It did not take long for fraudsters to pursue hundreds of billions of federal dollars designated to support SARS-CoV-2 testing and it is rare when federal prosecutors bring cases only a few months after illegal lab testing schemes are identified
As if the COVID-19 pandemic weren’t bad enough, unscrupulous clinical laboratory operators quickly sought to take advantage of the critical demand for SARS-CoV-2 testing and defraud the federal government.
Unfortunately for the many defendants in these cases, federal investigations into alleged cases of fraud were launched with noteworthy speed. As a result of these investigations into alleged healthcare fraud by clinical laboratories and other organizations during fiscal year (FY) 2020, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the US government has recovered $1.8 billion.
The federal prosecutions involved dozens of medical laboratory owners and operators who paid back “hundreds of millions in alleged federal healthcare program losses,” Goodwin Life Sciences Perspectives explained.
When combined with similar efforts starting in prior years, the program has returned to the federal government and private individuals a total of $3.1 billion, the DOJ noted.
“In its 24th year of operation, the program’s continued success confirms the soundness of a collaborative approach to identify and prosecute the most egregious instances of healthcare fraud, to prevent future fraud and abuse, and to protect program beneficiaries,” the report states.
According to the graphic above, which is based on analysis by B2B research company MarketsandMarkets, “North America will dominate the healthcare fraud analytics market from 2020–2025.” As clinical laboratory testing represents a significant portion of the fraud, medical lab managers will want to remain vigilant. (Graphic copyright: MarketsandMarkets.)
COVID-19 Pandemic an Opportunity for Fraud
The HHS report notes that the COVID-19 pandemic required CMS to develop a “robust fraud risk assessment process” to identify clinical laboratory fraud schemes, such as offering COVID-19 tests in exchange for personal details and Medicare information.
“In one fraud scheme, some labs are targeting retirement communities claiming to offer COVID-19 tests but are drawing blood and billing federal healthcare programs for medically unnecessary services,” the HHS report notes.
Still other alleged schemes involved billing for expensive tests and services in addition to COVID-19 testing. “For example, providers are billing a COVID-19 test with other far more expensive tests such as the Respiratory Pathogen Panel (RPP) and antibiotic resistance tests,” the report says.
“Other potentially unnecessary tests being billed along with a COVID-19 test include genetic testing and cardiac panels CPT (current procedural terminology) codes. Providers are also billing respiratory, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and dermatologic pathogen code sets with the not otherwise specified code CPT 87798,” the report states.
Different Types of Healthcare Organizations Investigated in 2020
Beyond clinical laboratories, the HHS’ 124-page report also shares criminal and civil investigations of other healthcare organizations and areas including:
clinics,
drug companies,
durable medical equipment,
electronic health records,
home health providers,
hospice care,
hospitals and healthcare systems,
medical devices,
nursing home and facilities,
pharmacies, and
physicians/other practitioners.
According to the DOJ, “enforcement actions” in 2020 included:
1,148 new criminal healthcare fraud investigations opened,
440 defendants convicted of healthcare fraud and related crimes,
1,079 civil healthcare fraud investigations opened, and
1,498 pending civil health fraud matters at year-end.
“Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigative efforts resulted in over 407 operational disruptions of criminal fraud organizations and the dismantlement of the criminal hierarchy of more than 101 healthcare fraud criminal enterprises,” the DOJ reported.
Furthermore, the report said OIG investigations in 2020 led to:
578 criminal actions against people or organizations for Medicare-related crimes,
781 civil actions such as false claims, and
2,148 people and organizations eliminated from Medicare and Medicaid participation.
Implications for Clinical Laboratories
In 2020, OIG issued 178 reports, completed 44 evaluations, and made 689 recommendations to HHS divisions.
Clinical laboratory leaders may be most interested in those related to patient identification as a means to combating fraud and Medicare Part B lab testing reimbursement.
The HHS report says, “Medicare Advantage (MA) encounter data continue to lack National Provider Identifiers (NPIs) for providers who order and/or refer … clinical laboratory services,” adding that, “Almost half of MA organizations believe that using NPIs for ordering providers is critical for combating fraud.”
Additionally, the report states, “Medicare Part B spending for lab tests increased to $7.6 billion in 2018, despite lower payment rates for most lab tests. The $459 million spending increase was driven by:
“increased spending on genetic tests,
“ending the discount for certain chemistry tests, and the
“move to a single national fee schedule.”
