Are ongoing protests and federal investigations into health plan practices evidence that customers have reached a tipping point?
It is not common for beneficiaries to get arrested in front of their health plan’s headquarters. But that is what happened in July, when protesters gathered outside of UnitedHealth Group (UHG) in Minnetonka, Minn., to stress their dissatisfaction with the health insurer. More than 150 protesters participated in the demonstration. Eleven were arrested and charged with misdemeanors for blocking the public street outside of the headquarters.
Their main complaint is that the insurer systemically denies care for patients. This is a situation that probably resonates with hospitals, physicians, clinical laboratory professionals, and pathologists, who often see their own claims denied by health plans, including UnitedHealthcare.
“UnitedHealth Group’s profiteering by denying care is a disgrace, leaving people across Minnesota and all of the United States without the care they desperately need,” wrote members of the People’s Action Institute in a letter to UHG’s CEO Sir Andrew Witty. People’s Action organized the protest as part of its Care Over Cost campaign.
“Health insurance coverage has expanded in America, but we are finding it is private health insurance corporations themselves that are often the largest barrier for people to receive the care they and their doctor agree they need,” Aija Nemer-Aanerud, campaign director with People’s Action told CBS News.
“We have asked UnitedHealthcare for systemic changes in their practices and they have refused,” he told Bring Me The News.
Nemer-Aanerud told CBS News that UnitedHealth Group leadership has “refused to acknowledge that prior authorizations and claim denials are a widespread problem.”
“Our mission is to help people live healthier lives and help make the health system work better for everyone,” said UnitedHealth Group CEO Sir Andrew Witty (above) during a Senate Finance Committee hearing in May, NTD reported. “Together, we are working to help enable our health system’s transition to value-based care and are empowering physicians and their care teams to deliver more personalized, high-quality care that delivers better outcomes at a lower cost.” (Photo copyright: The Business Journals.)
People’s Action Institute Demands
In the letter, the changes People’s Action urged UHG to make include:
Ceasing to deny claims for treatments recommended by medical professionals.
Overturning existing denials for recommended treatments.
Stopping the practice of using Artificial Intelligence (AI) and algorithms to deny claims in bulk.
Executing a publicly shared audit and reimbursing federal/state governments for public money diverted by claims and prior-authorization denials within Medicare and Medicaid systems.
Expediting payment of claims.
Making public the details of denied claims and prior authorizations by market, plan, state, geography, gender, disability and race.
A spokesperson for UnitedHealth Group told CBS News that the company has had several talks with People’s Action and has settled some of the organization’s issues. That spokesperson also confirmed that UHG tried to discuss specific cases, but the issues People’s Action brought up had already been resolved.
“The safety and security of our employees is a top priority. We have resolved the member-specific concerns raised by this group and remain open to a constructive dialogue about ensuring access to high-quality, affordable care,” UnitedHealthcare said in a statement.
Profits over Patients?
The People’s Action Institute is a national network of individuals and organizations who strive to help people across the US overturn medical care denials made by insurance giants. Its Care Over Cost campaign aims to influence insurers to initiate systemic changes in their practices.
The recent protest occurred as UnitedHealth Group released its second-quarter financial report claiming $7.9 billion in profits. The company provides health insurance for more than 47 million people across the country and took in $22.4 billion in profits last year.
“UnitedHealth Group’s $7.9 billion quarterly profit announcement is the result of a business model built on pocketing premiums and billions of dollars in public funds, then profiting by refusing to authorize or pay for care,” said Nemer-Aanerud in a press release. “People should not have to turn to public petitions or direct actions to get UnitedHealthcare to pay for the care they need to live.”
“UnitedHealth Group made a decision to spend billions of dollars on stock buybacks, lobbying, and executive pay instead of paying for care people need,” Nemer-Aanerud told Bring Me The News. “They are harming people for profit and should be held accountable for that choice.”
“We all pay for this convoluted system, whether it is in our health insurance premiums or in our public programs. UnitedHealth Group is making billions of dollars in profit by denying people care, including in privatized Medicare and Medicaid plans, to the point that it has prompted a federal investigation … Still, we left the meeting with hope,” they added.
