CMS Delays Publication of Final Rule Regarding Reporting and Returning of Medicare Overpayments

09 March 2015 Health Care Law Today Blog

One of the most challenging compliance changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the provision mandating the reporting and refunding of Medicare and Medicaid overpayments within 60 days of the date they are identified, or the date that the corresponding cost report is due, if applicable. See ACA Section 6402(a); Section 1128J(d) of the Social Security Act. Sanctions for violating the statute could include False Claims Act liability, civil monetary penalties and exclusion from Federal Health Care Programs. Despite these draconian penalties, in the five years since the ACA was passed, providers continue to have significant confusion and reasonable differences of opinion as to how the statute should be interpreted.

In 2012, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) issued a Proposed Rule attempting to interpret a number of the provisions of the statute, and suggesting other changes that many viewed as highly controversial (such as a proposed 10-year look back). CMS had three (3) years from the date of the publication of the proposed rule to finalize it. In the February 17, 2015 Federal Register, 80 Fed. Reg. 8247, CMS noted “exceptional circumstances” to extend the date of publishing the final rule by another year. CMS cited the “complexity of the rule and scope of comments” as justification for the exceptional circumstances. Id.

In addition to the public comments as well as feedback from Federal regulators, CMS determined that there are “significant policy and operational issues that need to be resolved in order to address all of the issues raised by the comments…” CMS indicated that its goal is to publish a Final Rule that “provides clear requirements for persons to report and return Medicare overpayments.”

What is a provider or supplier to make of this action? A natural response could be one of sympathy for CMS. Providers and suppliers have been struggling with how to interpret the statute. For example, what does it mean to “identify” an overpayment? Can you identify an overpayment before the amount has been “quantified?” What level of diligence or investigation is reasonable before the conclusion can be made that an overpayment has been identified? What kind of report is required following the identification? If these were easy questions, it might be presumed that CMS would have had no difficulty publishing a final rule to answer them. But since they are, in fact, questions which are very hard to answer, reasonable people could question a False Claims Act case predicated on an alleged violation of the statute prior to the publication of the Final Rule. There is at least one such case which may well be forced to answer this question, which will now be faced with the recognition that the complexity of the rule was at least one factor in the inability to get a Final Rule published on schedule. See United States ex. Rel. Kane v. Continuum Health Partners, Inc. et al, (Civil Action, No. 11-2325(ER)). Providers will be following this case closely.

Read more about the 60-Day Refund Rule.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights