OIG: Vermont should refund $323,367 claimed for family planning services
Healthcare Auditing Weekly, January 24, 2006
The OIG has recommended that the state of Vermont refund $323,367 it received in improper claims for family planning services.
The OIG discovered the improper claims during an audit to determine whether the Vermont Agency of Human Services, Office of Vermont Health Access properly claimed federal financial participation for claims related to family planning services
The OIG found that from October 2003 through September 2004, the state agency improperly claimed a total of $323,367 for federal Medicaid reimbursement for family planning services.
The state agency claimed these costs because it did not reconcile the quarterly claims for enhanced reimbursement with paid claim activity for such services, and because it did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that only eligible family planning-services were claimed for enhanced federal funding.
To perform the audit, the OIG:
Click here to read the audit report, "Audit of Vermont's Medicaid Payments for Family Planning Services Reimbursed at Enhanced Rates for the Period October 1, 2003 Through September 30, 2004," (A-01-05-00002) issued January 3, 2006.
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
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Identify potential Medicaid RAC target areas
- 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
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- CMS has reformulated payments for some bilateral procedures
- 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