Medical laboratory leaders may be surprised to learn that federal healthcare investigators were so vigorous in their investigations, even during the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Vigilance is critical to ensure labs do not fall under the DOJ’s scrutiny. This HHS report, which describes the types and dollars involved in fraudulent schemes by clinical labs and other providers, could help inform revisions to federal compliance regulations and statutes.
Following a nearly two-year disruption due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, pathologists and clinical laboratory professionals once again have an opportunity to gather and learn from each other
It is good news that the daily number of new cases of COVID-19 continue declining here in the United States. That fact, and the growing number of vaccinations, have encouraged state and federal officials to lift many restrictions on business and social activities.
Clinical laboratories are watching a big drop in the daily number of COVID-19 tests they perform, even as routine test volumes climb and more patients show up in doctors’ offices for the typical mix of ailments and health conditions.
It’s true that many familiar routines are back. But it is also true that things are not exactly the way they were pre-pandemic. And that’s the rub. Going forward, what should medical laboratory managers and pathologists expect to be the “post-pandemic normal” in how patients access care and how providers deliver clinical services? How will healthcare in this country be different from what it was pre-pandemic?
Preparing Clinical Lab Leaders for What Comes Next
These questions and more will be front and center when the Executive War College on Lab and Pathology Management returns on Nov. 2-3, 2021, at the Hyatt Riverwalk Hotel in San Antonio. The theme of this first live gathering since the spring of 2019 will be “Preparing Your Clinical Laboratory and Pathology Group for Post-Pandemic Success.”
“Today, lab managers have the interesting challenge of understanding the new opportunities they can use to advance their labs, both clinically and financially,” stated Robert L. Michel, Editor-in-Chief of Dark Daily and its sister publication The Dark Report, and founder of the Executive War College. “It isn’t that the pandemic changed healthcare in fundamental ways. Rather, it is that the pandemic accelerated changes that were underway before the outbreak began.
“That’s true of telehealth as well, for example,” he continued. “Once the nation was locked down, utilization of virtual physician visits and telehealth services skyrocketed. Today, national surveys confirm that as many as 50% of all patients and physicians have used a telehealth service, are comfortable with this type of appointment, and are ready to continue to use virtual office visits.
Robert Michel (above), Editor-in-Chief of Dark Daily, its sister publication The Dark Report, and founder of The Dark Intelligence Group, will host the first live edition of the Executive War College since May 2019 in San Antonio. The theme will be “Preparing Your Clinical Laboratory and Pathology Group for Post-Pandemic Success.” Attendees from clinical laboratories and pathology groups will gain critical insights they can act on immediately. (Photo copyright: The Dark Report.)
“Another trend accelerated by the pandemic is patient self-testing at home,” Michel added. “Government health officials saw the benefit of clearing for clinical use different specimen collection systems and COVID-19 test methods designed for use by consumers in the comfort of their home. Today, consumers can choose from multiple specimen collection products and SARS-CoV-2 tests designed for in-home use. Clinical laboratory managers should consider this development to be a consumer home-test baseline. Federal officials have created a regulatory pathway that will make it easier and faster for federal regulators to clear other types of diagnostic tests for consumer home use.”
What if the FDA Approves More Consumer At-Home Tests?
There are implications to each of the two trends described above. In the case of telehealth, if patients see their doctors virtually and the doctors order medical tests, how do clinical laboratories access these patients to collect the specimens needed to do this testing?
Similarly, if, in coming years, the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) increases the number of diagnostic test specimen-collection kits that consumers can use from home, how should local clinical laboratories position themselves to receive those kits and perform those tests?
These are two examples of important questions to be answered at sessions scheduled for the Executive War College in San Antonio on Nov. 2-3. Case studies by innovative lab leaders will address topics ranging from high-level strategy to daily management, operations, marketing, and managed care contracting.
Attendance Limited at This Fall’s Executive War College
At the first live edition of the Executive War College since May 2019, attendees will notice one significant difference from earlier years. By design, and for the safety and well-being of attendees, the number of attendees will be limited to 300. The hotel follows the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines and is prepared to adjust those numbers as CDC guidance evolves. Thus, those interested in attending this year’s conference are advised to register early to guarantee their place and avoid being disappointed.
