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.
VA Office of Inspector General recommends changes in management processes after doctor is sentenced to long federal prison term
In a compelling report, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that a host of management failures and “deficiencies in the facility’s quality management processes” at an Arkansas VA hospital contributed to “thousands of diagnostic errors” throughout the tenure of the facility’s Chief of Pathology and Laboratory Medical Services Robert Morris Levy, MD.
“Any one of these breakdowns could cause harmful results,” the report states. “Occurring together and over an extended period of time, the consequences were devastating, tragic, and deadly.”
The OIG report’s findings on how hospital and laboratory administrators dealt with Levy over the years of his employment at the Fayetteville VA Medical Center demonstrate why clinical and pathology lab leaders need to be constantly vigilant in how various quality and compliance procedures are administered in their laboratories. When people and processes are not meeting acceptable standards, it is patients who are at risk of being harmed.
In January, the federal court in Arkansas sentenced Levy to “240 months in federal prison, followed by three years of supervised release and ordered [him] to pay $497,745.70 in restitution for one count each of mail fraud and involuntary manslaughter,” according to court documents.
In its coverage of the federal case against Robert Morris Levy, MD (above in a jailhouse photo), former Chief of Pathology and Laboratory Medical Services at the Fayetteville VA Medical Center, The Washington Post wrote, “Levy’s supervisors failed to heed early warnings that he was endangering patients and then were slow to act, according to internal VA documents, court filings, and interviews with 20 congressional officials, veterans and current and former VA employees.” Clinical laboratory managers and hospital pathologists would be well advised to study the VA’s conclusions in its recent report. (Photo copyright: The Washington Post.)
VA Pathologist ReceivedMultiple Suspensions, then Termination
Following his removal in April 2018, the OIG assembled a team of pathologists to review nearly 34,000 cases interpreted by Levy since he began working at the VA hospital. They identified more than 3,000 errors, of which 589 were classified as “major diagnostic discrepancies” potentially having a negative impact on patient care.
Of the 589, 34 were deemed serious enough to require institutional disclosures, defined as a discussion with the patient or the patient’s representative revealing “that an adverse event has occurred during the patient’s care that resulted in or is reasonably expected to result in death or serious injury.”
The OIG report cited at least two deaths likely resulting from misdiagnoses.
Levy’s hospital privileges were initially suspended in March 2016 following a blood alcohol test indicating he was legally intoxicated while at work. He was reinstated about six months later after completing a treatment program and agreeing to submit to random drug testing.
His privileges were suspended again in October 2017 after he showed signs of impairment during a hospital committee meeting. He was terminated in April 2018 after he was arrested for allegedly driving while intoxicated (DWI) during work hours.
Federal Court Indicts Levy on Multiple Counts
Shortly after the OIG team began reviewing Levy’s cases, a separate OIG group launched a criminal investigation. Levy admitted to investigators that he had been an alcoholic for 30 years, the report stated, and that he had “purchased a substance, 2-methyl-2-butanol (2M2B), online that could be ingested, was similar to alcohol but more potent, and was not detectable using routine drug and alcohol testing methods.”
Citing the federal indictment, the OIG report noted that Levy passed 42 drug and alcohol tests following his reinstatement at the hospital in 2016.
In August 2019, federal authorities charged Levy with three counts of involuntary manslaughter along with multiple counts of wire fraud, mail fraud, and making false statements. The wire and mail fraud charges were related to his 2M2B purchases.
Levy pleaded guilty in June 2020 and was sentenced on January 22, 2021. In addition to the 20-year prison term, he was ordered to pay approximately $498,000 in restitution to VA. The OIG report noted that Levy has appealed the sentence.
And in “Arkansas Pathologist Faces Three Manslaughter Charges,” Dark Daily’s sister publication, The Dark Report, noted that “The outcome of [the Levy] case could be a precedent that gives other prosecutors the confidence that they can file criminal charges in cases where evidence shows that a pathologist’s actions contributed to diagnostic errors that directly contributed to the death of one or more patients.”
“This sentence should send a strong message that those who abuse their positions of trust in caring for veterans will be held accountable,” said VA Inspector General Michael J. Missal in a federal Department of Justice (DOJ) press release. “Our thoughts are with all those harmed by Dr. Levy’s actions, and we hope they find some small measure of comfort from what happened here today.” (Photo copyright: Military Times.)
OIG Finds Numerous ‘Deficiencies in Quality Management’
In its report, OIG found deficiencies in quality management going back to Levy’s original appointment as Pathology and Laboratory Medical Services Chief.