Protests like this one against UnitedHealth Group serve as evidence that the current system of commercial health insurance plans could be deteriorating. This descent may cause customers of these plans to take unprecedented actions to fight for necessary medical care.
As noted earlier, hospitals, physician groups, clinical laboratories, and anatomic pathology groups that see their own claims often denied by health insurers without a clear reason for the denials are probably sympathetic to the plight of patients who are frustrated with how UnitedHealthcare denies their access to care.
Charges include $1.1 billion in alleged telemedicine and fraudulent clinical laboratory testing
Nearly 200 individuals in 25 states are facing charges for alleged participation in a variety of healthcare frauds, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced in a press release. This major enforcement action involves telemedicine and clinical laboratory testing as well as other healthcare schemes. In total, the DOJ is alleging the defendants are responsible for $2.75 billion in intended losses and $1.6 billion in actual losses.
The charges include:
$1.1 billion in alleged telemedicine and clinical laboratory fraud.
As part of the action, the government has seized more than $231 million in assets, including cash, luxury vehicles, and gold.
Monica Cooper, JD (above), a DOJ trial attorney and member of the Texas Strike Force, is one of two attorneys prosecuting the case against Harold Albert “Al” Knowles of Delray Beach, Fla., and Chantal Swart of Boca Raton, Fla., in the DOJ’s latest crackdown on healthcare fraud. Charges against Knowles and Swart include conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and paying/receiving healthcare kickbacks in a $359 million scheme to bill Medicare for medically unnecessary genetic tests at two Houston clinical laboratories. (Photo copyright: US Department of Justice.)
Houston-Area Labs Charged in $359 Million Scheme
In one case, the government charged Florida residents Harold Albert “Al” Knowles and Chantal Swart in a $359 million scheme involving fraudulent Medicare billing for medically unnecessary genetic tests. Knowles owned two Houston-area labs—Bio Choice Laboratories, Inc. and Bios Scientific, LLC—while Swart ran a telemarketing operation. According to DOJ case summaries, the government alleges that Knowles paid kickbacks to Swart to obtain DNA samples and doctors’ orders for tests.
“Knowles, Swart, and others obtained access to tens of thousands of beneficiaries across the United States by targeting them with deceptive telemarketing campaigns,” the indictments allege. “Call center representatives—who were almost never medical professionals—often prompted beneficiaries to disclose their medical conditions and induced them to agree to genetic testing regardless of medical necessity.”
In addition, “Knowles, Swart, and others agreed that Swart and others would pay illegal kickbacks and bribes to purported telemedicine companies to obtain signed doctors’ orders for genetic testing after only a brief telemedicine visit,” the indictment stated. “Knowles and his co-conspirators knew that the purported telemedicine companies’ physicians were rarely, if ever, the beneficiaries’ treating physicians and rarely, if ever, used the genetic testing results in the beneficiaries’ treatment.”
Dallas-Area Labs Charged in $335 Million Scheme
In another case, the federal government charged that the owner of two Dallas-area clinical laboratories engaged in a $335 million Medicare billing scheme.
Keith Gray, owner of Axis Professional Labs, LLC and Kingdom Health Laboratory, LLC, “offered and paid kickbacks to marketers in exchange for their referral to Axis and Kingdom of Medicare beneficiaries’ DNA samples, personally identifiable information (including Medicare numbers), and signed doctors’ orders authorizing medically unnecessary cardio genetic testing,” the government alleged. “As part of the scheme, the marketers engaged other companies to solicit Medicare beneficiaries through telemarketing and to engage in ‘doctor chase,’ i.e., to obtain the identity of beneficiaries’ primary care physicians and pressure them to approve genetic testing orders for patients who purportedly had already been ‘qualified’ for the testing.”