Suggestions for session topics and speakers are welcome and can be sent to info@darkreport.com. Conference details, session topics, and speakers will be updated regularly at www.executivewarcollege.com.
So, register today because seating is limited at the 2021 Executive War College Presents “Preparing Your Clinical Laboratory and Pathology Group for Post-Pandemic Success.” To ensure your place at this valuable conference, click HERE or place this URL (https://dark.regfox.com/2021-ewc-presents) into your browser.
Book provides detailed road map for clinical laboratory professionals who believe they have a valid case to file under the federal qui tam statute, as well as lab owners who want to understand what motivates whistleblowers and what practices to avoid
Several high-profile whistleblower cases uncovering massive fraud have shocked the clinical laboratory industry over the past decade. Media coverage nearly always focuses on the court battle and subsequent renderings of justice. But little is written about what it is like to be a whistleblower who wants to hold a medical laboratory accountable for alleged violations of federal and state laws.
Now, a new “tell-all” book penned by Chris Riedel, a whistleblower who owned a clinical laboratory company in California, details the exploits of clinical laboratory whistleblowers over the past 15 years. The intriguing white-collar crime thriller, titled, “Blood Money: One Man’s Bare-Knuckle Fight to Protect Taxpayers from Medical Fraud,” outlines Riedel’s battle with major clinical laboratory players—including the so-called “Blood Brothers” Labcorp (NYSE:LH) and Quest Diagnostics (NYSE:DGX)—to expose medical laboratory fraud.
‘Most Whistleblowers Get Absolutely Destroyed’
The book takes the reader on a gripping journey into extortion, money laundering, attempted murder, buried gold in a CEO’s backyard, fraudsters hiding money in the Cayman Islands, and, according to the author, an Assistant Attorney General sabotaging her own state’s case and a corrupt state Governor who undermined litigation by his own Attorney General.
“I wrote it to be a true crime thriller, so I’m hoping people who love thrillers will enjoy it as a true crime story,” Riedel said in an exclusive interview with Dark Daily. “For anyone who’s considering filing a whistleblower lawsuit, this is an absolute must read.
“Most whistleblowers get absolutely destroyed,” he explained. “When companies find out who’s trying to attack their business model, they do everything they can to destroy the whistleblower’s life. Many end up bankrupt, unemployable, and divorced.
“There are things you can do to protect yourself and I list those in my rules for whistleblowers. I hope enough people will read it—particularly in Congress and maybe the Department of Justice (DOJ)—to put pressure on the DOJ to change their behavior. They are far too willing to accept what they call ‘affordable civil settlements’ as opposed to punishing companies and people for their theft,” Riedel said.
Chris Riedel (above) has worked in the healthcare industry as an executive and an entrepreneur for more than 40 years. He founded five companies, including two medical laboratories and a cardiovascular disease management company. For the past 15 years, he has been tirelessly working to fight against medical companies that are defrauding US taxpayers. His actions have resulted in a court verdict and settlements totaling more than $550 million. (Photo copyright: Leadership Books.)
Riedel became a whistleblower in 2005 when he filed a case under California law that was sealed until 2009. Jerry Brown, California Attorney General at that time, joined the case and unsealed it.
Riedel had acted after his sales representatives informed him that his company, Hunter Laboratories, needed to come up with a way to compete against larger labs’ pricing to survive. Knowing the test-price-discounting practices transpiring within the lab industry in California, Riedel determined he had three choices:
Violate federal and state laws to compete,
Close his business, which would cause him to lay off more than 150 employees and lose most of his life’s savings, or
Try to stop the other companies from participating in fraudulent practices.
“It is very frustrating for honest CEOs of clinical labs to see that they cannot compete well against those lab companies employing fraudulent schemes. Rather than compete on the quality of service of their products as honest companies do, fraudsters compete based on the value of their illegal inducements,” he states on his website. “I felt the pain that many other honest CEO’s and lab owners have had to endure as they try to compete with fraud and watch their life’s work destroyed.”
He chose to try leveling the playing field for all labs and stop taxpayers from being fleeced. After filing that first whistleblower lawsuit in California in 2005, he later filed similar whistleblower lawsuits in other states that had statutes defining how labs were to price lab tests for their Medicaid programs.
Riedel encountered many roadblocks and frustrations during the initial lawsuit, including some genuinely frightening moments. He described one such experience for Dark Daily.
“Quest and Labcorp together went to Blue Shield of California, a major insurance company, and they got our clinical lab kicked out of network. They offered Blue Shield a 10% discount on all their laboratory testing if they would kick Hunter Laboratories out of network,” Riedel explained. “Since [Quest and Labcorp] represented about 70% to 80% of the total outpatient laboratory testing for Blue Shield, it was too good for this insurer to pass up.
“When your lab loses a major insurance carrier like that, you can’t survive. What doctor is going to want to start with a clinical lab that doesn’t have Blue Shield? And existing clients don’t want to subject their patients to having much higher out-of-pocket expenses.
“From that point on, it was like a dagger in our heart,” he added. “We were literally two weeks away from both corporate and personal bankruptcy when we reached our historic settlement with Quest. Had it not been for that settlement, our 150 employees would have lost their jobs, we would have lost our house, and we would have been completely bankrupt. That was very scary, and I had a very hard time dealing with it.”
Uncovering Medical Laboratory Fraud
While performing his research for the whistleblower case, Riedel was astonished by the information and fraud he discovered.
“There was one point where we had to prove that Quest and Labcorp were passing out discounts to some clients that were at or below cost, without giving those same prices to the Medi-Cal program, as required by state law at that time,” Riedel explained. “I personally reviewed over a million documents. It took more than five years, but it was worth it.
“I eventually found three documents that exposed the complete fraud by Quest. These documents showed what Quest had billed Medi-Cal, how much money the company lost client billing and capitation contracts, and how much business they ‘pulled through’ from the government and insurance payers that made up for the staggering losses on deeply discounted client and capitated billing. That was like the silver bullet.”
In the process, Riedel also discovered what it was like to work with the federal Department of Justice.
“The DOJ hates people who file more than one whistleblower lawsuit,” he added. “They don’t like the statute to begin with, and they barely tolerate whistleblowers, so when they find someone who does it time and again, they really don’t like it.”
“Blood Money” (above) contains practical advice and suggestions that are useful for both clinical laboratory executives and pathologists who want to keep their lab operations compliant with federal law, thus not giving whistleblowers any issues to pursue a qui tam lawsuit, as well as lab whistleblowers who observe violations within their clinical labs—or at competing labs—and who want to do something that may rectify the situation. (Photo copyright: Chris Riedel.)
Riedel is considering writing a second book and is trying to decide which qui tam lawsuits will provide the best subject matter.
“I am currently investigating what would be a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit against an insurance company and that is going to be, by far, the biggest of the cases I have ever been involved in. That might make a good book all by itself,” he said.
Riedel finds his work fighting fraud against the government rewarding and plans to continue his efforts in the future.
“Even though it’s risky—and the book details how my life was almost destroyed when the Blood Brothers counter attacked—I enjoy the investigative work and legal challenges. For me, it is very fulfilling, and I am proud to carry the torch for taxpayers,” he says in a statement on his website.
The 368-page book should be of interest to clinical laboratory personnel, healthcare professionals, those considering becoming a whistleblower, and basically anyone involved in medical laboratory testing.
Legal, regulatory, and payer experts outline steps that help medical laboratories better navigate federal and state regulatory guidelines, eliminate coding and billing missteps, and maximize reimbursements
Even as daily COVID-19 test numbers continue to decrease, many clinical laboratories have substantial numbers of COVID-19 test claims that remain unpaid. Despite federal and state law requiring that labs be paid for these tests, commercial health plans are using many strategies to avoid paying labs for COVID-19 test claims.
That means a large portion of the nation’s labs are owed tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars for unpaid SARS-CoV-2 test claims they submitted since the onset of the pandemic last year.
What Clinical Labs Can Do to Be Paid for Their COVID-19 Test Claims
These four subject-matter experts provided insider tips and insights on steps clinical laboratories can take to get paid for COVID-19 test claims. This advice can help labs, maximize collected dollars, reduce the chance of post-payment audits, and navigate emerging payer trends.
