May 23, 2012

GAO Releases High-Risk Update on Medicare Program

Yesterday, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report of testimony before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations from the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce. The report and testimony provided the GAO’s 2011 High-Risk Series update on the Medicare program – the first GAO high-risk update on the program since 2009. The GAO report notes that CMS estimates improper payments for fiscal year 2010 Medicare fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage totaled almost $48 billion.

The report outlines the GAO’s specific recommendations for CMS in order to address four significant challenges to the Medicare program:

Challenge 1: Reform and refine Medicare’s payment methods to achieve efficiency and savings

  • GAO Recommendation: Although CMS has implemented payment reforms and provided feedback to physicians on resource use, CMS need to enhance its feedback to ensure that physician fees recognize efficiencies when certain services are furnished together. CMS should target services with the greatest potential for savings, including oxygen and imaging services. The GAO recommends front-end approaches to better ensure appropriate payments, such as revisions to locality payments and prior authorization requirements for imaging services.

 Challenge 2: Improve program management

  • GAO Recommendation: The GAO reports pervasive internal control deficiencies in CMS’s management of contracts that increased the risk of improper payments. CMS should clarify the roles and responsibilities for implementing contractor oversight responsibilities, clear a backlog of contracts that are overdue for closeout, and finish its investigation of over $70 million in questionable payments.

 Challenge 3: Enhance program integrity 

  • GAO Recommendation: CMS should develop an adequate process to address vulnerabilities to improper payments identified by Recovery Audit Contractors (RAC). CMS should also address additional GAO recommendations designed to reduce improper payments, including one recommendation to conduct postpayment reviews of claims submitted by home health agencies with high rates of improper billing.

Challenge 4: Improve oversight of patient care and safety

  • GAO Recommendation: Weaknesses in survey methodology and guidance for surveillance could understate care quality problems. While the GAO also reported that CMS’s current approach for funding state surveys of Medicare-participating facilities is ineffective, the GAO acknowledged the steps taken by CMS to implement nursing home oversight recommendations.

For a summary of these recommendations and to view the full GAO testimony report, please click here.

©2012 von Briesen & Roper, s.c

About the Author

Meghan O’Connor is a member of the Health Care Practice Group. Her practice focuses on general health law including managed care and provider contracting, risk management, and regulatory compliance.

Prior to joining von Briesen, Meghan worked for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services where she consulted with states regarding federal health law, regulation and policy, evaluating managed care contracts and conducting compliance reviews.

414-287-1586

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.