks that are now entering the market.

2021 EEOC Charge Statistics: Retaliation & Impact of Remote Work

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released its detailed information on workplace discrimination charges it received in 2021. Unsurprisingly, for the second year in a row, the total number of charges decreased as COVID-19 either shut down workplaces or disconnected employees from each other. In 2021, the agency received a total of approximately 61,000 workplace discrimination charges - the fewest in 25 years by a wide margin. For reference, the agency received over 67,000 charges in 2020, and averaged almost 90,000 charges per year over the previous 10 years.

Ohio’s Managed Care Overhaul Delayed – New Implementation Timeline

At the direction of Governor Mike DeWine, the Ohio Department of Medicaid (ODM) launched the Medicaid Managed Care Procurement process in 2019. ODM’s stated vision for the procurement was to focus on people and not just the business of managed care. This is the first structural change to Ohio’s managed care system since the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) approval of Ohio’s Medicaid program in 2005. Initially, all of the new managed care programs were supposed to be implemented starting on July 1, 2022. However, ODM Director Maureen Corcoran recently confirmed that this date will be pushed back for several managed care-related programs.

Laboratory Specimen Collection Arrangements with Contract Hospitals - OIG Advisory Opinion 22-09

On April 28, 2022, the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) published an Advisory Opinion[1] in which it evaluated a proposed arrangement where a network of clinical laboratories (the “Requestor”) would compensate hospitals (each a “Contract Hospital”) for specimen collection, processing, and handling services (“Collection Services”) for laboratory tests furnished by the Requestor (the “Proposed Arrangement”). The OIG concluded that the Proposed Arrangement would generate prohibited remuneration under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) if the requisite intent were present. This is due to both the possibility that the proposed per-patient-encounter fee would be used to induce or reward referrals to Requestor and the associated risk of improperly steering patients to Requestor.