During the webinar, Caitlin Forsyth, an Associate Attorney at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP in Seattle who specializes in healthcare regulatory compliance, said the new guidance “impressed upon commercial health plans the requirement to cover COVID testing in a lot of different circumstances.” The guidance included information on how providers can be reimbursed for providing COVID-19 care to uninsured people.
However, labs should be aware of what may come after they receive payment.
“We applaud you if you’ve had success thus far in securing reimbursement,” Forsyth continued. “However, clinical laboratories are not necessarily home free if Medicare, Medicaid, or a health plan has paid all or most of the lab claims for COVID-19 tests. This is because the payer may at some point down the line require the laboratory to submit to a post-payment audit. As part of the audit, the government payer or health plan is likely to require a laboratory to provide supporting documentation underscoring the medical necessity of each test performed on each patient at issue.”
What Constitutes ‘Medical Necessity’ for a SARS-CoV-2 Test?
There are many tripwires that can derail COVID-19 test claims. Medical necessity standards related to testing is one example that has been a major area of concern for clinical laboratories.
Kathryn Edgerton, Esq., Counsel at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP in Los Angeles, notes that the guidance providers have received has been “somewhat inconsistent and has created confusion as to what test is covered.” This lack of clarity in Medicare’s guidance has caused many denials of payment.
This Special Report from Dark Daily is the companion to the recent Dark Daily webinar on “Getting Paid for COVID-19 Test Claims: Prepare for Audits, Maximize Reimbursement and Navigate Payer Trends.” Clinical laboratory professionals can download the report by clicking here. (Photo copyright: Dark Daily.)
The webinar panelists provided the following three tips for optimizing billing claims for COVID-19 tests (additional recommendations on decreasing the number of COVID-19 test claim denials, increasing payments, and avoiding post-payment audits are available in the webinar’s on-demand replay and its companion special report):
When seeking reimbursement for COVID-19 testing from non-traditional sources, such as employers, schools, or local governments, ensure valid orders support each test claim. “Even if the employer, school, or local government has agreed to pay for the tests, a medical laboratory still must comply with state laws in regard to persons authorized to order the tests, as well as comply with CLIA requirements for a valid order,” Forsyth said.
Serial testing is on the rise in workplaces to increase the chances of detecting asymptomatic infection. However, Forsyth says, laboratories should “push for direct reimbursement from the workplace” because coverage from Medicare, Medicaid, and health plans is uncertain. “We also expect health plans to start cracking down on tests performed as part of an employment or surveillance program, taking the position that even if there are physician orders supporting each test performed as part of the program, health plans are not required to cover tests,” she added.
COVID-19-only testing providers and independent laboratories should expect health plans to begin narrowing their provider networks. To avoid being pushed out, Steve Stonecypher, Managing Partner at Shipwright Healthcare Group, says laboratories should “think about what you do, how you do it, and how you can be a benefit [to the health plan]. Make the payers think of you not as a nice-to-have in their network, but as a need-to-have in their network.”
COVID-19 Testing Labs Advised to ‘Have All Your Ducks in a Row’
Stonecypher urges clinical laboratories to be vigilant in record keeping, noting that the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) indicated earlier this year that it will conduct audits that focus on aberrant billing for COVID-19 testing during the pandemic.
“There are flags out there already that the OIG is potentially going to look to do claim audits,” he said. “You can pretty much guarantee that the payers are going to follow. So, have all your ducks in a row. We’re talking about all the individual patient assessments, all that necessary documentation … make sure all of that is in order because payers are going to look at this as an opportunity to come back and recoup money.”
Billing and finance executives, clinical laboratory leadership, compliance officers, and billing and coding administrators are especially encouraged to listen to this webinar about increasing the number of COVID-19 test claims for which the lab is reimbursed. This webinar is available to stream on-demand.
This can be one of the best low-cost, high return investments your lab team can make, particularly if it helps the lab’s coding/billing/collections team interact with health insurance plans to settle SARS-CoV-2 test claims that then bring in tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars from outstanding claims that have yet to be paid.
Oddly, as upcoding severity levels have risen, reported higher-severity inpatient hospital stays have dropped, OIG reported
Medicare upcoding fraud is a growing problem for the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Now, a report from the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) suggests that the practice is increasingly occurring for high-severity inpatient hospital stays that account for the most expensive part of US healthcare.
