RSS feedLife is nothing without meaning.
As a demonstration of this statement, imagine for a moment that everything in your life that has some kind of fixed value or representation suddenly shifts. Here are a few illustrations to help you: the nickels in your pocket are now worth nine cents, the dishwasher in your kitchen is now used for the cleaning of clothing and your family dog is now an animal known as a boopwiffle.
To the best of our abilities, we have attempted to assign shape and definition to everything that exists. The moment of debate occurs when someone else applies a different set of definitions to things in our world with a long-established value. Depending on the new person’s definition, the result is either a clearer understanding of the things that surround us (such as someone like Copernicus or Galileo) or a complete and total breakdown of established order, leading to chaos. Last week, a judicial decision was handed down from a U. S. District Court in a case involving a hospital and a Recovery Audit Contractor that, if left to stand, could hold dire consequences for all providers of medical services paid by the Medicare program.
In February of 2009, CMS issued Change Request 6157, that stated that a contractor could go back as far as 4 years to reopen an initial determination on a claim, provided that the contractor has ”good cause” for the reopening. Specifically, this update clarified what constituted new and material evidence needed to substantiate good cause. The Change Request stated that the information has to be something that was not readily available at the time of initial determination. There was a key passage in this document that was at issue in last week’s case:
“A contractor’s decision to reopen based on the existence of good cause, or refusal to reopen after determining good cause does not exist, is not subject to appeal.”
The plaintiff in this case sued the Department of Health & Human Services, stating that a RAC auditor reopened a claim 20 months after the initial determination without sufficiently providing just cause for the reopening. The final decision of the judge was that a decision by a contractor to reopen a claim is not subject to appeal, regardless of whether “good cause” exists.
In summation, this decision means that RAC’s and ZPIC’s no longer have to follow any rules for the reopening of claims. No appeal rights are available to any provider to force the disclosure of a reason for claim reopening and no court can provide relief. Any contractor can reopen any claim at any time for any reason, and CMS isn’t interested in monitoring contractor reopenings to determine whether good cause exists.
While the RAC program as designed on paper was to find both overpayments and underpayments, there is no financial incentive for the RAC’s to identify both with the same veracity. If one factors in that RAC’s keep anywhere from 9% to 12.5% of all overpayment dollars collected depending on geographic area, the judge’s decision has devastating potential.
If I were to identify one silver lining with regard to the RAC’s, it would be the success rate of appeals of RAC determinations. Currently, 8.2% of all RAC decisions have been appealed by providers with a success rate of 64.4%. This indicates a high error rate on initial determination, and provides a great argument for internalizing an inherent mistrust of any RAC determination. Thanks to a short-sighted court decision, appeals against a RAC as it relates to the administration of statute are limited. Yet if the decision of the RAC as it relates to the payment determination for services seems incorrect, anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that it is, and that’s worth an appeal.
I can’t promise that the process is as easy as taking your boopwiffle for a walk around the park, but half of survival is the art of making yourself an unappealing target for predators. An aggressive response is a provider’s best defense against continued RAC audits.
