Happy New Year my first blog for 2012( CMS Release New Changes to The Medicare Enrollement Forms)

If you have not submitted a Medicare enrollement application in a while, you are likely to notice some changes in the information you are required to provide. Effective July 1,2011, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released newly revamped version of the Medicare enrollement application on Foms CMS-855A,855B,855R and 855I. In addition, CMS added a new form-the CMS-855O- for ordering and referring physicians and nonphysician practitioners (NPPs) who need to obtain a Medicare number for limited purposes.

The changes were issued as a follow-up to a final rule, published by CMS on February 2.2011, (at 76 FR 5862), pursuant to which CMS implemented various provisions of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The final rule  addresses a number of topics, including new heightened screening procedures for providers and suppliers in the Medicare and Medicaid programs and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

The purpose of the CMS-855 Medicare enrollement application forms is to gather information from each provider and supplier that tells CMS who the individual/entity is, whether it meets qualifications to be a Medicare participating provider or supplier, where it provides services, who its owners and other key people are (officers, directors and managing employees) and other information necessary to establish correct claims payments. Many of the changes to the CMS-855 application expand on the "who" component by asking for more detailed information on the identity of the applicant, its qualifications to provide certain services and identity of its owners and key people.

Some of the notable changes on the Form CMS-855 application forms include the following (this list is not exhaustive):

Form CMS-855A

A check box was added to Section 2A that will identify whether a hospital has physician -owners. If yes a new six-page Attachement 1 have been added to capture very detailed information on the organization and individuals who have direct or indirect ownership or control interests in physician-owned hospitals. These changes were implemented in response to the new restrications made to the Stark Law's exception for physician ownership in hospitals enacted under the PPACA.

In section 2B, providers now have to indicate their year-end cost report date.

Section 5 and 6 of the Form, which report five percent or greater direct and indirect organizational and individual owners, as well as directors/officers and managing employees, have been completely revamped, including a new requirement that the provider report the exact percentage of all five percent or greater direct and indirect ownership interest and the effective date on which the ownership interests were acquired.

The revised CMS-855A now explicitly requires disclosure of any entity whose mortgage or other security interest in the provider is equal to five percent or more of the total property and assets of the provider.

This includes investements funds, holding companies banks and financial institutions, and charitable and religious organizations. In addition, the provider must submit an organizational diagram identifying all of the owning or controlling entities and their relationship to each other and the provider.

Section 5 and 6 now also require the provider identify any contractual services (including management and billing services) furnished by the provider's owners and managing organization/employees.

In addition institutional providers are now required to pay an application fee in connection with the initial Medicare applications, revalidations and the addition of practice locations. The application fee for 2011 is $505, which is subject to an annual cost of living adjustment. Institutions may submit a hardship exception request at the time of filing to request an exception from this fee.

Form CMS-855B

In section 2, ambulatory surgical facilities now have to provide information regarding their accreditation.

Also in Section 2, CMS now requests accreditation information for all groups and organizations that provide advanced diagnostic imaging services, including CT, MRI, nuclear medcine and PET.

In Section 6, individual owners, directors/officers, authorized officials and managing employees must now report their titles, place (state) of birth and effective date of ownership or control.

Form CMS-855I

In Section 2A, physicians and NPPs are now asked whether they will accept new Medicare patients. This information will be published in the " Medicare Physcians and Healthcare Provider Directory."

For those practitioners that for advanced diagnostic imaging services (CT, MRI, nuclear medicine and PET), information on accreditation for these modalities is now required.

In Section 6, managing employees must now report title, place(state) of birth and effective date of managing control.

Form CMS-855R

Suppliers that are terminating a reassignment must now list contact person

Avoiding Denials and Rejections in a Physcian Practice/Clinic/Facility

 Why Your Insurance Claims are Being Denied

Medical billing is a frustrating process for practioners who are often juggling too many business tasks, as well as trying to provide excellent clinical care. In fact, many medical offices  collect less than 85% of the monies that they’re rightly owed from insurance companies. However, with good planning, and a smart billing staff , your practice can reasonably expect to collect between 96-99% of claims.

