I regularly speak with physical therapists in private practice, hospitals, and
administrators who erroneously believe the Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC)
program is not a threat and that the risk of recoupment ( refunding fees) is
minimal. Many well intentioned people believe this myth because they assume
that RAC and CMS are only looking at blatant fraud, not at those making
errors. They are dead wrong. Even simple errors that cause improper payments
and can be considered fraud.
As stated in previous emails and blog posts, faulty charges (which may be a
simple error) creating an imbalance pattern is considered fraud. Why? Because
CMS, RACs, etc. have no way of determining if this repeated behavior was a
mistake or intentional. (Remember, this is the government and you are guilty
until proven innocent). Exacerbating this issue is the fact that simple
provider errors are the most easily detected by a RAC automated review (data
mining).
From speaking with many of you, it appears that many physical therapists believe
that the RACs are not as active as feared. Many have not yet received a
requests. Do not be confuse a lack of record requests with a
change in RAC focus. As RACs gain more experience they are shifting their
focus from complex reviews to automated reviews (reviews that take place without
submission of a medical record). Medical record requests have slowed down
because of RAC greater dependence on data mining, giving many PTs a false sense
of security. RACs can run automated reviews at little additional cost,
while complex reviews (which involve record requests) are much more daunting in
terms of labor and CMS guidelines. The RACS are garnering smaller
recoupments rather than the larger recoupments associated with a total claim
denial. This volume approach is adding up to big dollars and it
makes sense from the RACs point of view. Basically the racks are chipping
away at providers with automated claims. When the RAC discovers a blatant
pattern, they go for the throat and perform a complex review where records are
requested and the RAC denies the entire claim. According to AHA the RACTrac
program, the average recoupment for automated reviews was $399 per claim, and
the average recoupment for complex reviews was $5,281 per claim.(1) The
RACs are having it both ways! Why? To date only 23% of RACs
judgements have been appealed. As stated in a prior post, the appeal costs
more than the refund. Another report also showed that 90% of the
audits were automated.(2)
So in summary, RACs are taking advantage of their ability to run automated
reviews around the clock at a much lower cost than complex reviews. Automated
reviews are easier to perform. Just because you are not getting record
requests, do not think that you are not being audited and are not at risk for
recoupments from the RACs. Couple the RACs'''' proficiency at automated reviews
with new pressure from CMS for fourth-quarter results, providers will see more
activity on complex reviews and medical record requests in addition to automated
reviews.
To mitigate RAC risk, every PT facility (inpatient and outpatient) needs a
coordinated and comprehensive approach between billing and clinical
documentation. The finance and clinical departments must work
together. This is a clinical and financial compliance issue. You cannot change
prior errors, but you can write your own future.
MediGraph is here to assist
with this process.
Regards,
Tom Kane, PT
(1) CMS, "Medicare Fee-for-Service Recovery Audit Program as of June 2011."
Retrieved Aug. 31 from
http://www.cms.gov/Recovery-Audit-Program/Downloads/NatProg.pdf.
(2) AHA RACTrac Survey, Fourth Quarter 2010, Feb. 24, 2011.
Retrieved July 26 from
http://www.aha.org/aha/content/2011/pdf/Q4-2010-RACTrac-results-chartpk.pdf.