Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Programs; Additional Screening Requirements, Application Fees, Temporary Enrollment Moratoria, Payment Suspensions and Compliance Plans for Providers and Suppliers, 58204-58248 [2010-23579]
Download as PDF
58204
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
42 CFR Parts 405, 424, 438, 447, 455,
457, 498, and 1007
[CMS–6028–P]
RIN 0938–AQ20
Medicare, Medicaid, and Children’s
Health Insurance Programs; Additional
Screening Requirements, Application
Fees, Temporary Enrollment Moratoria,
Payment Suspensions and Compliance
Plans for Providers and Suppliers
Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This proposed rule would
implement provisions of the Affordable
Care Act that establish: Procedures
under which screening is conducted for
providers of medical or other services
and suppliers in the Medicare program,
providers in the Medicaid program, and
providers in the Children’s Health
Insurance Program (CHIP); an
application fee to be imposed on
providers and suppliers; temporary
moratoria that may be imposed if
necessary to prevent or combat fraud,
waste, and abuse under the Medicare
and Medicaid programs, and CHIP;
guidance for States regarding
termination of providers from Medicaid
and CHIP if terminated by Medicare or
another Medicaid State plan or CHIP;
guidance regarding the termination of
providers and suppliers from Medicare
if terminated by a Medicaid State
agency; and requirements for
suspension of payments pending
credible allegations of fraud in the
Medicare and Medicaid programs. This
proposed rule would also present an
approach and request comments on the
provisions of the Affordable Care Act
that require providers of medical or
other items or services or suppliers
within a particular industry sector or
category to establish compliance
programs.
DATES: To be assured consideration,
comments must be received at one of
the addresses provided below, no later
than 5 p.m. on November 16, 2010.
ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer
to file code CMS–6028–P. Because of
staff and resource limitations, we cannot
accept comments by facsimile (FAX)
transmission.
You may submit comments in one of
four ways (please choose only one of the
ways listed):
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
1. Electronically. You may submit
electronic comments on this regulation
to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the ‘‘Submit a comment’’ instructions.
2. By regular mail. You may mail
written comments to the following
address only:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, Attention: CMS–6028–
P, P.O. Box 8020, Baltimore, MD 21244–
8020.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed
comments to be received before the
close of the comment period.
3. By express or overnight mail. You
may send written comments to the
following address only:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, Attention: CMS–6028–
P, Mail Stop C4–26–05, 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850
4. By hand or courier. If you prefer,
you may deliver (by hand or courier)
your written comments before the close
of the comment period to either of the
following addresses:
a. For delivery in Washington, DC—
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, Room 445–G, Hubert
H. Humphrey Building, 200
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20201.
(Because access to the interior of the
Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not
readily available to persons without
Federal government identification,
commenters are encouraged to leave
their comments in the CMS drop slots
located in the main lobby of the
building. A stamp-in clock is available
for persons wishing to retain a proof of
filing by stamping in and retaining an
extra copy of the comments being filed.)
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD—
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850.
If you intend to deliver your
comments to the Baltimore address,
please call telephone number (410) 786–
9994 in advance to schedule your
arrival with one of our staff members.
Comments mailed to the addresses
indicated as appropriate for hand or
courier delivery may be delayed and
received after the comment period.
Submission of comments on
paperwork requirements. You may
submit comments on this document’s
paperwork requirements by following
the instructions at the end of the
‘‘Collection of Information
Requirements’’ section in this document.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
For information on viewing public
comments, see the beginning of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patricia Peyton (410) 786–1812 for
Medicare enrollment issues. Claudia
Simonson (312) 353–2115 for Medicaid
and CHIP enrollment and Medicaid
payment suspension issues.
Joseph Strazzire (410) 786–2775 for
Medicare payment suspension issues.
Laura Minassian-Kiefel (410) 786–
4641 for compliance program issues.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Inspection
of Public Comments: All comments
received before the close of the
comment period are available for
viewing by the public, including any
personally identifiable or confidential
business information that is included in
a comment. We post all comments
received before the close of the
comment period on the following Web
site as soon as possible after they have
been received: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the search
instructions on that Web site to view
public comments.
Comments received timely will also
be available for public inspection as
they are received, generally beginning
approximately 3 weeks after publication
of a document, at the headquarters of
the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, 7500 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday
through Friday of each week from 8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an
appointment to view public comments,
phone 1–800–743–3951.
I. Background
The Medicare program (title XVIII of
the Social Security Act (the Act)) is the
primary payer of health care for 45
million enrolled beneficiaries. Under
section 1802 of the Act, a beneficiary
may obtain health services from an
individual or an organization qualified
to participate in the Medicare program.
Qualifications to participate are
specified in statute and in regulations
(see, for example, sections 1814, 1815,
1819, 1833, 1834, 1842, 1861, 1866, and
1891 of the Act; and 42 CFR chapter IV,
subchapter G, which concerns standards
and certification requirements).
Providers and suppliers furnishing
services must comply with the Medicare
requirements stipulated in the Act and
in our regulations. These requirements
are meant to ensure compliance with
applicable statutes, as well as to
promote the furnishing of high quality
care. As Medicare program expenditures
have grown, we have increased our
efforts to ensure that only qualified
individuals and organizations are
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
allowed to enroll or maintain their
Medicare billing privileges.
The Medicaid program (title XIX of
the Act) is a joint Federal and State
health care program for eligible lowincome individuals. States have
considerable flexibility in how they
administer their Medicaid programs
within a broad Federal framework and
programs vary from State to State.
The Children’s Health Insurance
Program (CHIP) (title XXI of the Act) is
a joint Federal and State health care
program that provides health care
coverage to more than 7.7 million
otherwise uninsured children.
Historically, States, in operating
Medicaid and CHIP, have permitted the
enrollment of providers who meet the
State requirements for program
enrollment.
The Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act (Pub. L. 111–148), as amended
by the Health Care and Education
Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–
152) (collectively known as the
Affordable Care Act) (the ACA) makes a
number of changes to the Medicare and
Medicaid programs and CHIP that
enhance the provider and supplier
enrollment process to improve the
integrity of the programs to reduce
fraud, waste, and abuse in the programs.
A. Statutory Authority
The following is an overview of some
of the statutory authority relevant to
enrollment in Medicare, Medicaid, and
CHIP:
• Sections 1102 and 1871 of the Act
provide general authority for the
Secretary of Health and Human Services
(the Secretary) to prescribe regulations
for the efficient administration of the
Medicare program. Section 1102 of the
Act also provides general authority for
the Secretary to prescribe regulations for
the efficient administration of the
Medicaid program and CHIP.
• Section 4313 of the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) (Pub. L. 105–
33) amended sections 1124(a)(1) and
1124A of the Act to require disclosure
of both the Employer Identification
Number (EIN) and Social Security
Number (SSN) of each provider or
supplier, each person with ownership or
control interest in the provider or
supplier, any subcontractor in which
the provider or supplier directly or
indirectly has a 5 percent or more
ownership interest, and any managing
employees including directors and
officers of corporations and non-profit
organizations and charities. The ‘‘Report
to Congress on Steps Taken to Assure
Confidentiality of Social Security
Account Numbers as required by the
Balanced Budget Act’’ was signed by the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
Secretary and sent to the Congress on
January 26, 1999. This report outlines
the provisions of a mandatory collection
of SSNs and EINs effective on or after
April 26, 1999.
• Section 936(a)(2) of the Medicare
Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub.
L. 108–173) amended the Act to require
the Secretary to establish a process for
the enrollment of providers of services
and suppliers. We are authorized to
collect information on the Medicare
enrollment application (that is, the
CMS–855, (Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) approval number 0938–
0685)) to ensure that correct payments
are made to providers and suppliers
under the Medicare program as
established by title XVIII of the Act.
• Section 1902(a)(27) of the Act
provides general authority for the
Secretary to require provider agreements
under the Medicaid State Plans with
every person or institution providing
services under the State plan. Under
these agreements, the Secretary may
require information regarding any
payments claimed by such person or
institution for providing services under
the State plan.
• Section 2107(e) of the Act, which
provides that certain title XIX and title
XI provisions apply to States under title
XXI, including 1902(a)(4)(C) of the Act,
relating to conflict of interest standards.
• Section 1903(i)(2) of the Act
relating to limitations on payment.
• Section 1124 of the Act relating to
disclosure of ownership and related
information.
• Sections 6401, 6402, 6501,10603,
and 1304 of the ACA amended the Act
by establishing: (1) Procedures under
which screening is conducted for
providers of medical or other services
and suppliers in the Medicare program,
providers in the Medicaid program, and
providers in the CHIP; (2) an application
fee to be imposed on providers and
suppliers; (3) temporary moratoria that
the Secretary may impose if necessary to
prevent or combat fraud, waste, and
abuse under the Medicare and Medicaid
programs and CHIP; (4) procedures to
terminate providers if terminated by
Medicare or another State plan; (5)
requirements for suspensions of
payments pending credible allegations
of fraud in both the Medicare and
Medicaid programs.
PO 00000
58205
II. Provisions of the Proposed
Regulations
A. Provider Screening Under Medicare,
Medicaid, and CHIP
1. Statutory Changes
Section 6401(a) of the ACA, as
amended by section 10603 of the ACA,
amends section 1866(j) of the Act to add
a new paragraph, paragraph ‘‘(2)
Provider Screening.’’ Section
1866(j)(2)(A) of the Act requires the
Secretary, in consultation with the
Department of Health of Human
Services’ Office of the Inspector General
(HHS OIG), to establish procedures
under which screening is conducted
with respect to providers of medical or
other items or services and suppliers
under Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP.
Section 1866(j)(2)(B) of the Act requires
the Secretary to determine the level of
screening to be conducted according to
the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse with
respect to the category of provider of
medical or other items or services or
supplier. The provision states that the
screening shall include a licensure
check, which may include such checks
across State lines; and the screening
may, as the Secretary determines
appropriate based on the risk of fraud,
waste, and abuse, include a criminal
background check; fingerprinting;
unscheduled or unannounced site visits,
including pre-enrollment site visits;
database checks, including such checks
across State lines; and such other
screening as the Secretary determines
appropriate. Section 1866(j)(2)(C) of the
Act requires the Secretary to impose a
fee on each institutional provider of
medical or other items or services or
supplier that would be used by the
Secretary for program integrity efforts
including to cover the cost of screening
and to carry out the provisions of
sections 1866(j) and 1128J of the Act.
We discuss the fee in section II.B. of this
proposed rule.
Section 6401(b) of the ACA amends
section 1902 of the Act to add new
paragraphs (a)(77)(i) and (ii), which
require States to comply with the
process for screening providers and
suppliers as established by the Secretary
under 1866(j)(2) of the Act.1
1 We believe that the reference to section
1886(j)(2) of the Act in section 6401(b)(1) of the
Affordable Care Act is a scrivener’s error. We
believe the Congress intended to refer to section
1866(j)(2) of the Act, which, as amended by section
6401(a) of the Affordable Care Act, requires the
Secretary to establish a process for screening
providers and suppliers. Because the drafting error
is apparent, and a literal reading of the reference to
section 1886(j)(2) of the Act would produce absurd
results, we propose to interpret the cross-reference
Continued
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
58206
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
We note that the statute uses the
terms ‘‘providers of medical or other
items or services,’’ ‘‘institutional
providers,’’ and ‘‘suppliers.’’ The
Medicare program enrolls a variety of
providers and suppliers, some of which
are referred to as ‘‘providers of services,’’
‘‘institutional providers,’’ ‘‘certified
providers,’’ ‘‘certified suppliers,’’ and
‘‘suppliers.’’ In Medicare, the term
‘‘providers of services’’ under section
1861(u) of the Act means health care
entities that furnish services primarily
payable under Part A of Medicare, such
as hospitals, home health agencies
(including home health agencies
providing services under Part B),
hospices, and skilled nursing facilities.
The term ‘‘suppliers’’ defined in section
1861(d) of the Act refers to health care
entities that furnish services primarily
payable under Part B of Medicare, such
as independent diagnostic testing
facilities (IDTFs), durable medical
equipment prosthetics, orthotics, and
supplies (DMEPOS) suppliers, and
eligible professionals, which refers to
health care suppliers who are
individuals, that is, physicians and the
other professionals listed in section
1848(k)(3)(B) of the Act. For Medicaid
and CHIP, we use the terms ‘‘providers’’
or ‘‘Medicaid providers’’ or ‘‘CHIP
providers’’ when referring to all
Medicaid or CHIP health care providers,
including individual practitioners,
institutional providers, and providers of
medical equipment or goods related to
care. The term ‘‘supplier’’ has no
meaning in the Medicaid program or
CHIP.
Section 424.502 contains additional
definitions that apply to these and other
terms used throughout this proposed
rule including the following:
• Authorized official means an
appointed official (for example, chief
executive officer, chief financial officer,
general partner, chairman of the board,
or direct owner) to whom the
organization has granted the legal
authority to enroll it in the Medicare
program, to make changes or updates to
the organization’s status in the Medicare
program, and to commit the
organization to fully abide by the
statutes, regulations, and program
instructions of the Medicare program.
• Delegated official means an
individual who is delegated by the
‘‘Authorized Official,’’ the authority to
report changes and updates to the
enrollment record. The delegated
official must be an individual with
ownership or control interest in, or be
to section 1886(j)(2) in the new section 1902(ii) of
the Act as if the reference were to section 1866(j)(2).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
a W–2 managing employee of the
provider or supplier.
• Managing employee means a
general manager, business manager,
administrator, director, or other
individual that exercises operational or
managerial control over, or who directly
or indirectly conducts, the day-to-day
operation of the provider or supplier,
either under contract or through some
other arrangement, whether or not the
individual is a W–2 employee of the
provider or supplier.
• Owner means any individual or
entity that has any partnership interest
in, or that has 5 percent or more direct
or indirect ownership of the provider or
supplier as defined in sections 1124 and
1124A(A) of the Act.
• Physician or nonphysician
practitioner organization means any
physician or nonphysician practitioner
entity that enrolls in the Medicare
program as a sole proprietorship or
organizational entity.
The new screening procedures
implemented pursuant to new section
1866(j)(2) of the Act would be
applicable to newly enrolling providers
and suppliers, including eligible
professionals, beginning on March 23,
2011. These new procedures would be
applicable to currently enrolled
Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP
providers, suppliers, and eligible
professionals beginning on March 23,
2012. These new screening procedures
implemented pursuant to new section
1866(j)(2) of the Act would be
applicable beginning on March 23, 2011
for those providers and suppliers
currently enrolled in Medicare,
Medicaid, and CHIP who revalidate
their enrollment information. Within
Medicare, the March 23, 2011
implementation date will impact those
current providers and suppliers whose
5-year revalidation cycle (or 3-year
revalidation cycle for DMEPOS
suppliers) results in revalidation
occurring on or after March 23, 2011
and before March 23, 2012.
2. Summary of Existing Screening
Measures
Before we outline the new measures
we are proposing under the ACA, it may
be helpful to provide a summary of
some of the screening measures already
being utilized in Medicare, Medicaid,
and CHIP. Pursuant to other authority,
but with the notable exceptions of
criminal background checks and
fingerprinting, Medicare, generally
through private contractors, already
employs a number of the screening
practices described in section
1866(j)(2)(B) of the Act to determine if
a provider or supplier is in compliance
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
with Federal and State requirements to
enroll or to maintain enrollment in the
Medicare program.
a. Licensure Requirements—Medicare
and Medicaid
Over the past several years, we have
taken a number of steps to strengthen
our ability to deny or revoke Medicare
billing privileges when providers or
suppliers do not have or do not
maintain the applicable State licensure
requirements for their provider or
supplier type or profession. We
established reporting responsibilities for
all providers, suppliers, and eligible
professionals in earlier regulations at
§ 424.516(b) through (e). Today, to
ensure that only qualified providers and
suppliers remain in the Medicare feefor-service (FFS) program, we require
that Medicare contractors review State
licensing board data on a monthly basis
to determine if providers and suppliers
remain in compliance with State
licensure requirements. Medicare billing
privileges would be revoked for those
providers and suppliers who do not
report a final adverse action (for
example, license revocation or
suspension, felony conviction) within
the applicable reporting period, as
required in § 424.516(b) through (e).
Medicare suppliers of DMEPOS and
IDTFs are already subject to similar
provisions in § 424.57(c) and
§ 410.33(g), respectively. DMEPOS
suppliers are also subject to additional
requirements including accreditation
and surety bonding, pursuant to 42 CFR
424.57(c)(22) through (26) and 42 CFR
424.57(d).
Medicare Advantage organizations
(MAOs) are required to verify licensure
of providers and suppliers, including
physicians and other health care
professionals, in accordance with
§ 422.204.
For Medicaid and CHIP, most States
do some checking of in-State provider
licenses. For example, in some States,
the existence of the license may be
verified, but little attention might be
given to any restrictions on the license.
b. Site Visits—Medicare
Pursuant to § 424.517, Medicare
conducts the following site visits and
takes the following actions, generally
through private contractors under CMS
direction:
• The National Supplier
Clearinghouse (NSC) Medicare
Administrative Contractor (the Medicare
contractor that processes enrollment
applications for suppliers of DMEPOS)
conducts pre-enrollment site visits to
DMEPOS suppliers that are not
associated with a chain supplier of
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
DMEPOS (a chain supplier of DMEPOS
is a supplier with 25 or more distinct
practice locations.)
• The NSC also conducts
unannounced post-enrollment site visits
to DMEPOS suppliers for which CMS or
the NSC believes there is a likelihood of
fraudulent or abusive activities to
ensure those DMEPOS suppliers remain
in compliance with the supplier
standards found at § 424.57(c).
• CMS at times exercises its right to—
• Have the NSC conduct ad hoc preand post-enrollment site visits to any
DMEPOS supplier;
• Have Medicare contractors conduct
pre-enrollment site visits to all IDTFs;
and
• Conduct ad hoc pre-and post
enrollment site visits to any prospective
Medicare provider and supplier or any
enrolled Medicare provider or supplier.
In addition, under 42 CFR parts 488
and 489, a State survey agency or an
approved national accreditation
organization with deeming authority
conducts pre-enrollment surveys for
certified providers and suppliers to
determine whether they meet the
applicable Federal conditions and
requirements for their provider or
supplier type before they can participate
in the Medicare program.
We believe these efforts need to be
expanded to include additional site
visits and site visits to additional
provider and supplier types in order to
protect the Medicare FFS program from
unscrupulous or potentially fraudulent
providers and suppliers.
We note that the site visits discussed
here and elsewhere within this
preamble and the proposed regulations
are separate and apart from the site
visits that are conducted pursuant to the
Clinical Laboratory Improvement
Amendments (CLIA). We intend to work
with our State survey agency partners in
coordinating these site visits so as to
avoid duplication and burden on
providers.
c. Database Checks—Medicare
Today, Medicare contractors employ
database checks of eligible
professionals, owners, authorized
officials, delegated officials, managing
employees, medical directors, and
supervising physicians (at IDTFs and
laboratories) as part of the Medicare
provider and supplier enrollment
process. These include database checks
with the Social Security Administration
(SSA) (to verify an individual’s SSN),
the National Plan and Provider
Enumeration System (NPPES) to verify
the National Provider Identifier (NPI) of
an eligible professional, and State
licensing board checks to determine if
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
an eligible professional is appropriately
licensed to furnish medical services
within a given State. These checks also
include checking a provider or supplier
against the HHS OIG’s List of Excluded
Individuals/Entities (LEIE) and the
General Service Administration’s
Excluded Parties List System (EPLS).
All of the database checks are used to
assess the eligibility and qualifications
of providers and suppliers to enroll in
the Medicare program, to confirm the
identity of an eligible professional to
ensure that he or she may be considered
for enrollment in the Medicare program.
Also, on a monthly basis, CMS’
Medicare contractors systematically
compare enrolled providers, suppliers,
and eligible professionals against the
information in the Medicare Exclusions
Database. The Medicare Exclusions
Database identifies providers, suppliers,
and eligible professionals who have
been excluded from the Medicare and
Medicaid programs by the HHS OIG.
When a match is found, the HHS OIG
exclusion information is systematically
noted in the Medicare enrollment record
of the provider, supplier, or eligible
professional. In the Medicare program
today, we deny or revoke the billing
privileges of providers, suppliers, and
eligible professionals who have been
excluded by the HHS OIG. If the HHS
OIG lifts the exclusion, the provider,
supplier or eligible professional must
reapply for enrollment in the Medicare
program. In addition, Medicare
contractors also review State licensure
Web sites on a monthly basis to ensure
that eligible professionals continue to
meet State licensing requirements.
In addition, since January 2009, we
have compared date of death
information obtained from the Social
Security Administration Death Master
File (SSA DMF) with the information
maintained in the National Plan and
Provider Enumeration System (NPPES),
the system that assigns a NPI to
individual and organizations. Based on
this comparison and the subsequent
verification, we have deactivated the
NPIs of more than 11,500 individuals
who were previously assigned a type 1
(individual) NPI. We automatically
transfer this information from NPPES to
the Provider Enrollment, Chain, and
Ownership System (PECOS), CMS’
national Medicare enrollment repository
to deactivate a deceased individual’s
Medicare billing privileges. In addition,
Medicare contractors are required to
review and act upon monthly files that
contain a list of nonpractitioner
individuals enrolled in the Medicare
program who have been reported to the
SSA as deceased. These individuals
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
58207
include: Owners, authorized officials,
and delegated officials.
MAOs, as required by § 422.204,
generally use database checks to verify
licensure and licensure sanctions and
limitations with State licensing boards
and the Federation of State Medical
Boards, DEA certificates with the
National Technical Information Service
(NTIS), history of adverse professional
review actions and malpractice from the
National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB),
accreditation status of institutional
providers and suppliers with national
accrediting boards, such as The Joint
Commission (TJC), and search for HHS
OIG exclusions using the HHS OIG Web
site https://www.oig.hhs.gov/fraud/
exclusions/list of excluded.html.
d. Criminal Background Checks—
Medicare
As described in § 424.530(a) and
§ 424.535(a), CMS or its designated
Medicare contractor may deny or revoke
the Medicare billing privileges of the
owner of a provider or supplier, a
physician or nonphysician practitioner,
and terminate any corresponding
provider or supplier agreement for a
number of reasons, including an
exclusion from the Medicare, Medicaid,
and any other Federal health care
program, a felony within the preceding
10 years that is considered detrimental
to the Medicare program, and/or
submission of false or misleading
information on the Medicare enrollment
application. While we currently require
our Medicare contractors to verify data
submitted on, and as part of, the
Medicare provider/supplier enrollment
application, our contractors are not able
to verify information that may have
been purposefully omitted or changed
in a manner to obfuscate any previous
criminal activity. In addition, criminal
background checks are not routinely
used in the FFS Medicare screening
process.
e. Medicare MAO Requirements
As mentioned earlier in this section,
MAOs already employ a number of
screening procedures in accordance
with regulations and CMS manual
instructions. Specifically, under
§ 422.204(b)(3) in the case of providers
meeting the definition of ‘‘provider of
services’’ in section 1861(u) of the Act,
basic benefits may only be provided
through providers if they have a
provider agreement with CMS
permitting them to furnish services
under original Medicare. With respect to
other entities like suppliers,
§ 422.204(b)(3) requires that they ‘‘meet
the applicable requirements of title
XVIII and Part A of title XI of the Act.’’
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
58208
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Given these requirements we are
considering to what extent MAOs
should be required to apply the
identical screening requirements we are
proposing for the original Medicare
program or whether substantively
similar alternative approaches adopted
by MAOs would be acceptable.
Accordingly, we solicit public
comments on whether or to what extent
MAOs should be required to implement
the same enhanced screening
requirements for providers, suppliers
and physicians that we are proposing
for the original Medicare program.
f. Fingerprinting—Medicare
We do not currently use
fingerprinting in the Medicare screening
process.
g. Screening—Medicaid and CHIP
States vary in the degree to which
they employ screening methods such as
unscheduled and unannounced site
visits and database checks, including
such checks across State lines, criminal
background checks, and fingerprinting.
However, there are at least a few States
that utilize each of those methods.
States also vary in what they require
their managed care entities (MCEs) 2 to
do in terms of screening network-level
providers that are not also enrolled in
the Medicaid program as FFS providers.
We are considering to what extent States
must require their MCEs to apply the
identical screening requirements we are
proposing for the States or whether
substantively similar alternative
approaches adopted by MCEs would be
acceptable. Accordingly, we solicit
public comments on whether or to what
extent MCEs should be required to
implement the same enhanced
screening requirements for Medicaid
and CHIP providers that we are
proposing for State Medicaid and CHIP
programs.
3. Proposed Screening Requirements
a. Medicare
Section 1866(j)(2)(B) of the Act
requires the Secretary to determine the
level of screening applicable to
providers and suppliers according to the
risk of fraud, waste, and abuse the
Secretary determines is posed by
particular categories of providers and
suppliers.
In considering how to establish
consistent screening standards, we are
proposing to designate provider and
supplier categories that would be
subject to certain screening procedures
based on CMS’ assessment of fraud,
waste and abuse risk of the provider or
supplier category, taking into
consideration a variety of factors
including studies conducted by the HHS
OIG and the GAO and other sources. We
would designate categories of providers
or suppliers (for example, ‘‘newly
enrolling DME suppliers’’ or ‘‘currently
enrolled home health agencies’’) that
would be subject to screening
procedures in each category based on
our assessment of the level of risk
presented by the category of provider.
There will be 3 levels of risk: ‘‘limited,’’
‘‘moderate’’ and ‘‘high,’’ and each
provider/supplier category will be
assigned to one of these 3 levels. The
screening procedures applicable to each
risk level will be set by us and are
included in this proposed rule. The
categories described below and
associated risk levels assigned are
designed to identify those categories of
providers and suppliers that pose a risk
of fraud, waste, and abuse.
Under this proposed approach, the
relevant Medicare contractor (for
example, fiscal intermediary, regional
home health intermediary, carriers, Part
A or Part B Medicare Administrative
Contractor (A/B MAC), or the NSC
Administrative Contractor) would
utilize the screening tools mandated by
us for the risk level assigned to a
particular provider or supplier category.
We are soliciting comments on the
proposed assignment of specific
provider and supplier types to
established risk levels, including what
criteria should be considered in making
such assignments, whether such
assignments should be released
publicly, whether they should be
subject to agency review and updated
according to an established schedule
(that is, annually, bi-annually), and the
extent to which they should be updated
according to evolving risks. We are also
soliciting comments on any additional
database checks that we should consider
as a type of screening.
Based on the level of risk assigned, we
propose that the Medicare contractors
would establish and conduct the
following categorical screenings.
TABLE 1—CATEGORY OF RISK AND REQUIRED SCREENING FOR MEDICARE PHYSICIANS, NON-PHYSICIAN PRACTITIONERS,
PROVIDERS, AND SUPPLIERS
Limited
Verification of any provider/supplier-specific requirements established by Medicare ..........................
Conduct license verifications, (may include licensure checks across States) ......................................
Database Checks (to verify Social Security Number (SSN), the National Provider Identifier (NPI),
the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) licensure, an OIG exclusion, taxpayer identification
number, tax delinquency, death of individual practitioner, owner, authorized official, delegated official, or supervising physician) ..........................................................................................................
Unscheduled or Unannounced Site Visits .............................................................................................
Criminal Background Check ..................................................................................................................
Fingerprinting .........................................................................................................................................
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Type of screening required
X
X
X
....................
....................
....................
Moderate
X
X
X
X
......................
......................
High
X
X
X
X
X
X
As described above, we already
require Medicare contractors to ensure
that every provider or supplier meets
any applicable Federal regulations or
State requirements, including applicable
licensure requirements 3 for the provider
or supplier type prior to making an
enrollment determination. In addition,
we also require that Medicare
2 For purposes of this preamble and the proposed
regulations, ‘‘managed care entity’’ and ‘‘MCE’’ will
have the meaning Medicaid managed care
organization (MCO), primary care case manager
(PCCM), prepaid inpatient health plan (PIHP),
prepaid ambulatory health plan (PAHP), and health
insuring organization (HIO). This definition differs
from the meaning in section 1932(a)(1)(B) of the
Social Security Act, which limits MCEs to Medicaid
MCOs and PCCMs. We propose a more inclusive
definition for the regulation so that all those entities
in States’ managed care programs will provide
disclosure information.
3 We note that under section 408 of the
reauthorized Indian Health Care Improvement Act,
‘‘[a]ny requirement for participation as a provider of
health care services under a Federal health care
program that an entity be licensed or recognized
under the State or local law where the entity is
located to furnish health care services shall be
deemed to have been met in the case of an entity
operated by the [Indian Health] Service, an Indian
tribe, tribal organization, or urban Indian
organization if the entity meets all the applicable
standards for such licensure or recognition,
regardless of whether the entity obtains a license or
other documentation under such State or local law.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
contractors conduct monthly reviews of
State licensing board actions to
determine if an individual practitioner,
such as a physician or non-physician
practitioner continues to meet State
licensing requirements. In the case of
organizational entities, we also require
our Medicare contractors to conduct
monthly or periodic checks to
determine if an organizational entity
continues to meet the Federal and State
requirements for its provider or supplier
type. Such verifications help ensure that
a prospective provider or supplier is
eligible to participate in the Medicare
program or that an existing provider or
supplier is eligible to maintain its
Medicare billing privileges.
Currently in the Medicare program,
DMEPOS suppliers are required to reenroll every 3 years, and other providers
are required to revalidate their
enrollment every 5 years. The terms
revalidation and re-enrollment are often
used interchangeably, but are actually
specific to these provider types. To
eliminate any confusion about which
term applies to which provider or
supplier, we are proposing language at
42 CFR 424.57(e) to change all
references to re-enroll or re-enrollment
to revalidate or revalidation. In
addition, the ACA requires that no
provider or supplier shall be allowed to
enroll in Medicare or revalidate its
enrollment in Medicare after March 23,
2013 without being screened pursuant
to the authorities covered by this
proposed rule. To assist CMS in
assuring that the statutory effective date
is met, we are proposing at 42 CFR
424.515 to permit CMS to require that
a provider or supplier revalidate its
enrollment at any time. After the
revalidation, the current cycle for
revalidation (3 years for DMEPOS, and
5 years for all other providers) would
apply.