He was initially hired in September 2005 as a locum tenens (temporary) provider and appointed as full-time service chief a month later. This was despite a DWI conviction from 1996 and a stay of only eight months with his previous employer.
Neither would have barred the doctor as a potential candidate; however, the OIG report states, “the OIG is concerned that a rigorous process was not in place to better evaluate his clinical competency at the time he was hired.”
And that was just the beginning.
In his role as service chief, Levy was responsible for the Path and Lab quality management program with assistance from a subordinate staff pathologist, “which made the process susceptible to subversion,” the report states.
The VHA requires a second pathologist to review certain findings, such as diagnosis of a new cancer malignancy. But in some cases, “it was determined that Dr. Levy was entering concurrence statements into some patients’ electronic health records (EHR) when a second pathologist had not agreed with the interpretation or diagnosis,” the OIG report states.
In addition, second reads sometimes “were communicated by sticky notes, which provided Dr. Levy the opportunity to alter or ignore the results,” the OIG reported.
Inherent Conflict of Interest, Fear of Reprisals, and OIG Recommendations
The periodic privileging process, which grants ongoing hospital privileges, was based in part on a “10% peer review” conducted by the staff pathologist. “The involvement of a subordinate in the peer review process of a supervisor creates an inherent conflict of interest,” the OIG report stated. And in some cases, appraisals of the doctor’s competence came from non-pathologists.
The OIG report suggested that the Veteran’s Health Administration (VHA) re-examine its guidance on the peer review, which requires cases to be randomly selected. Instead, the report suggests that targeting specific kinds of cases, such as those with higher risk of interpretation error, could be more effective in analyzing a pathologist’s performance.
The OIG report also noted failures in dealing with the doctor’s impairment and fostering a “culture of accountability.” Hospital staff, apparently, reported signs of impairment as early as 2014, including incidents when the doctor smelled of alcohol and displayed hand tremors. But hospital leadership failed to “vigorously address allegations of impairment,” the OIG report states. And in interviews with the OIG, some staffers expressed fear of reprisal if they reported what they saw.
The OIG report offers 10 recommendations to the VA, including practices related to hiring processes, the 10% peer review, and alcohol and drug testing. It makes two additional recommendations to the director of the Ozarks VA health system: one related to the credentialing processes and the other aimed at ensuring staff and patients can report concerns without fear of reprisal.
Clinical laboratory managers and hospital pathologists may want to review these recommendations and consider the value of applying them in their own practices.
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.
Since the pandemic began, federal investigators are specifically looking for patterns of fraud in Medicare claims data for COVID-19 clinical laboratory testing
Last month, the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) announced it had been investigating trends in Medicare claims data that could indicate patterns of fraud in the billing for COVID-19 clinical laboratory tests, Modern Healthcare reported.
Stretching back to at least March, fraudulent actors offering fake SARS-CoV-2 tests have preyed on vulnerable Americans in a wide variety of ways during the public health emergency, according to published reports. Some scam operators have gone into nursing homes and long-term care facilities to collect cash from unsuspecting elders in exchange for swab collections and phony testing, the New York Times reported.
Since the declaration of the public health emergency in the US, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) no longer requires a lab test requisition signed by a treating physician or other provider for COVID-19 testing. “The strong demand for and limited supply of SARS-CoV-2 tests, along with the move by CMS to relax rules for certain test orders during the pandemic, makes the situation a potentially ripe one for fraud,” Modern Healthcare stated.
Plus, a lack of clarity about the medical necessity of COVID-19 tests could raise the liability risk for law-abiding clinical laboratories. All of these factors make COVID-19 testing fraud a potential bombshell for clinical laboratories conducting coronavirus testing that may get caught up in federal investigations.
Feds Step Up Enforcement
Shortly after the pandemic arrived in the US, the FBI, the Better Business Bureau (BBB), the FDA, the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and other federal and local authorities have frequently warned doctors, hospitals, and healthcare consumers about the potential for fraud by unscrupulous companies purporting to offer legitimate clinical laboratory testing for COVID-19. A June 26 FBI press release stated, “Scammers are marketing fraudulent and/or unapproved COVID-19 antibody tests, potentially providing false results.”
Some of the fraudsters behind these scams have operated online and through social media and email. While others have conducted these scams in person or over the phone, noted the press release.
And yet, despite the warnings, the scams and news articles about them have continued to spread throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.
Various Forms of Fraud and Their Consequences
In many of these scams, fraudsters seek to collect consumers’ personal information, including names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers, as well as other forms of personal health information, such as Medicare or private health insurance data, the FBI reported. Scammers can use that information in medical insurance fraud schemes or to commit identity theft, the agency added.