Look out for these pitfalls! There are many reasons that claims can go unpaid, including but not limited too:

Waited too Long to File the Claim

The vast majority of insurance companies allow 90 days from the time of service to file a claim. However, some insurance companies allow only 30 days to file (and a very few, such as Medicare, allow a year).

When claims are filed too long after the date of service, they are rejected.

The Insurance Company Lost the Claim, and then the Claim Expired

Sometimes insurance companies misplace claims. If a misplaced claim doesn’t make it into the insurance company’s system before the deadline, the claim will be denied. Frustrated providers might find themselves talking to someone from the insurance company who says, “even though the error might have been on our end, there’s nothing we can do. The timeframe for filing has expired.”

 Lacked Preauthorization / Authorization

Preauthorization is a must for many insurance plans. Provide services without the proper authorization, and the claim will be rejected.

Referral from a Physician

Some insurance plans require not just authorization, but a referral from the patient’s primary care provider (PCP) before services can be rendered. Provide services before a referral is confirmed by the insurance company, and the claim will be denied.

Provideding Two Services in One Day

With behavioral health, insurance companies have a strict “one service per day” policy. This means that even if a patient is authorized for 12 sessions of therapy, if you provide two sessions in one day, you won’t be paid for the second session. Clinicians who provide group therapy, psychological testing, or medication reviews beware—sometimes these services also fall under the one service per day policy.

Authorized Sessions Ran Out

When authorization is granted, it is for a limited number of services / appointments. Lose track of how many appointments were approved for, or how many sessions you have provided, and you might find that you’ve provided sessions you won’t get paid for.

The Authorization Timed Out

In addition to authorizations being for a specific number of sessions, they are also for a specific duration of time. Sometimes the timeframe is as short as 30 days. Provide services after the authorization expires, and your claim will be denied.

The Patient Changed His or Her Insurance Plan

If a patient changes his or her insurance plan, you will need to (a) be a provider networked in the new plan, and (b) get new preauthorization to see the patient / client. Fail to do either of these actions prior to providing services, and your claim will be denied.

 Lost His or Her Insurance Coverage

If a patient loses his or her insurance coverage, your claim will be denied. This is not always evident, as some patients don’t know that they have lost their benefits, or may fail to inform you.

Late to payment made for Their COBRA

COBRA is a government program where individuals can keep their health insurance after losing their job. However, those individuals need to pay 100 percent of the policy principle (a lot of money for someone out of work!). If a patient is behind on their COBRA payments, your claim could be denied.

Claim was sent to the Wrong Managing Company

Insurance companies often delegate the management of some of their plans, or some services within plans (such as behavioral health) to other companies. Fail to realize this, and send a claim to anyone other that the managing company, and your claim could be denied.

The Provider isn’t Paneled with the Insurance Company

If a provider sees a patient, but isn’t a paneled provider with the patient’s insurance company, the claim will be denied. This sounds like common sense, but with insurance companies merging, and having multiple panels within a single company (e.g., HMO, PPO, etc.), this happens somewhat frequently. Also, if a provider was working for a larger clinic, he (or she) might think that he is a paneled provider, when really he was working under his old employer’s contract with the insurance company.

Services Were Rendered at the Wrong Location

When a Practioner is paneled with an insurance company, they list one (or multiple) practice addresses. It is important to make sure that providers have all the places they serve patients registered with all the insurance companies they work with. Provide services at an unregistered location, and the claim could be denied.

The Client’s Out-of-network Benefits Differ from In-network Benefits

Out-of-network benefits often differ from in-network benefits. For example, with out-of-network benefits, insurance companies often place a greater amount of the payment responsibility on the patient, including the potential for additional deductibles that need to be met. Fail to identify the actual amount owed by the patient for out-of-network services, and you may never receive payment for your work.