(1) Limited
In general, we consider physicians,
nonphysician practitioners, and medical
clinics and group practices to pose
limited risk because these professionals
are State licensed and we are not aware
of any recent studies or other evidence
that indicates that these suppliers, as a
category, pose an elevated risk to the
Medicare program.
Similarly, we believe that a provider
or supplier that is publicly traded on the
New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) or
the National Association of Securities
Dealers Automated Quotation System
(NASDAQ) poses a limited risk because
of the financial oversight provided by
investors, corporate boards of directors,
and the Security and Exchange
Commission. Finally, based on our own
data analysis including analysis of
historical trends and CMS’s own
experience with provider screening and
enrollment we believe that the following
providers and suppliers currently pose
a limited risk to the Medicare program:
Ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs);
end-stage renal disease (ERSD) facilities;
Federally qualified health centers
(FQHCs); histocompatibility
laboratories; hospitals, including critical
access hospitals (CAHs); Indian Health
Service (IHS) facilities; mammography
58209
screening centers; organ procurement
organizations (OPOs); mass
immunization roster billers, portable
x-ray suppliers; religious nonmedical
health care institutions (RNHCIs); rural
health clinics (RHCs); radiation therapy
centers; public or government owned or
affiliated ambulance services suppliers
(defined as an ambulance supplier
owned in whole or in part by a State or
local government), and skilled nursing
facilities (SNFs). Accordingly, we
propose to include the categories of
providers and suppliers listed above
within the ‘‘limited’’ level of risk. We
think the additional government
oversight of ‘‘government owned or
affiliated’’ ambulance service providers
justifies placing these providers in the
limited category.
In § 424.518(a), we propose that the
following screening tools will apply to
providers and suppliers in categories
designated as ‘‘limited’’ risk: (1)
Verification that a provider or supplier
meets any applicable Federal
regulations, or State requirements for
the provider or supplier type prior to
making an enrollment determination; (2)
verification that a provider or supplier
meets applicable licensure
requirements; and (3) database checks
on a pre- and post-enrollment basis to
ensure that providers and suppliers
continue to meet the enrollment criteria
for their provider/supplier type.
To assist readers in understanding the
type of providers and suppliers that we
propose to include in the ‘‘limited’’ risk
level, we are providing the following
table.
TABLE 2—MEDICARE PROVIDERS AND SUPPLIERS DESIGNATED AS A ‘‘LIMITED’’ CATEGORICAL RISK FOR SCREENING
PURPOSES
Provider/supplier category
Physician or non-physician practitioners and medical groups or clinics.
Providers or suppliers that are publicly traded on the NYSE or NASDAQ.
Ambulatory surgical centers, end-stage renal disease facilities, Federally qualified health centers, histocompatibility laboratories, hospitals, including critical access hospitals, Indian Health Service facilities, mammography screening centers, organ procurement organizations, mass
immunization roster billers, portable x-ray supplier, religious non-medical health care institutions, rural health clinics, radiation therapy centers,
public or government owned or affiliated ambulance services suppliers, and skilled nursing facilities.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
(2) Moderate
For those provider and supplier
categories with a ‘‘moderate’’ level of
risk, we propose that Medicare
contractors will conduct unannounced
pre- and/or post-enrollment site visits in
addition to those screening tools
applicable to the ‘‘limited’’ level of risk.
Based on the success of pre- and/or
post-enrollment site visits conducted by
the NSC during the enrollment process
for suppliers of DMEPOS and a similar
process established by carriers and A/B
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
MACs during the enrollment of IDTFs,
we believe that unscheduled and
unannounced pre- and post-enrollment
site visits help ensure that suppliers are
operational and meet applicable
supplier standards or performance
standards. In addition, we believe that
unscheduled and unannounced pre- and
post-enrollment site visits are an
essential tool in determining whether a
provider or supplier is in compliance
with its reporting responsibilities,
including the requirement in § 424.516
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
to notify the Medicare contractor of any
change of practice location.
Moreover, § 424.530(a)(5) and
§ 424.535(a)(5) give CMS and its
Medicare contractors the authority to
deny or revoke Medicare billing
privileges for providers and suppliers
respectively if the provider or supplier
is not operational or the provider does
not maintain the established provider or
supplier performance standards. And
while we do not believe that
unscheduled or unannounced site visits
are necessary for all providers and
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
58210
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
suppliers, we do believe that a number
of businesses, like the ones mentioned
below, pose an increased risk to the
Medicare program, due at least in part
to the lack of individual professional
licensure.
Moreover, as discussed below, we
have found that certain types of
providers and suppliers that easily enter
a line or business without clinical or
business experience, for example by
leasing minimal office space and
equipment, present a higher risk of
possible fraud to our programs. As such,
we believe that because these types of
providers pose an increased risk of
fraud they should be subject to
substantial scrutiny before being
permitted to enroll and bill Medicare,
Medicaid, or CHIP. This type of preenrollment scrutiny will help us move
away from the ‘‘pay and chase’’
approach. With the exception of
providers and suppliers that are
publicly traded on the NYSE or
NASDAQ and therefore considered
‘‘limited’’ risk, we propose that the
following prospective provider and
supplier types be considered a
‘‘moderate’’ risk for the purpose of
determining the appropriate level of
screening: nonpublic, non-government
owned or affiliated ambulance service
suppliers, community mental health
centers (CMHCs), comprehensive
outpatient rehabilitation facilities
(CORFs), hospice organizations, IDTFs,
and independent clinical laboratories.
Most of these provider and supplier
types are generally highly dependent on
Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP to pay
their salaries and other operating
expenses and are subject to less
additional other government or
professional oversight than the
providers and suppliers in the limited
risk category. Accordingly, we believe it
is appropriate and necessary to conduct
unscheduled and unannounced preenrollment site visits to ensure that
these prospective providers and
suppliers meet CMS’ enrollment
requirements prior to enrolling in the
Medicare program. Moreover, we
believe that post-enrollment site visits
are also important to ensure that the
enrolled provider or supplier remains a
viable health care provider or supplier
in the Medicare program.
Accordingly, we propose in
§ 424.518(b)(i) that in addition to the
categorical screening tools used with
respect to limited risk providers and
suppliers that Medicare contractors
shall conduct unannounced and
unscheduled site visits prior to
enrolling the following prospective
providers and suppliers with the
exception of providers and suppliers
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
that are publicly traded on the NYSE or
NASDAQ and therefore considered
‘‘limited’’ risk: Nonpublic,
nongovernment owned or affiliated
ambulance services suppliers, CMHCs,
CORFs, hospice organizations, IDTFs,
and independent clinical laboratories.
In addition, we propose that the
following currently enrolled Medicare
providers should be categorized as
‘‘moderate’’: Currently enrolled
(revalidating) home health agencies or
suppliers of DMEPOS. (Except that any
such provider that is publicly traded on
the NYSE or NASDAQ is considered
‘‘limited’’ risk.)
We believe that the providers and
suppliers described above have the
similar risk level as suppliers of
DMEPOS and IDTFs, for both of which
we already require a pre-enrollment site
visit prior to completing the enrollment
process.
We are also proposing in
§ 424.518(b)(ii) that the Medicare
contractor shall conduct an
unannounced and unscheduled preenrollment and/or post-enrollment onsite visit for the following providers and
suppliers that are not publicly traded on
the NYSE or NASDAQ during the
revalidation process: non-public, nongovernment owned or affiliated
ambulance services suppliers; CMHCs,
CORFs, DMEPOS suppliers, HHAs,
hospice organizations, IDTFs, and
independent clinical laboratories. For
the same reasons that we believe that a
Medicare contractor should conduct a
pre-enrollment site visit, we believe that
Medicare contractors should conduct
post-enrollment site visits during the
revalidation process for the provider
and supplier types described above.
HHS OIG and GAO have issued
studies indicating that several of the
provider and supplier types cited above
have an elevated risk. In an October
2007 report titled, ‘‘Growth in Advanced
Imaging Paid under the Medicare
Physician Fee Schedule’’ (OEI–01–06–
00260), the HHS OIG recommended that
CMS consider conducting site visits to
monitor IDTFs’ compliance with
Medicare requirements.’’ In addition, in
an April 2007 report titled, ‘‘Medicare
Hospices: Certification and Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services
Oversight’’ (OEI–06–05–00260), the HHS
OIG recommended that CMS seek
legislation to establish additional
enforcement remedies for poor hospice
performance. In response to this
recommendation, CMS stated that it was
considering whether to pursue new
enforcement remedies for poor hospice
performance. While the Medicare
enrollment process is not designed to
verify the conditions of participation,
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
we do believe that more frequent onsite
visits may help identify those hospice
organizations that are no longer
operational at the practice location
identified on the Medicare enrollment
application.
In a January 2006 report titled,
‘‘Medicare Payments for Ambulance
Transports’’ (OEI–05–02–000590), the
HHS OIG found that ‘‘twenty-five
percent of ambulance transports did not
meet Medicare’s program requirements,
resulting in an estimated $402 million
in improper payments.’’
In an August 2004 report titled,
‘‘Comprehensive Outpatient
Rehabilitation Facilities: High Medicare
Payments in Florida Raise Program
Integrity Concerns’’ (GAO–04–709), the
GAO concluded that, ‘‘[s]izeable
disparities between Medicare therapy
payments per patient to Florida CORFs
and other facility-based outpatient
therapy providers in 2002—with no
clear indication of differences in patient
needs—raise questions about the
appropriateness of CORF billing
practices. After finding high rates of
medically unnecessary therapy services
to CORFs, CMS’s claims administration
contractor for Florida took steps to
ensure appropriate claim payments for a
small, targeted group of CORF patients.
Despite its limited success, billing
irregularities continued among some
CORFs and many CORFs continued to
receive relatively high payments the
following year. This suggests that the
contractor’s efforts were too limited in
scope to be effective with all CORF
providers.’’
In addition to GAO and HHS OIG
studies and reports, a number of Zone
Program Integrity Contractors (ZPIC)
and Program Safeguard Contractors
(PSC), organizations used by CMS in
helping to fight fraud in Medicare, have
taken a number of administrative
actions including payment suspensions
and increased medical review, for the
provider and supplier types shown
above. For example, the Zone 7 ZPIC
contractor in South Florida has
conducted onsite reviews at 62 CORFs
since January 2010 and recommended
revocation for 51 CORFs, or 82 percent
of the CORFS in the area. The same
contractor has conducted an onsite
reviews at 38 CMHCs located in Dade,
Broward and Palm Beach County since
January 2010, and recommended that 30
CMHCs be revoked for noncompliance
(79 percent of the CMHCs in the area).
In each instance where the ZPIC
requested a revocation, the CMHC was
also placed on prepay review. We have
also conducted an analysis of IDTF
licensure requirements and have found
several circumstances that indicate
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
irregularity and potential risk of fraud.
Although independent clinical
laboratories are subject to survey against
CLIA requirements, there are
nonetheless a number of potentials for
fraud, not the least of which is the sheer
volume of service and associated billing
generated by these entities.
Also, while we believe that
prospective suppliers of DMEPOS that
are not publicly-traded on the NYSE or
NASDAQ are a ‘‘high’’ categorical risk
(see discussion below), we believe that
there is ample evidence to support the
use of post-enrollment site visits as a
reliable and effective tool to ensure that
a current supplier of DMEPOS remains
operational and continues to meet the
supplier standards found in § 424.57(c).
In a March 2007 report titled, ‘‘Medical
Equipment Suppliers Compliance with
Medicare Enrollment Requirements’’
(OEI–04–05–00380), the HHS OIG
concluded that, ‘‘By helping to ensure
the legitimacy of DMEPOS suppliers,
out-of cycle site visits may help to
prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in the
Medicare program. CMS may want to
consider the findings of our study as
they determine how and to what extent
out-of-cycle site visits of DMEPOS
suppliers will occur.’’ Today, the NSC
MAC utilizes on post-enrollment site
visits as the primary screening to
determine ongoing compliance with the
enrollment criteria set forth in
§ 424.57(c). Therefore, we have included
currently enrolled DMEPOS suppliers in
the ‘‘moderate’’ category.
We also note that, in addition to the
new screening measures being proposed
in this rule, under the existing
regulation at § 424.517, a Medicare
contractor may conduct an
unannounced or unscheduled site visit
at any time for any provider or supplier
58211
type prior to enrolling a prospective
provider or supplier or for any existing
provider or supplier enrolled in the
Medicare program. While the primary
purpose of an unannounced and
unscheduled site visit is to ensure that
a provider or supplier is operational at
the practice location found on the
Medicare enrollment application, a
Medicare contractor may also verify
established supplier standards or
performance standards other than
conditions of participation (CoP) subject
to survey and certification by the State
Survey agency, where applicable, to
ensure that the supplier remains in
compliance with program requirements.
To assist readers in understanding the
type of providers and suppliers that we
propose to include in the ‘‘moderate’’
risk level, we are providing the
following table.
TABLE 3—MEDICARE PROVIDERS AND SUPPLIERS DESIGNATED AS A ‘‘MODERATE’’ CATEGORICAL RISK FOR SCREENING
PURPOSES
Provider/supplier category
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Community mental health centers; Comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facilities; Hospice organizations; Independent diagnostic testing facilities; Independent clinical laboratories; and Nonpublic, Nongovernment owned or affiliated ambulance services suppliers. (Except that any
such provider or supplier that is publicly traded on the NYSE or NASDAQ is considered ‘‘limited’’ risk.)
Currently enrolled (revalidating) home health agencies. (Except that any such provider that is publicly traded on the NYSE or NASDAQ is considered ‘‘limited’’ risk.)
Currently enrolled (re-validating) suppliers of DMEPOS.(Except that any such supplier that is publicly traded on the NYSE or NASDAQ is considered ‘‘limited’’ risk.)
(3) High
For those provider and supplier
categories within the ‘‘high’’ level of risk,
we propose that, in addition to the
screening tools applicable to the
‘‘limited’’ and ‘‘moderate’’ levels of risk,
Medicare contractors would use the
following screening tools in the
enrollment process: (1) Criminal
background check; and (2) submission
of fingerprints using the FD–258
standard fingerprint card. (The FD–258
fingerprint card is recognized nationally
and can be found at local, county or
State law enforcement agencies where,
for a fee, agencies will supply the card
and take the fingerprints.) We propose
that these tools would be applied to
owners, authorized or delegated officials
or managing employees of any provider
or supplier within the ‘‘high’’ level of
risk. We believe that criminal
background checks will assist CMS in
determining if an individual, such as an
owner, authorized official, or delegated
official, or managing employee of a
high-risk provider or supplier type,
submitted a complete and truthful
Medicare enrollment application and
whether an individual is eligible to
enroll in the Medicare program or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
maintain Medicare billing privileges.
We also believe that use of
fingerprinting will help in verification
of an individual’s identity and help
resolve issues associated with identity
theft as discussed below. We believe
that this position is supported by
testimony of the GAO before the
subcommittees for Health and Oversight
and Ways and Means within the House
of Representatives on June 15, 2010,
stating in part that ‘‘[c]hecking the
background of providers at the time they
apply to become Medicare providers is
a crucial step to reduce the risk of
enrolling providers intent on defrauding
or abusing the program. In particular,
we have recommended stricter scrutiny
of enrollment processes for two types of
providers whose services and items
CMS has identified as especially
vulnerable to improper payments—
home health agencies (HHAs) and
suppliers of durable medical equipment,
prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies
(DMEPOS).’’
In § 424.518(c)(1), we are proposing
that, unless they are publicly traded on
the NYSE or NASDAQ, newly enrolling
HHAs and suppliers of DMEPOS are
within the ‘‘high’’ risk level. Based on
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
our experience and on work conducted
by the HHS OIG and the GAO, and
because we do not have the monitoring
experience with newly enrolling
DMEPOS suppliers or HHAs that we
have with those currently enrolled, we
have placed these providers and
suppliers in the ‘‘high’’ risk category. We
are especially concerned about newly
enrolling HHAs and suppliers of
DMEPOS because of the high number of
HHAs and suppliers of DMEPOS
already enrolled in the Medicare
program and program vulnerabilities
that these entities pose to the Medicare
program. Below is a list of HHS OIG and
GAO reports identifying home health
agencies and suppliers of DMEPOS as
posing an elevated risk to the Medicare
program.
• In a December 2009 report titled,
‘‘Aberrant Medicare Home Health
Outlier Payment Patterns in MiamiDade County and Other Geographic
Areas in 2008’’ (OEI–04–08–00570), the
HHS OIG recommended that CMS
continue with efforts to strengthen
enrollment standards for home health
providers to prevent illegitimate HHAs
from obtaining billing privileges.
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
58212
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
• In a February 2009 report titled,
‘‘Medicare: Improvements Needed to
Address Improper Payments in Home
Health’’ (GAO–09–185), the GAO
concluded that the Medicare enrollment
process does not routinely include
verification of the criminal history of
applicants, and without this information
individuals and businesses that
misrepresent their criminal histories or
have a history of relevant convictions,
such as for fraud, could be allowed to
enter the Medicare program. In addition,
the GAO recommended that CMS assess
the feasibility of verifying the criminal
history of all key officials named on the
Medicare enrollment application.
• In a February 2008 report titled,
‘‘Los Angeles County Suppliers’
Compliance with Medicare Standards:
Results from Unannounced Visits’’
(OEI–09–07–00550) and in a March
2007 report titled, ‘‘South Florida
Suppliers’ Compliance with Medicare
Standards: Results from Unannounced
Visits (OEI–03–07–00150), the HHS OIG
recommended that CMS strengthen the
Medicare DMEPOS supplier enrollment
process and ensure that suppliers meet
Medicare supplier standards. The HHS
OIG provided several options to
implement this recommendation
including: (1) Conducting more
unannounced site visits to suppliers;
(2) performing more rigorous
background checks on applicants; (3)
assessing the fraud risk of suppliers; and
(4) targeting, monitoring, and
enforcement of high-risk suppliers.
• In a September 2005 report titled,
‘‘Medicare: More Effective Screening
and Stronger Enrollment Standards
Needed for Medical Equipment
Suppliers’’ (GAO–05–656), the GAO
concluded that,
CMS is responsible for assuring that
Medicare beneficiaries have access to the
equipment, supplies, and services they need,
and at the same time, for protecting the
program from abusive billing and fraud. The
supplier standards and NSC’s gate keeping
activities were intended to provide assurance
that potential suppliers are qualified and
would comply with Medicare rules.
However, there is overwhelming evidence—
in the form of criminal convictions,
revocations, and recoveries—that the
enrollment processes and the standards are
not strong enough to thoroughly protect the
program from fraudulent entities. We believe
that CMS must focus on strengthening the
standards and overseeing the supplier
enrollment process. It needs to better focus
on ways to scrutinize suppliers to ensure that
they are responsible businesses, analogous to
Federal standards for evaluating potential
contractors.
We recognize that there may also be
circumstances where a particular
provider or supplier or group of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
providers and suppliers may pose a
higher risk of fraud, waste, and abuse
than the level identified for their
category generally. Therefore, in
§ 424.518(c)(3), we are proposing
specific criteria that we would use to
adjust the classification of a provider or
supplier into a higher risk level than
would generally apply to the category of
provider or supplier, in order to address
specific program vulnerabilities. We are
soliciting comments on specific
additional circumstances that might
justify shifting a provider or supplier
into a higher risk level than would
generally apply to its category. We are
also soliciting comment on the criteria
that we could use to shift the risk level
back down.
In § 424.518(c)(3)(i), we are proposing
to adjust a provider or supplier from the
‘‘limited’’ or ‘‘moderate’’ risk level to the
‘‘high’’ risk level when CMS has
evidence from or concerning a
physician or nonphysician practitioner
that another individual is using their
identity within the Medicare program.
While our Medicare contractors have
implemented procedures to reduce the
possibility of identity theft and use of
physician’s identity for the purposes of
enrolling and fraudulently billing the
Medicare program, we believe that we
have a responsibility to all individuals
participating in the Medicare program to
take the necessary steps to investigate
and resolve any allegations of identity
theft. We do not intend to fingerprint
the individual physician or other
eligible professional who has been the
victim of identity or provider number
theft.
In § 424.518(c)(3), we are proposing to
adjust a provider or supplier from the
‘‘limited’’ or ‘‘moderate’’ level of risk to
the ‘‘high’’ level of risk based on: the
provider or supplier having been placed
on a previous payment suspension; or
the provider or supplier has been
excluded by the HHS OIG or had its
Medicare billing privileges denied or
revoked by a Medicare contractor within
the previous 10 years and is attempting
to establish additional Medicare billing
privileges for a new practice location or
by enrolling as a new provider or
supplier. In addition, we believe that
providers that have been terminated or
otherwise precluded from billing
Medicaid should be adjusted from the
‘‘limited’’ or ‘‘moderate’’ category to the
‘‘high’’ category. We believe that such
providers or suppliers pose an elevated
level of risk to the Medicare program.
In § 424.518(c)(3)(iv), we are
proposing to adjust providers or
suppliers from the ‘‘limited’’ or
‘‘moderate’’ level of risk to the ‘‘high’’
level of risk for 6 months after CMS lifts
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
a temporary moratorium (see section
II.C. of this proposed rule) applicable to
such providers or suppliers. This would
include providers and suppliers
revalidating their enrollment if the
moratorium is applicable to the provider
or supplier type. We are seeking
comments on criteria that would justify
recategorization of providers or
suppliers from the ‘‘limited’’ or
‘‘moderate’’ category to the ‘‘high’’
category. We are also seeking comment
on criteria appropriate to the
recategorization from ‘‘high’’ to
‘‘moderate’’ or ‘‘limited.’’ We are seeking
comment on the applicability of
geographical circumstances as a
possible criterion for adjusting
providers or suppliers from one risk
level to another. We are also seeking
comments on whether non-practitionerowned facilities and suppliers should be
subject to a higher level of screening
than their practitioner-owned
counterparts or, whether there is an
appropriate corresponding trigger for
non-practitioner owned facilities and
suppliers. We are seeking comment on
whether providers and suppliers should
be subject to higher levels of screening
when the provider specialty does not
match clinic type on an enrollment
application. We are seeking comment on
what objective conditions might support
a broad category of circumstances or
factors that would allow us to determine
that provider screening levels of risk
should be based on ‘‘other conditions or
factors that CMS determines are
necessary to combat fraud, waste, and
abuse.’’
We are seeking public comment on
the appropriateness of using criminal
background checks in the provider
enrollment screening process, including
the instances when such background
checks might be appropriate, the
process of notifying a provider, supplier
or individual that a criminal
background check is to be performed,
and the frequency of such checks.
We are also seeking comment on the
use of fingerprinting as a screening
measure in our programs. We recognize
that requesting, collecting, analyzing,
and checking fingerprints from
providers and suppliers are complex
and sensitive undertakings that place
certain burdens on affected individuals.
There are privacy concerns and
operational concerns about how to
assure individual privacy, how to check
fingerprints against appropriate law
enforcement fingerprint databases, and
how to store the results of the query of
the data bases and also how to handle
the subsequent analysis of the results.
As a result, we are soliciting comments
on how CMS or an approved contractor
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
should maintain and store fingerprints,
what security processes and measures
are needed to protect the privacy of
individuals, and any other issues related
to the use of fingerprints in the
enrollment screening process. As
indicated in other portions of the
document, we think fingerprints would
be useful in situations where a
provider’s identity has been
compromised or potentially
compromised. We are interested in
comments on this and other possible
circumstances in which fingerprinting
would be potentially useful in provider
screening or other fraud prevention
efforts. Our proposed screening
approach contemplates requesting
fingerprints from providers and
suppliers categorized as presenting a
‘‘high’’ risk of fraud. We are seeking
comment on this requirement, the
circumstances under which it is
appropriate, limitations on its use and
any alternatives to the proposed
approach regarding fingerprints. Our
proposed approach would allow denial
of billing privileges to newly enrolled
providers and suppliers and revocation
of billing privileges for revalidating
providers and suppliers if owners or
officials of providers or suppliers refuse
to submit fingerprints when requested
to do so. We are seeking comments on
this proposal including its
appropriateness and utility as a fraud
prevention tool. In addition, we are also
seeking comment on the applicability
and appropriateness of using, in
addition to or in lieu of fingerprinting,
other enhanced identification
techniques and secure forms of
identification including but not limited
to other biological or biometric
58213
techniques, passports, United States
Military identification, or Real ID
drivers licenses. As technology and
secure identification techniques change,
the tools we use may change to reflect
improvements or shifts in technology or
in risk identification. We are seeking
comment on the appropriate uses of
these techniques
We note that any physician or nonphysician practitioner or organizational
provider or supplier that is denied
enrollment into the Medicare program
or whose Medicare billing privileges are
revoked is afforded due process rights
under § 405.874.
To assist readers in understanding the
type of providers and suppliers that we
propose to include in the ‘‘high’’ risk
level, we are providing the following
table.
TABLE 4—MEDICARE PROVIDERS AND SUPPLIERS DESIGNATED AS A ‘‘HIGH’’ CATEGORICAL RISK FOR SCREENING
PURPOSES
Provider/supplier category
Prospective (newly enrolling) home health agencies and suppliers of DMEPOS. (Except that any such provider or supplier that is publicly traded
on the NYSE or NASDAQ is considered ‘‘limited’’ risk.)
The new screening procedures
implemented pursuant to new section
1866(j)(2) of the Act would be
applicable to newly enrolling providers
and suppliers, beginning on March 23,
2011. These new screening procedures
would also be applicable beginning on
March 23, 2011 for those providers and
suppliers currently enrolled in
Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP who
revalidate their enrollment information.
For Medicare, this will impact those
providers and suppliers whose
revalidation cycle results in revalidation
occurring between March 23, 2011 and
March 23, 2012. Finally, these new
procedures would be applicable to
currently enrolled Medicare, Medicaid,
and CHIP providers and suppliers
beginning on March 23, 2012, in
accordance with section 1866(j)(2)(ii) of
the Act. As such, some providers and
suppliers may be required to revalidate
their enrollment outside of their regular
revalidation cycle.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
b. General Screening of Providers—
Medicaid and CHIP
Section 1902(ii)(1) of the Act requires
that States comply with the process for
screening providers established by the
Secretary under section 1866(j)(2) of the
Act 4. Section 2107(e)(1) of the Act
4 As noted previously, we believe that the
reference to section 1886(j)(2) of the Act in section
6401(b)(1) of the Affordable Care Act is a scrivener’s
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
provides that all provisions that apply
to Medicaid under sections 1902(a)(77)
and 1902(ii) of the Act apply to CHIP.
We propose in new regulation § 457.990
that all the provider screening, provider
application, and moratorium regulations
that apply to Medicaid providers will
apply to providers that participate in
CHIP. In addition, in this proposed rule,
we refer to State Medicaid agencies as
responsible for screening Medicaid-only
providers. CHIP is often not
administered by the Medicaid agency.
Throughout this proposed rule, with
respect to those instances, ‘‘State
Medicaid agency’’ should be read as
‘‘Children’s Health Insurance Program
agency.’’
Because it would be inefficient and
costly to require States to conduct the
same screening activities that Medicare
contractors perform for dually-enrolled
providers, we are proposing that a State
may rely on the results of the screening
conducted by a Medicare contractor to
meet the provider screening
requirements under Medicaid and CHIP.
Similarly, we propose in § 455.410 that
State Medicaid agencies may rely on the
results of the provider screening
performed by their sister State Medicaid
programs and CHIP. For Medicaid-only
providers or CHIP-only providers, we
are proposing that States follow the
error, and that the Congress intended to refer
instead to section 1866(j)(2) of the Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
same screening procedures that CMS or
its contractors follow with respect to
Medicare providers and suppliers.
As noted above, section 1902(ii)(1) of
the Act requires that State screening
methods follow those performed under
the Medicare program. For the sake of
brevity, we will not restate those
methods verbatim. We propose that
States follow the rationale that we have
set forth for Medicare in section II.A.3.
of this proposed rule, and that we use
as the basis for § 455.450. For the types
of providers that are recognized as a
provider or supplier under the Medicare
program, States will use the same risk
level that is assigned to that category of
provider by Medicare. For those
Medicaid and CHIP provider types that
are not recognized by Medicare, States
will assess the risk posed by a particular
provider or provider type. States should
examine their programs to identify
specific providers or provider types that
may present increased risks of fraud,
waste or abuse to their Medicaid
programs or CHIP. States are uniquely
qualified to understand issues involved
with balancing beneficiaries’ access to
medical assistance and ensuring the
fiscal integrity of the Medicaid programs
and CHIP. However, where applicable,
we expect that States will assess the risk
of fraud, waste, and abuse using similar
criteria to those used in Medicare. For
example, physicians and non-physician
practitioners, medical groups and
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
58214
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
clinics that are State-licensed or Stateregulated would generally be
categorized as limited risk, as would
providers publicly traded on the NYSE
or NASDAQ. Those provider types that
are generally highly dependent on
Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP to pay
salaries and other operating expenses
and which are not subject to additional
government or professional oversight
would be considered moderate risk, and
those provider types identified by the
State as being especially vulnerable to
improper payments would be
considered high risk. States will then
screen the provider using the screening
tools applicable to that risk assigned.
However, we are not proposing to limit
or otherwise preclude the ability of
States to engage in provider screening
activities beyond those required under
section 1866(j)(2) of the Act, including,
but not limited to, assigning a particular
provider type to a higher risk level than
the level assigned by Medicare.
As with the proposed screening
provisions for Medicare, we are
soliciting comments on the applicability
of these proposals for Medicaid as well.
We are seeking comment on the
proposed assignment of specific
provider types to established risk
categories, including whether such
assignments should be released
publicly, whether they should be
reconsidered and updated according to
an established schedule, and what
criteria should be considered in making
such assignments.
Based on the level of risk assigned to
a provider or provider type, we propose
that States conduct the following
screenings:
TABLE 5—CATEGORY OF RISK AND REQUIRED SCREENING FOR MEDICAID AND CHIP PROVIDERS
Limited
Moderate
High
Verification of any provider/supplier-specific requirements established by Medicaid/CHIP ...................
Conduct license verifications (may include licensure checks across State lines) ..................................
Database Checks (to verify SSN and NPI, the NPDB, licensure, a HHS OIG exclusion, taxpayer
identification number, tax delinquency, death of individual practitioner, and persons with an ownership or control interest or who are agents or managing employees of the provider) .........................
Unscheduled or Unannounced Site Visits ...............................................................................................
Criminal Background Check ....................................................................................................................
