Post on 21-Feb-2021
3/26/2013
1
HCCAApril 22, 2013
Provider Predictive Modeling: Utilizing SNF Data to Mitigate Risk
Shawn Halcsik DPT, MEd, OCS, RAC‐CT, CPC, CHC
Vice President of Compliance
Evergreen Rehabilitation
Paula G. Sanders Esq.
Principal & Chair, Health Care Practice
Post & Schell, P.C.
Shawn Halcsik DPT, MEd, OCS, RAC‐CT, CPC, CHC is the VP of Compliance at Evergreen Rehabilitation, a long term care contract therapy provider. In addition to bringing her vast
experience as a physical therapist to the role, she also spent 3 ½ years as a Senior Medical Reviewer at a Medicare PSC where she provided subject matter expertise in coding, reimbursement, documentation, and Medicare regulations to internal and
external customers including FBI, OIG, AG, and AUSA; performed pre/post pay review to identify overpayments, cost savings, and fraud/abuse issues; participated in onsite audits; and provided medical review perspective to data analysis, allegation triage, and special fraud/abuse proactive identification projects.
2
3/26/2013
2
Paula G. Sanders, Esq., Principal and Chair of Post & Schell’s health care practice group, focuses her national practice
exclusively on health care law. She represents clients on both substantive and procedural aspects of health facility regulation, such as surveys; licensure; Medicare/Medicaid; compliance; RAC,
MIC, PERM, CERT and ZPIC audits; accreditation; payment matters; HIPAA; fraud and abuse, False Claims Act investigations and voluntary disclosures. She vigorously advocates for her
clients before multiple regulatory and law enforcement agencies and is especially successful at coordinating an integrated
response to her clients’ issues.
3
http://www.hms.com/our_services/services_program_integrity.asp
4
3/26/2013
3
Objectives
• Overview of Center for Program Integrity (CPI) and Fraud Prevention System (FPS)
• Identify SNF claims data used by CMS, FI/MACs, RACs and ZPICs
• Understand how to use your data to perform internal predictive modeling and create your own risk score
• Learn to analyze data and not get caught up in tunnel vision to identify areas of risk
• Be able to answer the question:
“What does my claims data profile say about me?”
5
Health Care Fraud and Abuse (HCFAC) Program
• $4.2 billion recovered in 2012
• Return on investment (ROI): $7.90 for every $1
• > $23 billion returned to Medicare Trust Fund since 1997
• Department of Health and Human Services & Department of Justice Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2012 (2/11/2013); https://oig.hhs.gov/publications/docs/hcfac/hcfacreport2012.pdf
6
3/26/2013
4
Center for Program Integrity (CPI)
• Established April 2010 by CMS
• Mission is to ensure that correct payments are made to legitimate providers for covered, appropriate, and reasonable services for eligible beneficiaries– Enhance efforts to screen enrolling providers and suppliers
– Detect aberrant, improper, or potentially fraudulent billing patterns and take quick actions against providers suspected of fraud
7
Fraud Prevention System (FPS)
• Required by Small Business Jobs Act
• Implemented July 2011 to all ZPIC geographic zones
• Analyzes Medicare claims data using models of fraudulent behavior
• Generates automatic alerts on specific claims and providers
• Alerts are prioritized for review and investigation by program integrity analysts
8
3/26/2013
5
Fraud Prevention System (FPS)
• Predictive Analytic Model Categories
– Rules Based
– Anomaly Detection
– Predictive Models
• As of July 1, 2012
– 14 Rules Based
– 8 Anomaly Detection
– 3 Predictive
9
First Year ResultsCMS Report to Congress
• Was due September 30, 2012
• Issued December 14, 2012
Category $ Millions
Estimated Actual Savings 31.8
Estimated Projected Savings 83.6
Total Estimated Savings 115.4
Total Costs 34.7
Estimated Return on Investment: 3.3 to 1
10
3/26/2013
6
First Year Results: OIG & GAO Reports
• Did not fully comply with the requirements for reporting actual and projected improper payments recovered and avoided in the Medicare Fee for Service program and its return on investment
• Methodology for savings calculations included some invalid assumptions that may have affected the accuracy of reported amounts (100% fraud)
• CMS has not defined or measured quantifiable benefits or established appropriate performance goals
• Has integrated the FPS into its overall fraud‐prevention strategy but not the payment processing system
• FPS will strengthen the efforts to combat fraud, waste, and abuse in the Medicare Fee for Service program
11
First Year Results: GAO Report‐ZPIC Feedback
• FPS has not fundamentally changed the way in which they investigate fraud
• FPS has not significantly sped up investigations or enabled quicker administrative actions– FPS provides broad indicators
• Beware of false positives
– Often require additional investigative steps
• Provides data to support analysis of leads• Near real‐time claims data
– Time sensitive interviews– Verification of tips and complaints
12
3/26/2013
7
ZPIC Proactive Analysis Beyond FPS
• Peer Comparisons• Weighted Risk Score by provider type
• Incorporate Multiple Pieces of Claims Data
• Identify Outliers
• Identify Trends
• Provider Profiles
• Time Studies
• Beneficiary Utilization
13
What does my claims data profile say about me?
