Court Rules: Standard for Evaluating Reimbursement of Skilled Nursing Medicare Claims Was Material Improvement

27 April 2015 Health Care Law Today Blog

A False Claims Act (“FCA”) lawsuit in Georgia was dismissed on March 31, 2015, after a federal district judge ruled that the government’s expert witnesses used the wrong standard to determine whether certain skilled therapy services were reimbursable under Medicare Part A (United States ex rel. Lawson v. Aegis Therapies, Inc., S.D. Ga., No. 2:10-cv-00072-LGW-RSB, 3/31/15). The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia granted a rehabilitation therapy company and skilled nursing facility summary judgment on this basis.

In April 2010, the relator, a former physical therapist for the rehabilitation therapy company, filed a FCA action against the rehabilitation therapy company alleging that it provided medically unnecessary skilled therapy services and billed the government for these services through Medicare.

The government intervened in March 2013 and filed its complaint against the rehabilitation  therapy company and a skilled nursing facility that contracted with the rehabilitation therapy company to provide therapy services to its residents. Like the relator, the government also alleged the provision of medically unnecessary services. For example, the government claimed that when the rehabilitation therapy company’s therapists would meet with nursing staff to prepare a patient’s plan of care, it was assumed that patients should receive skilled therapy services for the full period covered by Medicare.

During discovery, the relator testified that he was always under pressure to keep residents as long as Medicare would pay, especially if a patient was in the highest reimbursement level, referred to as a Resource Utilization Group (RUG). A manager also testified that the rehabilitation therapy company tracked RUG utilization and set benchmarks for billing patients at certain levels. The manager testified that the skilled nursing facility had upper RUG benchmarks of 75-80%, but that the benchmark was not a number that had to be reached.

The government also retained two expert witnesses, a physician and a nurse, who testified about their opinions of a “pattern of unreasonable and unnecessary therapy services.” In assessing whether the skilled therapy services were unnecessary, the experts reviewed patient files to see if there was documentation to support skilled therapy services that were expected to result in “significant” improvement.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff’s experts employed the wrong standard to determine whether the skilled therapy services were medically necessary because they based their conclusions on an expectation of “significant” improvement for those services.

The court agreed with defendants that the correct improvement standard for skilled therapy services in a skilled nursing setting under Medicare Part A was “material” improvement, and excluded the plaintiff’s expert testimony. In addition, the court ruled that simply having therapy benchmarks was not an indication of an intention to bill Medicare for unnecessary services, especially when there was no penalty for missing the benchmark.

To prevail on a FCA lawsuit, a plaintiff must prove an “objective falsehood.” Without the expert witness testimony, the judge said the defendants were entitled to summary judgment because there was no evidence of a specific fraudulent claim submission—objectively or otherwise.

The difficulty in proving that a statement of medical necessity is objectively false has not dissuaded whistleblowers from filing, or the government from prosecuting, FCA actions. This case presents an example of how careful examination of an expert’s methodology can provide an opportunity to dismiss a case on summary judgment.

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