Thursday, April 27, 2017

When Is Physician Billing for In Office Prescriptions, Compounded Medications and Urine Toxicology Screening for Workers’ Compensation Patients Illegal? Orange County DA Charges Doctors, Pharmacists and Business Owners Alleging Insurance Fraud and Illegal Referral Fees

For years, there have been companies who approach physicians and offer ways they can add to their revenue stream.  This has been more common with physicians who treat workers’ compensation patients.  

Some of the common revenue enhancements are:  
(1) dispensing oral prescription medications in-office to patients;
(2) dispensing a 3-day supply of compound medications in-office to patients; and
(3) performing point of care urine toxicology testing on patients in-office.

Under California workers’ compensation law, there are ways for these medically necessary services and goods to be legally provided and billed. However, if the laws and regulations are not followed, the claims can be denied or the basis for insurance fraud charges.

A recent criminal prosecution in Orange County Superior Court shows what happens when workers' compensation insurance fraud and illegal referral fees are alleged in providing these types of goods and services (prescription medications, compounded medications and toxicology laboratory testing) to patients.

The Orange County District Attorney’s (OCDA) Office filed 26 felony criminal complaints in April 2017 against 25 physicians, a physician assistant, two pharmacists and the two owners of the billing and medical management companies King Medical King Medical Management, Inc., Monarch Medical Group, Inc. and/or One Source Laboratories, Inc. for services and goods provided and/or billed from 2011 to 2015.

Links to the Orange County DA criminal complaints are on the Department of Insurance press release issued on this investigation.  All physician defendants are presumed innocent and a felony complaint is not evidence.

It appears the OCDA decided to file a criminal case against each provider separately in order to not have a single multi-defendant case that would progress slowly and for other tactical reasons. However, there is a conspiracy count in each criminal complaint filed against the physicians or pharmacists in which the owner(s) of the medical management and billing companies are named as uncharged co-conspirators. The OCDA views the management billing companies as the hub in these cases.

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Unnecessary Genetic Testing on Medicare Skilled Nursing Facility Patients Alleged in Federal Qui Tam Case Involving California Based Laboratory

Genetic testing is currently the subject of numerous qui tam cases and investigations by the Office of Inspector General. This is in addition to any investigations by private insurance carriers. A recent federal qui tam case shows that the government is going after those involved in the ordering of such tests as well as the laboratories.

One issue that arises is where genetic tests are ordered by physicians who are not the regularly treating physicians of the Medicare patients. In order to be considered medically necessary and thus reimbursable under Medicare, the general rule is that the laboratory test must be ordered by the physician treating the resident. 

What happens when a laboratory test is ordered by a physician who is not the regular treating physician of the patient? For example, what if the physician is an outside physician whose only role is ordering a genetic test? In a recent case, a federal qui tam (false claims) lawsuit was filed as a result against skilled nursing facilities who gave a laboratory access to its patients. This lawsuit and settlement can serve as a teaching moment for those who order genetic testing. 

On April 10, 2017, a multi-state nursing home company Prestige Administrative Services, LLC d/b/a Prestige Healthcare (Prestige) based in Kentucky agreed to pay the United States $995,500 to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act with regard to its role in an alleged scheme to falsely bill Medicare for unnecessary genetic testing on skilled nursing home patients in four facilities located in Wisconsin.

The United States alleged that in 2014, Prestige was approached by an entity known as Genomix, LLC, which claimed that it could perform genetic testing on Prestige’s Medicare residents in order to ascertain whether Prestige’s patients were properly metabolizing their medications. 

The United States alleged that in 2014 and 2015, Prestige provided Genomix with insurance and personal medical information, as well as access to Prestige patients in nursing homes in several states, including Wisconsin, for purposes of conducting the testing. Genomix conducted the testing by taking cheek swabs of each Prestige patient and then sending the cheek swab to a laboratory for analysis.

The United States alleged that Prestige failed to ensure that physician orders were obtained for the genetic testing prior to its being conducted, and that Prestige's physicians were not aware of and did not agree with the medical necessity of the testing. 

United States also alleged that Prestige failed to ensure that its patients (or, in some cases, their family members responsible for their medical decisions) were appropriately informed of the testing prior to its being conducted and provided with the opportunity to decline the testing. Finally, the United States alleged that the lack of physician orders and patient consent was discovered during a survey conducted by state regulators in late 2015.

