Latest Blog

American Orthotic & Prosthetic Association Files Lawsuit Against Medicare Arising from Unfair Medicare RAC/Pre-payment Audits, Where No Fraud Exists, and Challenges Unlawful Changes to Medicare Standard for Care of Medicare Amputees

Alexandria, VA  – May 13, 2014

Today, the American Orthotic and Prosthetic Association (AOPA) filed suit against HHS/Medicare in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking relief from the unfair and unauthorized actions of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, primarily via actions of its RAC auditors and DME MACs relating to physician documentation requirements.

AOPA President, Thomas F. Kirk stated, “Today, AOPA has stated empathically that we will not stand by when government acts inappropriately to threaten either the quality of care we provide to our patients or the economic viability of the small businesses and providers that comprise the orthotics and prosthetics profession.”

AOPA’s suit arises with respect to Medicare actions that began in August 2011 the HHS Office of Inspector General released a flawed, and in some respects amateurish, report alleging fraud in the O&P field where there essentially was none.  The report: (1) misunderstood that patients don’t go to their physician when their prosthesis is not working properly; (2) misunderstood that it is not unusual that most Medicare amputees may not see the ‘referring physician’ who first prescribed their prosthetic care because that physician is commonly the surgeon who amputated their limb; (3) created extensive confusion about whether bi-lateral amputees should have both prostheses on a single claim or two separate claims; (4) leapt to conclusions of fraud because claims costs had increased with a fixed number of Medicare amputee beneficiaries while failing to recognize that Iraq-Afghanistan had prompted a quantum leap in technology (and a related incremental increase in unit cost) which together with CMS-approved O&P fee schedule increases (after years of ‘freeze’) had indeed driven per capita increases; and (5) failed to track as required by BIPA 427 whether or not care providers were, or were not, qualified providers under federal law.  But the worst thing this flawed OIG report did was trigger an adverse change in the quality of patient care for Medicare beneficiaries.

Someone at Medicare should have known better.  CMS leadership or its DME MAC contractors should have pointed out the flaws in this OIG report and pushed back.  But no one did.  In fact, without any process for the stakeholder input that is guaranteed by federal law, CMS also in August 2011, through the actions of its DME MAC contractors, dramatically revised the standards by which a prosthetic claim would be judged for reimbursement approval.  This was done by simply circulating unilaterally a “Dear Physician” letter.  We believe that in doing so Medicare violated the law, specifically the federal Administrative Procedure Act and the Medicare Act.  Then CMS contractors/auditors proceeded to apply this ill-conceived new standard retroactively to claw back money on claims which no one asserts involved any fraud, but which originated years before CMS contractors devised the new “standard.”

AOPA has recounted efforts O&P has over the past 20 months to try to explain and persuade CMS that its actions on this matter are unfair, contrary to the statutes and detrimental to the care provided to Medicare beneficiaries.  The introduction of the new ‘standard’ and audits were done in the name of saving Medicare dollars against the backdrop of the Affordable Care Act’s promise to extract $750 billion over ten years from Medicare providers.  RAC auditors’ independence is fundamentally compromised by the fact that they are paid a commission based on a percentage of the claims dollars they claw back.  Last month, thirty-five members of the U.S. House recently signed a letter to the Secretary of HHS seeking relief for O&P and our Medicare patients.  AOPA’s lawsuit maintains that the OIG/CMS action has changed the standard of care, often forcing practitioners to choose between meeting the patient’s immediate need for a prosthesis by providing a less sophisticated device, rather than endure long delays in care triggered by the paper chase with physicians.  The truth is that CMS wants physicians to provide more documentation, but isn’t willing to pay them any more.  According to AOPA Executive Director, Thomas F. Fise, “(M)any patient care facilities have closed or been sold as a result of these Medicare-induced financial pressures, and you have said if we can’t find a way to get this problem fixed, the entire field is at grave risk.  Under these dire circumstances, AOPA, having exhausted all other prospects for relief, has little choice but to place this matter, and the future of our profession as well as the quality of care delivered to Medicare amputee beneficiaries, in the hands of the courts.”