Other Clinical Laboratory and Healthcare Fraud Cases
DOJ attorneys charged the owners of Innovative Genomics, a clinical laboratory in San Antonio, in a $65 million scheme to bill Medicare and the COVID-19 Uninsured Program for “medically unnecessary and otherwise non-reimbursable COVID-19 and genetic testing,” according to the indictment. Also charged were two patient recruiters who allegedly received kickbacks for referring patients.
Richard Abrazi of New York City was charged in a $60 million Medicare billing scheme. Abrazi owned two clinical laboratories: Enigma Management Corp. and Up Services Inc. Both operated as Alliance Laboratories.
“Abrazi and others engaged in a scheme to pay and receive kickbacks and bribes in exchange for laboratory tests, including genetic tests, that Enigma and Up billed to Medicare,” the indictment alleges. “Abrazi and others also allegedly paid and received kickbacks and bribes in exchange for arranging for the ordering of medically unnecessary genetic tests that were ineligible for Medicare reimbursement.”
The DOJ charged Brian Cotugno, of Auburn, Ga., and James Matthew Thorton “Bo” Potter, of Santa Rosa Beach, Fla., in a $20 million Medicare billing scheme. Cotugno, the indictment alleges, sold Medicare Beneficiary Identification Numbers (BINs) to two Alabama laboratories co-owned by Potter.
“The BINs were used to bill Medicare tens of millions of dollars for OTC COVID-19 test kits, many of which had not been requested by the beneficiaries,” the government alleged.
These are only a few of the recent cases the DOJ brought against defendants nationwide for healthcare, telemedicine, and clinical laboratory fraud. Both Dark Daily and our sister publication The Dark Report have covered these ongoing investigations for years. And we will continue to do so because it’s important that lab managers and pathology group leaders are aware of the lengths to which the DOJ is pursuing bad actors in healthcare.
Palmetto GBA’s Chief Medical Officer will cover how clinical laboratories billing for genetic testing should prepare for Z-Codes at the upcoming Executive War College in New Orleans
After multiple delays, UnitedHealthcare (UHC) commercial plans will soon require clinical laboratories to use Z-Codes when submitting claims for certain molecular diagnostic tests. Several private insurers, including UHC, already require use of Z-Codes in their Medicare Advantage plans, but beginning June 1, UHC will be the first to mandate use of the codes in its commercial plans as well. Molecular, anatomic, and clinical pathologist Gabriel Bien-Willner, MD, PhD, who oversees the coding system and is Chief Medical Officer at Palmetto GBA, expects that other private payers will follow.
“A Z-Code is a random string of characters that’s used, like a barcode, to identify a specific service by a specific lab,” Bien-Willner explained in an interview with Dark Daily. By themselves, he said, the codes don’t have much value. Their utility comes from the DEX Diagnostics Exchange registry, “where the code defines a specific genetic test and everything associated with it: The lab that is performing the test. The test’s intended use. The analytes that are being measured.”
The registry also contains qualitative information, such as, “Is this a good test? Is it reasonable and necessary?” he said.
Molecular, anatomic, and clinical pathologist Gabriel Bien-Willner, MD, PhD (above), Palmetto GBA’s Chief Medical Officer, will speak about Z-Codes and the MolDX program during several sessions at the upcoming Executive War College on Diagnostics, Clinical Laboratory, and Pathology Management taking place in New Orleans on April 30-May 1. Clinical laboratories involved in genetic testing will want to attend these critical sessions. (Photo copyright: Bien-Willner Physicians Association.)
Palmetto GBA Takes Control
Palmetto’s involvement with Z-Codes goes back to 2011, when the company established the MolDX program on behalf of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The purpose was to handle processing of Medicare claims involving genetic tests. The coding system was originally developed by McKesson, and Palmetto adopted it as a more granular way to track use of the tests.
In 2017, McKesson merged its information technology business with Change Healthcare Holdings LLC to form Change Healthcare. Palmetto GBA acquired the Z-Codes and DEX registry from Change in 2020. Palmetto GBA had already been using the codes in MolDX and “we felt we needed better control of our own operations,” Bien-Willner explained.
In addition to administering MolDX, Palmetto is one of four regional Medicare contractors who require Z-Codes in claims for genetic tests. Collectively, the contractors handle Medicare claims submissions in 28 states.