14
3/26/2013
8
Build Your Profile & Risk Score
• Build your provider profile– Use the same claim data as CMS, FI/MACs, RACs, and ZPICs
– Consider use of additional non‐claim data to provide contextual and background information
• Determine your risk score– Overall, Part A, Part B– Base on national or state benchmarks when available– Develop internal benchmarks when needed
• Update in response to regulatory changes• Evaluate and Explain
15
SNF MEDICARE DATA:Part A
16
3/26/2013
9
Two Different Profiles
Provider 1
Total
patients
40
Average LOS 60
RU% 93
RV% 6.9
RH% .13
RM% .04
Provider 2
Total
patients
5990
Average LOS 26.13
RU% 94.2
RV% 4.0
RH% .90
RM% 1.017
OIG Report 12/2010:Questionable Billing By SNFs
• SNFs increasingly billed for higher paying RUGS from 2006 to 2008 even though beneficiary characteristics remained largely unchanged
• Ultra high therapy RUGS increased from 17% in 2006 to 28% in 2008, resulting in payments increasing by nearly 90% from $5.7 billion to $10.7 billion
• Higher level of assistance with ADLs
• For‐profit SNFs
18
3/26/2013
10
OIG Report 11/2012:Inappropriate Payments to Skilled Nursing Facilities Cost Medicare More Than a Billion Dollars in 2009
• SNFs billed one‐quarter of all claims in error in 2009, resulting in $1.5 billion in inappropriate Medicare payments. – 20.3% claims were upcoded– 2.5% downcoded– 2.1% did not meet Medicare coverage requirements.
• SNFs misreported information on the MDS for 47 percent of claims– 30.3% Therapy (i.e., physical, occupational, speech)– 16.8% Special Care (e.g., intravenous medication, tracheostomy care)– 6.5% Activities of Daily Living (e.g., bed mobility, eating)– 4.8% Oral/Nutritional Status (e.g., parenteral feeding)– 2.4% Skin Conditions and Treatments (e.g., ulcers, wound dressings)
• CMS should use its Fraud Prevention System to identify and target SNFs that have a high percentage of claims for ultrahigh therapy and for high levels of assistance with activities of daily living.
19
SNF Part A Data
• RUGs
– Ultra High Therapy*
– ADL score
• Length of Stay
• Type of Assessment*
– COT
• Discharge Destination
• Claim Status/Location (Rejections)
20
3/26/2013
11
SNF Part A Data:Benchmarks
FY 2011 FY2012
QTR 1
FY2012
QTR 1 & 2
FY 2012 QTR
1, 2, & 3
Ultra‐High Rehabilitation (≥ 720 minutes of therapy
per week)44.9% 46.7% 46.2% 46.9%
Very‐High Rehabilitation (500 – 719 minutes of
therapy per week)26.9% 27.3% 26.7% 26.2%
High Rehabilitation (325 – 499 minutes of therapy per
week)10.8% 10.4% 10.7% 10.5%
Medium Rehabilitation (150 – 324 minutes of therapy
per week)7.6% 6.3% 6.6% 6.5%
Low Rehabilitation (45 – 149 minutes of therapy per
week)0.1% .1% .1% 0.1%
www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare‐Fee‐for‐ServicePayment/SNFPPS/Spotlight.html 21
SNF Part A Data:Benchmarks
FY 2011 FY2012
QTR 1
FY2012
QTR 1 & 2
FY 2012 QTR 1, 2, &
3
Individual 91.8% 99% 99.5% 99.5%
Concurrent .8% 1% .4% .4%
Group 7.4% 0% .1% .1%
Scheduled PPS
assessment95% 85% 84% 84%
Start‐of‐Therapy
(SOT) assessment2% 2% 2% 2%
End‐of‐Therapy
(EOT) assessment
(w/o Resumption)
3% 3% 3% 3%
Change‐of‐Therapy
(COT) assessmentN/A 10% 11% 11%