The Patient has an Out-of-State Insurance Plan

If your patient has an out-of -state insurance plan, even if the company is a company that you are networked with, you might find that your reimbursement rate is less, and (depending on the patient’s specific plan) your claims can even be denied.

The Patient Has an Unmet Deductible

Even if the patient’s insurance card says that their co-pay is $10, if he or she has not met their deductible, you might receive $0 from the insurance company when you file your claim. In addition, be on high alert in January, when deductibles often reset!

Incorrect patient's information (insurance ID# , date of birth) I

If you are submitting electronic claims, AVOID entering patient's insurance number with characters like an asterisk (*) and dash (-) in between the alphanumeric numbers because these characters can be recognize by electronic as unrecognizable. Just check on this issue with the clearinghouse or your service provider. Always make a copy of your patient's primary & secondary insurance card on file (copy front and back!). Make sure to get a copy of their new card (if there is a change).

CPT/ICD9 Coding Issues (requires 5th digit, outdated codes)--- be carefulalso with your secondary code! Claims may be denied even if the problem was just because of the secondary CPT/ICD9 code!

Again as I previously pointed out with my other articles on tracking your claims, with this problem, discuss solving the coding error rather than how much you want to get reimbursed. Most of the insurance companies will help you with codes (in fairness!!) and they also inform you on outdated codes, or codes that requires a 5th digit. Be nice with the claims department! (at least you try!)

Patient's non-coverage or terminated coverage at the time of service may also be the reason of denial

That is why, it is very important that you check on your patient's benefits and eligibility before see the patient (unfortunately, I have seen practices who does not check on benefits and eligibility on their patients so they end being not paid for the service they rendered to the patient)

The patient has other primary insurance or the patient's claim is for workman's comp or auto accident claim.  

 It is the responsibility of your front desk staff to get all the necessary information before the patient can be seen. Remember that if this is a workman's comp or an auto accident claim, you need a claim number and the adjustor's name. Services are always preauthorized!

Untimely filingUnfortunately most of the insurances does not accept your billing records on your office computer that shows that date(s) you billed the insurance! They want a receipt from your electronic receipt or for postal mail, obviously they want a receipt too! a tracking number maybe? certified letter receipt? If you are submitting claims by electronic, make sure you generate transmission reports/receipts. Your reports must read "accepted" and not "rejected". File all these transmittal reports/ and receipts and a very safe place! If you are sending claims by paper or postal mail, it is a good idea to send your claims as certified mail with tracking number, keep your receipts!!

Why you should Choose T.E.A.M Medical Billing Solutions LLC to be your next medical billing Company

Physicians and doctors are looking for an affordable way to cut down the cost of their strenuous but important administrative work. So it has become a serious need to employ a medical billing company to handle the voluminous paperwork. Question, how T.E.A.M Medical Billing Solutions LLC help maximize revenue.

T.E.A.M Medical Billing Solutions LLC is a definite choice to streamline the billing pr...ocedures and to increase the revenue and profitability of the practice. Many physicians have become much less stressed by outsourcing their billing services to expert medical billing companies. These companies provide a wide range of services, which include claim submission and transmission, insurance enrolment, insurance verification and authorization, data entry, and much more.

Potential Benefits of Hiring T.E.A.M Medical Billing Solutions LLC

Healthcare professionals, especially physicians and surgeons, have benefited a lot both in terms of cost and time with a professional medical billing company. Such companies are equipped with highly competent staff to provide cost-effective and quality driven T.E.A.M Medical Billing Solutions LLC services.

Let us now explore the key benefits of a reliable medical billing company.

More Focus Can be Given on Patient Care

Physicians can spend their valuable time by providing care to the patients, rather than be bogged down by tedious office work.