Benefits of Z-Codes
Why require use of Z-Codes? Bien-Willner explained that the system addresses several fundamental issues with molecular diagnostic testing.
“Payers interact with labs through claims,” he said. “A claim will often have a CPT code [Current Procedural Technology code] that doesn’t really explain what was done or why.”
In addition, “molecular diagnostic testing is mostly done with laboratory developed tests (LDTs), not FDA-approved tests,” he said. “We don’t see LDTs as a problem, but there’s no standardization of the services. Two services could be described similarly, or with the same CPT codes. But they could have different intended uses with different levels of sophistication and different methodologies, quality, and content. So, how does the payer know what they’re paying for and whether it’s any good?”
When the CPT code is accompanied by a Z-Code, he said, “now we know exactly what test was done, who did it, who’s authorized to do it, what analytes are measured, and whether it meets coverage criteria under policy.”
The process to obtain a code begins when the lab registers for the DEX system, he explained. “Then they submit information about the test. They describe the intended use, the analytes that are being measured, and the methodologies. When they’ve submitted all the necessary information, we give the test a Z-Code.”
The assessment could be as simple as a spreadsheet that asks the lab which cancer types were tested in validation, he said. On the other end of the scale, “we might want to see the entire validation summary documentation,” he said.
Commercial Potential
Bien-Willner joined the Palmetto GBA in 2018 primarily to direct the MolDX program. But he soon saw the potential use of Z-Codes and the DEX registry for commercial plans. “It became instantly obvious that this is a problem for all payers, not just Medicare,” he said.
Over time, he said, “we’ve refined these processes to make them more reproducible, scalable, and efficient. Now commercial plans can license the DEX system, which Z-Codes are a part of, to better automate claims processing or pre-authorizations.”
In 2021, the company began offering the coding system for Medicare Advantage plans, with UHC the first to come aboard. “It was much easier to roll this out for Medicare Advantage, because those programs have to follow the same policies that Medicare does,” he explained.
As for UHC’s commercial plans, the insurer originally planned to require Z-Codes in claims beginning Aug. 1, 2023, then pushed that back to Oct. 1, according to Dark Daily’s sister publication The Dark Report.
Then it was pushed back again to April 1 of this year, and now to June 1.
“The implementation will be in a stepwise fashion,” Bien-Willner advised. “It’s difficult to take an entirely different approach to claims processing. There are something like 10 switches that have to be turned on for everything to work, and it’s going to be one switch at a time.”
For Palmetto GBA, the commercial plans represent “a whole different line of business that I think will have a huge impact in this industry,” he said. “They have the same issues that Medicare has. But for Medicare, we had to create automated solutions up front because it’s more of a pay and chase model,” where the claim is paid and CMS later goes after errors or fraudulent claims.
“Commercial plans in general just thought they could manually solve this issue on a claim-by-claim basis,” he said. “That worked well when there was just a handful of genetic tests. Now there are tens of thousands of tests and it’s impossible to keep up.
They instituted programs to try to control these things, but I don’t believe they work very well.”
Bien-Willner is scheduled to speak about Palmetto GBA’s MolDX program, Z-Codes, and related topics during three sessions at the upcoming 29th annual Executive War College conference. Clinical laboratory and pathology group managers would be wise to attend his presentations. Visit here (or paste this URL into your browser: https://www.executivewarcollege.com/registration) to learn more and to secure your seat in New Orleans.
Some hospital organizations are pushing back, stating that the new regulations are ‘too rigid’ and interfere with doctors’ treatment of patients
In August, the Biden administration finalized provisions for hospitals to meet specific treatment metrics for all patients with suspected sepsis. Hospitals that fail to meet these requirements risk the potential loss of millions of dollars in Medicare reimbursements annually. This new federal rule did not go over well with some in the hospital industry.
Sepsis kills about 350,000 people every year. One in three people who contract the deadly blood infection in hospitals die, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Thus, the federal government has once again implemented a final rule that requires hospitals, clinical laboratories, and medical providers to take immediate actions to diagnose and treat sepsis patients.
