Advertisement

May 19, 2013

OIG Spring 2012 Semiannual Report Released to Congress

The Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (OIG) has released its 2012 Spring Semiannual Report (Report) on the legal review, monitoring, and prosecution-related activities undertaken by the agency between October 1, 2011 and March 31, 2012.

The Report highlights the ramp-up of data analytics capabilities, including the “data warehouse” that “integrates data from Medicare Parts A, B, and D so [the OIG] can develop a more comprehensive picture of beneficiaries’ histories of medical care and providers’ billing patterns.”  One area where the OIG is applying more comprehensive reviews is in its hospital compliance initiative (mentioned on page 11 in this segment of the OIG 2012 Work Plan).  Rather than focusing on one or two risk areas during a review of a hospital’s billing and coding activities, the OIG can now review a hospital’s data related to all codes billed to assess compliance risk areas.

In addition to detecting more fraudulent activities in real-time, the OIG’s increasingly sophisticated data analysis activities are uncovering more deficiencies that lead to waste in federal health care programs.  For instance, the Report describes that the states have often received Medicaid overpayments based on faulty drug reimbursement methodologies and  non-compliance with other certain federal requirements.

In the Report, the OIG announced the following significant investigative results for the first half of FY 2012:

  • expected recoveries of $1.2 billion ($483.1 million in audit receivables and $748 million in investigative receivables, including $136.6 million in non-HHS investigative receivables from sources such as the States’ shares of Medicaid recoveries).
  • exclusions of 1,264 individuals and entities from participation in the federal health care programs;
  • 388 criminal actions against individuals or entities that engaged in crimes against HHS programs;
  • 164 civil actions, which included false claims and unjust-enrichment lawsuits filed in federal district court, civil monetary penalty (CMP) settlements, and administrative recoveries related to provider self-disclosure matters.

Tom Crane, a member of Mintz Levin’s Health Care Enforcement Defense Practice, found it notable that the OIG continues to “pay a significant amount of attention to fraud and abuse monitoring in the Medicare Advantage (MA or Part C) and Prescription Drug Benefit (Part D) Programs.”   Specifically, the Report noted that significant variations exist in the capabilities of MA plans to identify and combat health care fraud, that only 3 MA and Prescription Drug Plans reported 95% of the fraud and abuse incidents, and that over $15.1 million in gross drug costs for prescriptions were associated with claims submitted by excluded providers.

©1994-2013 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Associate

Stephanie is an Associate in the Washington, D.C. office, practicing in the Health Law Section.

Prior to joining Mintz Levin, Stephanie was an associate counsel in the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Counsel to the Inspector General. There, her practice focused on health care enforcement matters involving the False Claims Act, the Social Security Act, the Physician Self-Referral Act, the anti-kickback statute, the EMTALA, and other administrative actions.

(202) 434-7437

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.