Fingerprinting ...........................................................................................................................................
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Type of Screening Required
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
....................
....................
....................
X
X
....................
....................
X
X
X
X
All States do not routinely require
persons with an ownership or control
interest or who are agents or managing
employees of the provider to submit
SSNs or dates of birth (DOBs). Without
such critical personal identifiers, it is
difficult to be certain of the identity of
persons with an ownership or control
interest or who are agents or managing
employees of the provider, and it may
be difficult for States to conduct the
screening proposed under this rule.
Accordingly, and to be consistent with
Medicare requirements, pursuant to our
general rulemaking authority under
section 1102 of the Act, we propose in
§ 455.104 to require that States will
require submission of SSNs and DOBs
for all persons with an ownership or
control interest in a provider. In
addition to the amendment to § 455.104,
we are proposing to revise that section
for the sake of clarity both for the
disclosing entities’ provision and the
States’ collection of the disclosures. We
recognize that there may be privacy
concerns raised by the submission of
this personally identifiable information
as well as concerns about how the States
will assure individual privacy as
appropriate; however, we believe this
personally identifiable information is
necessary for States to adequately
conduct the provider screening
activities under this proposed rule. We
are seeking comment specifically on this
issue.
Although the level of screening may
vary depending on the risk of fraud,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
waste or abuse the provider represents
to the Medicaid program or CHIP, under
section 1866(j)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, all
providers would be subject to licensure
checks. Therefore, we are proposing that
States be required to verify the status of
a provider’s license by the State of
issuance and whether there are any
current limitations on that license.
As stated above, pursuant to section
2107(e)(1) of the Act, all provisions that
apply to Medicaid under sections
1902(a)(77) and 1902(ii) of the Act apply
to CHIP. Because we are proposing a
new regulation in Part 457 under which
all provider screening requirements that
apply to Medicaid providers will apply
to providers that participate in CHIP,
these requirements for provider
screening and assigning of categories of
risk of fraud, waste, or abuse, as well as
verification of licensure, under
§ 455.412 and § 455.450 will apply in
CHIP.
1. Database Checks—Medicaid and
CHIP
States employ several database
checks, including database checks with
the Social Security Administration and
the NPPES, to confirm the identity of an
individual or to ensure that a person
with an ownership or control interest is
eligible to participate in the Medicaid
program.
A critical element of Medicaid
program integrity is the assurance that
persons with an ownership or control
interest or who are agents or managing
employees of the provider do not
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
receive payments when excluded or
debarred from such payments.
Accordingly, in § 455.436, we propose
that States be required to screen all
persons disclosed under § 455.104
against the OIG’s LEIE and the General
Services Administration’s EPLS. We
propose that States be required to
conduct such screenings upon initial
enrollment and monthly thereafter for as
long as that provider is enrolled in the
Medicaid program.
We also propose at § 455.450, as well
as § 455.436, that database checks be
conducted on all providers on a preand post-enrollment basis to ensure that
providers continue to meet the
enrollment criteria for their provider
type.
As stated above, pursuant to section
2107(e)(1) of the Act, all provisions that
apply to Medicaid under sections
1902(a)(77) and 1902(ii) of the Act apply
to CHIP. Because we are proposing a
new regulation in Part 457 under which
all provider screening requirements that
apply to Medicaid providers will apply
to providers that participate in CHIP,
this requirement for database checks
under § 455.436 will apply in CHIP.
2. Unscheduled and Unannounced Site
Visits—Medicaid and CHIP
Section 1866(j)(2)(B)(ii)(III) of the Act
states that the Secretary, based on the
level of fraud, waste, and abuse, may
conduct unscheduled and unannounced
site visits, including pre-enrollment site
visits, for prospective providers and
those providers already enrolled in the
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Medicare and Medicaid programs and
CHIP.
Some States already require site visits,
often for provider categories at
increased risk of fraud, waste or abuse
such as home health and nonemergency transportation. According to
FY 08 State Program Integrity
Assessment (SPIA) data, at least 16
States report that they perform some
type of site visits. However, such efforts
vary widely across the country and are
subject to budget shortfalls.
We are also proposing to require in
§ 455.432 and § 455.450(b) that States
must conduct pre-enrollment and postenrollment site visits for those
categories of providers the State
designates as being in the ‘‘moderate’’ or
‘‘high’’ level of risk.
Further, in § 455.432, pursuant to our
general rulemaking authority under
section 1102 of the Act, we are
proposing that any enrolled provider
must permit the State Medicaid agency
and CMS, including CMS’ agents or its
designated contractors, to conduct
unannounced on-site inspections to
ensure that the provider is operational
at any and all provider locations.
We maintain that site visits are
essential in determining whether a
provider is operational at the practice
location found on the Medicaid
enrollment agreement. We expect these
requirements to increase the number of
both pre-enrollment and postenrollment site visits for those provider
types that pose an increased financial
risk of fraud, waste, or abuse to the
Medicaid program.
We propose that failure to permit
access for site visits would be a basis for
denial or termination of Medicaid
enrollment as specified in § 455.416.
As stated above, pursuant to section
2107(e)(1) of the Act, all provisions that
apply to Medicaid under sections
1902(a)(77) and 1902(ii) of the Act apply
to CHIP. Because we are proposing a
new regulation in Part 457 under which
all provider screening requirements that
apply to Medicaid providers will apply
to providers that participate in CHIP,
this requirement for site visits under
§ 455.432 will apply in CHIP.
3. Provider Enrollment and Provider
Termination—Medicaid and CHIP
States may refuse to enroll or may
terminate the enrollment agreement of
providers for a number of reasons
related to a provider’s status or history,
including an exclusion from Medicare,
Medicaid, or any other Federal health
care program, conviction of a criminal
offense related to Medicare or Medicaid,
or submission of false or misleading
information on the Medicaid enrollment
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
application. Failure to provide
disclosures is another reason for
termination from participation in the
Medicaid program.
Federal regulations beginning at
§ 455.100 require certain disclosures by
providers to States before enrollment.
States require additional disclosures
prior to enrollment. Some States require
periodic re-enrollment and disclosure at
that time. However, States vary in the
frequency of such re-disclosures.
Providers are also inconsistent in
keeping their enrollment information
current, including items as elementary
as their address.
We are proposing, at § 455.414,
pursuant to our general rulemaking
authority under section 1102 of the Act,
that all providers undergo screening
pursuant to the procedures outlined
herein at least once every 5 years,
consistent with current Medicare
requirements for revalidation.
In § 455.416, we propose to establish
termination provisions, requiring States
to deny or terminate the enrollment of
providers: (1) Where any person with an
ownership or control interest or who is
an agent or managing employee of the
provider does not submit timely and
accurate disclosure information or fails
to cooperate with all required screening
methods; (2) that are terminated on or
after January 1, 2011 by Medicare or any
other Medicaid program or CHIP (see
section II.F. of this proposed rule); and
(3) where the provider or any person
with an ownership or control interest or
who is an agent or managing employee
of the provider fails to submit sets of
fingerprints within 30 days of a State
agency or CMS request. We propose to
permit States to deny enrollment to a
provider if the provider has falsified any
information on an application if CMS or
the State cannot verify the identity of
the applicant. We also propose to
require States to deny enrollment to
providers, unless States determine in
writing that denial of enrollment is not
in the best interests of the State’s
Medicaid program, in these
circumstances: (1) The provider or a
person with an ownership or control
interest or who is an agent or managing
employee of the provider fails to
provide accurate information; (2) the
provider fails to provide access to the
provider’s locations for site visits, or (3)
the provider, or any person with an
ownership or control interest, or who is
an agent or managing employee of the
provider has been convicted of a
criminal offense related to that person’s
involvement in Medicare, Medicaid, or
CHIP in the last ten years. We believe
that providers can significantly reduce
the likelihood of fraud, waste or abuse
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
58215
by providing and maintaining timely
and accurate Medicaid enrollment
information. We believe the Medicaid
program will be better protected by not
allowing persons with serious criminal
offenses related to Medicare, Medicaid,
and CHIP to serve as providers.
We propose at § 455.416 that the State
be allowed to deny an initial enrollment
application or agreement submitted by a
provider or terminate the Medicaid
enrollment of a provider, including an
individual physician or non-physician
practitioner, if CMS or the State is not
able to verify an individual’s identity,
eligibility to participate in the Medicaid
program, or determines that information
on the Medicaid enrollment application
was falsified.
In § 455.420, we propose to require
that any providers whose enrollment
has been denied or terminated must
undergo screening and pay all
appropriate application fees again to
enroll or re-enroll as a Medicaid
provider.
We propose at § 455.422 that in the
event of termination under § 455.416,
the State Medicaid agency must give a
provider any appeal rights available
under State law or rule.
As stated above, pursuant to section
2107(e)(1) of the Act, all provisions that
apply to Medicaid under sections
1902(a)(77) and 1902(ii) of the Act apply
to CHIP. Because we are proposing a
new regulation in Part 457 under which
all provider screening requirements that
apply to Medicaid providers will apply
to providers that participate in CHIP,
these requirements for provider
enrollment, provider termination, and
provider appeal rights under §§ 455.414,
455.416, 455.420, and 455.422 will
apply in CHIP.
4. Criminal Background Checks and
Fingerprinting—Medicaid and CHIP
Section 1866(j)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act
allows the Secretary to use
fingerprinting during the screening
process; and while several States have
implemented procedures to require
fingerprinting of physicians and nonphysician practitioners as a condition of
licensure, we maintain that if a State
designates a provider as within the
‘‘high’’ level of risk as described
previously, each person with an
ownership or control interest of that
provider or who is an agent or managing
employee of the provider should be
subject to fingerprinting.
We maintain that adding
fingerprinting to State screening
processes for those providers that pose
the greatest risk to the Medicaid
program will allow CMS and the State
to: (1) Verify The individual’s identity;
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
58216
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(2) determine whether the individual is
eligible is participate in the Medicaid
program; (3) ensure the validity of
information collected during the
Medicaid enrollment process; and (4)
prevent and detect identity theft.
Ensuring the identity of ‘‘high’’ risk
Medicaid providers through
fingerprinting protects both the
Medicaid program and providers whose
identities might otherwise be stolen as
part of a scheme to defraud Medicaid.
In addition, while § 455.106 requires
providers to submit information to the
Medicaid agency on criminal
convictions related to Medicare and
Medicaid and title XX, current
regulations do not require States to
verify data submitted as part of the
Medicaid enrollment application and
they are sometimes not able to verify
information that was purposefully
omitted or changed in a manner to
obfuscate any previous criminal
activity. According to fiscal year (FY)
2008 SPIA data, at least 20 States report
that they conduct some type of criminal
background check as part of their
Medicaid enrollment practices.
Elements of a robust criminal
background check could include, but
are not necessarily limited to: (1)
Conducting national and State criminal
records checks; and (2) requiring
submission of fingerprints to be used for
conducting the criminal records check
and verification of identity.
We are proposing in § 455.434 and
§ 455.450 for those categories of
providers that a State Medicaid agency
determines is within the ‘‘high’’ level of
risk, the State must: (1) Conduct a
criminal background check of each
person with an ownership or control
interest or who is an agent or managing
employee of the provider, and (2)
require that each person with an
ownership or control interest or who is
an agent or managing employee of the
provider to submit his or her
fingerprints. While the FD–258
fingerprint card is recognized nationally
and can be found at local, county, or
State law enforcement agencies where,
for a fee, agencies will supply the card
and take the fingerprints, the State
Medicaid agency has the discretion to
determine the form and manner of
submission of fingerprints.
At § 455.434, we propose that the
State Medicaid agency must require
providers or any person with an
ownership or control interest or who is
an agent or managing employee of the
provider to submit fingerprints in
response to a State’s or CMS’ request.
We are seeking public comment on
the appropriateness of using criminal
background checks in the provider
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
enrollment screening process, including
the instances when such background
checks might be appropriate, the
process of notifying a provider or
individual that a criminal background
check is to be performed, and the
frequency of such checks.
We are also seeking comment on the
use of fingerprinting as a screening
measure. We recognize that requesting,
collecting, analyzing, and checking
fingerprints from providers are complex
and sensitive undertakings that place
certain burdens on affected individuals.
There are privacy concerns and
operational concerns about how to
assure individual privacy, how to check
fingerprints against appropriate law
enforcement fingerprint databases, and
how to store the results of the query of
the databases and also how to handle
the subsequent analysis of the results.
As a result, we are soliciting comments
on how CMS or a State Medicaid agency
should maintain and store fingerprints,
what security processes and measures
are needed to protect the privacy of
individuals, and any other issues related
to the use of fingerprints in the
enrollment screening process. As
indicated in other portions of the
document, we think fingerprints would
be useful in situations where a
provider’s identity has been
compromised or potentially
compromised. We are interested in
comments on this and other possible
circumstances in which fingerprinting
would be potentially useful in provider
screening or other fraud prevention
efforts. Our proposed screening
approach contemplates requesting
fingerprints from providers categorized
as presenting a ‘‘high’’ risk of fraud. We
are seeking comment on whether this is
an appropriate requirement, the
circumstances under which it might be
appropriate or inappropriate, and any
alternatives to the proposed approach
regarding fingerprints. Our proposed
approach would allow States to deny
enrollment to newly-enrolling providers
and to terminate existing providers if
individuals who have an ownership or
control interest in the provider or who
are agents or managing employees of the
provider refuse to submit fingerprints
when requested to do so. We are seeking
comments on this proposal including its
appropriateness and utility as a fraud
prevention tool.
In addition, we are also seeking
comment on the applicability and
appropriateness of using, in addition to
or in lieu of fingerprinting, other
enhanced identification techniques and
secure forms of identification including
but not limited to passports, United
States Military identification, or Real ID
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
drivers licenses. As technology and
secure identification techniques change,
the tools we or State Medicaid agencies
use may change to reflect changes in
technology or in risk identification. We
are seeking comment on the appropriate
uses of these techniques and the ways
in which we should notify the public
about any tools CMS or State Medicaid
agencies would adopt. We also welcome
comments on whether there should be
differences allowed between Federal
and State techniques, or among States,
and if so, on what basis.
As stated above, pursuant to section
2107(e)(1) of the Act, all provisions that
apply to Medicaid under sections
1902(a)(77) and 1902(ii) of the Act apply
to CHIP. Because we are proposing a
new regulation in Part 457 under which
all provider screening requirements that
apply to Medicaid providers will apply
to providers that participate in CHIP,
these requirements for criminal
background checks and fingerprinting
under § 455.434 will apply in CHIP.
5. Deactivation and Reactivation of
Provider Enrollment—Medicaid and
CHIP
Section 1902(ii)(1) of the Act requires
the screening of Medicaid providers to
ensure they are eligible to provide
services and receive payments. While
the ACA does not specifically require it,
we maintain that it is important to the
protection of the Medicaid program and
consistent with longstanding Medicare
requirements to identify and deactivate
the enrollment of inactive Medicaid
providers.
Accordingly, in § 455.418, we propose
that any Medicaid provider that has not
submitted any claims or made a referral
that resulted in a Medicaid claim for a
period of 12 consecutive months must
have its Medicaid provider enrollment
deactivated. Further, we propose that
any such provider wishing to be
reinstated to the Medicaid program
must first undergo all disclosures and
screening required of any other
applicant. In addition, the provider
must pay any associated application
fees under § 455.426.
As stated above, pursuant to section
2107(e)(1) of the Act, all provisions that
apply to Medicaid under sections
1902(a)(77) and 1902(ii) of the Act apply
to CHIP. Because we are proposing a
new regulation in Part 457 under which
all provider screening requirements that
apply to Medicaid providers will apply
to providers that participate in CHIP,
this requirement for deactivation of
provider enrollment under § 455.418
will apply in CHIP.
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
6. Enrollment and NPI of Ordering or
Referring Providers—Medicaid and
CHIP
Section 1902(ii)(7) of the Act provides
that States must require all ordering or
referring physicians or other
professionals to be enrolled under a
Medicaid State plan or waiver of the
plan as a participating provider.
Further, the NPI of such ordering or
referring provider or other professional
must be on any Medicaid claim for
payment based on an order or referral
from that physician or other
professional.
Providers and suppliers under
Medicare and providers in the Medicaid
program are already subject to the
requirement that the NPI be on
applications to enroll and on all claims
for payment, pursuant to section 6402(a)
of the ACA, amending section 1128J of
the Act, and under § 424.506, § 424.507,
and § 431.107, as amended by the May
5, 2010 interim final rule with comment
(75 FR 24437).
In § 455.410, we propose that any
physician or other professional ordering
or referring services for Medicaid
beneficiaries must be enrolled as a
participating provider by the State in
the Medicaid program. This applies
equally to fee-for-service providers or
MCE network-level providers.
Additionally, we propose to amend
§ 438.6 to require that States must
include in their contracts with MCEs a
requirement that all ordering and
referring network-level MCE providers
be enrolled in the Medicaid program, as
are fee-for-service providers, and thus
are screened directly by the State.
Although the NPI requirements in
section 6402(a) of the ACA did not
extend to CHIP providers, section 6401
of the ACA does apply equally to CHIP,
and the proposed requirement herein for
ordering and referring physicians or
other professionals under the Medicaid
program would apply equally under
CHIP.
In addition, in § 455.440, we propose
that all claims for payment for services
ordered or referred by such a physician
or other professional must include the
NPI of the ordering or referring
physician or other professional. This
applies equally to fee-for-service
providers or MCE network-level
providers.
It is essential that all such claims have
the ordering or referring NPI and that
the State has properly screened the
ordering or referring physician or other
professional. Without such assurances,
it is difficult for CMS or the State to
determine the validity of individual
claims for payment or to conduct
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
effective data mining to identify
patterns of fraud, waste, and abuse.
As stated above, pursuant to section
2107(e)(1) of the Act, all provisions that
apply to Medicaid under sections
1902(a)(77) and 1902(ii) of the Act apply
to CHIP. Because we are proposing a
new regulation in Part 457 under which
all provider screening requirements that
apply to Medicaid providers will apply
to providers that participate in CHIP,
these requirements for provider
enrollment and NPI under §§ 455.410
and 455.440 will apply in CHIP.
7. Other State Screening—Medicaid and
CHIP
Section 1902(ii)(8) of the Act
establishes that States are not limited in
their abilities to engage in provider
screening beyond those required by the
Secretary. Accordingly, in § 455.452, we
propose that States may utilize
additional screening methods, in
accordance with their approved State
plan.
As stated above, pursuant to section
2107(e)(1) of the Act, all provisions that
apply to Medicaid under sections
1902(a)(77) and 1902(ii) of the Act apply
to CHIP. Because we are proposing a
new regulation in Part 457 under which
all provider screening requirements that
apply to Medicaid providers will apply
to providers that participate in CHIP,
this requirement for other State
screening under § 455.452 will apply in
CHIP.
B. Application Fee—Medicare,
Medicaid, and CHIP
1. Statutory Changes
Section 6401(a) of the ACA, as
amended by section 10603 of the ACA,
amended section 1866(j) of the Act and
requires the Secretary of DHHS to
impose a fee on each ‘‘institutional
provider of medical or other items or
services or supplier,’’ The fee would be
used by the Secretary to cover the cost
of screening and to carry out the
screening and other program integrity
efforts under section 1866(j) and section
1128J of the Act. Since section 10603 of
the ACA excludes eligible professionals,
such as physicians and nurse
practitioners, from paying an enrollment
application fee, we maintain that an
‘‘institutional provider of medical or
other items or services or supplier’’
would be any health care provider that
bills Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP on a
fee-for-service basis, with the exception
of Part B medical groups or clinics and
physician and nonphysician
practitioners who submit the CMS 855I
to enroll in Medicare.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
58217
Section 1866(j)(2)(D)(i) of the Act
states that the new screening procedures
implemented pursuant to section 6401
of the ACA would be applicable to
newly enrolling providers, suppliers,
and eligible professionals who are not
enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP
by March 23, 2011. Accordingly, the
enrollment application fees for newly
enrolling institutional providers and
suppliers would be applicable on that
date as well.
Section 1866(j)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act
states that the new screening procedures
will apply to currently enrolled
Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP
providers, suppliers, and eligible
professionals beginning on March 23,
2012. However, because the new
procedures will be applicable beginning
on March 23, 2011 for those providers,
suppliers, (and eligible professionals)
currently enrolled in Medicare,
Medicaid and CHIP that revalidate their
enrollment information, we will begin
collecting the application fee for those
revalidating entities for all revalidation
activities beginning after March 23,
2011.
Section 1866(j)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act
permits the Secretary, acting through
CMS, to, on a case-by-case basis, exempt
a provider or supplier from the
imposition of an application fee if CMS
determines that the imposition of the
enrollment application fee would result
in a hardship. It also permits the
Secretary to waive the enrollment
application fee for Medicaid providers
for whom the State demonstrates that
imposition of the fee would impede
Medicaid beneficiaries’ access to care.
Section 1866(j)(2)(C)(i)(I) of the Act
establishes a $500 application fee for
providers and suppliers in 2010. For
2011 and each subsequent year, the
amount of the fee would be the amount
for the preceding year, adjusted by the
percentage change in the consumer
price index for all urban consumers (all
items; United States city average), (CPI–
U) for the 12-month period ending with
June of the previous year. To ease the
administration of the fee, if the
adjustment sets the fee at an uneven
dollar amount, CMS will round the fee
to the nearest whole dollar amount.
2. Proposed Provisions
In § 424.502, we also propose to
establish a definition for an
‘‘institutional provider’’ as it relates to
the submission of an application fee. We
propose that an ‘‘institutional provider’’
means any provider or supplier that
submits a paper Medicare enrollment
application using the CMS–855A, CMS–
855B (but not physician and
nonphysician practitioner
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
58218
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
organizations), or CMS–855S or
associated Internet-based PECOS
enrollment application.
For purposes of Medicare, Medicaid,
and CHIP, we interpret the statutory
reference to ‘‘institutional provider[s] of
medical or other items or services or
supplier’’ to include, but not be limited
to: the range of ambulance service
suppliers; ASCs; CMHCs; CORFs;
DMEPOS suppliers; ESRD facilities;
FQHCs; histocompatibility laboratories;
HHAs; hospices; hospitals, including
but not limited to acute inpatient
facilities, inpatient psychiatric facilities
(IPFs), inpatient rehabilitation facilities
(IRFs), and physician-owned specialty
hospitals; CAHs; independent clinical
laboratories; IDTFs; mammography
centers; mass immunizers (roster
billers); OPOs; outpatient physical
therapy/occupational therapy/speech
pathology services, portable x-ray
suppliers; SNFs; slide preparation
facilities; radiation therapy centers;
RNHCIs; and RHCs.
In addition to the providers and
suppliers listed above, for purposes of
Medicaid and CHIP, we propose that a
State may impose the application fee on
any institutional entity that bills the
State Medicaid program or CHIP on a
fee-for-service basis, such as: Personal
care agencies, non-emergency
transportation providers, and residential
treatment centers, in accordance with
the approved Medicaid or CHIP State
plan.
We propose that an application fee
will not be required from an eligible
professional who reassigns Medicare
benefits to another individual or
organization, since it would not create
a new enrollment of an institutional
provider or supplier that would result in
an application fee. In addition, we
propose that in no case would the
application fee be required from any
individual physician or Part B medical
group/clinic.
We propose that an application fee
will be required with the submission of
an initial enrollment application, the
application to establish a new practice
location, as a part of revalidation, or in
response to a Medicare contractor
revalidation request.
We are proposing that prospective
institutional providers and suppliers as
well as currently enrolled providers
who are re-enrolling or revalidating
their enrollment in Medicare must
submit the applicable application fee or
submit a request for a hardship
exception to the application fee at the
time of filing a Medicare enrollment
application on or after March 23, 2011
in the case of prospective providers or
suppliers, and in the case of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
revalidations. We believe that it is
essential that a Medicare contractor be
able to receive and deposit the
application fee or consider the
institutional provider’s request for a
hardship exception prior to initiating an
application review. Therefore, Medicare
contractors would not begin processing
an application for either a new provider
or supplier, or for a provider or supplier
that is currently enrolled, until the
enrollment application fee is received
and is credited to the United States
Treasury.
The fee would accompany the
certification statement that the provider
or supplier signs, dates, and mails to the
Medicare contractor if the provider or
supplier uses Internet-based PECOS to
enroll or revalidate. The fee would
accompany the paper CMS–855
provider enrollment application if the
provider or supplier enrolls or
revalidates by paper. Because the
statutory provisions are effective for
newly enrolling providers and suppliers
effective March 23, 2011 institutional
providers and suppliers will not be
required to furnish the application fee
with applications submitted before that
date. However, because the ACA
provides that the new procedures will
be applicable beginning on March 23,
2011 for those providers and suppliers,
(and eligible professionals) currently
enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and
CHIP that revalidate their enrollment
information, CMS will begin collecting
the application fee for those revalidating
entities for all revalidation activities
beginning after March 23, 2011. We will
not collect the fee from individual
physicians and eligible professionals.
We propose that the Medicare
contractor reject and return to the
provider or supplier an initial
enrollment application submitted by a
provider or supplier, without further
review as to whether the provider or
supplier qualifies to enroll in the
Medicare program, when the Medicare
enrollment application or the
Certification Statement is received by
the Medicare contractor and the
provider or supplier did not include a
request for hardship exception to the
application fee, did not include the
application fee or the appropriate
number of application fees, if
applicable. We do not believe that it is
appropriate for a Medicare contractor to
begin the application review process
without first having received the
application fee.
We propose that the Medicare
contractor reject any initial enrollment
applications submitted after March 23,
2011, if a provider or a supplier did not
furnish the application fee at the time of
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
filing, using § 424.525(a)(3) as the legal
basis for the rejection.
In § 424.525(a)(3), we propose adding
a new reason why a Medicare contractor
could reject an initial enrollment
application or an application to
establish a new practice location.
Specifically, we are proposing a new
§ 424.525(a)(3) to state, ‘‘The prospective
institutional provider or supplier does
not submit an application fee in the
appropriate amount or a hardship
exception request with the Medicare
enrollment application at the time of
filing.’’
We also believe that a Medicare
contractor should be allowed to reject
an initial enrollment application
received from a provider or supplier on
or after March 23, 2011, using
§ 424.525(a)(1) as the legal basis, if, for
any reason, CMS or the Medicare
contractor is not able to deposit the full
application amount into a governmentowned account and credited to the U.S.
Treasury. In the case where a provider
or supplier did not submit the
application fee because they requested a
hardship exception that is not granted,
a provider or supplier has 30 days from
the date on which the contractor sends
notice of the rejection of the hardship
exception request to send in the
required application fee and application
forms.
In § 424.535, we propose adding a
new reason why a Medicare contractor
can revoke Medicare billing privileges.
Specifically, we are proposing a new
§ 424.535(a)(6)(i) to state that billing
privileges may be revoked if ‘‘An
institutional provider does not submit
an application fee or hardship exception
request that meets the requirements set
forth in § 424.514 with the Medicare
revalidation application or the hardship
exception is not granted.’’
In addition, in § 424.535, we are
proposing a new § 424.535(a)(6)(ii) to
state that billing privileges shall be
revoked if ‘‘The Medicare contractor is
not able to deposit the full application
amount into a government-owned
account or the funds are not able to be
credited to the U.S. Treasury.’’
In § 424.514(b), we are proposing that
currently enrolled institutional
providers and suppliers that are subject
to CMS revalidation efforts must submit
the applicable application fee or submit
a request for a hardship exception to the
application fee at the time of filing a
Medicare enrollment application on or
after March 23, 2011.
In § 424.514(d)(2)(iii), we propose that
institutional providers and suppliers
submit the application fee with each
initial application, application to
establish a new practice location, or
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
with the submission of an application in
response to a Medicare contractor
revalidation request.
In § 424.514(d)(2), we propose that the
application fee be based on the amount
calculated by CMS using the CPI–U as
of June 30 of the previous year and
adjusted annually to be effective January
1st of the following year. The
application fee for a given year will be
effective from January 1 to December 31
of a calendar year.
In § 424.514(d)(2)(v), we propose that
the application fee be non-refundable.
Neither the Federal government, its
Medicare contractors, State Medicaid
agencies or CHIP should be liable for
reimbursement of the application fee to
the provider or supplier if the
application fee has been received by the
Medicare contractor and deposited into
a Government-owned account and, later,
during the course of verifying,
validating, and processing the
information in the enrollment
application, CMS or its Medicare
contractor appropriately denies the
enrollment application. Appropriate
denial requires a substantive reason and
applications will not be denied over
inconsequential errors or omissions or
over errors or omissions corrected
timely.
In § 424.514(d)(4)(vi), we propose that
a provider or supplier must submit a
new application fee if the provider or
supplier resubmits a Medicare
enrollment application because a
previously-submitted enrollment
application was appropriately denied or
rejected. In some cases, a rejected
application would be returned to the
provider or supplier along with the
application fee; in other cases, the
application would be denied and the
application fee retained by the Federal
government because the processing of
the application would have already
begun. In those latter cases, CMS funds
would have been expended for some or
all of the required screening involved in
processing the application. For example,
if a home health agency enrollment
application is rejected because the
enrollment application, or the
certification statement generated by
Internet-based PECOS, was not signed,
the enrollment application would be
rejected and it and the check for the
application fee would both be returned
to the home health agency. If a home
health agency enrollment application is
denied based on non-compliance with a
provider enrollment requirement or
because the HHA did not meet the
conditions of participation for its
provider type, the enrollment would be
denied and the application fee would be
retained by the Federal government. If
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
the HHA wishes to send a new
enrollment application, it would have to
include another application fee with
that new enrollment application.
Similarly, we propose that a provider or
supplier would be required to submit to
the Medicare contractor a new
application fee with a subsequent
enrollment application if, among other
things, the previous enrollment
application was rejected because the
provider or supplier did not timely
furnish the Medicare contractor with the
applicable supporting documentation or
information necessary to complete its
review and verification of the previous
enrollment application.
In § 424.514(d)(6)(vii), we propose
that the application fee must be able to
be deposited into a government-owned
account.
Because we are proposing that a State
may rely on the results of the screening
conducted by the Medicare contractor to
meet the screening requirements for
participation in a State Medicaid
program or CHIP, we propose that, for
dually participating providers, the
application fee would be imposed at the
time of the Medicare enrollment
application, consistent with the
procedures described above.
Additionally, because the purpose of the
application fee is to, in part, cover the
costs of conducting the provider and
supplier screening activities, we
propose that a provider or supplier
enrolled in more than one program (that
is, Medicare and Medicaid or CHIP, or
all three programs) would only be
subject to the application fee under
Medicare and that the fee would cover
screening activities for enrollment in all
programs.
Section 1866(j)(2)(C)(iii) of the Act
also permits the Secretary to grant, on
a case-by-case basis, exceptions to the
application fee for institutional
providers and suppliers enrolled in the
Medicare and Medicaid programs and
CHIP if the Secretary determines that
imposition of the fee would result in a
hardship. One instance that might
support a request for hardship exception
is in the event of a national public
health emergency where a provider or
supplier is enrolling for purposes of
furnishing services required as a result
of the national public health emergency
situation. Such requests will be
considered on a case-by-case basis, as
required by the statute. In addition, we
are soliciting comments on the
appropriate objective criteria that
should be used in making a hardship
determination and if there are any other
circumstances in which such
exemptions should be allowed. We are
also seeking comment on the kinds of
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
58219
documents to be submitted to CMS or
its contractor to exhibit hardship,
including any comments on the
financial or legal records that might be
needed to make a determination of
hardship. Section 1866(j)(2)(C)(iii) of the
Act also permits the Secretary to waive
the application fee for providers
enrolled in a State Medicaid program for
whom the State demonstrates that
imposition of the fee would impede
beneficiary access to care. We are
soliciting comments on how waivers
from the application fee should be
implemented for Medicaid-only or
dually-participating Medicare and
Medicaid providers and suppliers
specifically those seeking to furnish
services where beneficiary access issues
are prevalent, either geographically or in
the provision of the services.
We are committed to assuring access
to care for program beneficiaries. We are
in the process of undertaking a review
of promising practices related to
ensuring access in the Medicaid
program and CHIP. We will incorporate
information from that review into
developing appropriate access criteria
for purposes of the required fee. We are
also soliciting comments on the
appropriate criteria that we should
consider. We are particularly interested
in hearing from States, providers,
advocates, and other stakeholders
relating to concrete examples based on
experiences in using specific access
criteria.
Based on the statutory requirements
for calculating the application fee, we
offer the following example for purely
illustrative purposes. The initial
application fee beginning in 2010 is
established by law at $500. However, for
the following year, when the annual
Consumer Price Index (CPI–U) is
calculated for the period ending June
2010, we would recalculate the
application fee using the CPI–U. Thus,
if the CPI increased by 2.34 percent for
the 12-month period ending June 2010,
the application fee would be calculated
by multiplying the fee for the year by
the CPI–U. The $500 application fee
established by law in 2010 would be
multiplied by 1.0234 to give $511.70.
We would then round to the nearest
dollar amount of $512.00. This would
be the amount of the fee in effect for
2011, and would apply to applications
received after the effective date of the
statute—March 23, 2011 for newly
enrolling providers and suppliers and
for revalidating providers and suppliers.
A similar process, based on the CPI–U
for the period of July 1, 2010 through
June 30, 2011 would be used to
calculate the fee that would become
effective on January 1, 2012, and that
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
58220
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
would apply to new and currently
enrolled providers or suppliers that
submit applications on or after March
23, 2012. In § 424.514(d)(2), we propose
that the annually recalculated
application fee amount would be
effective for the calendar year during
which the application for enrollment is
being submitted.
The amount of the application fee that
is required of enrolling providers or
suppliers, would be the amount that is
in effect on the day the provider or
supplier mails an enrollment
application or Certification Statement,
postmarked by the USPS, or if mailed
through a private mail service, the date
of receipt by the Medicare contractor.
Because the application fee will become
an integral part of the enrollment
process, we believe that it is essential
that we notify State Medicaid agencies
and the public about any changes in the
application fee prior to implementing a
change in the fee. Accordingly, we
would afford States and the public with
at least 30 days’ notice of any
impending change in the application
fee. We will make such notification
annually in the Federal Register and by
issuing guidance to the State Medicaid
and CHIP Directors, issuing CMS
provider and supplier listserv messages,
making announcements at CMS Open
Door Forums, and placing information
on the CMS Provider/Supplier
Enrollment Web page (https://
www.cms.gov/
MedicareProviderSupEnroll).
We are proposing that a provider or
supplier that believes it is entitled to a
hardship exception from the application
fee enclose a letter with the enrollment
application or, if using Internet-based
PECOS, with the Certification
Statement, explaining the nature of the
hardship. Further, we propose that we
would not begin to process an
enrollment application submitted with a
letter requesting a hardship exception
from the application fee until it makes
a decision on whether to grant the
exception. Further, we are proposing
that we make a hardship exception
determination within 60 days from
receipt of the request from an
institutional provider and CMS
contractor notify the applicant or
enrolled institutional provider or
supplier by letter approving or denying
the request for a hardship exception.
Moreover, if we deny the request for
hardship exception, we would provide
our reason(s) for denying the hardship
exception.
In § 424.530(a)(8), we propose adding
a new reason why a Medicare contractor
can deny Medicare billing privileges.
Specifically, we are proposing a new
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
§ 424.530(a)(8) to state, ‘‘An institutional
provider’s or supplier’s ‘hardship
exception’ request is not granted.’’
In 424.535(a)(6)(i), we propose adding
a new reason why a Medicare contractor
can revoke Medicare billing privileges.
Specifically, we are proposing a new
§ 424.535(a)(6)(i) to state, ‘‘An
institutional provider does not submit
an application fee or ‘hardship
exception’ request that meets the
requirements set forth in § 424.514 with
the Medicare revalidation application or
the hardship exception request is not
granted and the institutional provider or
supplier does not submit the required
application fee within 30 days of being
notified that the exception request was
not approved.
We are also proposing that an
institutional provider may appeal the
determination not to grant a hardship
exception from the application fee using
the provider enrollment appeals process
established in § 405.874 and found in
1866(j)(2) of the Act.
In § 455.460, we are proposing that,
for those providers who do not
participate in Medicare, the State may
collect the fee established by the
Secretary as outlined above as the State
will be responsible for conducting the
provider screening activities for these
providers. Total fees collected will be
used to offset the cost of the Medicaid
and CHIP screening programs. The fees
represent an applicable credit under
OMB Circular A–87, entitled ‘‘Cost
Principles for State, Local, and Indian
Tribal Governments’’ (August 31, 2005
(70 FR 51910)), codified at 2 CFR part
225, and made applicable to States by
45 CFR 92.22(b). The cost principles
require that the costs a State claims
must be reduced by ‘‘applicable credits,’’
or ‘‘those receipts or reduction of
expenditure-type transactions that offset
or reduce expense items allocable to
Federal awards as direct or indirect
costs’’, (Paragraphs C.1.i., C.4.a. and D.1.
of Appendix A to 2 CFR part 225). If the
fees collected by a State agency exceed
the cost of the screening program, the
State agency must return that portion of
the fees to the Federal Government.
CMS will direct these fees to support
program integrity efforts as permitted by
the ACA.
C. Temporary Moratoria on Enrollment
of Medicare Providers and Suppliers,
Medicaid and CHIP Providers
1. Statutory Changes
Section 6401(a) of the ACA amended
section 1866(j) of the Act by adding a
new section 1866(j)(7) of the Act, which
provides that the Secretary may impose
temporary moratoria on the enrollment
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of new Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP
providers and suppliers, including
categories of providers and suppliers, if
the Secretary determines such moratoria
are necessary to prevent or combat
fraud, waste, or abuse under the
programs.
Section 6401(b)(1) of the Act adds
specific moratorium language applicable
to Medicaid at section 1902(ii)(4) of the
Act, requiring States to comply with any
temporary moratorium imposed by the
Secretary unless the State determines
that the imposition of such moratorium
would adversely affect Medicaid
beneficiaries’ access to care. Section
1902(ii)(4)(B) of the Act further permits
States to impose temporary enrollment
moratoria, numerical caps, or other
limits, for providers identified by the
Secretary as being at high risk for fraud,
waste, or abuse, if the State determines
that the imposition of such moratorium,
cap, or other limits would not adversely
impact Medicaid beneficiaries’ access to
care.
Section 1866(j)(7) of the Act uses the
term ‘‘providers of services and
suppliers.’’ Although, as noted above,
the Medicaid program does not use the
term ‘‘suppliers,’’ section 1902(ii)(4) of
the Act refers to ‘‘providers and
suppliers.’’ In this regulation, for
uniformity with sections II A. and B. of
the proposed rule, we are using the term
‘‘providers and suppliers’’ in lieu of the
term ‘‘provider of services and
suppliers.’’ We will use the term
‘‘provider’’ or ‘‘Medicaid provider’’ or
‘‘CHIP provider’’ in lieu of the term
‘‘provider or supplier’’ when referring to
all Medicaid or CHIP health care
providers, including, but not limited to,
providers and suppliers of Medicaid
items or services, individual
practitioners, and institutional
providers.
2. Proposed Requirements
a. Medicare
We propose at § 424.570(a) that CMS
may impose a moratorium on the
enrollment of new Medicare providers
and suppliers in 6- month increments in
situations where—(1) CMS, based on its
review of existing data, without
limitation, indentifies a trend that
appears to be associated with a high risk
of fraud, waste or abuse, such as highly
disproportionate number of providers or
suppliers in a category relative to the
number of beneficiaries or a rapid
increase in enrollment applications
within a category determines that there
is a significant potential for fraud, waste
or abuse with respect to a particular
provider or supplier type or particular
geographic area or both; (2) a State has
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
imposed a moratorium on enrollment in
a particular geographic area or on a
particular provider of supplier type or
both; or (3) CMS, in consultation with
the HHS OIG or the Department of
Justice (DOJ) or both identifies either or
both of the following as having a
significant potential for fraud, waste or
abuse in the Medicare program:
• A particular provider or supplier
type.
• Any particular geographic area.
As part of the CMS decision-making
process, we will consider any
recommendation from the DOJ, HHS
OIG, or the GAO to impose a temporary
moratorium for a specific provider or
supplier type in a specific geographic
area.
We believe that imposing moratoria
will, among other things, allow us to
review and consider additional
programmatic initiatives, including the
development of additional regulatory
and subregulatory provisions to ensure
that Medicare providers and suppliers
are meeting program requirements,
beneficiaries receive quality care, and
that an adequate number of providers of
suppliers exists to furnish services to
Medicare beneficiaries.
We also propose that enrollment
moratoria be limited to: (1) Newly
enrolling providers and suppliers (that
is., initial enrollment applications); and
(2) the establishment of new practice
locations, not to a change of practice
locations. The temporary moratoria
would not apply to existing providers or
suppliers of services unless they were
attempting to expand operations to new
practice locations where a temporary
moratorium was imposed. Moreover, the
temporary moratoria would not apply in
situations involving changes in
ownership of existing providers or
suppliers, mergers, or consolidations.
We also propose at § 424.570(b) that a
moratorium would be imposed for a
period of 6 months, and such
moratorium could be extended by CMS
in 6-month increments if CMS
continues to believe that a moratorium
is needed to prevent or combat fraud,
waste, or abuse. The Secretary will reevaluate whether a moratorium should
continue prior to each 6 month
expiration date.
We also propose at § 424.570(c) that
CMS will deny enrollment applications
received from providers or suppliers
covered by an existing moratorium. We
note that denial of Medicare billing
privileges is subject to the
administrative review process
established in § 405.874. Accordingly,
we believe that denial of Medicare
billing privileges is also afforded the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
right to appeal a Medicare contractor
determination to deny enrollment into
the Medicare program.
In § 424.530(a)(9), we propose adding
a new reason why CMS can deny
Medicare billing privileges. Specifically,
we are proposing a new § 424.530(a)(9)
to state, ‘‘A provider or supplier submits
an enrollment application for a practice
location in a geographic area where
CMS has imposed a temporary
moratorium.’’ Further, in § 498.5(l)(4),
we propose that the scope of review for
appeals of denials under § 424.530(a)(9)
based upon a provider or supplier being
subject to a temporary moratorium will
be limited to whether the temporary
moratoria applies to that particular
provider or supplier.
We note that section 1866(j)(7) of the
Act provides that there shall be no
judicial review of a temporary
moratorium. Accordingly, we propose
that a provider or supplier may
administratively appeal an adverse
determination based on the imposition
of a temporary moratorium up to and
including the Department Appeal Board
(DAB) level of review.
Finally, we propose at § 424.570(d)
that we may lift a moratorium in the
following circumstances: (1) In the case
of a Presidentially- declared disaster
under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
42 U.S.C. 5121 through 5206 (Stafford
Act); (2) circumstances warranting the
imposition of a moratorium have abated
or CMS has implemented program
safeguards to address any program
vulnerability that was the basis for the
moratorium; or (3) in the judgment of
the Secretary, the moratorium is no
longer needed.
We also recognize that in a limited
number of circumstances a State
Medicaid agency may enroll a provider
or supplier into Medicaid during the
temporary moratorium period
established by Medicare. If this occurs
and the prospective Medicare provider
or supplier applies to enroll in the
Medicare program after the temporary
moratorium is lifted, we would use the
screening tools described in section II.A.
of this proposed rule.
We are also seeking public comment
on specific exemptions to the temporary
moratoria criteria proposed above. Prior
to imposing a moratorium, we would
assess Medicare beneficiary access to
the type(s) of services that are furnished
by the provider or supplier type and/or
within the geographic area to which the
moratorium would apply.
We would announce the
implementation of a moratorium at any
time. The announcement would be
made in the Federal Register and we
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
58221
would also address it in other methods
or forums, such as Press Releases, at
CMS Provider Open Door Forums, in
CMS provider listservs, and on the CMS
Provider/Supplier Enrollment Web page
(https://www.cms.gov/
MedicareProviderSupEnroll). We would
also require our Medicare contractors to
post the moratorium announcement or
note the expiration of a moratorium on
their Web sites. Our Federal Register
announcement would explain in detail
the rationale for the moratorium and the
rationale for the geographic area(s) in
which it would apply.
b. Medicaid and CHIP
Pursuant to section 1902(ii)(4)(A) of
the Act, we are proposing at
§ 455.470(a)(2) and (3) that a State
Medicaid agency will comply with a
temporary moratorium imposed by the
Secretary unless it determines that the
imposition of such a moratorium would
adversely affect beneficiaries’ access to
medical assistance.
Where the Secretary has imposed a
temporary moratorium in accordance
with § 424.570, and the State has
determined that compliance with such a
moratorium would adversely impact
Medicaid beneficiaries’, or CHIP
participants’, as the case may be, access
to medical assistance, section
1902(ii)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act creates an
exception for the State from complying
with the moratorium. We propose that
the State provide the Secretary with
written details of the moratorium’s
adverse impact on Medicaid
beneficiaries. Prior to the Secretary
imposing such a moratorium in any
State, we propose at § 455.470(a)(1) that
the Secretary consult with the State, so
that the State may have an opportunity
to seek an exception from the
moratorium.
Pursuant to section 1902(ii)(4)(B) of
the Act, States have authority to impose
moratoria, numerical caps, or other
limits for providers that are identified
by the Secretary as being at ‘‘high’’ risk
for fraud, waste, or abuse. We propose
that where the State identifies a category
of providers as posing a significant risk
of fraud, waste, or abuse, the State must
seek CMS’ concurrence with that
determination and provide CMS with
written details of the proposed
moratorium, including the anticipated
duration, and with a substantial
justification explaining why disallowing
newly enrolling providers would reduce
the risk of fraud. We propose at
§ 455.470 that States’ moratoria would
be imposed for a period of 6 months and
may be extended in 6-month
increments.
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
58222
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Section 2107(e)(1) of the Act provides
that all provisions that apply to
Medicaid under sections 1902(a)(77)
and 1902(ii) of the Act apply to CHIP.
Accordingly, we propose in new
regulation § 457.990 that all the
provider screening, provider
application, and moratorium regulations
that apply to Medicaid providers will
apply in providers that participate in
CHIP.
D. Suspension of Payments
1. Medicare
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
a. Background
In section 6402(h) of the ACA,
Congress amended section 1862 of the
Social Security Act by adding a new
paragraph (o), under which the
Secretary may suspend payments to a
provider or supplier pending an
investigation of a credible allegation of
fraud unless the Secretary determines
that there is good cause not to suspend
payments. This section requires that the
Secretary consult with the HHS OIG in
determining whether there is a credible
allegation of fraud against a provider or
supplier.
b. Current Medicare Regulations
We have long been authorized to
suspend payments in cases of suspected
fraudulent activity. On December 2,
1996, we finalized regulations § 405.370
through § 405.379 that provides for
suspension of payments to providers
and suppliers for several scenarios,
including when we possess reliable
information that fraud or willful
misrepresentation exists. The rule
provides that we may suspend
payments to a provider or supplier in
whole or in part based upon possession
of reliable information that an
overpayment or fraud or willful
misrepresentation exists or that the
payments to be made may not be
correct, although additional evidence
may be needed for a determination.
The existing rule provides that a
suspension of payments is limited to
180 days, unless it meets one of several
exceptions. A Medicare contractor may
request a one-time-only extension of the
suspension period for up to 180
additional days if it is unable to
complete its examination of the
information that serves as the basis for
the suspension. Also, OIG or a law
enforcement agency may request a onetime-only extension for up to 180
additional days to complete its
investigation in cases of fraud and
willful misrepresentation. The rule
provides that these time limits do not
apply if the case has been referred to
and is being considered by the OIG for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
administrative action, such as civil
monetary penalties. We may also grant
an extension beyond the 180 additional
days if DOJ requests that the suspension
of payments be continued based on the
ongoing investigation and anticipated
filing of criminal or civil actions. The
DOJ extension is limited to the amount
of time needed to implement the
criminal or civil proceedings.
c. Proposed Requirements
Section 6402(h) of the ACA requires
that the Secretary consult with the OIG
in determining whether there is a
credible allegation of fraud against a
provider or supplier. If a credible
allegation of fraud exists, the Secretary
may impose a suspension of payments
pending an investigation of the
allegations, unless the Secretary
determines that there is good cause not
to suspend payments. We are proposing
to revise § 405.370 to add a definition of
what constitutes a ‘‘credible allegation of
fraud,’’ to include an allegation from any
source, including but not limited to
fraud hotline complaints, claims data
mining, patterns identified through
provider audits, civil false claims cases,
and law enforcement investigations.
Allegations are considered to be
credible when they have an indicia of
reliability. Many issues related to this
definition will need to be determined on
a case-by-case basis by looking at all the
factors, circumstances and issues at
hand. We continue to believe that CMS
or its contractors must review all
allegations, facts, and information
carefully and act judiciously on a caseby-case basis when contemplating a
payment suspension, mindful of the
impact that payment suspension may
have upon a provider.
We additionally propose modifying
the existing § 405.370 to add a
definition for ‘‘resolution of an
investigation.’’ The ACA provides for
the suspension of payments pending the
investigation of a credible allegation of
fraud, and we believe that this provision
necessitates defining when an
investigation has concluded and the
basis for the suspension of payments no
longer exists. The definition proposed
here is that a resolution of an
investigation occurs when legal action is
terminated by settlement, judgment, or
dismissal, or when the case is closed or
dropped because of insufficient
evidence. We are seeking comments on
an alternative definition of the term
‘‘resolution of an investigation’’ which is
that it occurs when a legal action is
initiated or the case is closed or
dropped because of insufficient
evidence to support the allegations of
fraud.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
We propose modifying the existing
§ 405.371(a) to differentiate between
suspensions based on either reliable
information that an overpayment exists
or that payments to be made may not be
correct, and suspensions based upon a
credible allegation of fraud. As required
by the ACA, we propose in this section
that CMS or its contractor must consult
with the OIG, and as appropriate, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) in
determining whether a credible
allegation of fraud exists prior to
suspending payments on the basis of
alleged fraud.
We also propose in accordance with
the ACA that CMS retains discretion
regarding whether or not to impose a
suspension or continue a suspension, as
there may be good cause not to suspend
payments or not to continue to suspend
payments to providers or suppliers in
certain circumstances. We propose to
add a new § 405.371(b) to describe
circumstances that may qualify as good
cause not to suspend payments or not to
continue to suspend payments despite
credible allegations of fraud.
In paragraph (b)(1), we propose a good
cause exception based upon specific
requests by law enforcement that CMS
not suspend payments. There are
numerous reasons for which law
enforcement personnel might make such
a request, including that imposing a
payment suspension might alert a
potential perpetrator to an investigation
at an inopportune or particularly
sensitive time, jeopardize an undercover
investigation, or potentially expose
whistleblowers or confidential sources.
In paragraph (b)(2), we propose a good
cause exception not to suspend
payments if CMS determines that
beneficiary access to necessary items or
services may be jeopardized. We
envision there may be scenarios in
which a payment suspension to a
provider might jeopardize a provider’s
ability to continue rendering services to
Medicare beneficiaries whose access to
items or services would be so
jeopardized as to cause a danger to life
or health.
In paragraph (b)(3), we propose a good
cause exception not to suspend
payments if CMS determines that other
available remedies implemented by or
on behalf of CMS more effectively or
quickly protect Medicare funds than
would implementing a payment
suspension. For example, law
enforcement personnel might request
that a court immediately enjoin
potentially unlawful conduct or prevent
the withdrawal, removal, transfer,
disposal, or dissipation of assets, either
or both of which might protect Medicare
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
funds more fully or quickly than would
imposition of a payment suspension.
More generally, in paragraph (b)(4),
we propose a good cause exception
based upon a determination by CMS
that a payment suspension or
continuation of a payment suspension is
not in the best interests of the Medicare
program. We further propose that CMS
will conduct an evaluation of whether
there is good cause not to continue a
suspension every 180 days after the
initiation of a suspension based on
credible allegations of fraud. We believe
that circumstances surrounding a
specific case may change as an
investigation progresses, and it may
become in the best of interests of the
Medicare program to terminate a
payment suspension prior to the
resolution of an investigation. As part of
this ongoing evaluation, CMS will
request a certification from the OIG or
other law enforcement agency as to
whether that agency continues to
investigate the matter.
We are considering additional specific
circumstances and scenarios that may
qualify as good cause not to continue a
payment suspension prior to the
resolution of an investigation, and
solicit comments on this approach. For
example, one scenario that we are
considering as additional good cause
not to continue a suspension is when a
suspension has been in place for a
specific length of time, such as 2 years
or 3 years, and the investigation has not
been resolved. We anticipate that on a
case by case basis, CMS will evaluate
the status of a particular investigation
and the nature of the alleged fraud in
determining whether keeping a payment
suspension in effect beyond a certain
length of time may not be in the best
interests of the Medicare program. We
have chosen not to propose specific
language on duration in the regulatory
text. However, we solicit comment on
this approach.
We propose modifying the existing
§ 405.372 to reflect the changes made in
§ 405.371 which divides the payment
suspension authority into situations
involving overpayments and situations
involving allegations of fraud. In
§ 405.372(c) we clarify the subsequent
action requirements to distinguish
between suspensions based on credible
allegations of fraud and those that are
based on other factors, such as
overpayments. For suspensions that are
not based on credible allegations of
fraud, CMS and its contractors will
continue to take timely action to obtain
additional information needed to make
an overpayment determination and
make all reasonable efforts to expedite
the determination. Once the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
determination is made, notice of the
determination will be given to the
provider or supplier and the payment
suspension will be terminated. If the
payment suspension is based on
credible allegations of fraud, CMS and
its contractors will take subsequent
action to determine if an overpayment
exists or if the payments may be made,
however the termination of the
suspension and the issuance of a final
determination notice to the provider or
supplier may be delayed until
resolution of the investigation. At the
end of the fraud investigation, it is
possible that the Medicare contractor
will not have completed its
overpayment determination, but will
have reliable evidence of an
overpayment or will have evidence that
the payments to be made may not be
correct. This typically occurs when a
law enforcement investigation results in
civil or criminal resolution prior to the
Medicare contractor having had
sufficient time to complete its
overpayment determination. In such a
situation, we would allow the
suspension to continue as an
overpayment suspension.
We propose modifying the existing
§ 405.372(d) concerning the duration of
suspension of payment. In
§ 405.372(d)(3) we except suspensions
based on credible allegations of fraud
from the established time limits
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2).
We believe the strict time constraints
found in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2)
should only be applied to suspensions
based on reliable information of an
overpayment or where payments to be
made may not be correct both of which
require a speedy overpayment
determination. When credible
allegations of fraud are present, we
believe that CMS should have the
flexibility to maintain a suspension
beyond these established time limits in
order for an investigation to be
completed or the matter to be resolved.
However, we note that by excepting
suspensions based on credible
allegations of fraud from these
previously established timeframes, we
do not intend to suspend payments to
providers and suppliers indefinitely. We
will be actively evaluating the progress
of any investigation to determine if good
cause exists to no longer continue the
suspension of payments, as suspensions
are designed to be a temporary measure.
As part of this recurring evaluation,
CMS will request a certification from
the OIG or other law enforcement
agency that the matter continues to be
under investigation.
We also propose eliminating the two
other existing scenarios in paragraph
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
58223
(d)(3) for extending payment
suspensions beyond the time limits in
paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2), which are
when the OIG is considering
administrative action such as civil
monetary penalties and also when the
DOJ requests an extension based on an
ongoing investigation and the
anticipated filing of criminal and/or
civil actions. We believe that both of
these reasons under the existing rule for
extending suspensions will be captured
in the new rule which will allow for
payment suspensions to extend until the
resolution of an investigation and are
unnecessary given the other proposed
changes.
2. Medicaid
a. Background
In section 6402(h) of the ACA, the
Congress amended section 1903(i)(2) of
the Act to provide that Federal
Financial Participation (FFP) in the
Medicaid program shall not be made
with respect to any amount expended
for items or services (other than an
emergency item or service, not
including items or services furnished in
an emergency room of a hospital)
furnished by an individual or entity to
whom a State has failed to suspend
payments under the plan during any
period when there is pending an
investigation of a credible allegation of
fraud against the individual or entity as
determined by the State in accordance
with these regulations, unless the State
determines in accordance with these
regulations that good cause exists not to
suspend such payments.
b. Current Medicaid Regulations
State Medicaid agencies have long
been authorized to withhold payments
in cases of fraud or willful
misrepresentation. On December 28,
1987, DHHS finalized regulations at
§ 455.23 that they described as
specifically encouraging State Medicaid
agencies to withhold program payments
to providers without first granting
administrative review where the State
agency has reliable evidence of
fraudulent activity by the provider. The
regulations were issued by the HHS OIG
based on a concern that State
administrative hearings could interfere
with investigations conducted by HHS
OIG’s Office of Investigations or by the
State’s Medicaid fraud control unit
(MFCU). The requirements of an
administrative hearing could jeopardize
criminal cases and investigators were
reluctant to agree to a State’s
withholding payment, thus risking
additional overpayments. (See the
December 28, 1987 final rule (52 FR
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
58224
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
48814)). The December 28, 1987 final
rule remains in effect and has remained
unchanged since it was promulgated.
At the time the rule was proposed, the
Department was in the process of
reorganizing its fraud and abuse
regulations to reflect authorities
transferred to HHS OIG in 1983, as well
as those retained by CMS. HHS OIG
authorities were transferred to a new 42
CFR chapter V, while CMS’ Medicaid
program integrity authorities were
retained at 42 CFR part 455. (See the
September 30, 1986 final rule (51 FR
34764)).
This current rule provides that a State
Medicaid agency may withhold
payments to a provider in whole or in
part based upon receipt of reliable
evidence that the need for withholding
payments involves fraud or willful
misrepresentation under the Medicaid
program. At the time this rule was
published, commenters questioned what
constituted ‘‘reliable evidence of fraud.’’
The HHS OIG declined to provide a
specific definition, noting that what
constitutes ‘‘reliable evidence’’ is not
easily and readily definable. The HHS
OIG noted that while the existence of an
ongoing criminal or civil investigation
against a provider may be a factor in
determining whether reliable evidence
exists, that reliable evidence should be
determined on a case-by-case basis with
the State agency looking at all the
factors, circumstances, and issues at
hand, and acting judiciously on this
information.
The 1987 regulations also permitted
payments to be suspended in whole or
in part. Commenters had suggested that
‘‘clean claims’’ continue to be processed
without delay, and that any withholding
ought be targeted to only the type of
Medicaid claims under investigation.
The HHS OIG responded that it is
usually difficult to determine which
claims are ‘‘clean’’ until after an
investigation has been completed, but
noted that where an investigation is
solely and definitively centered upon a
specific type of claim that a State could,
at its discretion, withhold payments on
just those types of claims. The HHS OIG
also agreed to commenters’ requests to
clarify that the withholding provisions
apply only to alleged fraud or willful
misrepresentation related to improperly
received Medicaid payments and not to
ancillary unrelated matters such as
deceptive advertising.
c. Proposed Requirements
The current regulation at § 455.23
forms the framework for these proposed
regulations. State Medicaid agencies
have long had the authority to withhold
payments in cases of alleged fraud or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
willful misrepresentation. Section
6402(h)(2) of the ACA now mandates
that States not receive FFP in cases
where they fail to suspend Medicaid
payments during any period when there
is pending an investigation of a credible
allegation of fraud against an individual
or entity as determined by the State in
accordance with these proposed
regulations unless the State determines
that good cause exists for a State not to
suspend such payments. To conform the
existing regulation to the terminology of
the ACA, we propose to change the
phrase ‘‘withhold payments’’ to
‘‘suspend payments,’’ a change we
believe is merely semantic.
We propose to implement section
6402(h)(2) of the ACA by modifying the
existing § 455.23(a) to make payment
suspensions mandatory where an
investigation of a credible allegation of
fraud under the Medicaid program
exists. Based on the ACA’s use of just
the term ‘‘fraud,’’ we do not propose to
retain the existing term ‘‘willful
misrepresentation.’’ We believe that
fraud and willful misrepresentation are
largely indistinguishable, thus we do
not believe this proposal represents a
substantive change nor do we intend it
to have a substantive effect insofar as
reducing or limiting a State’s authority
to suspend Medicaid payments. We
solicit comments on this approach.
To conform the proposed regulation
to the requirements of the ACA, we
propose to modify terminology in the
existing § 455.23(a) that now refers to
‘‘receipt of reliable evidence’’ to instead
refer to a ‘‘pending investigation of a
credible allegation of fraud.’’ In contrast
to the semantic change from ‘‘withhold
payments’’ to ‘‘suspend payments,’’ in
this case we believe that there is a
substantive difference between the
threshold level of certainty or proof
necessary to identify a ‘‘credible
allegation’’ versus the heightened
requirement of ‘‘reliable evidence’’ in the
current regulation.
We do not believe that the phrase
‘‘when there is pending an investigation
of a credible allegation of fraud’’
necessarily demands that an
investigation originate in or with a law
enforcement agency. Rather, State
Medicaid agencies have program
integrity units that, in the normal course
of business, receive, and conduct
investigations based upon, tips alleging
fraud, and which also conduct proactive
investigations based upon internal data
analyses and other fraud detection
techniques. We believe that State agency
investigations, though they may be
preliminary in the sense that they lead
to a referral to a law enforcement agency
for continued investigation, are
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
adequate vehicles by which it may be
determined that a credible allegation of
fraud exists sufficient to trigger a
payment suspension to protect
Medicaid funds.
This threshold by which a State
agency investigation may give rise to a
payment suspension is a somewhat
lesser threshold than that in the current
regulation. The preamble to the current
regulation specified that it was
anticipated the State agency would
confer with, and receive the
concurrence of, investigative or
prosecuting authorities prior to
imposing a withholding action.
However, that preamble also stated that
it was establishing mere minimum
requirements, and that States could
exercise broader power where State law
or regulation so provided. Most States
have availed themselves of the existing
Federal authority (or broader state
authority) to withhold payments, and
we believe that experience over the past
20 years offers no indication this
authority has been misused against
providers. Moreover, we believe this
proposed threshold is consistent with
the phrase ‘‘investigation of a credible
allegation of fraud’’ of the ACA. We do
anticipate that payment suspension
authority will be used more frequently
because the ACA dictates that where
there is a pending investigation of
credible allegations of fraud against a
provider, a State that fails to suspend
payments to that provider will not
receive FFP with respect to such
payments unless good cause exists not
to suspend them.
We propose to adopt at § 455.2 the
same broad definition of ‘‘credible
allegation’’ proposed above in the
context of the Medicare program. In
many cases, what constitutes a ‘‘credible
allegation’’ must be determined on a
case-by-case basis with the State agency
looking at all the factors, circumstances,
and issues at hand. Guided by the
experience of more than 20 years, we
are aware that States have been able to
identify ‘‘reliable evidence’’ through a
variety of means including, but not
limited to, fraud hotline complaints,
Medicaid claims data mining, and
patterns identified through provider
audits, along with the appropriate level
of additional investigation that
accompanies each of these. Moreover,
States have received referrals from State
MFCUs, other law enforcement
agencies, and other State benefits
program investigative units. We
continue to believe that State agencies
must review all allegations, facts, and
evidence carefully and act judiciously
on a case-by-case basis when
contemplating a payment suspension,
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
mindful of the impact that payment
suspension may have upon a provider.
In paragraph (b), we propose that the
State agency notify a provider of a
payment suspension in a way very
similar to the mechanism currently
specified in regulation by which the
State agency is required to notify a
provider, specifying certain details,
within 5 days of taking such action.
However, we do propose to provide for
a 30-day period, renewable in writing
up to twice for a total not to exceed 90
days, by which law enforcement may, in
writing, request the State agency to
delay notification to a provider. We
propose this because we believe that
occasionally an investigation may be at
a sensitive stage, perhaps involving
undercover personnel or a confidential
informant, where required notification
to the provider at a particular time
might jeopardize the investigation. We
do not believe we should extend the
delay notification beyond 90 days out of
fairness to a provider and, in any event,
a provider deriving any significant
revenue stream from Medicaid is likely
to itself discern the fact of a payment
suspension well in advance of 90 days.
We are proposing only minor changes
to the current provisions in § 455.23(c)
on the duration of a suspension. To
comport with the ACA, we change the
term ‘‘withholding’’ to ‘‘suspension’’; this
is a semantic change that, as noted
above, has been made throughout. In the
proposed new § 455.23(c)(2), we
propose to require a State to notify a
provider of the termination of a
payment suspension and, where
applicable, to specify the availability to
a provider of any appeal rights under
State law and regulation.
Substantively, we do not propose
significant change to the existing
duration provisions, which specify that
withholding (now, suspension) will be
temporary and will not continue after:
(1) Authorities discern that there is
insufficient evidence of fraud upon
which to base a legal action; or (2) legal
proceedings related to the alleged fraud
are completed.
We believe that maintaining the
existing duration provisions is
consistent with the ACA that requires
that FFP not be made when a State fails
to suspend payments ‘‘during any period
when there is pending an investigation
of a credible allegation of fraud against
an individual or entity.’’ We further
recognize that the Act applies a very
similar standard to the Medicare
program. We solicit comments on our
proposal to maintain the existing
duration provisions.
In paragraph (d), we propose to
require a State to make a formal, written
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
suspected fraud referral to its MFCU or,
where a State does not have a MFCU to
an appropriate law enforcement agency,
for each instance of payment suspension
as the result of a State agency’s
preliminary investigation of a credible
allegation of fraud. This will ensure that
an appropriate full investigation by a
law enforcement agency timely ensues.
If the MFCU or other law enforcement
agency declines to accept the referral,
we propose to require the State to
immediately release the payment
suspension unless the State refers the
matter to another law enforcement
entity or unless the State has alternative
Federal or State authority by which it
may impose a suspension. In the latter
case, the requirements of that alternative
authority, including any notice and due
process or other safeguards, would be
applicable.
We propose to require that a State’s
formal, written suspected fraud referral
meets fraud referral performance
standards issued by the Secretary. The
currently applicable fraud referral
performance standards were issued by
CMS on September 30, 2008. In a
January 2007 report entitled ‘‘Suspected
Medicaid Fraud Referrals,’’ (OEI 07–04–
00181) the HHS OIG expressed concern
with the lack of CMS criteria specific to
the referral of suspected fraud issues
from State Medicaid agencies to MFCUs
such that it was unable to determine the
adequacy of State Medicaid agencies’
performance. CMS agreed in response to
that report to work towards the
establishment of fraud referral
performance standards (which it has
now issued) to which States will be
required to conform in making referrals
under this regulation.
In paragraph (d)(3), we propose that
on a quarterly basis a State must request
a certification from the MFCU or other
law enforcement agency that any matter
accepted on the basis of a referral
continues to be under investigation or in
the course of enforcement proceedings
warranting continuation of the payment
suspension. We recognize that due to
various constraints, law enforcement
agencies may not be able to provide
specific updates on matters under
investigation. In recognition of the fact
that payment suspensions are only
temporary, however, we propose to
require such quarterly certifications to
ensure, for example, that a suspension
will not be continued long after a law
enforcement agency has closed an
investigation but neglected to alert a
State agency of that fact. To maximize
State flexibility to implement this
requirement, we are not prescribing the
precise format such certifications must
take.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
58225
Consistent with the new Affordable
Care Act provision, we also propose to
create several ‘‘good cause’’ exceptions
by which States may determine good
cause exists not to suspend payments or
to suspend payments only in part. In
new paragraph (e) we have included
several circumstances that we believe
constitute ‘‘good cause’’ for a State to
determine not to suspend payments, or
not to continue a payment suspension
previously imposed, to an individual or
entity despite a pending investigation of
a credible allegation of fraud. In
paragraph (e)(1), we propose a good
cause exception based upon specific
requests by law enforcement that State
officials not suspend (or continue to
suspend) payment. There are numerous
reasons for which law enforcement
personnel might make such a request,
including that imposing a payment
suspension might alert a potential
perpetrator to an investigation at an
inopportune or particularly sensitive
time, jeopardize an undercover
investigation, or potentially expose
whistleblowers or confidential sources.
In paragraph (e)(2), we propose a good
cause exception if a State determines
that other available remedies
implemented by the State could more
effectively or quickly protect Medicaid
funds than would implementing (or
continuing) a payment suspension. For
example, law enforcement personnel
might request that a court immediately
enjoin potentially unlawful conduct or
prevent the withdrawal, removal,
transfer, disposal, or dissipation of
assets, either or both of which might
protect Medicaid funds more fully or
quickly than would imposition of a
payment suspension.
Paragraph (e)(3) proposes a good
cause exception based upon a
determination by the State agency that
a payment suspension is not in the best
interests of the Medicaid program. It is
conceivable that a State may, in rare
situations, face exigent circumstances
with respect to a suspension situation
not addressed by the other good cause
exceptions specified here but where it
otherwise determines suspension would
not be in the State Medicaid’s programs
best interests. This broad standard is
intended to reflect that payment
suspension is a very serious action that
can potentially lead to dire
consequences, but that it is impossible
to specify detailed contingencies with
respect to every possible scenario that
might arise. We do not anticipate that
States will frequently make use of this
exception; however where this
exception is utilized we do require that
States document their use of this
exception, and will closely monitor its
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
58226
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
implementation to determine whether
further regulation is necessary. We
solicit comments on this approach.
In paragraph (e)(4), we propose a good
cause exception based upon a
determination by the State of an adverse
effect of the suspension on beneficiary
access to necessary items or services.
We envision there may be scenarios in
which a payment suspension to a
provider might jeopardize a provider’s
ability to continue rendering services to
Medicaid beneficiaries, thus threatening
Medicaid beneficiaries’ access to care.
Utilizing a standard identical to that
which CMS and the HHS OIG apply in
assessing requests for waivers of
exclusion at Parts 402 and 1001 of Title
42, for example, we posit one basis for
a good cause exception from payment
suspension is if a provider under
investigation is a sole community
physician or the sole source of
specialized services available in a
community. Likewise, in Federallydesignated medically underserved areas
the potential impact of a payment
suspension upon a large provider might
equally threaten recipient access, thus
this underlies a second access
exception. We welcome comments on
this approach, including comments with
respect to other metrics by which to
assess potential beneficiary jeopardy in
terms of access to necessary items or
services.
Finally, in paragraph (e)(5) we
propose a good cause exception that
would permit (but not require) a State
to discontinue an existing suspension to
the extent law enforcement declines to
cooperate in certifying under the
requirements of paragraph (d)(3) that a
matter continues to be under
investigation and therefore warrants
continuing the suspension.
We do not interpret the new provision
in the ACA as mandating that a State
must always suspend payments in toto
in cases of an investigation of a credible
allegation of fraud. In general, we
continue to believe a payment
suspension should apply to all claims
consistent with the HHS OIG’s
responses to comments in the 1987
regulations that it is usually difficult to
determine which claims are clean
claims until after an investigation is
completed, and one purpose of payment
suspension is to build a type of escrow
account out of which any overpayments
can be deducted when an investigation
is concluded.
With certain new constraints, we have
chosen to continue to allow States the
flexibility to suspend payments in part.
For example, as stated in the preamble
to the current regulation, there may be
times where an investigation is solely
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
and definitively centered on only a
specific type of claim in which case a
State may determine it is appropriate to
impose a payment suspension on only
that type of claim. Likewise, a State
might determine that an investigation of
a credible allegation of fraud is limited
to a particular business unit or
component of a provider such that a
suspension need not apply to certain
business units or components of a
provider.
Balancing these approaches, we
propose to allow States to implement a
partial payment suspension, or, where
appropriate, to convert a previously
imposed full payment suspension to a
partial payment suspension, if justified
via a good cause exception. The good
cause exceptions for partial suspension
at paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) mirror those
at paragraphs (e)(4) and (3),
respectively, and allow the State to
adopt a partial payment suspension
where suspension in whole would so
jeopardize a recipient’s access to items
or services as to endanger the recipient’s
life or health, or where the State deems
it in the best interests of the Medicaid
program. At paragraph (f)(3), we
propose that a State may avail itself of
the good cause exception to suspend
payments only in part if the nature of
the credible allegation is focused solely
and definitively on only a specific type
of claim or arises from only a specific
business unit of a provider, and the
State determines and documents in
writing that a payment suspension in
part would effectively ensure that
potentially fraudulent claims were not
continuing to be paid. Many such cases
will still demand suspension in full, but
this provision, which we anticipate
States would exercise sparingly, gives
States flexibility to act otherwise in
those limited circumstances where
appropriate. Finally, at paragraph (f)(4),
we propose that a State may avail itself
of the good cause exception to convert
a payment suspension in whole to one
only in part to the extent law
enforcement declines to cooperate in
certifying under the requirements of
paragraph (d)(3) that a matter continues
to be under investigation. We solicit
comment on these proposed
approaches.
We propose in new paragraph (g) to
add several reporting and document
retention guidelines to § 455.23.
Payment suspension authority is
critically important to protect Medicaid
funds, but payment suspension can
have dire consequences to a provider.
Payment suspension authority,
including a State’s exercise of a good
cause exception to otherwise address a
suspension situation, must be exercised
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
responsibly by a State at all stages, from
the inception to the termination of the
suspension. Through, among other
things, its State Program Integrity
Reviews, we expect to maintain close
oversight of State utilization of
suspension authority. However, to be
clear, we expressly and explicitly do not
expect State compliance (or
noncompliance) with these
documentation or retention provisions
to give rise to any enforceable right of
a provider aggrieved by any real or
perceived failures with respect to these
requirements to seek any form of redress
(administratively, judicially, or
otherwise).
Under these proposed reporting and
retention guidelines, States are required
to maintain for a minimum of 5 years
from the date of issuance all materials
documenting the life cycle of a payment
suspension that is imposed, including:
(1) All notices of suspension of payment
in whole or part; (2) all fraud referrals
to MFCUs or other law enforcement
agencies; (3) all quarterly certifications
by law enforcement that a matter
continues to be under investigation; and
(4) all notices documenting the
termination of a suspension. Likewise,
we propose to require States to maintain
for the same period all documentation
justifying the exercise of the good cause
exceptions. Finally, we propose to
require States to annually report to the
Secretary information regarding the life
cycle of each payment suspension
imposed and any determinations to
exercise the good cause exceptions not
to suspend payment, to suspend
payment only in part, or to discontinue
a payment suspension.
To effectuate section 6402(h)(2) of the
ACA’s prohibition on expenditure of
FFP where a State fails to suspend
payments that should, by virtue of the
ACA standard and this proposed rule,
have been suspended, we propose to
add a new § 447.90 that contains both
the general rule and which refers to the
exceptions found in § 455.23 for ‘‘good
cause.’’ Paragraph (a) specifies the basis
and purpose for the new provision.
Paragraph (b) specifies the general rule
that FFP would not be available with
respect to items or services furnished by
an individual or entity to whom the
State has failed to suspend Medicaid
payments during any period where
there is pending an investigation of a
credible allegation of fraud against the
individual or entity except in specified
circumstances that include certain
emergency circumstances, or if good
cause exists as specified at § 455.23(e) or
(f).
As mentioned, we anticipate that
CMS’ enforcement and monitoring of
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
these provisions will largely be
accomplished through measures such as
State Program Integrity reviews
conducted by CMS. Such reviews will,
among other things, evaluate States’
complaint intake and investigation
efforts, and assess whether States have
an effective process to move matters
where there are found to be credible
allegations of fraud to the point where
they are evaluated for payment
suspension. However, we do not believe
it is viable to require States to report
and document to CMS every instance of
where any allegation of fraud arises and
further qualify which ones rise to the
level of credible allegation. We want to
foster effective and efficient State
program integrity efforts with respect to
which payment suspension is an
integral component, but we do not want
to create a system so procedurally
onerous that it overwhelms a State’s
ability to substantively perform this
critical work. Nevertheless, we will
thoroughly investigate and act by,
among other things, deferring and/or
disallowing FFP in accordance with
§ 430.40 and § 430.42, if program
integrity reviews or other methods of
ensuring State compliance with
Medicaid program requirements reveal a
State is failing to suspend payments (or
inappropriately applying a good cause
exception) where pending investigations
of credible allegations of fraud do exist.
A State may not claim (on its Form
CMS–64) FFP for payments that are
suspended. Any State that does not
suspend payments, or that suspends
payments but continues to claim FFP
with respect to what would have been
paid had no suspension been in place,
puts that FFP at risk. In such cases, we
would pursue a deferral and/or
disallowance to reclaim the Federal
portion of such payment. We solicit
comments on CMS’ proposed oversight
approach.
Finally, three provisions are proposed
to be added to the regulations at
§ 1007.9 that specify the State MFCU’s
relationship to, and agreement with, the
State Medicaid agency. These proposed
revisions are necessary to effectuate the
proposed revisions under § 455.23. The
regulations at 42 CFR part 1007 are
enforced by HHS OIG as part of its
delegated authority to certify and fund
the State MFCUs. (See August 15, 1979
final rule (44 FR 47811)). However, we
are including amendments to part 1007
here to ensure a comprehensive
regulatory package that sets forth in one
location the Department’s
implementation of the suspension
provisions of section 6402(h) of the
ACA.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
The first of these provisions proposes
to add a new paragraph (e) to § 1007.9
that specifies that the MFCU may refer
to the State agency any provider against
which there is pending an investigation
of a credible allegation of fraud for
purposes of payment suspension in
accord with § 455.23. Allegations of
potential fraud may first be identified by
the MFCU rather than by the State
agency, so this provision merely
formalizes a path from the MFCU to the
State agency so a payment suspension
may be implemented where appropriate.
This provision also proposes that any
referral to the State agency for
consideration of a payment suspension
be in writing. The written referral need
not be extensive, but must include
information adequate to enable the State
agency to identify the provider and a
brief explanation of the credible
allegations forming the grounds for the
payment suspension. The second
proposed addition to § 1007.9 proposes
to add a new paragraph (f) providing
that any request by the unit to the State
agency to delay notification of
suspension to a provider pursuant to the
provisions of the proposed
§ 455.23(b)(1)(ii) come in writing.
Proposing to require that such requests
need be made in writing (which could
take the form of an e-mail) provides for
an audit trail to ensure that proper
procedures are followed. However, we
expressly do not intend for this
requirement to create any substantive
right upon which a provider might
lodge objection or other legal challenge
to the extent the proper procedures were
not followed. Last, a new paragraph (g)
is proposed to require the unit to notify
the State agency in writing when it has
accepted or declined a case referred by
the State agency. Aside from also
creating an audit trail, this proposed
provision would be important in that it
would alert the State agency as to the
status of a referral, which would shape
how the State agency would handle a
suspension under the proposed
revisions to § 455.23.
E. Proposed Approach and Solicitation
of Comments for Sections 6102 and
6401(a) of the ACA—Ethics and
Compliance Program
Under section 6102 of the ACA which
established new section 1128I of the
Act, a nursing facility (NF) or SNF shall
have in operation a compliance and
ethics program that is effective in
preventing and detecting criminal, civil,
and administrative violations and in
promoting quality of care, consistent
with regulations developed by the
Secretary, working jointly with the HHS
OIG. The regulations to establish the
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
58227
compliance and ethics program for
operating organizations may include a
model compliance program. The statute
requires that in the case of an
organization that has five or more
facilities, the formality or specific
elements of the program vary with the
size of the organization. The statute also
requires that not later than 3 years after
the effective date of the regulations, the
Secretary shall complete an evaluation
of the programs to determine if such
programs led to changes in deficiency
citations, changes in quality
performance, or changes in the quality
of resident care. The Secretary shall
submit to Congress a report on such
evaluation with recommendations for
changes in the requirements, as the
Secretary deems appropriate.
Similarly, under section 6401(a) of the
ACA, which established a new section
1866(j)(8) of the Act, a provider of
medical or other items or services or a
supplier shall, as a condition of
enrollment in Medicare, Medicaid or
CHIP, establish a compliance program
that contains certain ‘‘core elements.’’
The statute requires the Secretary, in
consultation with the HHS OIG, to
establish the core elements for providers
or suppliers within a particular industry
or category. The statute allows the
Secretary to determine the date that
providers and suppliers need to
establish the required core elements as
a condition of enrollment in Medicare,
Medicaid, and CHIP. The statute
requires the Secretary to consider the
extent to which the adoption of
compliance programs by providers or
suppliers is widespread in a particular
industry sector or particular provider or
supplier category. Please note, NFs and
SNFs are subject to both compliance
plan requirements under sections 6102
and 6401(a) since section 6401(a) of the
ACA includes all providers and
suppliers enrolling into Medicare,
Medicaid and CHIP. We intend to
establish compliance program core
elements per section 6401(a) of the ACA
for NFs and SNFs that closely match the
required components of a compliance
program per section 6102 of the ACA.
In order to consider the views of
industry stakeholders, we are soliciting
comments on compliance program
requirements included in the ACA. We
do not intend to finalize compliance
plan requirements when the other
proposals in this proposed rule are
finalized; rather, we intend to do further
rulemaking on compliance plan
requirements and will advance specific
proposals at some point in the future.
We are most interested in receiving
comments on the following:
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
58228
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
The use of the seven elements of an
effective compliance and ethics program
as described in Chapter 8 of the U.S.
Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual
(https://www.ussc.gov/2010guid/
20100503_Reader_Friendly_Proposed_
Amendments.pdf, pp. 31–35) as the
basis for the core elements of the
required compliance programs for
Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP
enrollment. These elements instill a
commitment to prevent, detect and
correct inappropriate behavior and
ensure compliance with all applicable
laws, regulations and requirements, and
include—
• The development and distribution
of written policies, procedures and
standards of conduct to prevent and
detect inappropriate behavior;
• The designation of a chief
compliance officer and other
appropriate bodies (for example a
corporate compliance committee)
charged with the responsibility of
operating and monitoring the
compliance program and who report
directly to high-level personnel and the
governing body;
• The use of reasonable efforts not to
include any individual in the
substantial authority personnel whom
the organization knew, or should have
known, has engaged in illegal activities
or other conduct inconsistent with an
effective compliance and ethics
program;
• The development and
implementation of regular, effective
education and training programs for the
governing body, all employees,
including high-level personnel, and, as
appropriate, the organization’s agents;
• The maintenance of a process, such
as a hotline, to receive complaints and
the adoption of procedures to protect
the anonymity of complainants and to
protect whistleblowers from retaliation;
• The development of a system to
respond to allegations of improper
conduct and the enforcement of
appropriate disciplinary action against
employees who have violated internal
compliance policies, applicable statutes,
regulations or Federal health care
program requirements;
• The use of audits and/or other
evaluation techniques to monitor
compliance and assist in the reduction
of identified problem areas; and
• The investigation and remediation
of identified systemic problems
including making any necessary
modifications to the organization’s
compliance and ethics program.
In addition, we are particularly
interested in comments about the
following:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
• The extent to which, and the
manner in which, providers and
suppliers already incorporate each of
the seven U.S. Federal Sentencing
Guidelines elements into their
compliance programs or business
operations. We are interested in how
and to what degree each element has
been incorporated effectively into the
compliance programs of different types
of providers and suppliers considering
their risk areas, business model and
industry sector or particular provider or
supplier category.
• Any other suggestions for
compliance program elements beyond,
or related to, the seven elements
referenced above considering provider
or supplier risk areas, business model
and industry sector or particular
provider or supplier category including
whether external and/or internal quality
monitoring should be a required for
hospitals and long-term care facilities.
• The costs and benefits of
compliance programs or operations
including aggregate or component costs
and benefits of implementing particular
elements and how these costs and
benefits were measured.
• The types of systems necessary for
effective compliance, the costs
associated with these systems and the
degree to which providers and suppliers
already have these systems including,
but not limited to, tracking systems,
data capturing systems and electronic
claims submission systems. We
anticipate having providers and
suppliers evaluate the effectiveness of
their compliance plans using electronic
data.
• The existence of and experience
with state or other compliance
requirements for various providers and
suppliers and foreseeable conflicts or
duplication from multiple requirements.
• The criteria we should consider
when determining whether, and if so,
how to divide providers and suppliers
into groupings that would be subject to
similar compliance requirements
including whether individuals should
have different compliance obligations
from corporations.
• Available research or individual
experience regarding the current rate of
adoption and level of sophistication of
compliance programs for providers or
suppliers based on their business model
and industry sector or particular
provider or supplier category.
• How effective compliance programs
have been for varied providers and
suppliers and how the level of
effectiveness was measured.
• The extent to which providers and
suppliers currently use third party
resources, such as consultants, review
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
organizations, and auditors, in their
compliance efforts.
• The extent to which providers and
suppliers have already identified staff
responsible for compliance and, for
those who already have staff responsible
for compliance, the positions of these
staff.
• A reasonable timeline for
establishment of a required compliance
program for various types and sizes of
providers and suppliers, assuming the
compliance program core elements were
based on the aforementioned U.S.
Federal Sentencing Guidelines’ seven
elements of an effective compliance and
ethics program, considering business
model and industry sector or particular
provider or supplier category.
We welcome any information
concerning how the industry views
compliance program elements and how
we can establish required compliance
program elements to protect Medicare,
Medicaid, and CHIP from fraud and
abuse.
F. Termination of Provider Participation
Under the Medicaid Program and CHIP
if Terminated Under the Medicare
Program or Another State Medicaid
Program or CHIP
1. Discussion
Effective provider screening prevents
excluded providers from enrolling in
government health care programs and
being paid with Federal and State funds.
Providers barred from participating
because of effective screening cannot
abuse Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP.
When a State terminates a provider
but does not share that information with
any other State, all other States become
vulnerable to potential fraud, waste, and
abuse committed by that provider.
Similarly, a provider, supplier, or
eligible professional that has been
terminated from Medicare or has had
Medicare billing privileges revoked may
enroll with a State Medicaid program or
with CHIP when a State is not aware of
the Medicare termination or revocation.
We may terminate or revoke the billing
privileges of a provider, supplier, or
eligible professional under Medicare for
a number of reasons, as set forth at
§ 424.535, including exclusion from
health care programs, government-wide
debarment, and conviction of violent
felonies and financial crimes.
Section 6501 Affordable Care Act
requires a State’s Medicaid program to
terminate an individual or entity’s
participation in the program (subject to
certain limitations on exclusions in
sections 1128(c)(2)(B) and 1128(d)(2)(B)
of the Act), if the individual or entity
has been terminated under Medicare or
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
another State’s Medicaid program.
Although the term ‘‘termination’’ only
applies to providers under Medicare
whose billing privileges have been
revoked (and does not apply to
Medicare suppliers or eligible
professionals), we believe it was the
intent of the Congress that this
requirement also be applicable to
suppliers and eligible professionals that
have had their billing privileges under
Medicare revoked as well. Therefore, we
are proposing that ‘‘termination’’ be
inclusive of situations where an
individual’s or entity’s billing privileges
have been revoked. The requirement for
States to terminate would only apply in
cases where providers, suppliers, or
eligible professionals were terminated
or had their billing privileges revoked
for cause, for example, for reasons based
upon fraud, integrity or quality, and not
in cases where the providers, suppliers,
or eligible professionals were
terminated or had their billing
privileges revoked based upon a failure
to submit claims over a period of 12
months or more, or any other voluntary
action taken by the provider to end its
participation in the program, except
where that voluntary action is taken to
avoid a sanction.
In addition, State Medicaid programs
would terminate a provider only after
the provider had exhausted all available
appeal rights in the State that originally
terminated the provider.
Section 6501 of the ACA builds upon
the requirements in section 6401(b)(2) of
the ACA, which requires that CMS
establish a process to make available
Medicare provider, supplier, and
eligible professional and CHIP provider
termination information to State
Medicaid programs. Section 1902(ii)(6)
of the Act also requires States to report
adverse provider actions to CMS,
including criminal convictions,
sanctions, and negative licensure
actions.
When States are apprised of the
terminations or revocations of billing
privileges, as the case may be, of
providers, suppliers, and eligible
professionals that have occurred in
other State Medicaid programs, CHIP, or
in Medicare, States have the information
they need to protect their programs.
2. Statutory Change
Section 6501 of the ACA amends
section 1902(a)(39) of the Act to require
a State Medicaid program to terminate
any provider, be it an individual or
entity, participating in that program,
subject to the limitations on exclusions
in sections 1128(c)(2)(B) and
1128(d)(2)(B) of the Act, if the
provider’s participation has been
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
58229
terminated under title XVIII of the Act
or another State’s Medicaid program.
pose an increased risk to the Medicare
program.
3. Proposed Requirements
We propose at 42 CFR 455.416 that a
State Medicaid program must deny
enrollment or terminate the enrollment
of a provider that is terminated on or
after January 1, 2011 under Medicare, or
has had its billing privileges revoked, or
is terminated on or after January 1, 2011
under any other State’s Medicaid
program or CHIP.
While section 6501 of the ACA does
not expressly require that individuals or
entities that have been terminated under
Medicare or Medicaid also be
terminated from CHIP, we also propose,
under our general rulemaking authority
pursuant to section 1102 of the Act, to
require in CHIP regulations that CHIP
take similar action to terminate a
provider terminated or revoked under
Medicare, or terminated under any other
State’s Medicaid program or CHIP.
We also propose to add a definition at
§ 455.101 for termination for purposes
of this section. That definition
distinguishes between Medicaid
providers and Medicare providers,
suppliers, and eligible professionals and
specifies that termination means a State
Medicaid program or the Medicare
program has taken action to revoke the
Medicaid provider’s or Medicare
provider, supplier or eligible
professional’s billing privileges and the
provider, supplier or eligible
professional has exhausted all
applicable appeal rights. There is no
expectation on the part of the provider,
supplier, or eligible professional or the
State or Medicare program that the
termination or revocation is temporary.
The provider, supplier or eligible
professional would be required to
reenroll with the applicable program if
they wish billing privileges to be
reinstated.
III. Collection of Information
Requirements
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, we are required to provide 60day notice in the Federal Register and
solicit public comment before a
collection of information requirement is
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval. In order to fairly evaluate
whether an information collection
should be approved by OMB, section
3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 requires that we
solicit comment on the following issues:
• The need for the information
collection and its usefulness in carrying
out the proper functions of our agency.
• The accuracy of our estimate of the
information collection burden.
• The quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected.
• Recommendations to minimize the
information collection burden on the
affected public, including automated
collection techniques.
We are soliciting public comment on
each of these issues for the following
sections of this document that contain
information collection requirements
(ICRs):
G. Additional Medicare Provider
Enrollment Provisions
In § 424.535(a)(11), we propose
allowing CMS or its designated
Medicare contractor to revoke Medicare
billing privileges when a State Medicaid
agency terminates, revokes, or suspends
a provider or supplier’s Medicaid
enrollment or billing privileges. We
believe that this approach works in
tandem with section 6501 of the ACA
which requires States to terminate a
provider or supplier under the Medicaid
program when the provider or supplier
has been terminated by Medicare or by
another State’s Medicaid program.
Moreover, we believe that providers and
suppliers whose enrollment has been
terminated by a State Medicaid program
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
A. ICRs Regarding Application Fee
Hardship Exception (§ 424.514)
Proposed § 424.514(e) states that a
provider or supplier that believes it has
a hardship that justifies a waiver
exception of the application fee must
include with its enrollment application
a letter that describes the hardship and
why the hardship justifies a waiver
exception. The burden associated with
this proposed requirement would be the
time and effort necessary to submit a
Medicare enrollment application, which
is required currently of any individual
or entity enrolling in Medicare. In
addition to the enrollment application,
a provider or supplier would have the
new burden of drafting and submitting
a letter to justify its hardship waiver
request should it choose to submit one.
The burden associated with submitting
Medicare enrollment applications is
approved under both 0938–0685 and
0938–1056, the CMS Forms 855–A, B,
and the CMS–855–S (or their associated
Internet-based PECOS enrolment
application), respectively. Although we
have no way of knowing for certain how
many entities will actually submit an
application with a letter requesting a
waiver, we know that initially there are
likely to be more such requests in the
early years of implementation than in
later years. We estimate that in the first
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
58230
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
year, 12,000 providers or suppliers –or
slightly over 50 percent of the total
number of providers and suppliers that
we believe (as discussed in the section
V. of this proposed rule) will be subject
to the application fee—will submit
waiver request letters as part of their
application packages. We also estimate
that it will take each provider or
supplier 1 hour to develop the letter.
The total estimated annual burden
associated with this requirement is
therefore 12,000 hours at a cost of
$600,000, or $50.00 per waiver request.
B. ICRs Regarding Fingerprinting
(§ 424.518 and § 455.434)
Proposed § 424.518(c) which reads:
‘‘In addition to the ‘‘limited’’ and
‘‘moderate’’ screening requirements
described in (a) and (b) above, the
Medicare enrollment contractor shall
conduct a criminal background check or
require the submission of set of
fingerprints using the FD–258 standard
fingerprint card when a prospective
home health agency or supplier of
DMEPOS is enrolling into the Medicare
program or is establishing a new
practice location and is not publiclytraded on the NYSE or NASDAQ,’’
would allow CMS, its agents or its
designated contractors to require the
submission of a set of fingerprints using
the FD–258 standard fingerprint card.
Similarly, proposed § 424.518(d) which
reads in part: ‘‘An individual must
submit a set of fingerprints using the
FD–258 standard fingerprint card with
the Medicare enrollment application or
within 30 days of a Medicare contractor
request. An individual who does not
submit a set of fingerprints using the
FD–258 standard fingerprint card with
the Medicare enrollment revalidation or
revalidation application or within 30
days of a Medicare contractor request,
may have his/her Medicare billing
privileges denied,’’ would allow CMS,
its agents or its designated contractors to
require that each owner, authorized
official, delegated official, and managing
employee, of a provider or supplier to
submit a set of fingerprints using the
FD–258 standard fingerprint card. We
estimate that CMS or its designated
contractors will make 7,000 such
requests per year. This is predicated on
our projection that—based on 2009
statistics—roughly 7,000 DMEPOS
suppliers and HHAs will annually
enroll in Medicare. For purposes of this
ICR statement only, and to ensure that
we do not underestimate the possible
burden, we will estimate that all of
these providers and suppliers will be
required to submit the standard
fingerprint card. We further estimate
that an average of five individuals per
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
provider or supplier will be required to
comply with this request, though we do
seek comments—for purposes of this
ICR and the RIA below—on whether the
estimate of 5 individuals per applicant
is accurate. Additionally, we estimate
that it will take each of the 35,000
respondents (7,000 × 5) a total of 2
hours to obtain a set of fingerprints
using the FD–258 standard fingerprint
card and to submit the card to CMS or
its designated contractor. Consequently,
the total estimated annual burden
associated with this requirement is
70,000 hours (35,000 respondents × 2
hours) at a cost of $3.5 million (70,000
hours × an estimated per hour cost of
$50).
Similarly, proposed § 424.518(c)(3)(iv)
(new providers in ‘‘high’’ risk category
after lifting of moratoria) would allow
CMS, its agents or its designated
contractors to require that each owner,
authorized official, delegated official,
and managing employee, of a provider
or supplier to submit a set of
fingerprints using the FD–258 standard
fingerprint card. The burden associated
with the proposed requirement is the
time and effort necessary for the owner,
authorized official, delegated official,
and managing employee of a provider or
supplier to submit the required
information upon request. We estimate
that CMS or its designated contractors
will make 2,000 requests per year. This
is based on the number of providers and
suppliers that we estimate will attempt
to enroll in Medicare after the lifting of
a moratorium for their respective
provider or supplier type. This estimate
of course, cannot be conclusively
quantified because it is impossible for
us to say with certainty which provider
and supplier types will be subject to a
moratorium. To ensure that we do not
underestimate the potential burden, we
will calculate projections should 5,000
or even 10,000 requests be made.
We estimate that an average of five
individuals per provider or supplier
will be required to comply with this
request. We further project that it will
take each of the 10,000 respondents
(2,000 × 5) a total of 2 hours to obtain
a set of fingerprints using the FD–258
standard fingerprint card and to submit
the card to CMS or its designated feefor-service contractor. The estimate
annual burden associated with this
requirement, based on 2000 requests, is
20,000 hours (10,000 respondents × 2
hours) at a cost of $1 million (20,000 ×
$50 per hour). If 5,000 requests are
made, the burden is 50,000 hours at a
cost of $2.5 million (5,000 × 5
respondents × 2 hours × $50 per hour.)
If 10,000 requests are made, the burden
is 100,000 hours at a cost of $5 million
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(10,000 × 5 respondents × 2 hours × $50
per hour).
In addition, there are some limited
circumstances when CMS could ask a
physician to submit fingerprints. For
example, a provider or supplier that is
being enrolled in Medicare after the
lifting of a temporary moratorium could
automatically be classified as ‘‘high’’ risk
and as such would be subject to
criminal background checks and
fingerprinting of owners and other
officials in the company. If a physician
were to be the owner or other official of
the company, CMS would have the
authority to request fingerprints from
the company official. Other
circumstances where physicians might
be subject to a request for finger printing
are when the physician is an official of
an entity in the ‘‘high’’ risk category, or
if CMS or its agent(s) determine that a
particular provider or supplier in the
‘‘high’’ risk category is possibly engaged
in fraud. We estimate that CMS or its
designated contractors will make 500
such requests for finger prints per year.
We further estimate that it will take
each of the 500 respondents a total of 2
hours to obtain a set of fingerprints
using the FD–258 standard fingerprint
card and to submit the card to CMS or
its contractor. The total estimate annual
burden associated with this requirement
is 1,000 hours (500 respondents × 2
hours) at a cost of $50,000 (1,000 hours
× $50 per hour).
Assuming that 2,000 post-moratorium
requests for fingerprints are made, the
total estimated annual burden
associated with the requirements in this
ICR is 103,000 hours at a cost of
$5,150,000. If 5,000 post-moratorium
requests are made, the estimated annual
burden is 133,000 hours at a cost of
$6,650,000. If 10,000 post-moratorium
requests are made, the estimated annual
burden is 183,000 hours at a cost of
$9,150,000.
Proposed § 455.434 states that when a
State Medicaid agency determines that a
provider is ‘‘high’’ risk, the State
Medicaid agency will require that
provider to submit fingerprints. We
anticipate that States will be collecting
fingerprints on a significantly smaller
number of providers. However, as with
our estimate on potential burden
discussed for Medicare, we prefer to
overestimate the potential burden rather
than underestimate it. Therefore, we
anticipate that States may require an
additional 26,000 individuals to submit
fingerprints prior to enrolling in a
State’s Medicaid program or CHIP. The
total estimate annual burden associated
with this requirement for Medicaid and
CHIP is 52,000 hours (26,000
respondents × 2 hours) at a cost of
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
$2,600,000 (52,000 hours × $50 per
hour).
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
C. ICRs Regarding Suspension of
Payments in Cases of Fraud or Willful
Misrepresentation (§ 455.23)
As stated in proposed § 455.23(a), a
State Medicaid agency shall suspend all
Medicaid payments to a provider when
there is pending an investigation of a
credible allegation of fraud under the
Medicaid program against an individual
or entity unless it has good cause to not
suspend payments or to suspend
payment only in part. The State
Medicaid agency may suspend
payments without first notifying the
provider of its intention to suspend
such payments. A provider may request,
and must be granted, administrative
review where State law so requires.
The burden associated with this
requirement is the time and effort
necessary for a provider to request
administrative review were State law so
requires. While this requirement is
subject to the PRA, we believe the
associated burden is exempt in
accordance with 5 CFR 1320.4;
information collected subsequent to an
administrative action is not subject.
D. ICRs Regarding Collection of SSNs
and DOBs for Medicaid and CHIP
Providers (§ 455.104)
As stated in proposed § 455.104(b)(1),
the State Medicaid agency must require
that all persons with an ownership or
control interest in a provider submit
their SSN and DOB. The burden
associated with the Medicaid
requirements in § 455.104(b)(1) is the
time and effort necessary for a provider
to report the SSN and DOB for all
persons with an ownership or control
interest in a provider.
Although our data on Medicaid
provider enrollment at the national level
is very limited, we do collect annual
data on State Medicaid program
integrity activities. This annual data
collection, known as the State Program
Integrity Assessment (SPIA) program
approved, under OCN 0938–1033,
consists of self-reported data by States
regarding a variety of program integrity
related activities. The information is
self-reported and has not been
independently verified by CMS, and it
undoubtedly represents some unknown
degree of duplication among providers
across States. Consequently, the
estimated number of Medicaid
providers nationally is likely overstated.
According to SPIA data for FFYs 2007
and 2008, there has been an average of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
1,855,070 existing Medicaid providers
nationally over the 2-year period of FFY
2007 and FFY 2008. We estimate that
one-fifth, or 371,014 (1,855,070 × 20
percent) of existing Medicaid providers
would be required to re-enroll each
year. Additionally, we estimate that
there will be 56,250 newly enrolling
Medicaid providers each year, for a total
of 427,264 Medicaid providers that will
be subject to the SSN and DOB reporting
requirements each year. We further
estimate that it will take each provider
an average of 2 minutes to report the
SSN and DOB for all persons with an
ownership or control interest. Thus, the
estimate annual burden associated with
this requirement for Medicaid providers
is 14,242 hours (427,264 × 2 minutes,
divided by 60 minutes per hr) at a cost
of $712,100 (14,242 hours × $50 per
hour).
E. ICRs Regarding Site Visits for
Medicaid-Only or CHIP-Only Providers
(§ 455.450)
As stated in proposed in § 455.450(b),
a State Medicaid agency must conduct
on-site visits for providers it determines
to be ‘‘moderate’’ or ‘‘high’’ categorical
risk. We anticipate that Medicare
contractors will perform the screening
activities for the overwhelming majority
of providers that are dually enrolled in
both Medicare and Medicaid, and thus,
we estimate that State Medicaid
agencies will conduct approximately
5,000 site visits for Medicaid-only
providers nationally per year. We
further estimate that it will take one
individual 8 hours to perform each onsite visit (including travel time). Thus,
the total estimate annual burden
associated with this requirement for
Medicaid is 40,000 hours (5,000 site
visits × 8 hours) at a cost of $2,000,000
(40,000 hours × $50 per hour).
F. ICRs Regarding the Rescreening of
Medicaid Providers Every 5 Years
(§ 455.414)
As stated in proposed § 455.414, a
State Medicaid agency must screen all
providers at least every 5 years. This
requirement is consistent with the
Medicare requirement that providers,
suppliers, and eligible professionals
must re-enroll at least every 5 years
(more often for certain types of
suppliers). The burden associated with
this proposed requirement would be the
time and effort necessary for Medicaidonly providers to re-enroll in Medicaid,
and the time and effort necessary for a
State to conduct the provider screening,
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
58231
Although our data on Medicaid
provider enrollment at the national level
is very limited, we do collect annual
data on State Medicaid program
integrity activities. This annual data
collection, known as the State Program
Integrity Assessment (SPIA) program,
consists of self-reported data by States
regarding a variety of program integrity
related activities. The information is
self-reported and has not been
independently verified by CMS, and it
undoubtedly represents some unknown
degree of duplication among providers
across States. Consequently, the
estimated number of Medicaid
providers nationally is likely overstated.
According to SPIA data for FFYs 2007
and 2008, there has been an average of
1,855,070 existing Medicaid providers
nationally over the 2-year period of FFY
2007 and FFY 2008. We estimate that
one-fifth, or 371,014 (1,855,070 × 20
percent) of existing Medicaid provider
would be required to re-enroll each
year, Although provider enrollment
requirements vary by State, we further
estimate that it will take each provider
an average of 2 hours to complete the
Medicaid re-enrollment requirements.
Thus, the estimate annual burden
associated with this requirement for
Medicaid providers is 742,028 hours
(371,014 × 2 hours) at a cost of
$37,101,400 (742,028 hours × $50 per
hour).
We estimate that 80 percent of
Medicaid providers also participate in
Medicare, and thus would have
provider screening activities performed
by the Medicare contractors. Thus, we
estimate that States would be required
to conduct provider screening activities
for 74,203 (371,014 × 20 percent) reenrolling Medicaid-only providers each
year. We further estimate that it will
take States, on average, 4 hours to
perform the required provider screening
activities—noting that currently
enrolled providers would generally be
categorized as lower risk than newlyenrolling providers. The estimated
burden associated with this requirement
for State Medicaid agencies is 296,812
hours (74,203 × 4 hours) at a cost of
$14,840,600 (296,812 hours × $50 per
hour). We believe that the burden on
States will be in large part offset by the
application fees collected and by the
Federal share for the amounts not
covered by the application fee.
The total estimate annual burden
associated with this requirement is
1,038,840 hours at a cost of $51,942,000.
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
58232
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING/RECORDKEEPING BURDEN
Regulation section(s)
§ 424.514(e)** ...............
§ 424.518(c)(2)(b) and
(d).
§ 424.518(c)(3)(iv) and
(d).
§ 455.434 ......................
§ 455.104 ......................
§ 455.450 ......................
§ 455.414 (Providers) ...
§ 455.414 (State Medicaid Agencies).
Total .......................
Total
labor
cost of
reporting
($)
Respondents
Responses
Burden per
response
(hours)
Total annual
burden
(hours)
Hourly labor
cost of
reporting
($)
0938–0685;
0938–
1056.
0938–New ..
12,000
12,000
1
12,000
50
600,000
0
600,000
35,000
35,000
2
70,000
50
3,500,000
0
3,500,000
0938–New ..
10,500
10,500
2
21,000
50
1,050,000
0
1,050,000
..
..
..
..
..
26,000
427,264
5,000
371,014
74,203
26,000
427,264
5,000
371,014
74,203
2
.033
8
2
4
52,000
14,242
40,000
742,028
296,812
50
50
50
50
50
2,600,000
712,100
2,000,000
37,101,400
14,840,600
0
0
0
0
........................
2,600,000
712,100
2,000,000
37,101,400
14,840,600
....................
960,981
960,981
....................
1,248,082
....................
......................
........................
62,404,100
OMB
Control
No.
0938–New
0938–New
0938–New
0938–New
0938–New
Total capital/
maintenance
costs
($)
Total cost
($)
** Denotes that we will be submitting revisions of the currently approved information collection requests for OMB review and approval.
IV. Response to Comments
Because of the large number of public
comments we normally receive on
Federal Register documents, we are not
able to acknowledge or respond to them
individually. We will consider all
comments we receive by the date and
time specified in the DATES section of
this preamble, and, when we proceed
with a subsequent document, we will
respond to the comments in the
preamble to that document.
V. Regulatory Impact Analysis
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
A. Overall Impact
We have examined the impact of this
rule as required by Executive Order
12866 on Regulatory Planning and
Review (September 1993), the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96–354),
section 1102(b) of the Social Security
Act, section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104–4), Executive Order 13132 on
Federalism (August 4, 1999), and the
Congressional Review Act (U.S.C.
804(s).
Executive Order 12866 directs
agencies to assess all costs and benefits
of available regulatory alternatives and,
if regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health
and safety effects, distributive impacts;
and equity). A regulatory impact
analysis (RIA) must be prepared for
rules with economically significant
effects ($100 million or more in any 1
year). This rule does reach the economic
threshold and thus is considered an
economically significant rule.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze
options for regulatory relief for small
businesses. Under the RFA, we must
either prepare an Initial Regulatory
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
Flexibility Analysis or certify that the
proposed rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. For purposes of the RFA, small
entities include small businesses,
nonprofit organizations, and
government agencies. Most hospitals
and most other providers and suppliers
are small entities, either by nonprofit
status or by having revenues of less than
$7.0 to $34.5 million (depending on
provider type) in any one year.
Individuals and States are not included
in the definition of a small entity. HHS
practice is to assume that all providers
affected by our rules are small entities,
since we know that the vast majority
meet the criteria used under the RFA.
We do not believe that our application
fees will have a significant impact on
any small entities. Likewise, we do not
believe that other screening provisions,
such as the provision of fingerprints or
accommodating unannounced visits,
will have a significant impact on any
small entities. We think this proposed
rule could have significant impact on a
relatively small proportion of small
businesses in terms of restrictions on
Federal health monies paid to small
businesses participating in the Medicare
or Medicaid programs or CHIP. Clearly,
imposition of an enrollment moratorium
would have an impact on a small
business that is attempting to do
business with any of the Federal health
programs. Similarly, suspension of
payments to any small entity could
create a significant impact on that
entity. We have, however, no basis for
estimating how many entities might be
affected by these provisions. Finally, we
believe that this proposed rule will
reduce fraud and abuse among potential
providers. Clearly, there will be a
significant impact on their ability to
defraud the taxpayer in several ways.
First, closer screening of certain high-
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
risk providers and suppliers will better
enable CMS to detect those individuals
and entities that pose a risk to the
Medicare program. Preventing
unqualified providers and suppliers
from enrolling in Medicare will protect
the Medicare Trust Fund and save the
taxpayers millions of dollars. Second,
an application fee will help reduce the
costs of administering the Medicare
program. Third, the temporary
moratoria provisions will enable CMS to
restrict the entry of certain providers
and suppliers into Medicare in order to
prevent or combat fraud, waste, and
abuse, thus, again, saving millions of
Federal dollars. While we cannot
quantify with exactitude the amount of
money that the Medicare program will
save as a result of these measures, we do
believe that the figure will exceed the
costs outlined in this RIA. We are
seeking comment on the overall
proposed screening processes described
in section II.A. of this proposed rule,
including how the risk of fraud is
determined, the administrative
interventions proposed to address the
risk, and the criteria for exceptions to
the enrollment application fee and any
temporary enrollment moratoria. We ask
small businesses to comment on these
provisions and offer suggestions about
how to mitigate what they might see as
adverse administrative or financial
impacts. This RIA, taken together with
the remainder of the preamble,
constitutes an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis under the RFA.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act
requires us to prepare a regulatory
impact analysis if a rule may have a
significant impact on the operations of
a substantial number of small rural
hospitals. This analysis must conform to
the provisions of section 603 of the
RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of
the Act, we define a small rural hospital
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
as a hospital that is located outside of
a Metropolitan Statistical Area and has
fewer than 100 beds. We are not
preparing an analysis for section 1102(b)
of the Act because we have determined
that this final rule will not have a
significant impact on the operations of
a substantial number of small rural
hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also
requires that agencies assess anticipated
costs and benefits before issuing any
rule that may result in expenditure in
any 1 year by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $135 million. This rule
does mandate expenditures by State and
local governments, in order to enforce
the Medicaid-related provisions, but we
believe that those expenditures will be
relatively minor. The mandated costs on
providers—primarily for application
fees—may approach or exceed the
threshold for the private sector.
Accordingly, this RIA constitutes the
required assessment of costs and
benefits under UMRA.
Executive Order 13132 establishes
certain requirements that an agency
must meet when it promulgates a
proposed rule (and subsequent final
rule) that imposes substantial direct
requirement costs on State and local
governments, preempts State law, or
otherwise has Federalism implications.
Since this proposed rule would not
impose any substantial direct
requirement costs on State or local
governments, preempt State law, or
otherwise have Federalism implication,
the requirements of E.O. 13132 are not
applicable.
B. Anticipated Effects
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
1. Medicare
a. Enhanced Screening Procedures—
Medicare
Based on statistics obtained from
PECOS and our Medicare contractors,
there are approximately 400,000
providers and suppliers currently
enrolled in the Medicare program. (This
does not include eligible professionals.)
This figure includes ambulance service
suppliers; ambulatory surgical centers;
community mental health centers;
comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation
facilities; suppliers of DMEPOS; endstage renal disease facilities; federally
qualified health centers;
histocompatibility laboratories; home
health agencies; hospices; hospitals,
including physician-owned specialty
hospitals; critical access hospitals;
independent clinical laboratories;
independent diagnostic testing facilities;
Indian health service facilities;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
mammography centers; mass
immunizers (roster billers); medical
groups/clinics, including single and
multi-specialty clinics; organ
procurement organizations; outpatient
physical therapy/occupational therapy/
speech pathology services; portable Xray suppliers; skilled nursing facilities;
radiation therapy centers; religious nonmedical health care institutions; and
rural health clinics. We note the
following in section III. of this proposed
rule:
• Based on 2009 experience we
estimate that there will be 7,000
DMEPOS suppliers and HHAs that will
submit an application to become a new
Medicare enrolled provider in 2011. We
would require approximately 35,000
individuals (7,000 providers/suppliers ×
5 individuals per applicant) to undergo
fingerprinting to participate in the
Medicare program as an owner,
authorized official, delegated official, or
managing employee of an HHA or
supplier of DMEPOS. We have found
that the cost of having a set (two prints)
of fingerprints done through a local law
enforcement office is approximately
$50.00 per individual. The cost of this
fingerprinting requirement would
therefore be $1.75 million per year
(35,000 individuals × $50).
• We estimate that 10,000 individuals
(2,000 providers or suppliers × 5
individuals per applicant) would
undergo fingerprinting following the
lifting of a moratorium on a particular
provider or supplier type, at a cost of
$500,000 per year (10,000 × $50).
Should requests be made of 5,000
providers or suppliers, the annual figure
would be $1,250,000 (5,000 × 5
individuals per applicant × $50). Should
requests be made of 10,000 providers or
suppliers, the annual figure would be
$2.5 million (10,000 × 5 × $50).
• We estimate that 500 physicians
would undergo fingerprinting per year,
at a cost of $25,000.
This results in a total cost of the
fingerprinting requirement of
$2,275,000 per year ($1,750,000 +
$500,000 + $25,000), or $11,375,000
over 5 years. If 5,000 post-moratorium
requests are made, the annual cost is
$3,025,000, with a 5-year cost of
$15,125,000. Should 10,000 postmoratorium requests be made, the
annual cost is $4,275,000, with a 5-year
cost of $21,375,000.
As we believe that 2,000 postmoratorium requests is the most likely
scenario, we will hereafter use the
$2,275,000 amount as the annual cost of
this requirement. This results in an
estimated 5-year cost of $11,375,000.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
58233
b. Application Fee—Medicare
The Secretary shall impose an
application fee on each institutional
provider. The amount of the fee is $500
per provider or supplier for 2010. For
2011 and each subsequent year, the fee
amount will be determined by the
statutorily-required formula using the
consumer price index for all urban
consumers (CPI–U). The enrollment
application fee does not apply to
individual eligible professionals (for
example, physicians). The fee is to be
paid by institutional providers only.
The new screening provisions are
applicable to new and revalidating
providers and suppliers effective March
23, 2011, and to currently enrolled
providers and suppliers as of March 23,
2012. We intend to begin collecting the
enrollment application fee for new
providers and suppliers and for
currently enrolled providers
revalidating enrollment effective March
23, 2011.
c. General Enrollment Framework
(1) New Enrollment
Medicare contractors report that over
the last several years, approximately
32,000 is the annual number of newly
enrolling providers and suppliers that
would—without accounting for the
possible granting of waivers—be subject
to the enrollment application fee—
(approximately 20,000 for Medicare Part
B, approximately 7,000 DMEPOS
suppliers and HHAs (as explained in the
Collection of Information section
above), and approximately 5,000 nonHHA Medicare Part A providers).
We assume that no more than 2.5
percent of these 32,000 providers and
suppliers—or 800—will receive a
hardship exception; as indicated earlier,
exceptions will only be approved
infrequently.
In FY 2011, we reduced the estimate
number of institutional providers
subject to the application fee by 25
percent because the application fee will
not begin until March 23, 2011.
Accordingly, the number of institutional
providers that we anticipate paying the
application fee will be 23,400 (or 31,200
X .75) in FY 2011. In FY 2011, we
reduced the estimate number of
institutional providers subject to the
application fee by 25 percent because
the application fee will not begin until
March 23, 2011. Accordingly, the
number of institutional providers that
we anticipate paying the application fee
will be 24,000 in FY 2011.
Therefore, the impacts of the
enrollment application fee are as
follows. If we use 23,400 as the number
of newly enrolling providers and
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
58234
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
suppliers in 2011, multiply this number
by the $500 application fee, we get
$11,700,000 collected for the first year
(that is, CY 2011). If we assume that the
number of newly enrolling providers
and suppliers will remain constant at
31,200 for years 2012 through 2015,
then the cost to the number of newly
enrolling providers and suppliers would
be approximately $78.87 million. These
estimates are displayed in the table
below, and account for a projected
annual CPI–U rate increase of 3 percent
from FY 2012 to FY 2015—knowing, of
course, that this figure could fluctuate
significantly based on national
economic conditions.
Although we have no way to predict
that the number of new enrollments will
change in future years, it is possible that
the number of enrolling providers and
suppliers vary from what has been the
norm. If our estimate of the number of
newly enrolling providers is inaccurate
and we enroll a different number of
providers and suppliers after the
effective date of the new screening and
other provisions contained in the ACA,
we estimate based on the $500
enrollment application fee—a rough
difference of $1 million for each
increment of 2000 new enrollments,
whether fewer or greater.
TABLE 7—CUMULATIVE APPLICATION FEES FOR NEWLY ENROLLING MEDICARE PROVIDERS AND SUPPLIERS FOR THE FIRST
5 YEARS OF THE PROVISION
Newly
enrolling
institutional
providers and
suppliers
Newly
enrolling
institutional
providers and
suppliers
paying the application fee
(based on a
2.5% hardship
exception rate)
Consumer
price index
adjusted fee
in dollars
(estimated 3%
annual increase in CPI)
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
24,000
32,000
32,000
32,000
32,000
23,400
31,200
31,200
31,200
31,200
$500
515
530
546
562
$11,700,000
16,068,000
16,536,000
17,035,200
17,534,400
$11,700,000
27,768,000
44,304,000
61,339,200
78,873,600
Total ..............................................................................
........................
........................
........................
78,873,600
78,873,600
Year
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
(2) Revalidation
There are approximately 100,000
currently enrolled suppliers of DMEPOS
who are required to revalidate their
enrollment every 3 years and 300,000
additional providers and suppliers that
do not provide DMEPOS that are
required to revalidate their enrollment
every 5 years. On a yearly basis, we
estimate that approximately 33,000
DMEPOS suppliers (one-third of the
total) and 60,000 other, non-DMEPOS
providers/suppliers (one-fifth of the
total) would revalidate their enrollment
in Medicare, for an annual total of
93,000. Since, as explained earlier, we
estimate that no more than 2.5 percent
of these providers and suppliers will
receive a waiver from the application
fee, we project that 90,675 such
providers and suppliers will be subject
to the fee.
This proposed rule contemplates
collecting the application fee for
currently enrolled providers that
revalidate their enrollment on or after
March 23, 2011—almost 3 months into
CY 2011. Therefore, we have adjusted
the number of existing Medicare
Total fees for
each year in
dollars
Cumulative
fees in dollars
institutional providers subject to an
application fee by 25 percent, from
90.675 to 68.006 (or 90.675 × .75) in FY
2011. Further accounting for: (1) A
projected annual CPI–U rate increase of
3 percent, as stated above; and (2) our
assumption that the number of
revalidating providers and suppliers
will remain at 90,675 between CY 2012
and 2015, the cost associated with these
fees for revalidating providers and
suppliers would be approximately
$183,548,740 over the first 5 years that
the ACA provisions are in effect, as
shown in Table 8 below.
TABLE 8—CUMULATIVE APPLICATION FEES FOR REVALIDATING MEDICARE PROVIDERS AND SUPPLIERS FOR THE FIRST 5
YEARS OF THE PROVISION
Revalidating
institutional
providers and
suppliers
Revalidating
institutional
providers &
suppliers paying application
fee
(based on
2.5% hardship
exception rate)
Consumer
price index
adjusted fee
in dollars
(estimated 3%
annual increase in CPI)
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
69,750
93,000
93,000
93,000
93,000
68,006
90,675
90,675
90,675
90,675
$500
515
530
546
562
$34,003,000
46,697,625
48,057,750
49,508,550
50,959,350
$34,003,000
80,700,625
128.758,375
178,266,925
229,226,275
Total ..........................................................................
........................
........................
........................
229,226,275
229,226,275
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Year
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
Total fees for
each year
(in dollars)
23SEP4
Cumulative fees
(in dollars)
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Therefore, we estimate that the total
impact of the proposed provisions for
the application fee to be approximately
$308,099,875 over the next 5 years. This
number was approximated by adding
the cumulative application fees for
newly enrolling providers and suppliers
($78,873,600 as shown in Table 6) to the
cumulative application fees for
revalidating providers and suppliers
($229,226,275).
2. Medicaid
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
a. Enhanced Screening Procedures
Although our data on Medicaid
provider enrollment at the national level
is very limited, we do collect annual
data on State Medicaid program
integrity activities. This annual data
collection, known as the State Program
Integrity Assessment (SPIA) program,
consists of self-reported data by States
regarding a variety of program integrity
related activities. The information is
self-reported and has not been
independently verified by CMS, and it
undoubtedly represents some unknown
degree of duplication among providers
across States. Consequently, the
estimated number of Medicaid
providers nationally is likely overstated.