The effort has elicited pushback from several healthcare organizations that say the measure is “too rigid” and “does not allow clinicians flexibility to determine how recommendations should apply to their specific patients,” according to Becker’s Hospital Review.
Perform blood tests within a specific period of time to look for biomarkers in patients that may indicate sepsis, and to
Administer antibiotics within three hours after a possible case is identified.
It also mandates that certain other tests are performed, and intravenous fluids administered, to prevent blood pressure from dipping to dangerously low levels.
“These are core things that everyone should do every time they see a septic patient,” said Steven Simpson, MD, Professor of medicine at the University of Kansas told Fierce Healthcare. Simpson is also the chairman of the Sepsis Alliance, an advocacy group that works to battle sepsis.
Simpson believes there is enough evidence to prove that the SEP-1 guidelines result in improved patient care and outcomes and should be enforced.
“It is quite clear that this works better than what was present before, which was nothing,” he said. “If the current sepsis mortality rate could be cut by even 5%, we could save a lot of lives. Before, even if you were reporting 0% compliance, you didn’t lose your money. Now you actually have to do it,” Simpson noted.
“We are encouraged by the increased attention to sepsis and support CMS’ creation of a sepsis mortality measure that will encourage hospitals to pay more attention to the full breadth of sepsis care,” Chanu Rhee, MD (above), Infectious Disease/Critical Care Physician and Associate Hospital Epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital told Healthcare Finance. The new rule, however, requires doctors and medical laboratories to conduct tests and administer antibiotic treatment sooner than many healthcare providers deem wise. (Photo copyright: Brigham and Women’s Hospital.)
Healthcare Organizations Pushback against Final Rule
“By encouraging the use of broad spectrum antibiotics when more targeted ones will suffice, this measure promotes the overuse of the antibiotics that are our last line of defense against drug-resistant bacteria,” the AHA’s letter states.
In its recent coverage of the healthcare organizations’ pushback to CMS’ final rule, Healthcare Finance News explained, “The SEP-1 measure requires clinicians to provide a bundle of care to all patients with possible sepsis within three hours of recognition. … But the SEP-1 measure doesn’t take into account that many serious conditions present in a similar fashion to sepsis … Pushing clinicians to treat all these patients as if they have sepsis … leads to overuse of broad-spectrum antibiotics, which can be harmful to patients who are not infected, those who are infected with viruses rather than bacteria, and those who could safely be treated with narrower-spectrum antibiotics.”
CMS’ latest rule follows the same evolutionary path as previous federal guidelines. In August 2007, CMS announced that Medicare would no longer pay for additional costs associated with preventable errors, including situations known as Never Events. These are “adverse events that are serious, largely preventable, and of concern to both the public and healthcare providers for the purpose of public accountability,” according to the Leapfrog Group.
In 2014, the CDC suggested that all US hospitals have an antibiotic stewardship program (ASP) to measure and improve how antibiotics are prescribed by clinicians and utilized by patients.
Research Does Not Show Federal Sepsis Programs Work
He points to analysis which showed that though use of broad-spectrum antibiotics increased after the original 2015 SEP-1 regulations were introduced, there has been little change to patient outcomes.
“Unfortunately, we do not have good evidence that implementation of the sepsis policy has led to an improvement in sepsis mortality rates,” Rhee told Fierce Healthcare.
Rhee believes that the latest regulations are a step in the right direction, but that more needs to be done for sepsis care. “Retiring past measures and refining future ones will help stimulate new innovations in diagnosis and treatment and ultimately improve outcomes for the many patients affected by sepsis,” he told Healthcare Finance.
Sepsis is very difficult to diagnose quickly and accurately. Delaying treatment could result in serious consequences. But clinical laboratory blood tests for blood infections can take up to three days to produce a result. During that time, a patient could be receiving the wrong antibiotic for the infection, which could lead to worse problems.
