Counsel for HHS-OIG Discusses the Impact of Health Care Reform on Enforcement with Congress
(June 22, 2010): In his testimony last week before the Health and Oversight Subcommittees of the House Committee on Ways and Means, Lewis Morris, Chief Counsel to the Inspector General (OIG) of Health and Human Services (HHS), emphasized the increasing speed and intensity of HHS-OIG’s multi-pronged health care fraud enforcement efforts. Morris’ testimony reinforces the need for Medicare providers and suppliers to aggressively prepare for a knock on the door from HHS-OIG or one of its many enforcement partners.
Morris highlighted numerous new enforcement tools available under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), paying particular attention to innovations in data access and use. These measures include consolidating and sharing data across agencies, as well as deploying new technology that allows “investigators to complete in a matter of days analysis that used to take months with traditional investigative tools.”
He further praised the enhanced accountability measures contained in PPACA, such as HHS-OIG’s ability to impose civil monetary penalties for “failing to grant [upon reasonable request] timely access to HHS-OIG for investigations, audits, or evaluations.” Notably, PPACA Section 6408 provides for a penalty of $15,000 for each day for failure to grant access.
Morris’ testimony also reminded the health care community that:
- PPACA allows the HHS Secretary to suspend payments to providers or suppliers based on credible evidence of fraud. At the same time, it expands the types of conduct constituting Federal health care fraud offenses under Title 18.
- HHS-OIG has improved access to information from entities directly or indirectly involved in providing medical items or services payable by any Federal program.
Perhaps most significantly:
- Medicare and Medicaid program integrity contractors (i.e., ZPICs and PSCs) are required to provide performance statistics, “including the number and amount of overpayments recovered, number of fraud referrals, and the return on investment of such activities.” (emphasis added).
While not surprising, it is nonetheless disconcerting that ZPICs and PSCs are essentially being “graded” based on the “amount of overpayments recovered,” along with the number of enforcement actions handled and referred to law enforcement. Based on these performance measures, is there any real difference between ZPICs and RACs? While RACs may be compensated directly based on the amount of overpayments collected (and ZPICs are not), it is crystal clear that the government’s expectations of ZPICs are quite similar. Now, more than ever before, it is essential that providers implement effective compliance measures to cover their practices and clinics.
Should you have any questions regarding these issues, don’t hesitate to contact us. For a complementary consultation, you may call Robert W. Liles or one of our other attorneys at 1 (800) 475-1906.