“The [COVID-19] pandemic has placed unprecedented stress on the country’s healthcare system, making it more important than ever to ensure that Medicare dollars are spent appropriately,” the OIG report states.
The OIG website notes, “Medicare pays for many physician services using Evaluation and Management (commonly referred to as “E/M”) codes. New patient visits generally require more time than follow-up visits for established patients, and therefore E/M codes for new patients command higher reimbursement rates than E/M codes for established patients.”
The OIG describes one type of upcoding as “… an instance when [providers] provide a follow-up office visit or follow-up inpatient consultation, but bill using a higher-level E/M code as if [they] had provided a comprehensive new patient office visit or an initial inpatient consultation.
“Another example of upcoding related to E/M codes is misuse of Modifier 25,” the OIG continued. “Modifier 25 allows additional payment for a separate E/M service rendered on the same day as a procedure. Upcoding occurs if a provider uses Modifier 25 to claim payment for an E/M service when the patient care rendered was not significant, was not separately identifiable, and was not above and beyond the care usually associated with the procedure.”
How OIG Conducted the Study of Hospital Coding Practices
To perform its research, the OIG analyzed Medicare Part A claims for hospital stays for the six-year period from fiscal year (FY) 2014 through FY 2019. The OIG identified trends in billing and payments for inpatient hospital stays at the highest severity levels, as determined by the Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG).
The OIG investigation revealed that the number of hospital stays billed at the highest severity level increased almost 20% between 2014 and 2019, while the number of stays billed at other severity levels decreased. These expenditures accounted for nearly half of all Medicare spending on inpatient hospital stays, the OIG reported.
According to the OIG report, “Medicare pays hospitals more for beneficiaries in MS-DRGs with higher severity levels because they are typically more costly to treat.” The graphic above taken from the OIG report illustrates “how the presence of complications can affect Medicare payment for three beneficiaries with the same principal diagnosis.” (Graphic copyright: Federal Office of Inspector General Department of Health and Human Services.)
As Severity Levels Went Up, Inpatient Length of Stays Went Down
Interestingly, the average length of inpatient stays at the highest severity level decreased, and the average length of hospital stays overall remained largely the same, decreasing by just 0.1 days. In addition, the total number of inpatient hospital stays decreased by 5%.
The OIG report noted that “the increase in the number of stays billed at the highest severity level implies that beneficiaries were sicker overall. However, the decrease in the average length of stays at the highest severity level potentially undermines that idea because it is not consistent with sicker beneficiaries. Length of stay generally has a positive relationship to severity of stay; sicker beneficiaries stay in the hospital longer.”
The OIG confirmed that in FY 2019, Medicare spent $109.8 billion for 8.7 million hospital stays. Approximately 3.5 million (or 40%) of those stays were billed at the highest severity level, as determined by the MS-DRG. In addition, nearly half of the $109.8 billion spent, or $54.6 billion, was for stays billed at the highest severity level and Medicare paid an average of $15,500 per stay at that level.
The OIG report states that “stays at the highest severity level are vulnerable to inappropriate billing practices, such as upcoding—the practice of billing at a level that is higher than warranted. Specifically, nearly a third of these stays lasted a particularly short amount of time and over half of the stays billed at the highest severity level had only one diagnosis qualifying them for payment at that level. Further, hospitals varied significantly in their billing of these stays, with some billing much differently than most.”
The OIG study also found that over half of the inpatient stays billed at the highest severity level achieved that level due to only one diagnosis. According to the OIG, the severity of an inpatient stay depends on a patient’s secondary diagnosis and it only takes one secondary diagnosis to propel a patient into the highest severity level. The OIG determined that if the diagnosis was inaccurate or inappropriate, higher payments would not be warranted.
OIG Recommends CMS Conduct Targeted Reviews
The report found that the most frequently billed MS-DRG in FY 2019 was septicemia or severe sepsis and that hospitals billed for 581,000 of these stays, for which Medicare paid $7.4 billion. In addition, kidney and urinary tract infections, pneumonia, and renal failure were among the most common conditions to have a complication that led to a high severity classification.
In its report, the OIG recommended more oversight from CMS to ensure that Medicare dollars are spent appropriately. The OIG also suggests that CMS conduct targeted reviews of MS-DRGs and hospital stays that are vulnerable to upcoding, as well as the hospitals that frequently bill them.
