GOV'T AUDIT INSIDER: Capitation payment proposal inconsistent with BIPA
Healthcare Auditing Weekly, July 20, 2004
PacifiCare of Oklahoma submitted a revised proposal that reflected an increase in Medicare capitation payments for contract year 2001. Of the proposed $16.4 million increase, PacifiCare used approximately $5.2 million in a manner inconsistent with the Benefits Improvement Protection Act (BIPA), according to an OIG audit report released June 17. During the audit, the OIG did the following:
- Reviewed applicable laws and regulations
- Reviewed the cover letter PacifiCare submitted with its revised
proposal in which it stated how it would use the additional funds for the
contract year - Compared the initial proposal with the revised proposal to determine
the modifications - Reviewed support for changes in membership projections indicated in the revised proposal
- Compared the provider payment assumptions used in the initial proposal
with those in the revised proposal
- Reviewed support for the revised direct medical care cost projections
- Reviewed provider contracts in effect in 2001
- Recalculated PacifiCare's provider payment projections based on the
actual contract terms in effect for 2001, using PacifiCare's cost projection methodology - Verified the mathematical accuracy of the plan's direct medical cost
projections - Interviewed PacifiCare officials
- Calculated the increase in 2001 Medicare capitation payments using
actual membership data obtained fromCMS
//">Click here to read the audit report "Review of PacifiCare of
Oklahoma's Modifications to Its 2001 Adjusted Community Rate Proposal Under the Benefits Improvement Protection Act of 2000," (A-06-02-00060).
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- 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
- Identify potential Medicaid RAC target areas
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- E-mailed
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- CMS has reformulated payments for some bilateral procedures
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Q&A: Follow CMS' coding guidelines when using modifier -25
- 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
- Q/A. One injection code or two?
- Cohesive History and Physical Requirements
- Searched