Additionally, any fake or inaccurate COVID-19 tests or assays that the FDA has not allowed for use could provide doctors with false results, potentially creating a dangerous situation for patients.
The New York Times (NYT) recently reported that the FBI had issued a warning “about scammers who advertise fraudulent COVID-19 antibody tests as a way to obtain personal information that can be used for identity theft or medical insurance fraud.”
Three days after the FBI issued its warning about the COVID-19 antibody testing scam, the BBB added an alert to its website: “BBB Scam Alert: Want a COVID-19 test? There’s a scam for that.” BBB also provided advice to consumers about how to avoid testing scams.
On June 17, the FDA reported that it issued warning letters to three companies for marketing adulterated and misbranded COVID-19 antibody tests, stated an FDA news release. The agency sent warning letters to:
In the FDA’s announcement, Jeff Shuren, MD, JD (above), Director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said “When tests are marketed inappropriately, with inaccurate or misleading claims—such as the ability to perform the test completely at home, or that the test is authorized, cleared, or approved when it is not—they put the health of Americans at risk. Such conduct will not be tolerated by the FDA, and we will continue to monitor tests marketed in the US, taking appropriate action as warranted.” (Photo copyright: The Food and Drug Administration.)
Scams Reported Just in April
On April 17, the New York Times reported that a special agent with the HHS OIG noted that impostors seeking Medicare or Medicaid information posed as doctors or laboratory technicians to offer fake tests in nursing homes and assisted living facilities.
Earlier in April, The Texas Tribune reported that the owner of a freestanding emergency room in Laredo, Texas, spent $500,000 to buy 20,000 rapid COVID-19 tests for patients suspected of having COVID-19. Health officials in Laredo planned to establish a drive-through testing site and then administer tests that came from a manufacturer in China to detect active infections. After trying to validate the tests, city health officials found they were unreliable and unusable.
An April 9 report from the news department of the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) stated that federal officials have found fake coronavirus testing sites in many states, including Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, New York, and Washington state.
The FBI, according to AARP, investigated several fake test sites in Louisville, Ky., after a city official reported that people in personal protective equipment (PPE) were collecting biological specimens from residents. Those seeking tests were told to pay $240 in cash or give their Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security cards to verify their identity.
Fake drive-up testing sites were reported at gas stations and other locations in Louisville over a four-day period, the AARP reported.
On April 2, WRGB TV in Albany, N.Y., reported that scammers pretending to be from the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) were taking money and insurance information from people in exchange for fake coronavirus tests. One woman told police she got a fake test at a drive-up site in a Little League parking lot.
North Greenbush police said the scammers identified themselves as being with NYSDOH and collected money and insurance information from multiple people. Police and state officials said the DOH had no connection to the collection site in the parking lot.
Lessons for Lab Directors
For clinical laboratory directors and all clinical lab scientists, the lesson from these stories is to be wary of strangers offering COVID-19 testing, while also making certain to post information for customers about the legitimacy of your lab’s COVID-19 rapid molecular and serological tests. Doing so might involve providing proof that the FDA has allowed your tests to be used for the coronavirus.
Also, medical laboratories should ensure that all employees collecting specimens in public places display proper identification.
Medical fraudsters are targeting Medicare recipients with schemes to persuade them to agree to genetic tests advertised as informing them if they are predisposed to specific chronic diseases or cancer
Medicare scams involving orders for unnecessary, expensive testing are not new. However, clinical laboratory managers and anatomic pathologists need to be aware—particularly those working in hospital and health system labs—that an entirely new wave of fraud involving medical laboratory testing is gaining momentum. This time, instead of specialty cardiology, toxicology, and pain management testing, the scam involves genetic tests.
The shifting focus to genetic tests by fraudsters is a
recent development to which many hospital-based medical laboratory
professionals may be unaware. One reason that the hospital lab managers can be
extraordinarily compliant with federal and state laws is because they don’t
want to threaten the license of their hospital. So, hospital lab staff often
are unaware of the types and extent of fraud involving certain lines of clinical
lab testing that surface in the outpatient/outreach market.
The growing number of fraudulent activities associated with genetic tests is now an issue for federal healthcare fraud investigators. Former US attorney Robert M. Thomas, Jr., a whistleblower attorney, adjunct professor at Boston University School of Law, and a civil rights advocate, wrote in STAT, “What’s going on here is the same pattern of activity that has occurred throughout the healthcare system: a great majority of law-abiding actors and a few that seek out opportunities to game the system of government reimbursement. If you can get a saliva swab and a Medicare number [to provide a specimen for a genetic test] from an unsuspecting senior and falsify a doctor’s order (or find a shady doctor to write one), there’s an easy four-figure sum to be had.”