According to SPIA data for FFYs 2007
and 2008, there has been an average of
1,855,070 existing Medicaid providers
nationally over the 2-year period of FFY
2007 and FFY 2008. This universe of
Medicaid providers includes all
provider types, both institutional
providers and individual practitioners.
In the Medicare program, eligible
practitioners make up approximately 70
percent of the total universe of
providers, suppliers, and eligible
practitioners. Because we do not have
detailed information regarding the
breakdown of Medicaid providers by
type nationally, we will apply the same
ratio to determine the percentage of
institutional Medicaid providers.
Therefore, we estimate that there are
approximately 556,521 Medicaid-only
providers nationally that are not
individual practitioners.
We also estimate almost all CHIP
providers are also Medicaid providers.
So, for purposes of this section, we are
considering CHIP providers to also be
Medicaid providers and will
subsequently refer to them only as
Medicaid providers.
As previously stated in the Medicare
section of the analysis, we estimate that
we would require the following:
• Approximately 35,000 individuals
will undergo fingerprinting to enroll in
the Medicare program as owners,
authorized officials, delegated officials,
or managing employees of a home
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
health agency or supplier of DMEPOS.
Based on data collected as part of the
State survey and certification activities
for home health agencies, less than 1
percent of home health agencies are
Medicaid-only. And, although there is
no data available on the number of
Medicaid-only suppliers of DMEPOS,
we estimate that the number is minimal
as well, as a number of States require
suppliers of DMEPOS to be enrolled in
Medicare prior to enrolling in Medicaid.
Therefore, we estimate that States may
require approximately 1,000 additional
individuals with ownership or control
interests in the suppliers of DMEPOS, or
home health agencies, or persons who
are agents of or managing employees of
the suppliers of DMEPOS, or home
health agencies, to undergo
fingerprinting for enrollment in the
Medicaid program. The cost of this
fingerprinting requirement would be
approximately $50,000 (1,000 × $50 =
$50,000), though we seek comments on
the accuracy of this figure.
• We anticipate that Medicare
contractors will perform the screening
activities for the overwhelming majority
of providers following the lifting of a
Secretary-imposed temporary
moratorium and for the limited
circumstances in which physicians may
be fingerprinted. However, given that
States may also classify certain
Medicaid-only providers as ‘‘high’’
categorical risks, we are estimating that
States may require approximately
25,000 additional individuals to
undergo fingerprinting prior to enrolling
in a State’s Medicaid program, at a cost
of $1,250,000 (25,000 × $50 =
$1,250,000).
Consequently, we estimate that
fingerprinting individuals for purposes
of Medicaid enrollment will cost
$1,300,000.
When averaged across 50 States, the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico,
the annual cost of fingerprinting per
State will be $26,000.
b. Application Fee—Medicaid
For those providers not screened by
Medicare, the State may impose a fee on
each institutional provider being
screened. The amount of the fee is $500
per provider for 2010. For 2011 and
each subsequent year, the amount will
be determined by the statutorilyrequired formula using the consumer
price index for all urban consumers
(CPI–U).
c. General Enrollment Framework
For purposes of this section, we
assume that 80 percent of institutional
Medicaid providers will be dually
participating in both Medicare and
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
58235
Medicaid, and thus will be subject to
the application fee as part of the
Medicare screening and enrollment.
Therefore we estimate that 20 percent,
or 111,304 (556,521 × 20 percent), of the
institutional Medicaid-only providers
will not be screened by Medicare and
thus will be subject to the application
fee under Medicaid. We project that a
significant number of existing and
future Medicaid providers will request a
hardship exception, or that a State will
request a waiver of the application fee
for certain Medicaid provider types of
the application fee on the basis of
ensuring access to care. For purposes of
this section, although we have no way
to estimate the exact number of
providers that will ultimately request
and be approved for a hardship
exception, or the number of States that
will request a waiver of the fee for
certain Medicaid provider types, we
predict that 25 percent of all Medicaid
providers subject to the fee will receive
the hardship exception or be granted a
waiver of the fee on the basis of
ensuring beneficiary access to care. We
recognize that this 25 percent figure is
significantly higher than the 2.5 percent
waiver rate we are using for Medicare
application fees. Yet we believe the
difference is justified because of the
greater access to care issues that may
arise in Medicaid. Consequently, we
estimate that 83,478 existing Medicaid
providers will be required to pay the
application fee (111,304 existing
Medicaid providers that are not dually
enrolled less 25 percent or 27,826
existing providers).
(1) New Enrollments
We apply the 80 percent rate for
newly-enrolling Medicaid institutional
providers that will be dually
participating in both Medicare and
Medicaid and thus not subject to the fee
under Medicaid, and 25 percent
hardship exception rate to the annual
number of newly-enrolling Medicaid
institutional providers not dually
enrolled. The 45,000 newly-enrolling
Medicare institutional providers
annually represent 80 percent of the
total newly-enrolling Medicaid
institutional providers annually.
Therefore, we estimate that there will be
11,250 newly-enrolling Medicaid
institutional providers annually that are
subject to the application fee under
Medicaid (45,000 providers divided by
80 percent, ¥45,000 = 11,250). We
project another 25 percent will be
exempted for hardship or be granted a
waiver of the fee on the basis of
ensuring beneficiary access to care,
resulting in 8,438 newly-enrolling
Medicaid institutional providers being
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
58236
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
subject to the application fee each year
nationally.
Consistent with the Medicare
analysis, in FY 2011, we reduced the
estimated number of institutional
providers subject to the application fee
by 25 percent because the application
fee will not begin until March 23, 2011.
Accordingly, the number of institutional
providers that we anticipate paying the
application fee will be 6,329 in FY 2011.
Consequently, we project the dollars
due from application fees for newlyenrolling Medicaid institutional
providers who are not dually enrolled to
be $21,331,514 for the first 5 years in
total. When averaged across 50 States,
the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico, the total application fees for the
5 years in total per State will be
approximately $410,221.
TABLE 9—CUMULATIVE APPLICATION FEES FOR NEWLY ENROLLED MEDICAID PROVIDERS FOR THE FIRST 5 YEARS OF THE
PROVISION
New Medicaid
providers not
exempted from
the application
fee
Consumer
Price Index
adjusted fee 5
(in dollars)
(estimated 3
percent annual
increase in
CPI)
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
6,329
8,438
8,438
8,438
8,438
500
515
530
546
562
3,164,500
4,345,570
4,472,140
4,607,148
4,742,156
3,164,500
7,510,070
11,982,210
16,589,358
21,331,514
Total ..........................................................................................................
........................
........................
21,331,514
21,331,514
Fiscal year
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
(2) Re-Enrollment
This proposed rule contemplates that
States would require Medicaid
providers to re-enroll every 5 years. On
a yearly basis, we estimate that
approximately 16,696 Medicaid
institutional providers (one fifth of the
total) would re-enroll with the State
Medicaid agency.
We contemplate collecting the
application fee for currently enrolled
providers beginning on March 24, 2011.
States would not collect an application
fee with any re-enrollments until that
time—almost 3 months into CY 2011.
Therefore, we have adjusted the number
of existing Medicaid institutional
providers subject to an application fee
by 25 percent, from 16,696 to 12,522 in
FY 2011. Consequently, we project the
Total fees for
each year
(in dollars)
Cumulative
fees
(in dollars)
dollars due from application fees for
currently-enrolled Medicaid
institutional providers who are not
dually enrolled is $42,207,488 for the
first 5 years in total. When averaged
across 50 States, the District of
Columbia and Puerto Rico, the total
application fees for the 5 years in total
per State will be approximately
$811,682.
TABLE 10—CUMULATIVE APPLICATION FEES FOR RE-ENROLLING MEDICAID PROVIDERS FOR THE FIRST 5 YEARS OF THE
PROVISION
Existing
Medicaid
providers not
exempted from
the application
fee
Consumer
Price index
adjusted fee
(in dollars)
(Estimated 3
percent annual
increase in
CPI)
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
12,522
16,696
16,696
16,696
16,696
0
515
530
546
562
6,261,000
8,598,440
8,848,880
9,116,016
9,383,152
6,261,000
14,859,440
23,708,320
32,824,336
42,207,488
Total ..........................................................................................................
........................
........................
42,207,488
42,207,488
Year
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
5 After the first year, the CPI–U is applied to the
base fee of $500.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
Total fees for
each year
(in dollars)
Cumulative
fees
(in dollars)
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
3. Medicare and Medicaid
a. Moratoria on Enrollment of New
Medicare Providers and Suppliers and
Medicaid Providers
Although we have no way of
predicting the exact cost savings
associated with enrollment moratoria,
we expect there will be program savings
achieved by implementation of this
section. As stated previously, these
provisions will enable CMS to restrict
the entry of certain providers and
suppliers into Medicare in order to
prevent or combat fraud, waste, and
abuse. However, there are no cost
burdens to the public or to the provider
community. Therefore, we have not
estimated the cost impacts of this
provision.
b. Suspension of Payments in Medicare
and Medicaid
As with payment moratoria, although
we have no way of predicting the exact
cost savings to Medicare and Medicaid
associated with implementation of the
provisions contained in this proposed
rule, we certainly expect that there will
be program savings that result from
implementation of this provision. CMS
and its law enforcement partners
already have a process for payment
suspension when possible fraud is
involved. The changes proposed in this
rule will strengthen the existing process
and its applicability to Medicaid, but it
will not create any different impact or
burden on the provider community in
circumstances of payment suspension.
There are no new cost burdens to the
public or the provider community
associated with this provision.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
C. Accounting Statement and Table
As required by OMB Circular A–4
(available at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/
a4.pdf), we have prepared an
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
accounting statement. This statement
only addresses: (1) The costs of the
fingerprinting requirement, and (2) the
monetary transfer associated with the
application fee. It does not address the
potential financial benefits of these two
requirements from the standpoint of
their possible effectiveness in deterring
certain unscrupulous providers and
suppliers from enrolling in or
maintaining their enrollment in
Medicare and Medicaid. This is because
it is impossible for us to quantify these
benefits in monetary terms. Moreover,
we cannot predict how many potentially
fraudulent providers and suppliers will
be kept out of the Medicare and
Medicaid programs due to these
proposed requirements.
1. Medicare
As stated previously, we estimate a
total cost of the fingerprinting
requirement of $2,275,000 per year
($1,750,000 + $500,000 + $25,000), or
$11,375,000 over 5 years, if 2,000 postmoratorium requests are made. If 5,000
post-moratorium requests are made, the
annual cost is $3,025,000, with a 5-year
cost of $15,125,000. Should 10,000 postmoratorium requests be made, the
annual cost is $4,275,000, with a 5-year
cost of $21,375,000. We also stated in
the RIA that the expected total
application fees:
• For newly enrolling providers and
suppliers would be $11.7 million in
2011, $16,068,000 in 2012, $16,536,000
in 2013, $17,035,200 in 2014, and
$17,534,400 in 2015. This results in a
5-year total of $78,873,600.
• For revalidating providers and
suppliers would be $34,003,000 in 2011,
$46,697,625 in 2012, $48,057,750 in
2013, $49,508,550 in 2014, and
$50,959,350 in 2015. This results in a 5year total of $229,226,275.
The accounting statement reflects the:
(1) Annual cost of the fingerprinting
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
58237
requirement, and (2) the application of
the 3 percent and 7 percent discount
rate to the combined amounts of the
application fees for FY 2015—that is,
$17,534,400 plus $50,959,350
(revalidations), for a total of
$68,493,750; this constitutes a transfer
of funds to the Federal government. We
chose the FY 2015 figures so as to reflect
the maximum amount of transferred
funds in a given year during the initial5 year period.
2. Medicaid
As stated in the RIA, we estimate that
the annual cost of the fingerprint
requirement for Medicaid will be
$1,300,000, or $6,500,000 over a 5-year
period. We also stated in the RIA that
the expected total application fees:
• For newly enrolling providers and
suppliers would be $3,164,500 in 2011,
$4,345,570 in 2012, $4,472,140 in 2013,
$4,607,148 in 2014, and $4,742,156 in
2015. This results in a 5-year total of
$21,331,514. For revalidating providers
and suppliers would be $0 in 2011;
$6,448,830 in 2012; $8,448,880 in 2013;
$9,116,016 in 2014; and $9,383,152 in
2015. This results in a 5-year total of
$33,796,878.
The accounting statement reflects: (1)
The annual cost of the fingerprinting
requirement, and (2) the application of
the 3 percent and 7 percent discount
rate to the combined amounts of the
application fees for FY 2015—
specifically, $4,742,156 (new
applicants) plus $9,383,152
(revalidations), for a total of
$14,125,308. This constitutes a transfer
of funds to the Federal government. As
with the Medicare figures, we chose to
use those from FY 2015 for Medicaid so
as to reflect the maximum amount of
transferred funds in a given year during
the initial-5 year period.
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
58238
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
ACCOUNTING STATEMENT: CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES AND COSTS FROM FY 2011 TO FY 2015
[In millions]
Medicare Fingerprint Requirement
COSTS
3 percent Discount Rate
7 percent Discount Rate
Annualized Monetized Costs
(2,000 post-moratorium requests)
$2.275
$2.275
Annualized Monetized Costs
(5,000 post-moratorium requests)
$3.025
$3.025
Annualized Monetized Costs
(10,000 post-moratorium requests)
$4.275
$4.275
Who is Affected?
Providers and Suppliers
Medicare Application Fee
TRANSFERS
3 percent Discount Rate
$48.2
Annualized Monetized Transfers
7 percent Discount Rate
$47.3
From Whom to Whom?
Providers and Suppliers to Federal Government
Medicaid Fingerprint Requirement
COSTS
3 percent Discount Rate
$1.3
Annualized Monetized Costs
7 percent Discount Rate
$1.3
Who is Affected?
Providers and Suppliers
Medicaid Application Fee
TRANSFERS
3 percent Discount Rate
$10.1
Annualized Monetized Costs
From Whom to Whom?
7 percent Discount Rate
$10.0
Providers and Suppliers to Federal Government
BENEFITS
Qualitative: The above-referenced requirements will: (1) Allow CMS to more closely screen providers and suppliers that pose risks to the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and (2) help offset the costs of administering the Medicare and Medicaid programs. We believe these and other
financial benefits outlined in this proposed rule will exceed the costs outlined above.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
D. Conclusion
This proposed rule contains
provisions that are of critical
importance in the transition of CMS’
antifraud activities from ‘‘pay and
chase’’ to fraud prevention. ‘‘Pay and
chase’’ refers to the traditional approach
under which CMS met its obligations to
provide beneficiaries access to qualified
providers and suppliers and to pay
claims quickly by making it relatively
easy for providers to sign up to bill
Medicare, Medicaid or CHIP, paying
their claims rapidly, and then detecting
overpayments or fraudulent bills and
pursuing recoveries of overpayments
after the fact. That system functions
reasonably well when the problems
arise with legitimate providers and
suppliers that will be solvent and in
business when CMS seeks to recover
overpayments or law enforcement
pursues civil or criminal penalties. It is
not adequate when the fraud is
committed by sham operations that
provide no services or supplies and
exist simply to steal from Medicare or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
Medicaid and thrive on stealing or
subverting the identities of beneficiaries
and providers.
This proposed rule strikes a balance
that will permit CMS to continue to
assure that eligible beneficiaries receive
appropriate services from qualified
providers whose claims are paid on a
timely basis while implementing
enhanced measures to prevent outright
fraud. The new and strengthened
provisions in the ACA that are the
subject of this proposed rule will help
assure that only legitimate providers
and suppliers are enrolled in Medicare,
Medicaid, and CHIP, and that only
legitimate claims will be paid. These
provisions are applied according to the
level of risk of fraud, waste, and abuse
posed by different provider and supplier
types. CMS will use screening tools for
a particular provider or supplier type
based on 3 distinct categories of risk: (1)
Limited; (2) moderate; and (3) high.
Limited risk providers will have
enrollment requirements, license and
database verifications; moderate risk
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
will have those verifications plus
unscheduled site visits; high risk will
have verifications, unscheduled site
visits, criminal background check and
fingerprinting. CMS and the States will
impose moratoria on the enrollment of
new providers in situations when doing
so is necessary to protect against a high
risk of fraud. Working in conjunction
with the OIG, CMS, and States will
suspend payments pending an
investigation of a credible allegation of
fraud. And legitimate providers will be
assisted in avoiding problems by
implementing effective compliance
programs.
This proposed rule is an essential tool
in protecting public resources and
assuring that they are devoted to
providing health care rather than
enriching fraudulent actors.
In accordance with the provisions of
Executive Order 12866, this regulation
was reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
List of Subjects
Subpart C—Suspension of Payment,
Recovery of Overpayments, and
Repayment of Scholarships and Loans
42 CFR Part 405
Administrative practice and
procedure, Health facilities, Health
professions, Kidney diseases, Medical
devices, Medicare, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Rural
areas, X-rays.
2. The authority citation for subpart C
is revised to read as follows:
42 CFR Part 424
Emergency medical services, Health
facilities, Health professions, Medicare,
and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
42 CFR Part 438
Grant programs—health, Medicaid,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
42 CFR Part 447
Accounting, Administrative practice
and procedure, Drugs, Grant programs—
health, Health facilities, Health
professions, Medicaid, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Rural
areas.
42 CFR Part 455
Fraud, Grant programs—health,
Health facilities, Health professions,
Investigations, Medicaid, and Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
42 CFR Part 457
Administrative practice and
procedure, Grant programs—health,
Health insurance, and Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
42 CFR Part 498
Administrative practice and
procedure, Health facilities, Health
professions, Medicare, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
42 CFR Part 1007
Administrative practice and
procedure, Fraud, Grant programs—
health, Medicaid, and Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services proposes to amend
42 CFR chapters IV and V as set forth
below:
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
PART 405—FEDERAL HEALTH
INSURANCE FOR THE AGED AND
DISABLED
1. The authority citation for part 405
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 205(a), 1102, 1861,
1862(a), 1869, 1871, 1874, 1881, and 1886(k)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(a),
1302, 1395x, 1395y(a), 1395ff, 1395hh,
1395kk, 1395rr and 1395ww(k)), and sec. 353
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
263a).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
Authority: Secs. 1102, 1815, 1833, 1842,
1862, 1866, 1870, 1871, 1879 and 1892 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302, 1395g,
1395l, 1395u, 1395y, 1395cc, 1395gg,
1395hh, 1395pp and 1395ccc) and 31 U.S.C.
3711.
3. In subpart C, remove the phrase
‘‘intermediary or carrier’’ and add the
phrase ‘‘Medicare contractor’’ in its
place.
4. Section 405.370 is amended as
follows:
A. In paragraph (a), adding the
definitions of ‘‘Credible allegation of
fraud,’’ ‘‘Medicare contractor,’’ and
‘‘Resolution of an investigation’’ in
alphabetical order.
B. In paragraph (a), revising the
definitions of ‘‘Offset,’’ ‘‘Recoupment,’’
and ‘‘Suspension of payment’’.
The additions and revisions read as
follows:
§ 405.370
Definitions.
(a) * * *
Credible allegation of fraud. A
credible allegation of fraud is an
allegation from any source, including
but not limited to the following:
(1) Fraud hotline complaints.
(2) Claims data mining.
(3) Patterns identified through
provider audits, civil false claims cases,
and law enforcement investigations.
Allegations are considered to be
credible when they have indicia of
reliability.
Medicare contractor. Unless the
context otherwise requires, includes,
but is not limited to the any of
following:
(1) A fiscal intermediary.
(2) A carrier.
(3) Program safeguard contractor.
(4) Zone program integrity contractor.
(5) Part A/Part B Medicare
administrative contractor.
Offset. The recovery by Medicare of a
non-Medicare debt by reducing present
or future Medicare payments and
applying the amount withheld to the
indebtedness. (Examples are Public
Health Service debts or Medicaid debts
recovered by HCFA).
Recoupment. The recovery by
Medicare of any outstanding Medicare
debt by reducing present or future
Medicare payments and applying the
amount withheld to the indebtedness.
Resolution of an investigation. An
investigation of credible allegations of
fraud will be considered resolved when
legal action is terminated by settlement,
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
58239
judgment, or dismissal, or when the
case is closed or dropped because of
insufficient evidence to support the
allegations of fraud.
Suspension of payment. The
withholding of payment by a Medicare
contractor from a provider or supplier of
an approved Medicare payment amount
before a determination of the amount of
the overpayment exists, or until the
resolution of an investigation of a
credible allegation of fraud.
5. Section 405.371 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 405.371 Suspension, offset, and
recoupment of Medicare payments to
providers and suppliers of services.
(a) General rules. Medicare payments
to providers and suppliers, as
authorized under this subchapter
(excluding payments to beneficiaries),
may be—
(1) Suspended, in whole or in part, by
CMS or a Medicare contractor if CMS or
the Medicare contractor possesses
reliable information that an
overpayment exists or that the payments
to be made may not be correct, although
additional information may be needed
for a determination;
(2) In cases of suspected fraud,
suspended, in whole or in part, by CMS
or a Medicare contractor if CMS or the
Medicare contractor has consulted with
the OIG, and, as appropriate, the
Department of Justice, and determined
that a credible allegation of fraud exists
against a provider or supplier, unless
there is good cause not to suspend
payments; or
(3) Offset or recouped, in whole or in
part, by a Medicare contractor if the
Medicare contractor or CMS has
determined that the provider or supplier
to whom payments are to be made has
been overpaid.
(b) Good cause not to suspend
payments. CMS may find that good
cause exists not to suspend payments or
not to continue to suspend payments to
an individual or entity against which
there are credible allegations of fraud
if—
(1) OIG or other law enforcement
agency has specifically requested that a
payment suspension not be imposed
because such a payment suspension
may compromise or jeopardize an
investigation;
(2) It is determined that beneficiary
access to items or services would be so
jeopardized by a payment suspension in
whole or part as to cause a danger to life
or health;
(3) It is determined that other
available remedies implemented by
CMS or a Medicare contractor more
effectively or quickly protect Medicare
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
58240
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
funds than would implementing a
payment suspension; or
(4) CMS determines that a payment
suspension or a continuation of a
payment suspension is not in the best
interests of the Medicare program. CMS
will—
(i) Evaluate whether there is good
cause not to continue a suspension of
payments under this section every 180
days after the initiation of a suspension
based on credible allegations of fraud;
and
(ii) Request a certification from the
OIG or other law enforcement agency
that the matter continues to be under
investigation warranting continuation of
the suspension.
(c) Steps necessary for suspension of
payment, offset, and recoupment.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(d) of this section, CMS or the Medicare
contractor suspends payments only after
it has complied with the procedural
requirements set forth at § 405.372.
(2) The Medicare contractor offsets or
recoups payments only after it has
complied with the procedural
requirements set forth at § 405.373.
(d) Suspension of payment in the case
of unfiled cost reports. (1) If a provider
has failed to timely file an acceptable
cost report, payment to the provider is
immediately suspended in whole or in
part until a cost report is filed and
determined by the Medicare contractor
to be acceptable.
(2) In the case of an unfiled cost
report, the provisions of § 405.372 do
not apply. (See § 405.372(a)(2)
concerning failure to furnish other
information.)
6. Section 405.372 is amended as
follows:
A. Remove the phrase ‘‘intermediary,
carrier’’ wherever it appears and adding
the phrase ‘‘Medicare contractor’’ in its
place.
B. Revising paragraphs (a)(4) and
(d)(3).
C. In paragraph (e), removing the
cross-reference ‘‘§ 405.371(b)’’ and
adding the cross-reference
‘‘§ 405.371(a)’’.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
§ 405.372 Proceeding for suspension of
payment.
(a) * * *
(4) Fraud. If the intended suspension
of payment involves credible allegations
of fraud under § 405.371(a)(2), CMS—
(i) In consultation with OIG and, as
appropriate, the Department of Justice,
determines whether to impose the
suspension and if prior notice is
appropriate;
(ii) Directs the Medicare contractor as
to the timing and content of the
notification to the provider or supplier;
and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
(iii) Is the real party in interest and is
responsible for the decision.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(3) Exceptions to the time limits. (i)
The time limits specified in paragraphs
(d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section do not
apply if the suspension of payments is
based upon credible allegations of fraud
under § 405.371(a)(2).
(ii) Although the time limits specified
in (d)(1) and (d)(2) do not apply to
suspensions based on credible
allegations of fraud, all suspensions of
payment in accordance with
§ 405.371(a)(2) will be temporary and
will not continue after the resolution of
an investigation, unless a suspension is
warranted because of reliable evidence
of an overpayment or that the payments
to be made may not be correct, as
specified in § 405.371(a)(1).
*
*
*
*
*
§ 424.514
Application fee.
(a) Application fee requirements for
prospective institutional providers.
Beginning on or after March 23, 2011,
prospective institutional providers who
are submitting an initial application or
an application to establish a new
practice location must submit either of
the following:
(1) The applicable application fee.
(2) A request for a hardship exception
to the application fee at the time of
filing a Medicare enrollment
application.
(b) Application fee requirements for
revalidating institutional providers.
Beginning March 23, 2011, institutional
providers that are subject to CMS
revalidation efforts must submit either
of the following:
(1) The applicable application fee.
(2) A request for a hardship exception
to the application fee at the time of
filing a Medicare enrollment
application.
(c) Hardship exception for disaster
PART 424—CONDITIONS FOR
areas. CMS will assess on a case-by-case
MEDICARE PAYMENT
basis whether institutional providers
enrolling in a geographic area that is a
7. The authority of citation for part
Presidentially-declared disaster under
424 continues to read as follows:
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the
and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and
U.S.C. 5121–5206 (Stafford Act) should
1395hh).
receive an exception to the application
8. Section 424.57 is amended by
fee.
revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
(d) Application fee. The application
fee and associated requirements are as
§ 424.57 Special payment rules for items
follows:
furnished by DMEPOS suppliers and
(1) For 2010, $500.00.
issuance of DMEPOS supplier billing
(2) For 2011 and subsequent years—
privileges.
(i) Is adjusted by the percentage
*
*
*
*
*
change in the consumer price index for
(e) Revalidation of billing privileges. A all urban consumers (all items; United
supplier must revalidate its application
States city average) for the 12-month
for billing privileges every 3 years after
period ending with June of the previous
the billing privileges are first granted.
year;
(Each supplier must complete a new
(ii) Is effective from January 1 to
application for billing privileges 3 years December 31 of a calendar year;
after its last revalidation.)
(iii) Is based on the submission of an
initial application, application to
*
*
*
*
*
establish a new practice location or the
9. Section 424.502 is amended by
submission of an application in
adding the definition of ‘‘Institutional
response to a Medicare contractor
provider’’ in alphabetical order to read
revalidation request;
as follows:
(iv) Must be in the amount calculated
§ 424.502 Definitions.
by CMS in effect for the year during
which the application for enrollment is
*
*
*
*
*
being submitted;
Institutional provider means any
(v) Is nonrefundable;
provider or supplier that submits a
(vi) Must be resubmitted with an
paper Medicare enrollment application
enrollment application that was
using the CMS–855A, CMS–855B (not
previously denied or rejected; and
including physician and nonphysician
(vii) Must be able to be deposited into
practitioner organizations), CMS–855S
a Government-owned account and
or associated Internet-based PECOS
credited to the United States Treasury.
enrollment application.
(e) Denial or revocation based on
*
*
*
*
*
application fee. A Medicare contractor
10. Section 424.514 is added to read
may deny or revoke Medicare billing
as follows:
privileges of a provider or supplier
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
based on noncompliance if, in the
absence of a written request for a
hardship exception from the application
fee that accompanies a Medicare
enrollment application the bank account
on which the check that is submitted
with the enrollment application is
drawn does not contain sufficient funds
to pay the application fee.
(f) Information needed for submission
of a hardship exception request. A
provider or supplier requesting an
exception from the application fee must
include with its enrollment application
a letter that describes the hardship and
why the hardship justifies an exception.
(g) Failure to submit application fee
or hardship exception request. A
Medicare contractor must—
(1) Reject an enrollment application
from a provider or supplier that, with
the exceptions described in
§ 424.514(b), is not accompanied by the
application fee or by a letter requesting
a hardship exception from the
application fee.
(2) Revoke the billing privileges of a
currently enrolled provider or supplier
or deny the application to enroll and
establish billing privileges in the case of
providers or suppliers not currently
enrolled, with the exceptions noted in
§ 424.514(b), if an enrollment
application, including revalidation, is
received that is not accompanied by the
application fee or by a letter requesting
a hardship exception from the
application fee.
(h) Consideration of hardship
exception request. CMS has 60 days in
which to approve or disapprove a
hardship exception request.
(1) A Medicare contractor does not—
(i) Begin processing an enrollment
application that is accompanied by a
hardship exception request until CMS
has made a decision to approve or
disapprove the hardship exception
request; and
(ii) Deny an enrollment application
that is accompanied by a hardship
exception request unless the hardship
exception request is denied by CMS and
the provider or supplier fails to submit
the required application fee within 30
days of being notified that the request
for a hardship exception was denied.
(2) A hardship exception
determination made by CMS is
appealable using § 405.874.
11. Section 424.515 is amended by
adding a new paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
§ 424.515 Requirements for reporting
changes and updates to, and the periodic
revalidation of Medicare enrollment
information.
*
*
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
*
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
(e) Additional off-cycle revalidation.
On or after March 23, 2012, Medicare
providers and suppliers, including
DMEPOS suppliers, may be required to
revalidate their enrollment outside the
routine 5-year revalidation cycle (3-year
DMEPOS supplier revalidation cycle).
(1) CMS will contact providers or
suppliers to revalidate their enrollment
for off-cycle revalidation.
(2) As with all revalidations,
revalidations described in this
paragraph are conducted in accordance
with the screening procedures specified
at § 424.518.
12. Section 424.518 is added to read
as follows:
§ 424.518 Screening categories for
Medicare providers and suppliers.
A Medicare contractor is required to
screen all initial applications, including
applications for a new practice location,
and any applications received in
response to a revalidation request based
on a CMS categorical risk level of
‘‘limited,’’ ‘‘moderate,’’ or ‘‘high.’’
(a) Limited categorical risk—(1)
Limited categorical risk: Provider and
supplier types. CMS has designated the
following providers and suppliers as
‘‘limited’’ categorical risk:
(i) Physician or nonphysician
practitioners and medical groups or
clinics.
(ii) Ambulatory surgical centers.