Saves a Lot of Money

By outsourcing to T.E.A.M Medical Billing Solutions LLC, you can save a bundle by spending little on purchasing expensive billing software or on hiring a dedicated office staff.

Increases the Revenue

By reducing overhead costs and with timely claim submission, higher revenue can be guaranteed. A professional medical billing service provider will ensure minimal billing interruption and maximise the timeliness of reimbursement, thereby allowing a steady cash flow and revenue.

Helps to Reduce the Billing Errors

An experienced billing company will submit the claims accurately and with no delay. At the same time, they will reduce the chances of rejected and denied claims that may arise due to severe billing errors. It is the responsibility of the company to maximize the reimbursement on the future claim procedures.

Guarantees Billing Compliance

Abreast of the ever-changing regulatory needs of insurances, an error free processing of claims and reimbursement has become a necessity. Proper protocol must be followed to pertain to the rules and regulations of the state. Only an expert can effectively handle this job and keep the record up-to-date.

If you are a busy physician truly committed to offering the best quality patient care, and at the same time are looking for an effective way to handle your routine office jobs, then it is wise to reap the benefits of outsourcing to a reliable medical billing company. As there is extreme competition in the industry, it is essential to have a thorough study of the market and find a firm that has established a good reputation for providing excellent services. Armed with the knowledge how physician billing services help maximize revenue of your medical office, you can now consider signing up for the services of a reliable medical billing firm that can work as a virtual extension to your office.http://www.teammedicalbilling.com

CMS Delays Enforcement of 5010 Transaction Standards to March 31 -- AAFP News Now -- American Academy of Family Physicians

CMS Delays Enforcement of 5010 Transaction Standards to March 31 -- AAFP News Now -- American Academy of Family Physicians

Medicaid

Medicaid Alert: All Medicaid Providers - Bevacizumab (Avastin, HCPCS Procedure Code J9035) - Update to Billing Guidelines

This provides new information regarding N.C. Medicaid’s coverage of the drug Avastin for breast carcinoma. The N.C. Medicaid program will discontinue coverage of Avastin for breast carcinoma under the Physician’s Drug Program for recipients who are newly diagnosed and/or beginning treatment for breast carcinoma on and after date of service April 1, 2012, instead of January 1, 2012, as previously communicated in the December 2011 general Medicaid bulletin. Medicaid will also continue to reimburse for Avastin for those recipients who were already receiving Avastin for breast carcinoma prior to date of service April 1, 2012, so their treatment may be completed. Claims paid for Avastin on and after April 1, 2012, for breast carcinoma recipients not already on Avastin treatment prior to April 1, 2012, may be recouped.

Until date of service April 1, 2012, providers may continue to bill for recipients who receive Avastin for breast carcinoma and the other covered diagnoses. Refer to the May 2010 general Medicaid bulletin article for current billing guidelines. Providers should watch for a future bulletin article with detailed billing guidelines regarding billing for breast carcinoma diagnoses on and after April 1, 2012.

HP Enterprise Services, 1-800-688-6696 or 919-851-8888

Kickback and Physician Self-Referral

2011

11-29-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, City Hospital, Inc., The Charles Town General Hospital d/b/a Jefferson Memorial Hospital, and West Virginia University Hospitals-East, Inc. (collectively respondents), West Virginia, agreed to pay $949,595 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law provisions applicable to physician self-referrals and kickbacks. The OIG alleged that the respondents entered into several arrangements with physicians or physician groups for which the hospitals failed to collect office rental payments. The conduct included: (1) payments of costs and expenses pursuant to recruitment agreements in excess of the actual additional incremental costs; (2) payment of student loans without a written recruitment agreement; and (3) payment of costs and expenses pursuant to unwritten extensions of recruitment agreements.

10-04-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, County of Monterey d/b/a Natividad Medical Center (NMC), California, agreed to pay $174,508.46 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law provisions applicable to physician self-referrals and kickbacks. The OIG alleged that NMC entered into a professional medical services agreement with a physician group for certain call coverage and clinic services. The compensation terms of the agreement offered incentives for the physician group to refer their private practice and medically indigent adult patients to NMC.