22
3/26/2013
12
SNF Part A Data Benchmarks: Claims Oct 1, 2011 ‐ June 30, 2012
Urban Rural TOTAL % RUX 203,296 22,338 225,634 0.50%
RUL 148,881 20,206 169,087 0.40%RVX 91,253 19,128 110,381 0.20%RVL 93,471 18,970 112,441 0.30%RHX 42,607 11,474 54,081 0.10%
RHL 41,735 11,947 53,682 0.10%RMX 37,392 10,159 47,551 0.10%RML 21,107 7,184 28,291 0.10%RLX 587 333 920 0.00%
RUC 5,660,209 1,137,530 6,797,739 15.30%RUB 7,792,839 1,014,207 8,807,046 19.80%RUA 4,039,536 869,451 4,908,987 11.00%RVC 2,936,944 887,164 3,824,108 8.60%
RVB 3,523,930 760,493 4,284,423 9.60%RVA 2,538,725 809,720 3,348,445 7.50%RHC 1,223,998 493,709 1,717,707 3.90%RHB 1,168,021 361,344 1,529,365 3.40%
RHA 903,846 427,705 1,331,551 3.00%RMC 816,876 330,825 1,147,701 2.60%RMB 678,292 206,421 884,713 2.00%RMA 542,283 245,630 787,913 1.80% 23
Fac Score *RU%*RU +RV%
RUG days
Site Prod
*Part B avgLOS
Part A avgLOS
Avg$/Claim‐Month‐PT
Avg$/Claim‐Month‐OT
Avg$/Claim‐Month‐ST
Avgunits/visit‐part B‐PT
Avgunits/visit‐part B‐OT
Avgunits/visit‐part B‐ST
*% COT
*YTD % KX
A 30 71.1 100 149 93.10 43.92 75 1384 1316 998 4.01 4.11 1.01 0.00 72.70%
B 24 67.6 90.1 423 90.70 13 43.63 1013 1328 439 4.07 4.08 1.08 0.00 72.70%
C 24 81.6 84.4 179 86.20 37.69 20.67 1083 1276 926 3.82 3.42 1.13 7.10 58.30%
D 24 55.4 80.1 624 83.50 36.1 37.43 1019 800 766 4.16 3.95 1.05 7.30 62.50%
E 17 38.1 78.1 572 88.80 26.27 37.08 884 846 812 3.57 3.6 1.07 0.00 60.50%
F 14 72.1 85 559 91.10 20.93 23.18 730 916 389 3.67 3.43 1.21 10.60 53.60%
G 11 49.5 84.1 327 88.70 16.6 33.54 444 400 872 2.57 2.7 1.06 7.70 37.40%
H 5 18.1 60 1376 83.10 14.52 32.69 669 803 698 2.85 2.79 1.9 14.60 37.30%
Provider Profile
24
3/26/2013
13
Red Flags
Facility A
Score 30
RU% 71.1%
RU+RV% 100%
Part A Average
Length of Stay
75 days
% COT 0%
25
Big Picture vs. Tunnel Vision
Facility D F H
Score 24 14 5
RU% 55.4% 72.1% 18.1%
RUG days 624 559 1376
Part A Average
Length of Stay
37.43 23.18 32.69
% COT 7.3 10.6 14.6
Facility D: Documentation Review and TMR excellent payment % 26
3/26/2013
14
Two Different Stories
Provider 1
Total
patients
40
Average LOS 60
RU% 93
RV% 6.9
RH% .13
RM% .04
Provider 2
Total
patients
5990
Average LOS 26.13
RU% 94.2
RV% 4.0
RH% .90
RM% 1.027
SNF MEDICARE DATA:Part B
28
3/26/2013
15
2011 Distribution of Spending in Outpatient Therapy by Setting
37.00%
30.00%
16.00%
11.00%
4.00% 2.00%
SNF
PT Private Prac
HOPD
ORF, CORF, & HHA
Phys and Nonphys PP
OT and SLP PP
29
OIG Report 12/2010:Questionable billing For OP Therapy
• Medicare expenditures increased 133% between 2000 and 2009 from $2.1 billion to $4.9 billion while the number of Medicare beneficiaries receiving outpatient therapy only increased 26% from 3.6 million to 4.5 million
– PT services accounted for 74% ($3.6 billion)
– OT services accounted for 19% ($945 million)
– SLP services accounted for 7% ($328 million)
30
3/26/2013
16
OIG Report 12/2010:Questionable billing For OP Therapy
• Average number of outpatient therapy services per beneficiary that providers indicated would exceed an annual cap. OIG calculated the average number of services (units) per beneficiary that had the KX modifier.
