Three MN hospitals agree to pay $2.28M to settle false claims case
Compliance Monitor, May 27, 2009
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Compliance Monitor!
St. Joseph’s Hospital, St. John’s Hospital, and Woodwinds Hospital—all based in Minnesota— agreed to pay $2.28 million to settle allegations that the hospitals performed a minimally invasive outpatient procedure as an inpatient procedure in order to receive higher reimbursement from Medicare, according to a Department of Justice release.
According the Department of Justice, the three hospitals—all part of the HealthEast Care System—allegedly performed kyphoplasty procedures as inpatient procedures when they could have performed them as outpatient procedures. Keeping kyphoplasty patients overnight significantly increased hospital profits for the procedure.
The hospitals discovered the overbilling mistake prior to the case and paid $1.45 million to the government following an internal audit. That total has been credited to the $2.28 million settlement.
The government reached a settlement in a similar case last year. In May 2008, Medtronic Spine LLC, corporate successor to Kyphon Inc, paid $75 million to settle allegations that the company advised hospitals to perform kyphoplasty procedures in the inpatient setting.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Compliance Monitor!
Related Products
-
Strategies for Health Care Compliance
News and real-life examples to increase the effectiveness of your compliance program. Strategies for Health Care Compliance...
-
Compliance Monitor
This HTML e-mail newsletter delivers news on Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse, as well as recent documents and targets...
-
Medicare Weekly Update
Each issue of Medicare Weekly Update includes the latest CMS proposed and final rules, CMS manual revisions, and...
-
Medicare Update for Physician Services
Medicare Update for Physician Services is a free, monthly e-zine that delivers news and information to help physician...
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- 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
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Identify potential Medicaid RAC target areas
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- 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: Follow CMS' coding guidelines when using modifier -25
- Understand the spine to code back procedures correctly
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Searched