10-03-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, Westfields Hospital, Wisconsin, agreed to pay $204,150 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law provisions applicable to physician self-referrals and kickbacks. The OIG alleged that Westfields Hospital provided space, services, and supplies to certain physician group practices without entering into a formal written contract and without collecting payment.

9-08-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, Whidbey Island Hospital District (WIHD), Washington, agreed to pay $858,571 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law provisions applicable to physician self-referrals and kickbacks. The OIG alleged that WIHD had over 100 violations surrounding various physician contracts and arrangements. Some of the violations included: (1) a number of hospitalist contracts had expired and new contracts had not been signed; (2) there were no written agreements in place for a number of medical staff leadership and call coverage arrangements; and (3) a variety of improper lease arrangements, personal service arrangements, malpractice subsidies, and a housing allowance and an equipment loan with one physician.

07-13-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, Good Samaritan Hospital Medical Center (GSHMC), New York, agreed to pay $55,018.50 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law provisions applicable to physician self-referrals and kickbacks. The OIG alleged that GSHMC entered into an improper financial relationship with a physician professional corporation. The contract did not specify the terms of the intended agreement and the physician profession corporation received accelerated payments from GSHMC that did not comply with contractually agreed to payments. The payments were not consistent with fair market value.

07-13-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, St. Catherine of Siena Medical Center (St. Catherine), New York, agreed to pay $2,596,014 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law provisions applicable to physician self-referrals and kickbacks. The OIG alleged that St. Catherine contracted with a physician owned professional services company. The company received remuneration that was not consistent with fair market value and received payments for services that were not performed under the contract.

05-11-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, Pacifica Hospital of the Valley (Pacifica), California, agreed to pay $764,250 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law provisions applicable to physician self-referrals and kickbacks. The OIG alleged that Pacifica paid indirect improper remuneration to a physician in the form of payments to a marketing firm for marketing services that were never rendered under joint marketing agreements. The remuneration created a financial relationship between Pacifica and the physician that caused Pacifica to present claims for health services that resulted from prohibited referrals in violation of the Stark law.

03-24-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, Fairview Northland Regional Health Care (FNRHC), Minnesota, agreed to pay $50,000 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law provisions applicable to physician self-referrals and kickbacks. The OIG alleged that FNRHC entered into an unwritten lease agreement with a physician practice.

False and Fraudulent Claims

2011

11-17-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, Pitt County Memorial Hospital (PCMH), North Carolina, agreed to pay $68,479.04 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The OIG alleged that PCMH employed an individual that it knew or should have known was excluded from participation in Federal health care programs.

11-14-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, Providence Hospital, Alabama, agreed to pay $5,938.54 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The OIG alleged that Providence Hospital employed an individual that it knew or should have known was excluded from participation in Federal health care programs.

11-02-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, Sonoma Healthcare Center (SHC), California, agreed to pay $106,650.11 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The OIG alleged that SHC employed an individual that it knew or should have known was excluded from participation in Federal health care programs.

10-26-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, New York City Health and Hospital Corporation (HHC), New York, agreed to pay $442,909.35 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The OIG alleged that HHC employed eight individuals that it knew or should have known were excluded from participation in Federal health care programs.

10-26-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, Conestoga View Nursing, L.P. d/b/a Conestoga View, Pennsylvania, agreed to pay $264,879.84 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The OIG alleged that Conestoga View employed an individual that it knew or should have known was excluded from participation in Federal health care programs.

10-06-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, Blue Hill Memorial Hospital (BHMH), Maine, agreed to pay $40,000 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The OIG alleged that BHMH employed an individual that it knew or should have known was excluded from participation in Federal health care programs.