• Percentage of outpatient therapy beneficiaries whose providers indicated that an annual cap would be exceeded on the beneficiaries’ first date of service in 2009. OIG identified beneficiaries whose providers billed Medicare using the KX modifier on the beneficiaries’ first date of service in calendar year 2009.
• Percentage of outpatient therapy beneficiaries whose providers were paid for services that exceeded one of the annual caps.
31
OIG Report 12/2010:Questionable billing For OP Therapy
• Percentage of outpatient therapy beneficiaries whose providers were paid for more than 8 hours of outpatient therapy provided in a single day
• Average Medicare payment per beneficiary who received outpatient therapy from multiple providers. OIG identified beneficiaries who received outpatient therapy from more than one provider in 2009 and calculated the average reimbursement per beneficiary in 2009.
• Percentage of outpatient therapy beneficiaries whose providers were paid for services provided throughout the year. OIG identified beneficiaries who received outpatient therapy during all four quarters of 2009.
32
3/26/2013
17
Manual Medical Review (MMR) of Claims > $3,700
• Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) will conduct prepayment review until 3/31/2013
• Demonstration project pre‐payment review by RACs (Recovery Audit Contractors) effective 4/1/2013: Florida, California, Michigan, Texas, New York, Louisiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina and Missouri
• Post payment review will be conducted by the RAC in the other states
33
SNF Part B Data
• KX Modifier Usage*
• $3700 = ADR
• Length Of Stay*
• Units per Visit
• Dollars/Claim or Episode*
• Beneficiary Episode #
• Codes Sets Billed (static)
• Claim Status/Locations (rejections)
• Time Code Study*
• Functional Limit Reporting
34
3/26/2013
18
Medicare Part B Data Benchmarks
Outpatient Therapy Spending and Usage in 2011
# TherapyUsers (Million)
Total Spending (Billion)
Share of Spending
Mean Spending Per User
Mean Visits / User
Users AboveCap
Mean Spending on Users Who Exceed Cap
PT 4.3 $4.1 71% $942 1319% $3013
ST .6 $.5 10% $981 12
OT 1.1 $1.1 19% $1026 14 22% $3026
Total 4.9 $5.7 $1173 16
MEDPAC Report November 2012 35
Fac Score *RU%*RU +RV%
RUG days
Site Prod
*Part B avgLOS
Part A avgLOS
Avg$/Claim‐Month‐PT
Avg$/Claim‐Month‐OT
Avg$/Claim‐Month‐ST
Avgunits/visit‐part B‐PT
Avgunits/visit‐part B‐OT
Avgunits/visit‐part B‐ST
*% COT
*YTD % KX
A 30 71.1 100 149 93.10 43.92 75 1384 1316 998 4.01 4.11 1.01 0.00 72.70%
B 24 67.6 90.1 423 90.70 13 43.63 1013 1328 439 4.07 4.08 1.08 0.00 72.70%
C 24 81.6 84.4 179 86.20 37.69 20.67 1083 1276 926 3.82 3.42 1.13 7.10 58.30%
D 24 55.4 80.1 624 83.50 36.1 37.43 1019 800 766 4.16 3.95 1.05 7.30 62.50%
E 17 38.1 78.1 572 88.80 26.27 37.08 884 846 812 3.57 3.6 1.07 0.00 60.50%
F 14 72.1 85 559 91.10 20.93 23.18 730 916 389 3.67 3.43 1.21 10.60 53.60%
G 11 49.5 84.1 327 88.70 16.6 33.54 444 400 872 2.57 2.7 1.06 7.70 37.40%
H 5 18.1 60 1376 83.10 14.52 32.69 669 803 698 2.85 2.79 1.9 14.60 37.30%
Provider Profile
36
3/26/2013
19
Red Flags
Facility A
Score 30
Part B avg LOS 43.92
Avg $/Claim‐Month‐PT 1384
Avg $/Claim‐Month‐OT 1316
YTD % KX 72.7
37
Big Picture vs. Tunnel Vision
Facility D
Score 24
Part B avg LOS 36.1
Avg $/Claim‐Month‐PT 1019
YTD % KX 62.5
Documentation Review and MMR Pre‐authexcellent payment %
38
3/26/2013
20
KX3700
39
Drill Down on KX and 3700
• KX % / $3700 %– Facility Peer Comparison– Discipline Drill Down– Therapist Drill Down
• MMR ADR Denial Rate– Facility– Discipline– Therapist
• Impacted by Length of Stay, Units/Visit, and Code Sets Billed