While it is not unusual for skilled nursing facility (SNF) operators, such as Prestige, to coordinate in placing orders with clinical laboratories for medically necessary diagnostic laboratory tests for their residents, the treating physician must order the test. This is a basic tenet that in order to be considered medically necessary and thus reimbursable under Medicare, the laboratory test must be ordered by the physician treating the resident. 

The settlement announced resolved only Prestige’s civil liability and did not resolve any liability of any other individuals or entities, including that of Genomix, which is a separate entity headquartered in Southern California. As part of the settlement, Prestige agreed to cooperate in the United States’ ongoing investigation. 

Based on what we hear in the healthcare legal community, we can expect to see more investigations, lawsuits and even potential criminal prosecutions involving genetic testing. There are allegations in other cases indicating that physicians are being paid as experts or researchers by laboratories to order genetic tests on their patients and that in some cases, these fees are disguised kickbacks. Any physician in such an arrangement with a laboratory should ensure that it is compliant with federal and state law.  

Posted by Tracy Green, Esq.
Green and Associates, Attorneys at Law
Work: 213-233-2261
Email: tgreen@greenassoc.com



Thursday, April 6, 2017

Billing for Prescriptions Not Dispensed to Patients Results in 4 Year Sentence for Los Angeles Medical Clinic Manager After Federal Trial

Federal prosecutors used to devote healthcare fraud resources to mainly government programs and allow private insurance carriers to handle the cases with special investigation units or with state prosecutions. A recent case shows how private insurance healthcare fraud is being pursued forcefully. This is in large part due to the overlap between private and public and the fact that the federal government pays subsidies for tens of millions of people who have private insurance.

The recent case was one of ghost billing. On March 28, 2017, Michael Huynh, the office manager and purported part-owner of a Los Angeles area medical clinic in Reseda was sentenced to 51 months in federal prison for his role in billing private insurance plans for prescription medication that was never dispensed to insured patients and failing to report such income on his federal income tax returns. Following a seven-day trial in September 2016, Mr. Huynh was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and 11 counts of filing false tax returns.

Mr. Huynh, age 67, was sentenced by United States District Judge Otis D. Wright II. In addition to the prison term, Judge Wright ordered Mr. Huynh to pay just over $1.9 million in restitution to the victim insurance companies and back taxes – estimated to be nearly $950,000 – to the Internal Revenue Service.
      
The evidence introduced at trial showed that between January 2004 and November 2009 Mr. Huynh and a pharmacist (Farhad N. Dany Sharim,  a co-owner of Century Discount Pharmacy in Reseda) participated in a healthcare fraud scheme that billed private insurance plans for prescription medication that was never dispensed to insured patients. Mr. Sharim, age 57, previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and will be sentenced by Judge Wright on May 1.

The evidence at trial was that Mr. Huyhn provided Mr. Sharim with fabricated prescriptions purportedly for patients of the medial clinic who were insured by healthcare benefit programs. Mr. Sharim's pharmacy then submitted false and fraudulent bills for prescription drugs that had not been dispensed to the patients and received substantial payments from various health care benefit programs to which it was not entitled. Mr. Sharim allegedly paid Mr. Huyhn and/or the medical clinic more than $1.1 million.

In addition to the healthcare fraud scheme, Mr. Huynh was charged with filing false federal tax returns for tax years 2007 through 2011 that underreported the medical clinic’s gross receipts and sales by more than $1.6 million.

Posted by Tracy Green, Esq.
Office: 213-233-2260

DISCLAIMER

DISCLAIMER: Green & Associates' articles and blog postings are prepared as a service to the public and are not intended to grant rights or impose obligations. Nothing in this website should be construed as legal advice. Green & Associates' articles and blog postings may contain references or links to statutes, regulations, or other policy materials. The information provided is only intended to be a general summary. It is not intended to take the place of either the written law or regulations. We encourage readers to review the specific statutes, regulations, and other interpretive materials for a full and accurate statement of their contents and contact their attorney for legal advice. The primary purpose of this website is not the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service and this website is not an advertisement or solicitation. Anyone viewing this web site in a state where the web site fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state, should disregard this web site.

The information provided on this website is for informational purposes only. It is not intended to create, and does not create, a lawyer-client relationship with Green & Associates, Attorneys at Law. Sending an e-mail to Tracy Green does not contractually obligate them to represent you as your lawyer, or create any type of client relationship. No attorney-client relationship will be formed absent a written engagement or retainer letter agreement signed by both Green & Associates and client and which specifies the scope of the engagement.

Please note that e-mail transmission is not secure unless it is encrypted. E-mail messages sent to Ms. Green should not include confidential or sensitive information.