This aligns with a recent fraud alert from the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) that states: “Scammers are offering Medicare beneficiaries ‘free’ screenings or cheek swabs for genetic testing to obtain their Medicare information for identity theft or fraudulent billing purposes. Fraudsters are targeting beneficiaries through telemarketing calls, booths at public events, health fairs, and door-to-door visits.
“Beneficiaries who agree to genetic testing or verify
personal or Medicare information may receive a cheek swab, an in-person
screening or a testing kit in the mail, even if it is not ordered by a
physician or medically necessary.
“If Medicare denies the claim, the [Medicare] beneficiary
could be responsible for the entire cost of the test, which could be thousands
of dollars.”
In a STAT column, former US attorney Robert M. Thomas, Jr. (above), noted that “All a scammer must do is find a medical laboratory willing to split the profit from the testing once the DNA samples are in hand. With more and more labs opening, there are plenty of doors upon which to knock.” This makes it imperative that clinical laboratory managers train their staff to identify and question potentially fraudulent test orders. (Photo copyright: Twitter.)
How the Scam Works
As with similar fraud cases, the scamsters pay inducements
to often-unaware patients, physicians, and others to encourage an order for a
genetic test. They then bill federal health programs and private insurers at
inflated prices.
Thomas describes one such scenario used to increase genetic
test orders. “A typical scheme might go something like this: A scammer offers
free ice cream sundaes, gift cards, or even casino chips at a retirement
community or ‘Medicare expo’ for anyone who would like to hear about the
exciting new technology of genetic testing and what it might reveal about ‘your
family’s risk of cancer’ or some other come-on,” explained Thomas. “The scammer
describes this sophisticated technology and downplays or ignores the medical
necessity criteria and the need for a doctor’s order. He or she persuades some
attendees to provide saliva samples and gets identifying information, such as
the senior’s name, date of birth, and Medicare number.
“The scammer then approaches a testing lab, saying, ‘I can find you a lot more business and get you a lot more patients if you share the proceeds with me.’ This, of course, violates the federal anti-bribery law known as the Anti-Kickback Act. But the lure of high-volume profits can be strong enough for some to ignore that roadblock,” he noted.
What Medical Laboratories Need to Know about Fraud and
Genetic Tests
Regardless of how the fraudster proceeds—whether asking the
lab company outright to split profits or by simply sending a high volume of the
same genetic test to the lab without explanation—clinical laboratory managers
should be alert to such activities.
Thomas writes: “An ethical lab would detect that something
is amiss with such a request [involving a genetic test]. An alert lab might
question how an individual, who is not a doctor, has gotten so many saliva
samples and [so much] personal information from so many ‘patients.’ Other [genetic
testing] lab companies may simply play the game without asking enough
questions, or worse, knowing that the tests are not medically necessary, as
required by the rules. The promise of easy money can be just too alluring.”
Physicians and medical laboratories that participate in
these scams are in violation of the federal anti-bribery laws. In “Federal
Investigations into Alleged Kickback Schemes between Hospitals and Physicians
Increase in Number and Scope,” Dark Daily reported on new OIG
investigations into hospitals alleged to have violated anti-kickback
legislation.
Current Cases Involving Genetic Testing Scams
Fraudulent medical test ordering schemes are an ongoing problem that Dark Daily has repeatedly covered. Though the genetic testing aspect is relatively new, there are several recent and current cases that outline the consequences of participating in the new scam.
For example, in February GenomeDx Biosciences Corp. (GenomeDx) agreed to pay $1.99 million to settle a federal case regarding unnecessary genetic testing. In this case, post-operative prostate cancer patients were given a genetic test called Decipher even though they “did not have risk factors necessitating the test,” a Department of Justice (DOJ) press release states. The DOJ claimed GenomeDx fraudulently billed Medicare for the tests, violating the False Claims Act.
A similar federal case involved a doctor who was charged with ordering genetic tests for patients he never saw or treated. Though the doctor was licensed to practice medicine in Florida, the “patients” in question resided in Oklahoma, Arizona, Tennessee, and Mississippi. One patient testified to having responded to a Facebook ad that offered a $100 gift card “for people interested in genetic testing,” a press release from the US Attorney’s Office District of New Jersey stated.
One important recommendation is that medical laboratory
professionals learn how to spot and question potentially fraudulent testing
requests. This shift to genetic testing is just the latest threat. Even clinical
labs that are well prepared could be caught unaware, particularly if the
fraudster sends genetic test orders to multiple labs to process what are
probably medically-unnecessary tests.