40
3/26/2013
21
Length Of Stay
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Part B Length of Stay (4/2012‐9/2012)—Average 11.44 visits
41
Code Sets BilledDate Range: 7/1/2012 ‐ 9/30/2012 PT OT
Code Description Minutes Units Minutes Units
97001 PT evaluation 570 18 0 0
97003 OT evaluation 0 0 165 11
97035 Ultrasound therapy 120 8 0 0
97110 Therapeutic exercises 15965 1065 7115 474
97112 Neuromuscular reeducation 0 0 1935 129
97116 Gait training therapy 4485 242 0 0
97530 Therapeutic activities 9124 663 6245 416
97535 Self care management training 0 0 5705 381
G0283 Electric stim other than wound 535 23 0 0
42
3/26/2013
22
18 8
1065
0
242
663
23 0 0 00
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
97001 97035 97110 97112 97116 97530 G0283 97140 97760 97762
Units
Code Sets Billed
43
Code Sets Billed
Provider Code Set Percent
of Visits
Length of
Stay
Time/Visit Visits/Day
A OT: 97110 X
2, 97140 X 2,
97535 x 1,
G0283
100% 30 visits 1 hr 15
minutes
80
B OT: 97110 X
2, 97140 X 2,
97535 x 1,
G0283
100% 10 visits 1 hr 15
minutes
6
C OT: 97110 X
2, 97140 X 2,
97535 x 1,
G0283
25% 10 visits 1 hr 15
minutes
6
44
3/26/2013
23
Timed Codes1
72 units
2 therapists
2
72 units
2 therapists
3
72 units
2 therapists
4
62 units
2 therapists
5
62 units
2 therapists
6 7
8
72 units
2 therapists
9
72 units
2 therapists
10
62 units
2 therapists
11
72 units
2 therapists
12
62 units
2 therapists
13 14
15
72 units
2 therapists
16
72 units
2 therapists
17
62 units
2 therapists
18
62 units
2 therapists
19
72 units
2 therapists
20 21
22
72 units
2 therapists
23
72 units
2 therapists
24
62 units
2 therapists
25
72 units
2 therapists
26
62 units
2 therapists
27 28
29
72 units
2 therapists
30
72 units
2 therapists
31
62 units
2 therapists
72 units =
99.4%
62 units =
85%
Know what your productivity reports say about you 45
Timed Codes1
52 units
1 therapist
2
72 units
2 therapists
3
72 units
2 therapists
4
52 units
1 therapist
5
52 units
1 therapist
6 7
8
72 units
2 therapists
9
72 units
2 therapists
10
52 units
1 therapist
11
72 units
2 therapists
12
52 units
1 therapist
13 14
15
52 units
1 therapist
16
72 units
2 therapists
17
52 units
1 therapist
18
52 units
1 therapist
19
52 units
1 therapist
20 21
22
52 units
1 therapist
23
72 units
2 therapists
24
52 units
1 therapist
25
72 units
2 therapists
26
52 units
1 therapist
27 28
29
52 units
1 therapist
30
72 units
2 therapists
31
52 units
1 therapist
72 units =
99.4%
52 units =
144%
Know what your productivity reports say about you 46
3/26/2013
24
Non Claim Data
• ADRs
• Denials
• Documentation Due Reports
• Part B Clinician Involvement
• Billing Errors/Line Item Denials– Modifier
– Diagnosis
• Documentation Audit Results
47
Provider Response to CMS Screening All Claims on Front End
• Know your data profile as good as, if not better, than the CMS, ZPICs, FI/MACs, and RACs– Identify trends and outliers that require further drill down and evaluation
– Utilize to develop Audit and Monitoring Plan
• Evaluate and Re‐evaluate documentation and billing practice
• Be prepared to respond to documentation requests and audits
• Know when to involve legal counsel
48
3/26/2013
25
Legal Counsel Involvement
• Ensure attorney client protections
• Develop appropriate responses to discovered problems
• Review your contracts
• Remember 60 day repayment rule
49
Conclusion
• Audit and monitor
• Assess your risks
• Consult with counsel as necessary
• Train and implement
• Report and refund as necessary
50
3/26/2013
26
51
Questions?
Shawn Halcsik414.791.9122
shalcsik@evergreenrehab.com
Paula G. Sanders717‐612‐6027
psanders@postschell.com