Note from Hugh
Medicare Weekly Update, February 19, 2008
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Medicare Weekly Update!
Hospitals should pay careful attention to the OIG report discussed below relating to hospital claims for services furnished to SNF patients. The OIG found that in 2001 and 2002, hospitals (and certain other "suppliers") inappropriately billed Medicare for, and were paid for, $106.9 million worth of services furnished by hospitals to SNF patients. These billings were inappropriate because the services were covered under the SNF prospective payment system. Consequently, these services should have been billed to the SNF rather than Medicare. During 2001 and 2002, CMS did not have edits in the Common Working File (CWF) that prevented payment for these services.
Now here is the interesting part. The OIG also looked at 2003 claims. By 2003, CMS had completed implementing CWF edits designed to prevented payments to other providers and suppliers for services covered under the SNF prospective payment system. However, the OIG identified about $23 million of claims that were still paid inappropriately even with the new CWF edits in place. The OIG concluded that these inappropriate payments were made because, among other reasons, "the edits did not identify all overpayments."
What does this mean for hospitals? It means that hospitals need to be sure that they have systems in place to identify claims for services furnished to SNF patients that should be billed to the SNF rather than Medicare. Hospitals should not assume that the CWF will identify and edit out such claims. This is an issue that seems ripe for enforcement action by the government under the Civil False Claims Act. 
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Medicare Weekly Update!
Comments
0 comments on “Note from Hugh ”
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- Identify potential Medicaid RAC target areas
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Q&A: Acute respiratory failure diagnosis does not require intubation
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- E-mailed
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- CMS has reformulated payments for some bilateral procedures
- Oxygen Cylinder Storage Requirements
- Q&A: Acute respiratory failure diagnosis does not require intubation
- Q&A: Follow CMS' coding guidelines when using modifier -25
- Understand the spine to code back procedures correctly
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Hospitals are not bound by InterQual criteria for determining patient status
- Searched
