Updated on: December 18, 2019

Positive Airway Pressure Device Supplies on the Medicare Audit Chopping Block…Again

Original story posted on: December 16, 2019

EDITOR’S NOTE: While presenting at the recent New England Healthcare Internal Auditors (NEHIA) annual conference in Connecticut, Knicole Emanuel encountered the recurring audit topic of positive airway device supplies or PAPs. The following is her report.

Back in 2014 and 2015, then again in 2018, PAPs were the main area of concern for Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) auditors. In June 2018, The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a scathing report titled “Most Medicare Claims for Replacement Positive Airway Pressure Device Supplies Did not Comply with Medicare Requirements.”

The OIG found that out of 110 claims in its sample, 24 complied with Medicare requirements; 86 claims did not. OIG estimated that Medicare made overpayments of almost $631.3 million for replacement PAP device supply claims that did not meet Medicare requirements.

The most immediate audit concern today is HHS OIG’s recent decision to add sleep re-supply items to its work plan.

One important and frightening issue about past PAP audits was the fact that the auditors commonly used a six-year lookback period. Six-year lookbacks are a difficult, expensive process that involves hiring third-party experts such as statisticians. If claims don’t meet guidelines, those are deemed overpayments, and the money must be refunded to Medicare. Six-year lookbacks also present common mistakes on the part of the government or auditors. For example, if a six-year lookback includes claims that were already audited by another auditor, the new audit should be dismissed. The same is true if the universe of claims contains claims that were never paid to the provider, or claims that the provider repaid due to a self-audit. Or, even more common, how often do reimbursement rates change? An audit that goes back six years can involve multiple reimbursement rates. Auditors can easily misapply a reimbursement rate and then extrapolate that mistake across the universe.

Then there is also the question of whether a six-year lookback period is even allowed by law. A federal regulation limits RAC auditors to a three-year lookback period, but federal law is almost silent when it comes to the lookback periods of different types of auditors. So, inevitably, when I am defending a provider from what we understand to be a RAC audit that includes claims from four years ago, the auditor will argue before an administrative law judge (ALJ) – “hey, we aren’t acting in the capacity of a RAC auditor. Here we are, a CERT (Comprehensive Error Rate Testing) or ZPIC (Zone Program Integrity Contractor), or TPE (Targeted Probe-and-Educate), so the three-year limitation on lookbacks does not apply to us, in this circumstance.”

Although there is a presumption of compliance on the part of the providers under the Social Security Act, if claims are over five years old, that presumption does not prevent an audit from occurring, even if the records being reviewed are more than five years old.

Going back to the PAP issue, what were the most common mistakes identified by auditors?

  • Physicians’ orders were not made in accordance with local coverage determination (LCD) requirements.
  • Replacement supplies were neither reasonable nor necessary:
    • Suppliers did not have a proper request for replacement supplies, which must include:
      • Date of request
      • Description of each item requested
      • The functional condition of the items being replaced in detail to demonstrate why they need to be replaced
      • Replacements must only be made when supplies are no longer able to function.
      • Contact with the beneficiary must occur no more than 14 days before filling the order for new supplies.
    • The supplier had no proof of delivery.
    • The supplier did not respond to auditor requests for documentation.

Obviously, breathing supplies are important, and suppliers need to stay on top of these issues. A break in services is not acceptable when it comes to breathing.

Knicole C. Emanuel Esq.

Knicole C. Emanuel is a partner at the Potomac Law Group, PLLC.

For more than 16 years, Ms. Emanuel has maintained a litigation practice, concentrating on Medicare and Medicaid litigation, healthcare regulatory compliance, administrative law, and regulatory law. She understands the intricate Medicare and Medicaid payment system, the unique business of healthcare providers, the overlay of federal and state Medicare and Medicaid rules and regulations, and actions of state agencies that affect the way healthcare entities operate. She has tried over 1,000 administrative cases and has appeared before arbitration panels and in various appellate forums. Knicole is a member of the RACmonitor editorial board and a popular panelist on Monitor Monday.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Related Articles

  • Medicare Prior Authorization Program – Ten Things to Know
    Today is the first day that prior authorization is required for Medicare beneficiaries to undergo specific surgeries. Here are the 10 things you need to know about the program. Five types of surgery – blepharoplasty, botulinum toxin injections to the…
  • Prior Authorization for Medicare Two Weeks Away
    It is the hospital’s responsibility to obtain the prior authorization.  We are two weeks away from the start of the Medicare prior authorization program, and as of June 17, the Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) were required to start accepting requests.…
  • Confusion Remains over Medicare Guidance on Treating Patient Homes as Hospital Departments
    There is continued confusion over the use of patient homes as off-campus, provider-based clinics for Medicare billing purposes. This is the provision in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS’s) second recent Interim Final Rule (IFR) that allows hospitals…