09-20-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, Maine Coast Memorial Hospital (MCMH), Maine, agreed to pay $186,398.71 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The OIG alleged that MCMH employed an individual that it knew or should have known was excluded from participation in Federal health care programs.

09-15-2011

Jenq-Sheng Liu, Jenq-Sheng Liu, M.D., P.S.C. d/b/a Blue Grass Women's Clinic, and Su-Mei Liu, (defendants), Kentucky, agreed to pay $58,952.57 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. OIG alleged that the defendants fraudulently billed Medicaid for six different Current Procedural Terminology codes. Su-Mei Liu agreed to a five-year period of exclusion from all Federal health care programs.

09-06-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, Cape Cod Hospital (CCH) a subsidiary of Cape Cod Healthcare, Inc., Massachusetts, agreed to pay $115,605.36 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The OIG alleged that CCH employed an individual that it knew or should have known was excluded from participation in Federal health care programs.

09-06-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, Visiting Nurse Association of Cape Cod (VNA) a subsidiary of Cape Cod Healthcare, Inc., Massachusetts, agreed to pay $278,169.84 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The OIG alleged that VNA employed an individual that it knew or should have known was excluded from participation in Federal health care programs.

08-30-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, St. Joseph Health Services of Rhode Island (St. Joseph), Rhode Island, agreed to pay $123,032 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The OIG alleged that St. Joseph employed an individual that it knew or should have known was excluded from participation in Federal health care programs.

08-23-2011

Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Savient), New Jersey, agreed to pay $100,000 to resolve Civil Monetary Penalties liability under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. Savient failed to submit pricing information and to pay a rebate to state Medicaid programs for covered drugs that the state Medicaid programs reimburse.

08-19-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, Hospice of the Finger Lakes (HFL), New York, agreed to pay $35,831.70 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The OIG alleged that HFL employed an individual that it knew or should have known was excluded from participation in Federal health care programs.

08-09-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, Kmart Corporation (Kmart), Indiana, agreed to pay $945,021.19 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The OIG alleged that Kmart employed four individuals that it knew or should have known were excluded from participation in Federal health care programs.

08-09-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, North American Partners in Anesthesia (NAPA), New York, agreed to pay $506,231 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The OIG alleged that five physicians formerly associated with NAPA had furnished services at a gastroenterologist's office that inaccurately reflected procedures as having been done on two separate days when they were actually done on a single day. The false statements resulted in higher charges and caused NAPA to submit false claims in connection with those services.

07-25-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, Trustees of Indiana University (IU), Indiana, agreed to pay $603,522 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The OIG alleged that IU improperly claimed services provided by third and fourth year students in its professional optometry degree program under the physician fee schedule. The services could not be properly claimed under the physician fee schedule because the students were not in a graduate medical education program and the services were not provided in a teaching hospital or teaching setting.

07-22-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, Health Management Services, Inc. (HMS), Louisiana, agreed to pay $6,545.61 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. Specifically, HMS disclosed the alteration of continuous positive airway pressure downloads for patients by two individuals at HMS in order to obtain Federal health care program reimbursement.

07-22-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, Margaret R. Pardee Memorial Hospital (Pardee), North Carolina, agreed to pay $94,729 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The OIG alleged that Pardee employed an individual that it knew or should have known was excluded from participation in Federal health care programs.

07-18-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, Premier Health Care Services (PHCS), Ohio, agreed to pay $39,039 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The OIG alleged that PHCS's wholly owned subsidiary, Lucas County Emergency Physicians (LCEP), submitted false claims to Medicare and Medicaid. Specifically, while employed by LCEP, a physician provided physician services at two hospitals where he improperly billed Medicare and Medicaid under the physician fee schedule for services which were performed by residents only.

07-18-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, Mercy Health Partners (MHP), Ohio, agreed to pay $82,855 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The OIG alleged that two of MHP's hospitals, St. Vincent Mercy Medical Center and St. Charles Mercy Hospital, submitted false claims to Medicare and Medicaid. Specifically, a physician improperly billed under the physician fee schedule for physician services which were performed by residents only.

