Health Law News

                                                                                                                                                          May 4, 2009

 

Hall, Render, Killian, Heath & Lyman is a full service health law firm with offices in Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan and Wisconsin. Since the firm was founded by William S. Hall in 1967, Hall Render has focused its practice primarily in the area of health law and is now recognized as one of the nation's preeminent health law firms serving clients in multiple states. For more information about the firm please visit us at  www.hallrender.com.

 

Office Locations


Indiana Offices
One American Square
Suite 2000
Indianapolis, IN 46282
(317) 633-4884

Contact: Neal A. Cooper

 

8402 Harcourt Road
Suite 820

Indianapolis, IN 46260

(317) 871-6222
Contact: Stephan C. Masoncup

Kentucky Office
614 West Main Street
Suite 4000

Louisville, KY 40202

(502) 568-1890
Contact: Rene R. Savarise

Michigan Offices
Columbia Center
, Suite 315
201 West Big Beaver Road
Troy, MI 48084

(248) 740-7505
Contact: Joan L. Lowes

2369 Woodlake Drive, Suite 280
Okemos, MI 48864

(517) 703-0921
Contact: Brian F. Bauer

Wisconsin Office
111 East Kilbourn Avenue
Suite 1300

Milwaukee, WI 53202

(414) 721-0442
Contact: David H. Snow

 

Contact Us
hallrender@hallrender.com

OIG finds Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities

Incorrectly Billed Medicare for Interrupted Stays

 

 

On May 1, 2009, the Office of the Inspector General released Audit Report no. A-01-08-00502, entitled Review of Interrupted Stays at Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities for Calendar Years 2004 and 2005 (available at http://www.oig.hhs.gov/oas/reports/region1/10800502.asp).  According to the OIG report, the error is isolated to inpatient rehabilitation facilities that furnished services to Medicare patients with discharge dates during calendar years 2004 and 2005.  The specific error related to interrupted stays.  Medicare payment rules indicate that, where a Medicare inpatient returns to the same IRF from which the patient was discharged, within 3 consecutive calendar days of the discharge, the "interrupted stay" constitutes a single claim for which the IRF should receive a single discharge payment.

 

The OIG identified 448 IRFs that purportedly billed incorrectly for 986 interrupted stays during calendar years 2004 and 2005.  For those stays, the IRFs were paid $21.7 million, but should only have received $17.5 million.  The difference of $4.2 million, according to the OIG, is the net aggregate overpayment to IRFs for interrupted stays.  The OIG blames the payment errors on IRFs failing to have "necessary controls to identify or correctly bill interrupted stays," although the OIG also acknowledges that, until April 2005, CMS did not have an edit designed to identify all interrupted stays billed as two or more claims.  CMS has implemented an edit in the Common Working File to detect incorrectly billed interrupted stays and prevent overpayments to IRFs.  This edit resulted from a previous audit of calendar year 2002 and 2003 IRF interrupted stays, in which the OIG identified a $5.9 million net aggregate overpayment to IRFs.

 

IRFs should anticipate that CMS contractors will seek to recoup $4.2 million in overpayments for these interrupted stays.  In its comments to the OIG's report, CMS requested provider-specific overpayment data so that it may instruct its contractors to recover these amounts.  IRFs may simply await the overpayment demands, which will average less than $10,000 per facility.  IRF sizes vary widely, however, so this average overpayment may not be indicative of an individual IRF's overpayment assessment.  It may thus be advisable for IRFs to independently determine whether an overpayment exists for interrupted stays, both for budgetary purposes and to evaluate the accuracy of any overpayment assessment the contractor may issue.

 

If you have questions regarding this issue, please contact your regular Hall Render attorney, or Neal A. Cooper at ncooper@hallrender.com (317-977-1455).

This publication is intended for general information purposes only and does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The reader must consult with legal counsel to determine how laws or decisions discussed herein apply to the reader's specific circumstances.