Review the complaint AOPA has filed.

AOPA Letter to Tavenner and Sebelius Further Challenges “Dear Physician” Letter

AOPA’s counsel on CMS matters, Tom Mills of the law firm Winston and Strawn, has issued a second letter to HHS Secretary Sebelius and CMS Acting Administrator Tavenner again seeking withdrawal of the “Dear Physician Letter” which unleashed the horrendous increase in RAC and other audits as well as burdensome prepayment reviews.  All of these actions by CMS contractors have delayed or prevented timely patient services in O&P and disrupted cash flow so completely that many O&P patient care facilities have closed their doors after decades of service or downsized staff dramatically.

In addition to requesting withdrawal of the August 2011 “Dear Physician Letter,” Mr. Mills requested further CMS correction “by instructing CMS contractors to treat the prosthetists notes as part of the medical record, and by insisting that CMS contractors explain in detail the basis for any disallowance of claims for prosthetic devices.”

AOPA continues to maintain the “Dear Physician” letter was “improperly issued” without following the necessary procedures allowing public comment.  The letter also points out that “CMS’ own Manual recognizes that prosthetists records are entitled to the same deference as physician records.”

It goes on to say that “CMS’ justification for now ignoring its own Manual and refusing to treat prosthetists’ notes as part of the medical record is that prosthetists may have a ‘vested financial interest in the outcome of the claim decision.’  This justification is ironic, given the vested financial interest CMS contractors have in disallowing the claims they are hired to review.  As AOPA has pointed out, there are scores of situations in which physicians make judgments that arguably could be affected by self-interest, yet CMS does not challenge those judgments.”

Click here for the April 15, 2013 letter to HHS Secretary Sebelius and Administrator Tavenner and here for the December 14, 2012 letter to Marilyn Tavenner.

This second Attorney Mills letter references letters AOPA has also sent to CMS official, George G. Mill, Jr., Director, Provider Compliance Group, which manages the CMS contract auditors.  Read AOPA’s letters to George Mills and the responses.

 

HHS Inspector General Takes Swipe at L0631

Writing in AARP The Bulletin, Daniel R. Levinson repeats a faulty assertion first made in the Office of Inspector General Report of December 2012 that Medicare paid an average of $919 for L0631 coded back braces that could be bought on the Internet for $191.  The Medicare reimbursement was supposed to include ongoing clinical care (fitting, refining, patient training, etc;) by a certified orthotist or other qualified healthcare professional.  Yet, the OIG report says one-third of the claims record no evidence that fitting or other ongoing care was provided.

Mr. Levinson’s report further recommended that these devices should either only be provided by competitive bidding or Medicare reduce the reimbursement to the $191 Internet pricing.  Neither recommendation makes sense, even if the facts were correct.

After reviewing the OIG Report, AOPA wrote Mr. Levinson January 8, 2013 pointing out competitive bidding was not an option because the statute defines off-the-shelf orthotics as those devices which only require “minimal self adjustment” by the patient.  The L0631 back braces do not qualify and to include them would violate the law.

AOPA also pointed out limiting reimbursements to the “Internet” price would eliminate the clinical care and patient training required to ensure the proper functionality of the device.

If the AARP article is any indication, these and other arguments AOPA made apparently fell on deaf ears or Mr. Levinson and his staff decided either not to read, or not to recognize the facts outlined in AOPA’s letter which was backed up by solid statistics from Medicare’s own database.

Click here for letter and here for data referenced in letter to read the original January AOPA response to the OIG December Report.  A further response is being prepared for the editors of AARP The Bulletin to set the record straight.

HHS OIG Reports have been the trigger for most of the reimbursement woes visited on the O&P field as members will remember the August 2011 OIG Report on lower limb prostheses which in turn resulted in the “Dear Physician” letter on required documentation that has plagued O&P providers.