Clinical Laboratories Are Forewarned
Medicare audits continue to be more detailed and rigorous and all healthcare providers—including clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups—should be prepared to present all necessary documentation to support claims if and when they are audited.
Improvements in software, machine learning, and artificial intelligence (AI) give Medicare officials and the OIG powerful tools to spot questionable provider billing. This includes medical laboratories whose billing patterns could arouse suspicions and trigger audits.
Upcoding is a long-standing problem for the Medicare program. What is changing is that federal officials now have better tools and resources to use in identifying patterns of upcoding that fall outside accepted parameters.
Physician use of genetic tests continues to grow at robust rates, even during the pandemic, but uncertainty about managed care reimbursement hangs over the market
It may surprise many pathologists and clinical laboratory managers to learn that the market for genetic testing is robust and growing swiftly, even in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, the explosion in both the number of unique genetic tests available to physicians, and the willingness of doctors to order genetic tests for their patients, are creating major challenges for both government and private payers.
Moreover, how payers are attempting to gain control over this boom in genetic testing is creating serious problems for genetic testing companies seeking reimbursement for their test claims. This is because health insurers are taking aggressive steps to control their spending on genetic tests. Some of those steps include:
Prior-authorization requirements for an ever-larger number of genetic tests.
Reducing the prices paid for high-cost genetic tests.
Tough audits that use sampling and extrapolation and produce sizeable recoupment demands.
Unexpected Developments in Genetic Test Marketplace
These are reasons why clinical laboratories need to fully understand the state of the genetic testing market. Physicians are receptive to ordering genetic tests that will improve the care they provide their patients. But health insurers want better control over the unplanned and substantial increases in the total amount of money they pay out for the surging number of genetic test claims.
Collectively, these developments confront genetic testing companies with a mix of good news and bad news. The good news is that more physicians are using genetic tests in their daily medical practice. The bad news is that many payers are erecting ever-more restrictive hurdles that labs must overcome when submitting genetic test claims and seeking adequate payment.
Strategic Insights into What’s Changing with Genetic Testing
This webinar will be one of the most important strategic assessments of genetic testing presented to the clinical laboratory and diagnostics industries since the COVID-19 pandemic began last March. Your presenters are recognized thought-leaders in the genetic testing and laboratory medicine industries. Speaking in order are:
Bruce Quinn, MD, PhD, Principal, Bruce Quinn Associates LLC, Los Angeles: An expert in how Medicare and private payers establish coverage guidelines and prices for new genetic tests, Dr. Quinn will explain the key differences in how private payers are managing genetic test utilization and payment, compare to the federal Medicare program.
Heather Agostinelli, Asst. Vice President, Strategic Revenue Operations, XIFIN Inc., San Diego: Heather will provide a detailed perspective on the daily actions by payers as they process claims and issue payment for genetic tests. She will also present recommendations for how labs can optimize the number of clean genetic test claims, thus helping shorten payment times in ways that improve cash flow.
Rob Metcalf, CEO, Concert Genetics, Nashville, Tenn.: He will discuss the scope and scale of the explosion in the number of genetic test claims by sharing data, charts, and analyses usually only available to clients.
Your Chair and Moderator will be Robert L. Michel, Editor-in-Chief of The Dark Report.
The purpose of the upcoming webinar includes helping attendees with the following and more:
Learn why payers must now deal with more than 1,000 new genetic testing products launching every month and how that complicates claims processing.
Understand how the variation in CPT coding by different genetic testing labs complicates claims processing by payers.
Learn why “benefit investigation” is already a huge factor as consumers seek the lab with the cheapest genetic test price before they agree to be tested.
Master the art of working with prior authorization programs and know why having documents prior to authorization still does not necessarily mean the payer will reimburse for a genetic test claim.
Understand Medicare’s policy changes at the national level for genetic tests.
Know the core elements of the Medicare MolDx program that gov-erns genetic test claims across 28 states.
Valuable Information for Financial Analysis, Managed Care Executives
In addition to bringing clinical pathologists and directors/managers of clinical laboratories up to date on the genetic testing marketplace, this webinar will provide valuable insights into financial analysts’ tracking of genetic testing companies, managed care executives’ handling of genetic testing claims, genetic counselors, and others involved in managing clinical service lines that utilize genetic tests in patient care.