The new federal regulation is designed to ensure that patients receive the best care possible when dealing with sepsis and to lower mortality rates in those patients. It remains to be seen if it will have the desired effect.
Theranos founder and former CEO continues down the path she began by defrauding her investors and lying to clinical laboratory leaders about her technology’s capabilities
As a result of the ban, Holmes is “barred from receiving payments from federal health programs for services or products, which significantly restricts her ability to work in the healthcare sector,” ARS Technica reported.
So, Holmes, who is 39-years old, is basically banned for life. This is in addition to her 11-year prison sentence which was paired with $452,047,200 in restitution.
“The exclusion was announced by Inspector General Christi Grimm of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General,” ARS Technica noted, adding that HHS-OIG also “excluded former Theranos President Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani from federal health programs for 90 years.” This is on top of the almost 13-year-long prison sentence he is serving for fraud.
“The Health and Human Services Department can exclude anyone convicted of certain felonies from Medicare, Medicaid, and Pentagon health programs,” STAT reported.
“Accurate and dependable diagnostic testing technology is imperative to our public health infrastructure,” said Inspector General Christi Grimm (above) in an HHS-OIG statement. “As technology evolves, so do our efforts to safeguard the health and safety of patients, and HHS-OIG will continue to use its exclusion authority to protect the public from bad actors.” Observant clinical laboratory leaders will recognize this as yet another episode in the Elizabeth Holmes/Theranos fraud saga they’ve been following for years. (Photo copyright: HHS-OIG.)
Why the Ban?
“The Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cited Holmes’ 2022 conviction for fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud as the reason for her ban,” The Hill reported.
“False statements related to the reliability of these medical products can endanger the health of patients and sow distrust in our healthcare system,” Grimm stated in the HHS-OIG statement, which noted, “The statutory minimum for an exclusion based on convictions like Holmes’ is five years.
“When certain aggravating factors are present, a longer period of exclusion is justified,” the statement continued. “The length of Holmes’ exclusion is based on the application of several aggravating factors, including the length of time the acts were committed, incarceration, and the amount of restitution ordered to be paid.”
Rise and Fall of Elizabeth Holmes
Readers of Dark Daily’s e-briefs covering the Holmes/Theranos fraud saga will recall details on Holmes’ journey from mega success to her current state of incarceration for defrauding her investors.
In November 2022, she was handed an 11-year prison sentence for not disclosing that Theranos’ innovative blood testing technology, Edison, was producing flawed and false results. Theranos had “raised hundreds of millions of dollars, named prominent former US officials to its board, and explored a partnership with the US military to use its tests on the battlefield,” STAT reported.
To get Holmes physically into prison was a journey unto itself. At one point, evidence showed her as a potential flight risk. “In the same court filings, prosecutors said Holmes and her partner, William Evans, bought one-way tickets to Mexico in December 2021, a fact confirmed by her lawyers,” Dark Daily’s sister publication The Dark Report revealed in “Elizabeth Holmes’ Appeal Questions Competence of CLIA Lab Director.”
Drama around her move into prison continued. “The former CEO’s attorneys are making last-minute legal moves to delay her prison sentence while she appeals her guilty verdict,” Dark Daily reported.
At the same time, Holmes appeared to be on a mission to revamp her public image.
In the Times piece, Holmes talked about her plans to continue to pursue a life in healthcare. “In the story, Holmes contended that she still thinks about contributing to the clinical laboratory field. Holmes told The Times that she still works on healthcare-related inventions and will continue to do so if she reports to prison,” The Dark Report covered in “Elizabeth Holmes Still Wants ‘To Contribute’ in Healthcare.”
In the meantime, her legal fees continued to mount beyond her ability to pay. “Holmes’ prior cadre of lawyers quit after she could not compensate them, The Times reported,” The Dark Report noted. “One pre-sentencing report by the government put her legal fees at more than $30 million,” according to The New York Times.
Apparently, this closes the latest chapter in the never-ending saga of Elizabeth Holmes’ fall from grace and ultimate conviction for defrauding her investors and lying to healthcare executives, pathologists, and clinical laboratory leaders.
