The Top 10 Things You Need to Know About Voluntary Disclosures and Government Refunds
06 September 2016
In February 2016, CMS issued the highly anticipated Final Rule on reporting and returning Medicare Part A and B overpayments. The Final Rule was meant to clear up some of the confusion among providers regarding such overpayments.
Summarized below is our Top 10 list of the things you need to know:
- Basics of the 60-Day Rule. The Affordable Care Act sets forth the statutory 60-day overpayment requirement. The statute requires a person who has received an overpayment to (1) report and return the overpayment to the government agency/contractor; and (2) notify the agency/contractor in writing of the reason(s) why the overpayment was returned. The statute states that the overpayment must be reported and returned by the later of (a) the date which is 60 days after the date on which the overpayment was identified; or (b) the date any corresponding cost report is due, if applicable. On February 12, 2016, CMS published the Medicare Parts A and B Final Rule, which will be the focus of this blog post.
- Lookback Period. CMS imposed a 6-year lookback period, which was effective as of March 14, 2016, and is counted back from the date the overpayment was identified. The lookback period is not retroactive, which means that the lookback period applicable to reviews pending as of March 14, 2016 could potentially be longer.
- Meaning of “Identify.” An overpayment is not “identified” until the amount of refund has been “quantified.” The 60-day clock does not start running until after the reasonable diligence period has concluded, which may take “at most 6 months from receipt of credible information, absent extraordinary circumstances.”
- Notification and Refund Process. Providers can use any appropriate process to return overpayments, including claims adjustments, credit balances, voluntary offsets, OIG Self-Disclosure Protocol, and CMS Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol. CMS is considering creating a standardized notification form.
- Underpayments. CMS declined to extend a one-year period to rebill a claim and declined to permit offsets of identified underpayments from identified overpayments. Underpayments must continue to be resolved under existing reopening rules.
- Overpayment Policies. It is important to review your existing overpayment policy or develop one if you do not have one. The overpayment policy should incorporate the key aspects of the Final Rule discussed above.
- Document Retention Policies. It is also important to review your document retention policies or develop them if you do not have them. These policies should incorporate the new 6-year lookback period as discussed above.
- Internal Investigations. Evaluate your processes for conducting internal investigations, and revise such processes to incorporate the process, timing, and reporting expectations of the Final Rule.
- Training. Employees involved in the process of identifying and refunding overpayments should receive updated/supplemental training on the Final Rule and changes to overpayment policies. These employees include the accounting department, audit department, administrative staff, compliance department, and legal department. The records department and IT staff should receive updated/supplemental training on any changes to document retention policies. The compliance department, legal department and audit department should receive updated/supplemental training on changes to any internal investigation processes.
- Appeals. A provider may appeal a contractor overpayment determination. The Final Rule declined to create explicit appeal rights for self-identified overpayments.
For More Information
On September 22, 2016, Foley & Lardner’s NY Office will be hosting an in-person CLE in connection with the Association of Corporate Counsel. The topic of the CLE will be “The Top 10 Things You Need to Know About Voluntary Disclosures and Government Refunds.”
If you would like to join us for this free CLE, please register here.
Disclaimer
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.
Author(s)
Related Insights
19 September 2024
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
Cybersecurity in the Age of Industry 4.0 – Part 2
This is the second article in our two-part series on Cybersecurity in the Age of Industry 4.0, focusing on the legal implications and potential liabilities manufacturers face from cyberattacks, as well as practical recommendations to mitigate these risks.
18 September 2024
Health Care Law Today
Medicare Advantage: A Circuit Court Addresses What is (or is not) Material in False Claims Act Cases
On September 13, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit’s published its much-anticipated decision in United States ex rel. Holt v. Medicare Medicaid Advisors, affirming the Western District of Missouri’s dismissal of a Medicare Advantage case — a win for managed care stakeholders, especially insurance carriers, insurance brokers, and insurance marketing organizations.
17 September 2024
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
Foley Automotive Update
Foley is here to help you through all aspects of rethinking your long-term business strategies, investments, partnerships, and technology. Contact the authors, your Foley relationship partner, or our Automotive Team to discuss and learn more.