March 31, 2023

Volume XIII, Number 90


March 30, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

March 29, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

March 28, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

CMS May Soon Be Asking: "When Did You Know?" As it Proposes Revisions to the Medicare 60-Day Overpayment Rule

At the end of 2022, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (“CMS”) issued a proposed rule that would amend the standard imposed on Medicare providers to report and return overpayments. If finalized, the proposed rule would replace the 60-day overpayment rule’s current “reasonable diligence” standard with the False Claims Act “knowingly” standard.

The Affordable Care Act’s 60-day overpayment rule generally requires healthcare providers to report and return overpayments 60 days after the provider identifies the overpayment. The current law provides that overpayments are identified when a person “has, or should have through the exercise of reasonable diligence, determined that the person has received an overpayment and quantified the amount of the overpayment.” Failure to report and return such overpayments establishes liability under the False Claims Act, which includes treble damages and civil penalties. This current standard has been under fire in recent years. In a 2018 case involving the Medicare Parts C and D overpayment rule, a federal court ruled that the “reasonable diligence” standard creates impermissible False Claims Act liability for mere negligence. The Medicare Advantage Organizations involved in the case argued that the 60-day overpayment rule standard should align with the False Claims Act “knowingly” standard. The CMS proposed rule aims to do just that.

Under the proposed rule, a provider identifies an overpayment “when the person knowingly receives or retains an overpayment.” By reference to the False Claims Act, the proposed rule incorporates the following definition: “the terms ‘knowing’ and ‘knowingly’ mean that a person, with respect to information -- (i) has actual knowledge of the information, (ii) acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information, or (iii) acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information, and require no proof of specific intent to defraud.”

The proposed rule fails to consider the complexity of identifying and quantifying overpayments, and does not address whether providers will risk liability for overpayments known to exist, but that are unable to be quantified within the rule’s 60 day timeframe.

CMS requests comments on the above change by February 13, 2023. 

© 2023 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.National Law Review, Volume XIII, Number 39

About this Author

Timothy Cahill Health Care Attorney Dinsmore Law Firm
Partner Of Counsel

Tim is an attorney with more than two decades of experience in health care-related fields. He has worked as in-house counsel and external counsel for non-profit and commercial health care organizations, health systems, hospitals, physicians and physician groups, joint ventures, and other corporate clients. Most recently, Tim served in the role of general counsel of a regional health system, working closely with the executive team and board to further the organization’s strategic mission and significantly improve operating revenues.

In his practice, Tim has addressed a wide range...

Ashley E. Durner Corporate Law Dinsmore and Shohl

Ashley focuses her practice on corporate law and health care. Her experience includes drafting and reviewing contracts and corporate policies, advising on regulatory compliance matters, and assisting with corporate matters, such as entity formation and mergers and acquisitions.

Ashley received her J.D. from University of Cincinnati College of Law. During law school, in addition to working as a law clerk at Dinsmore, she was a legal intern for UC Law’s Entrepreneurship & Community Development Clinic where she gained firsthand experience...

(513) 977-8789