06-10-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, Valley Obstetrics and Gynecology (VOG), Washington, agreed to pay $72,439.62 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The OIG alleged that VOG employed an individual that it knew or should have known was excluded from participation in Federal health care programs.

06-22-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, University of Nevada School of Medicine (UNSOM), Nevada, agreed to pay $138,321.70 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The OIG alleged that UNSOM submitted or caused to be submitted claims for physicians' services provided by two physicians to beneficiaries of Federal health care programs using the provider identification numbers of two physicians who did not furnish the services.

06-21-2011

Daniel Herrington, the owner of One Source Medical Services a durable medical equipment (DME) company, Florida, agreed to pay $124,141.50 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The OIG alleged that Herrington, through the DME company, billed Medicare for custom molded diabetic shoe inserts when in fact only prefabricated inserts were provided to beneficiaries.

06-10-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, WellStar Cobb Hospital (WCH), Georgia, agreed to pay $9,216.73 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The OIG alleged that WCH employed an individual that it knew or should have known was excluded from participation in Federal health care programs.

06-06-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, University of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth (UNTHSC), Texas, agreed to pay $859,500 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The OIG alleged that UNTHSC submitted claims for physicians' services provided to beneficiaries of Federal health care programs using the provider identification numbers of 103 physicians who neither furnished the service nor personally supervised the services rendered.

05-13-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, Internal Medicine Associates (IMA), Indiana, agreed to pay $58,573.55 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The OIG alleged that IMA employed an individual that it knew or should have known was excluded from participation in Federal health care programs.

05-12-2011

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts (BIDMC) agreed to pay $233,932.54 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. OIG alleged that BIDMC improperly billed Medicare for Lupron drug injections to male patients under HCPCS Code J1950 when BIDMC should have known that the proper code for these claims was the lower reimbursed HCPC Code J9217.

05-12-2011

Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital in Needham, Massachusetts (BIDH-N) agreed to pay $59,701.60 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. OIG alleged that BIDH-N improperly billed Medicare for Lupron drug injections to male patients under HCPCS Code J1950 when BIDH-N should have known that the proper code for these claims was the lower reimbursed HCPCS Code J9217.

05-10-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, Colorado-Fayette Medical Center (CFMC), Texas, agreed to pay $50,000 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The OIG alleged that CFMC presented claims for items or services that it knew or should have known were not provided as claimed and were false or fraudulent.

04-29-2011

Fort Smith Regional Healthcare Foundation (Foundation), Arkansas, agreed to pay $233,000 to resolve Sparks Health System's (Sparks) liability for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The Foundation was created from the sale of Sparks and bears liability for this settlement. Sparks self-disclosed conduct to the OIG and the OIG alleged that Sparks presented claims for items that it knew or should have know were false or fraudulent.

04-06-2011

After it self-disclosed conduct to the OIG, Calvin Community, Iowa, agreed to pay $56,663 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The OIG alleged that Calvin Community employed an individual that it knew or should have known was excluded from participation in Federal health care programs.

03-21-2011

Betty J. Feir, PhD, Texas, agreed to pay $61,270 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The OIG alleged that Dr. Feir billed Federal health care programs for services provided by auxiliary personnel instead of her and for services performed by the auxiliary personnel while she was not present.

03-11-2011

Deaconess Hospital (Deaconess), Indiana, agreed to pay $76,592.52 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The OIG alleged that Deaconess employed an individual that it knew or should have known was excluded from participation in Federal health care programs.

02-07-2011

Logan Emergency Ambulance Service Authority (Logan), West Virginia, agreed to pay $79,176 for allegedly violating the Civil Monetary Penalties Law. The OIG alleged that Logan employed an individual that it knew or should have known was excluded from participation in Federal health care programs.