(iii) End-stage renal disease facilities.
(iv) Federally qualified health centers.
(v) Histocompatibility laboratories.
(vi) Hospitals including critical access
hospitals.
(vii) Indian Health Service facilities.
(viii) Mammography screening
centers.
(ix) Organ procurement organizations.
(x) Mass immunization roster billers.
(xi) Portable x-ray suppliers.
(xii) Religious non-medical health
care institutions.
(xiii) Rural health clinics.
(xiv) Radiation therapy centers.
(xv) Public or government-owned or
-affiliated ambulance services suppliers.
(xvi) Skilled nursing facilities.
(2) Limited categorical risk: Screening
requirements. When CMS designates a
provider or supplier as a ‘‘limited’’
categorical level of risk or the provider
or supplier is publicly traded on the
New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) or
the National Association of Securities
Dealers Automated Quotation System
(NASDAQ), the Medicare contractor
does all of the following:
(i) Verifies that a provider or supplier
meets any applicable Federal
regulations, or State requirement for the
provider or supplier type prior to
making an enrollment determination.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
58241
(ii) Conducts license verifications,
including licensure verifications across
State lines for physicians or
nonphysician practitioners and
providers and suppliers that obtain or
maintain Medicare billing privileges as
a result of State licensure, including
State licensure in State other than where
the provider or supplier is enrolling.
(iii) Conducts database checks on a
pre- and post-enrollment basis to ensure
that providers and suppliers continue to
meet the enrollment criteria for their
provider/supplier type.
(b) Moderate categorical risk—(1)
Moderate categorical risk: Provider and
supplier types. CMS has designated the
following providers and suppliers as
‘‘moderate’’ categorical risk:
(i) The following prospective
providers and suppliers that are not
publicly-traded on the NYSE or
NASDAQ:
(A) Community mental health centers.
(B) Comprehensive outpatient
rehabilitation facilities.
(C) Hospice organizations.
(D) Independent diagnostic testing
facilities.
(E) Nongovernment-owned or
-affiliated ambulance service suppliers.
(F) Independent clinical laboratories.
(ii) The following revalidating
providers and suppliers that are not
publicly-traded on the NYSE or
NASDAQ:
(A) Community mental health centers.
(B) Comprehensive outpatient
rehabilitation facilities.
(C) Home health agencies.
(D) Hospice organizations.
(E) Independent diagnostic testing
facilities.
(F) Nongovernment-owned or
-affiliated ambulance service suppliers.
(G) Independent clinical laboratories.
(iii) Re-enrolling suppliers of
DMEPOS that are not publicly-traded on
the NYSE or NASDAQ.
(2) Moderate categorical risk:
Screening requirements. When CMS
designates a provider or supplier as a
‘‘moderate’’ categorical level of risk, the
Medicare contractor does all of the
following:
(i) Performs the ‘‘limited’’ screening
requirements described in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section.
(ii) Conducts an on-site visit.
(c) High categorical risk—(1) High
categorical risk: Provider and supplier
types. CMS has designated home health
agencies or suppliers of DMEPOS that
are not publicly-traded on the NYSE or
NASDAQ as ‘‘high’’ categorical risk:
(A) Prospective providers or suppliers
enrolling in the Medicare program.
(B) Providers or suppliers establishing
a new practice location.
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
58242
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(2) High categorical risk: Screening
requirements. When CMS designates a
provider or supplier as a ‘‘high’’
categorical level of risk, the Medicare
contractor does all of the following:
(i) Performs the ‘‘limited’’ and
‘‘moderate’’ screening requirements
described in paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2)
of this section.
(ii)(A) Conducts a criminal
background check; and
(B) Requires the submission of sets of
fingerprints using the FD–258 standard
fingerprint card.
(3) Adjustment in the categorical risk.
CMS adjusts the categorical risk level
from ‘‘limited’’ or ‘‘moderate’’ to ‘‘high’’ if
any of the following occur:
(i) CMS or its Medicare contractor has
information from a physician or
nonphysician practitioner that another
individual is using their identity within
the Medicare program.
(ii) CMS imposes a payment
suspension on a provider or supplier.
(iii) The provider or supplier—
(A) Has been excluded from Medicare
by the OIG; or
(B) Had its billing privileges denied or
revoked by a Medicare contractor within
the previous 10 years and is attempting
to establish additional Medicare billing
privileges by—
(1) Enrolling as a new provider or
supplier; or
(2) Billing privileges for a new
practice location.
(C) Has been terminated or is
otherwise precluded from billing
Medicaid.
(iv) CMS lifts a temporary moratorium
for a particular provider or supplier
type.
(d) Fingerprinting requirements. An
individual subject to the fingerprints
requirements specified in paragraph
(c)(2)(ii)(B) of this section—
(1) Must submit a set of fingerprints
using the FD–258 standard fingerprint
card—
(i) With the Medicare enrollment
application; or
(ii) Within 30 days of a Medicare
contractor request.
(2) Who does not submit a set of
fingerprints in accordance with
paragraph (d)(1) of this section will have
his or her Medicare billing privileges—
(i) Denied under § 424.530(a)(1); or
(ii) Revoked under § 424.535(a)(1).
13. Section 424.525 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) as follows:
A. Revising paragraph (a) introductory
text.
B. Adding a new paragraph (a)(3).
The revision and addition read as
follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
§ 424.525 Rejection of a provider or
supplier’s enrollment application for
Medicare enrollment.
(a) Reasons for rejection. CMS may
reject a provider or supplier’s
enrollment application for any of the
following reasons:
*
*
*
*
*
(3) The prospective institutional
provider or supplier does not submit the
application fee in the designated
amount or a hardship waiver request
with the Medicare enrollment
application at the time of filing.
*
*
*
*
*
14. Section 424.530 is amended by
adding new paragraphs (a)(8) and (a)(9)
to read as follows:
§ 424.530 Denial of enrollment in the
Medicare program.
(a) * * *
(8) Application fee/hardship
exception. An institutional provider or
supplier’s ‘‘hardship exception’’ request
is not granted.
(9) Temporary moratorium. A
provider or supplier submits an
enrollment application for a practice
location in a geographic area where
CMS has imposed a temporary
moratorium.
*
*
*
*
*
15. Section 424.535 is amended as
follows:
A. Revising paragraph (a)(6).
B. Adding a new paragraph (a)(11).
C. Revising paragraph (c).
§ 424.535 Revocation of enrollment billing
and billing privileges in the Medicare
program.
(a) * * *
(6) Grounds related to provider and
supplier screening requirements. (i)(A)
An institutional provider does not
submit an application fee or ‘‘hardship
exception’’ request that meets the
requirements set forth in § 424.514 with
the Medicare revalidation application;
or
(B) The ‘‘hardship exception’’ is not
granted and the institutional provider
does not submit the applicable
application form or application fee
within 30 days of being notified that the
hardship exception request was denied.
(ii)(A) The Medicare contractor is not
able to either of the following:
(1) Deposit the full application
amount into a government-owned
account.
(2) The funds are not able to be
credited to the U.S. Treasury.
(B) The provider or supplier lacks
sufficient funds in the account at the
banking institution whose name is
imprinted on the check or other banking
instrument to pay the application fee; or
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(C) There is any other reason why
CMS or its Medicare contractor is
unable to deposit the application fee
into a government-owned account.
*
*
*
*
*
(11) Medicaid termination. Medicaid
billing privileges are terminated or
revoked by a State Medicaid Agency,
not withstanding anything to the
contrary in this section, must not apply
unless and until a provider or supplier
has exhausted all applicable appeal
rights.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Reapplying after revocation. (1)
After a provider, supplier, delegated
official, or authorizing official has had
their billing privileges revoked, they are
barred from participating in the
Medicare program from the effective
date of the revocation until the end of
the re-enrollment bar.
(2) The re-enrollment bar is a
minimum of 1 year, but not greater than
3 years depending on the severity of the
basis for revocation.
(3) CMS may waive the re-enrollment
bar if it has revoked a provider or
supplier under § 424.535(a)(6)(i) based
upon the failure of the provider or
supplier to submit an application fee or
a hardship exception request with an
enrollment application upon
revalidation.
*
*
*
*
*
16. A new § 424.570 is added to read
as follows:
§ 424.570 Moratoria on newly enrolling
Medicare providers and suppliers.
(a) Temporary moratoria. CMS may
impose a moratorium on the enrollment
of new Medicare providers and
suppliers of a particular type or the
establishment of new practice locations
of a particular type in a particular
geographic area or nationally if—
(1) CMS determines that there is a
significant potential for fraud, waste or
abuse with respect to a particular
provider or supplier type or particular
geographic area or both. CMS’s
determination is based on its review of
existing data, and without limitation,
identifies a trend that appears to be
associated with a high risk of fraud,
waste or abuse, such as a—
(i) Highly disproportionate number of
providers or suppliers in a category
relative to the number of beneficiaries;
or
(ii) Rapid increase in enrollment
applications within a category;
(2) A State Medicaid program has
imposed a moratorium on a group of
Medicaid providers or suppliers that are
also eligible to enroll in the Medicare
program;
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(3) A State has imposed a moratorium
on enrollment in a particular geographic
area or on a particular provider or
supplier type or both; or
(4) CMS, in consultation the HHS OIG
or the Department of Justice or both and
with the approval of the CMS
Administrator identifies either or both
of the following as having a significant
potential for fraud, waste or abuse in the
Medicare program:
(i) A particular provider or supplier
type.
(ii) Any particular geographic area.
(b) Duration of moratoria. A
moratorium under this section may be
imposed for a period of 6 months and,
if deemed necessary by CMS, may be
extended in 6-month increments.
(c) Denial of enrollment: Moratoria. A
Medicare contractor denies the
enrollment application of a provider or
supplier if the provider or supplier is
subject to a moratorium as specified in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(d) Lifting moratoria. CMS may lift a
temporary moratorium in a specific
geographic area or nationally if—
(1) The President declares an area a
disaster under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121–5206
(Stafford Act); or
(2) Circumstances warranting the
imposition of a moratorium have abated
or CMS has implemented program
safeguards to address the program
vulnerability;
(3) In the judgment of the Secretary,
the moratorium is no longer needed.
PART 438—MANAGED CARE
18. Section 438.6 is amended by
adding new paragraph (c)(5)(vi).
Contract requirements.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(5) * * *
(vi) Contracts with MCOs, PIHPs, and
PAHPs must require all ordering or
referring network providers to be
enrolled as participating providers with
the Medicaid program.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 447—PAYMENT FOR SERVICES
19. The authority citation for part 447
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 1102 of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
PART 455—PROGRAM INTEGRITY:
MEDICAID
21. The authority citation for part 455
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 1102 of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).
22. Section 455.2 is amended by
adding the definition of ‘‘Credible
allegation of fraud’’ to read as follows:
Definitions.
*
Authority: Sec. 1102 of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).
20. A new § 447.90 is added to read
as follows:
(a) Basis and purpose. This section
implements section 1903(i)(2)(C) of the
Act which prohibits payment of FFP
with respect to items or services
furnished by an individual or entity
with respect to which there is pending
an investigation of a credible allegation
of fraud except under specified
circumstances.
(b) Denial of FFP. No FFP is available
with respect to any amount expended
for an item or service furnished by any
individual or entity to whom a State has
failed to suspend payments in whole or
part as required by § 455.23 unless:
(1) The item or service is furnished as
an emergency item or service, but not
including items or services furnished in
an emergency room of a hospital; or
(2) The State determines and
documents that good cause as specified
at § 455.23(e) or (f) exists not to suspend
such payments, to suspend payments
only in part, or to discontinue a
previously imposed payment
suspension.
§ 455.2
17. The authority for part 438
continues to read as follows:
§ 438.6
§ 447.90 FFP: Conditions related to
pending investigations of credible
allegations of fraud against the Medicaid
program.
*
*
*
*
Credible allegation of fraud. A
credible allegation of fraud is an
allegation from any source, including
but not limited to the following:
(1) Fraud hotline complaints.
(2) Claims data mining.
(3) Patterns identified through
provider audits, civil false claims cases,
and law enforcement investigations.
Allegations are considered to be
credible when they have indicia of
reliability.
*
*
*
*
*
23. Section 455.23 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 455.23 Suspension of payments in cases
of fraud.
(a) Basis for suspension. (1) The State
Medicaid agency must suspend all
Medicaid payments to a provider when
there is pending an investigation of a
credible allegation of fraud under the
Medicaid program against an individual
or entity unless it has good cause to not
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
58243
suspend payments or to suspend
payment only in part.
(2) The State Medicaid agency may
suspend payments without first
notifying the provider of its intention to
suspend such payments.
(3) A provider may request, and must
be granted, administrative review where
State law so requires.
(b) Notice of suspension. (1) The State
agency must send notice of its
suspension of program payments within
the following timeframes:
(i) Five days of taking such action
unless requested in writing by a law
enforcement agency to temporarily
withhold such notice.
(ii) Thirty days if requested by law
enforcement in writing to delay sending
such notice, which request for delay
may be renewed in writing up to twice
and in no event may exceed 90 days.
(2) The notice must include or
address all of the following:
(i) State that payments are being
suspended in accordance with this
provision.
(ii) Set forth the general allegations as
to the nature of the suspension action,
but need not disclose any specific
information concerning an ongoing
investigation.
(iii) State that the suspension is for a
temporary period, as stated in paragraph
(c) of this section, and cite the
circumstances under which suspension
will be terminated.
(iv) Specify, when applicable, to
which type or types of Medicaid claims
or business units of a provider
suspension is effective.
(v) Inform the provider of the right to
submit written evidence for
consideration by State Medicaid
Agency.
(c) Duration of suspension. (1) All
suspension of payment actions under
this section will be temporary and will
not continue after either of the
following:
(i) The agency or the prosecuting
authorities determine that there is
insufficient evidence of fraud by the
provider.
(ii) Legal proceedings related to the
provider’s alleged fraud are completed.
(2) A State must document in writing
the termination of a suspension
including, where applicable and
appropriate, any appeal rights available
to a provider.
(d) Referrals to the Medicaid fraud
control unit. (1) Whenever a State
Medicaid agency investigation leads to
the initiation of a payment suspension
in whole or part, the State Medicaid
Agency must make a fraud referral to
either of the following:
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
58244
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(i) To a Medicaid fraud control unit
established and certified under part
1007 of this Title; or
(ii) In States with no certified
Medicaid fraud control unit, to an
appropriate law enforcement agency.
(2) The fraud referral made under
paragraph (d)(1) of this section must
meet all of the following requirements:
(i) Be made in writing and provided
to the Medicaid fraud control unit not
later than the next business day after the
suspension is enacted.
(ii) Conform to fraud referral
performance standards issued by the
Secretary.
(3)(i) If the Medicaid fraud control
unit or other law enforcement agency
accepts the fraud referral for
investigation, the payment suspension
may be continued until such time as the
investigation and any associated
enforcement proceedings are completed.
(ii) On a quarterly basis, the State
must request a certification from the
Medicaid fraud control unit or other law
enforcement agency that any matter
accepted on the basis of a referral
continues to be under investigation thus
warranting continuation of the
suspension.
(4) If the Medicaid fraud control unit
or other law enforcement agency
declines to accept the fraud referral for
investigation the payment suspension
must be discontinued unless the State
Medicaid agency makes a fraud referral
to another law enforcement agency. In
that situation, the provisions of
paragraph (d)(3) of this section apply
equally to that referral as well.
(5) A State’s decision to exercise the
good cause exceptions in paragraphs (e)
or (f) of this section not to suspend
payments or to suspend payments only
in part does not relieve the State of the
obligation to refer any credible
allegation of fraud as provided in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(e) Good cause not to suspend
payments. A State may find that good
cause exists not to suspend payments,
or not to continue a payment
suspension previously imposed, to an
individual or entity against which there
is an investigation of a credible
allegation of fraud if any of the
following are applicable:
(1) Law enforcement officials have
specifically requested that a payment
suspension not be imposed because
such a payment suspension may
compromise or jeopardize an
investigation.
(2) Other available remedies
implemented by the State more
effectively or quickly protect Medicaid
funds.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
(3) The State determines that payment
suspension is not in the best interests of
the Medicaid program.
(4) Recipient access to items or
services would be jeopardized by a
payment suspension because of either of
the following:
(i) An individual or entity is the sole
community physician or the sole source
of essential specialized services in a
community.
(ii) The individual or entity serves a
large number of recipients within a
HRSA-designated medically
underserved area.
(5) Law enforcement declines to
certify that a matter continues to be
under investigation per the
requirements of paragraph (d)(3) of this
section.
(f) Good cause to suspend payment
only in part. A State may find that good
cause exists to suspend payments in
part, or to convert a payment
suspension previously imposed in
whole to one only in part, to an
individual or entity against which there
is an investigation of a credible
allegation of fraud if any of the
following are applicable:
(1) Recipient access to items or
services would be jeopardized by a
payment suspension in whole or part
because of either of the following:
(i) An individual or entity is the sole
community physician or the sole source
of essential specialized services in a
community.
(ii) The individual or entity serves a
large number of recipients within a
HRSA-designated medically
underserved area;
(2) The State determines that payment
suspension only in part is in the best
interests of the Medicaid program.
(3)(i) The credible allegation focuses
solely and definitively on only a
specific type of claim or arises from
only a specific business unit of a
provider; and
(ii) The State determines and
documents in writing that a payment
suspension in part would effectively
ensure that potentially fraudulent
claims were not continuing to be paid.
(4) Law enforcement declines to
certify that a matter continues to be
under investigation per the
requirements of paragraph (d)(3) of this
section.
(g) Documentation and record
retention. State Medicaid agencies must
meet the following requirements:
(1) Maintain for a minimum of 5 years
from the date of issuance all materials
documenting the life cycle of a payment
suspension that was imposed in whole
or part, including the following:
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(i) All notices of suspension of
payment in whole or part.
(ii) All fraud referrals to the Medicaid
fraud control unit or other law
enforcement agency.
(iii) All quarterly certifications of
continuing investigation status by law
enforcement.
(iv) All notices documenting the
termination of a suspension.
(2)(i) Maintain for a minimum of 5
years from the date of issuance all
materials documenting each instance
where a payment suspension was not
imposed, imposed only in part, or
discontinued for good cause.
(ii) This type of documentation must
include, at a minimum, detailed
information on the basis for the
existence of the good cause not to
suspend payments, to suspend
payments only in part, or to discontinue
a payment suspension and, where
applicable, must specify how long the
State anticipates such good cause will
exist.
(3) Annually report to the Secretary
summary information on each of
following:
(i) Suspension of payment, including
the nature of the suspected fraud, the
basis for suspension, and the outcome of
the suspension.
(ii) Situation in which the State
determined good cause existed to not
suspend payments, to suspend
payments only in part, or to discontinue
a payment suspension as described in
this section, including describing the
nature of the suspected fraud and the
nature of the good cause.
24. Section 455.101 is amended as
follows:
A. Adding introductory text.
B. Adding the definitions of ‘‘Health
insuring organization (HIO),’’ ‘‘Managed
care entity (MCE),’’ ‘‘Prepaid ambulatory
health plan (PAHP),’’ ‘‘Primary care case
manager (PCCM),’’ ‘‘Prepaid inpatient
health plan (PIHP),’’ and ‘‘Termination’’
in alphabetical order to read as follows:
§ 455.101
Definitions.
For the purposes of this part—
*
*
*
*
*
Health insuring organization (HIO)
has the meaning specified in § 438.2.
Managed care entity (MCE) means
managed care organizations (MCOs),
PIHPs, PAHPs, PCCMs, and HIOs.
*
*
*
*
*
Prepaid ambulatory health plan
(PAHP) has the meaning specified in
§ 438.2.
Primary care case manager (PCCM)
has the meaning specified in § 438.2.
Prepaid inpatient health plan (PIHP)
has the meaning specified in § 438.2.
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Termination means—
(1) For a—
(i) Medicaid provider, a State
Medicaid program has taken an action
to revoke the provider’s billing
privileges, and the provider has
exhausted all applicable appeal rights;
and
(ii) Medicare provider, supplier or
eligible professional, the Medicare
program has revoked the provider or
supplier’s billing privileges.
(2)(i) In both programs, there is no
expectation on the part of the provider
or supplier or the State or Medicare
program that the revocation is
temporary.
(ii) The provider, supplier, or eligible
professional will be required to reenroll
with the applicable program if they
wish billing privileges to be reinstated.
25. Section 455.104 is revised to read
as follows:
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
§ 455.104 Disclosure by Medicaid
providers and fiscal agents: Information on
ownership and control.
(a) Who must provide disclosures. The
Medicaid agency must obtain
disclosures from disclosing entities,
fiscal agents, and managed care entities.
(b) What disclosures must be
provided. The Medicaid agency must
require that disclosing entities, fiscal
agents, and managed care entities
provide the following disclosures:
(1)(i) The name and address of any
person (individual or corporation).
(ii) Date of birth and social security
number (in the case of an individual).
(iii) Other tax identification number
(in the case of a corporation) with an
ownership or control interest in the
disclosing entity (or fiscal agent or
managed care entity) or in any
subcontractor in which the disclosing
entity (or fiscal agent or managed care
entity) has a 5 percent or more interest.
(2) Whether the person (individual or
corporation) with ownership or control
interest in the disclosing entity (or fiscal
agent or managed care entity) or in any
subcontractor in which the disclosing
entity (or fiscal agent or managed care
entity) has a 5 percent or more interest
is related to another as a spouse, parent,
child, or sibling.
(3) The name of any other disclosing
entity (or fiscal agent or managed care
entity) in which an owner of the
disclosing entity (or fiscal agent or
managed care entity) has an ownership
or control interest.
(4) The name and address of any
managing employee of the disclosing
entity (or fiscal agent or managed care
entity).
(c) When the disclosures must be
provided—(1) Disclosures from
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
providers. Disclosure from any provider
is due at any of the following times:
(i) Submits the provider application.
(ii) Executes the provider agreement.
(iii) Re-enrolls under § 455.12.
(iv) Within 35 days after any change
in ownership of the disclosing entity.
(2) Disclosures from fiscal agents.
Disclosures from fiscal agents are due at
any of the following times:
(i) That the fiscal agent submits the
proposal in accordance with the State’s
procurement process.
(ii) The fiscal agent executes the
contract with the State
(iii) Upon renewal or extension of the
contract.
(iv) Within 35 days after any change
in ownership of the fiscal agent.
(3) Disclosures from managed care
entities. Disclosures from managed care
entities (MCOs, PIHPs, PAHPs, and
HIOs), except PCCMs are due at any of
the following times:
(i) The managed care entity submits
the proposal in accordance with the
State’s procurement process.
(ii) The managed care entity executes
the contract with the State.
(iii) Upon renewal or extension of the
contract.
(iv) Within 35 days after any change
in ownership of the managed care
entity.
(4) Disclosures from PCCMs. PCCMs
will comply with disclosure
requirements under (c)(1) of this
section.
(d) To whom must the disclosures be
provided. All disclosures must be
provided to the Medicaid agency.
(e) Consequences for failure to
provide required disclosures. Federal
financial participation (FFP) is not
available in payments made to a
disclosing entity that fails to disclose
ownership or control information as
required by this section.
26. A new subpart E is added to part
455 to read as follows:
Subpart E—Provider Screening and
Enrollment
Sec.
455.400 Purpose.
455.405 State plan requirements.
455.410 Enrollment and screening of
providers.
455.412 Verification of provider licenses.
455.414 Reenrollment.
455.416 Termination or denial of
enrollment.
455.418 Deactivation of provider
enrollment.
455.420 Reactivation of provider
enrollment.
455.422 Appeal rights.
455.432 Site visits.
455.434 Criminal background checks.
455.436 Federal database checks.
455.440 National Provider Identifier.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
58245
455.450 Screening categories for Medicaid
providers.
455.452 Other State screening methods.
455.460 Application fee.
455.470 Temporary moratoria.
Subpart E—Provider Screening and
Enrollment
§ 455.400
Purpose.
This subpart implements sections
1866(j), 1902(a)(39), 1902(a)(77), and
1902(a)(78) of the Social Security Act. It
sets forth State plan requirements
regarding the following:
(a) Provider screening and enrollment
requirements.
(b) Fees associated with provider
screening.
(c) Temporary moratoria on
enrollment of providers.
§ 455.405
State plan requirements.
A State plan must provide that the
requirements of § 455.410 through
§ 455.450 and § 455.470 are met.
§ 455.410 Enrollment and screening of
providers.
(a) The State Medicaid agency must
require all enrolled providers to be
screened under to this subpart.
(b) The State Medicaid agency must
require all ordering or referring
physicians or other professionals
providing services under the State plan
or under a waiver of the plan to be
enrolled as participating providers.
(c) The State Medicaid agency may
rely on the results of the provider
screening performed by any of the
following:
(1) Medicare contractors.
(2) Medicaid agencies or Children’s
Health Insurance Programs of other
States.
§ 455.412
Verification of provider licenses.
The State Medicaid agency must—
(a) Have a method for verifying that
any provider purporting to be licensed
in accordance with the laws of any State
is licensed by such State.
(b) Confirm that the provider’s license
has not expired and that there are no
current limitations on the provider’s
license.
§ 455.414
Reenrollment.
The State Medicaid agency must
screen all providers regardless of
provider type at least every 5 years.
§ 455.416 Termination or denial of
enrollment.
The State Medicaid agency—
(a) Must terminate the enrollment of
any provider where any person with an
ownership or control interest or who is
an agent or managing employee of the
provider did not submit timely and
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
58246
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
accurate information and cooperate with
any screening methods required under
this subpart.
(b) Must deny enrollment or terminate
the enrollment of any provider where
any person with an ownership or
control interest or who is an agent or
managing employee of the provider has
been convicted of a criminal offense
related to that person’s involvement
with the Medicare, Medicaid, or title
XXI program in the last 10 years, unless
the State Medicaid agency determines
that denial or termination of enrollment
is not in the best interests of the
Medicaid program and the State
Medicaid agency documents that
determination in writing.
(c) Must deny enrollment or terminate
the enrollment of any provider that is
terminated on or after January 1, 2011,
under title XVIII of the Act or under the
Medicaid program or CHIP of any other
State.
(d) Must terminate the provider’s
enrollment or deny enrollment of the
provider if the provider or a person with
an ownership or control interest or who
is an agent or managing employee of the
provider fails to submit timely or
accurate information, unless the State
Medicaid agency determines that
termination or denial of enrollment is
not in the best interests of the Medicaid
program and the State Medicaid agency
documents that determination in
writing.
(e) Must terminate or deny enrollment
if the provider, or any person with an
ownership or control interest or who is
an agent or managing employee of the
provider, fails to submit sets of
fingerprints in a form and manner to be
determined by the Medicaid agency
within 30 days of a CMS or a State
Medicaid agency request, unless the
State Medicaid agency determines that
termination or denial of enrollment is
not in the best interests of the Medicaid
program and the State Medicaid agency
documents that determination in
writing.
(f) Must terminate or deny enrollment
if the provider fails to permit access to
provider locations for any site visits
under § 455.432, unless the State
Medicaid agency determines that
termination or denial of enrollment is
not in the best interests of the Medicaid
program and the State Medicaid agency
documents that determination in
writing.
(g) May terminate or deny the
provider’s enrollment if CMS or the
State Medicaid agency—
(1) Determines that the provider has
falsified any information provided on
the application; or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
(2) Cannot verify the identity of any
provider applicant.
§ 455.418 Deactivation of provider
enrollment.
The State Medicaid Agency must
deactivate any provider enrollment
number that has been inactive as a
result of having submitted no claims or
making no referrals that resulted in
Medicaid claims for a period of 12
months.
§ 455.420 Reactivation of provider
enrollment.
After deactivation of a provider
enrollment number for any reason,
before the provider’s enrollment may be
reactivated, the State Medicaid agency
must re-screen the provider and require
payment of associated provider
application fees under § 455.460.
§ 455.422
Appeal rights.
The State Medicaid agency must give
providers terminated under § 455.416,
and with respect to enrollment, any
appeal rights available under
procedures established by State law or
rule.
§ 455.432
Site visits.
The State Medicaid agency—
(a) Must conduct pre-enrollment and
post-enrollment site visits of providers
who are designated as ‘‘moderate’’ or
‘‘high’’ categorical risks to the Medicaid
program. The purpose of the site visit
will be to verify that the information
submitted to the State Medicaid agency
is accurate and to determine compliance
with Federal and State enrollment
requirements.
(b) Must require any enrolled provider
to permit CMS, its agents, its designated
contractors, or the State Medicaid
agency to conduct unannounced on-site
inspections of any and all provider
locations.
§ 455.434
Criminal background checks.
The State Medicaid agency—
(a) As a condition of enrollment, must
require providers to consent to criminal
background checks including
fingerprinting when required to do so
under State law or by the level of risk
determined for that category of provider.
(b) Must establish categorical risk
levels for providers and provider types
who pose an increased financial risk of
fraud, waste or abuse to the Medicaid
program.
(1) Upon the State Medicaid agency
determining that a provider, or a person
with an ownership or control interest or
who is an agent or managing employee
of the provider, meets the State
Medicaid agency’s criteria hereunder for
criminal background checks as a ‘‘high’’
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
risk to the Medicaid program, the State
Medicaid agency will require that each
such provider or person submit
fingerprints.
(2) The State Medicaid agency must
require a provider, or any person with
an ownership or control interest or who
is an agent or managing employee of the
provider, to submit two sets of
fingerprints, in a form and manner to be
determined by the State Medicaid
agency, within 30 days upon request
from CMS or the State Medicaid agency.
§ 455.436
Federal database checks.
The State Medicaid agency must do
all of the following:
(a) Confirm the identity and
determine the exclusion status of
providers and any person with an
ownership or control interest or who is
an agent or managing employee of the
provider through routine checks of
Federal databases.
(b) Check applicable databases
maintained by the Social Security
Administration, the National Plan and
Provider Enumeration System (NPPES),
the List of Excluded Individuals/Entities
(LEIE), the Excluded Parties List System
(EPLS), and any such other databases as
the Secretary may prescribe.
(c)(1) Consult appropriate databases to
confirm identity upon enrollment and
reenrollment; and
(2) Check the LEIE and EPLS no less
frequently than monthly.
§ 455.440
National Provider Identifier.
The State Medicaid agency must
require all claims for payment for items
and services that were ordered or
referred to contain the National Provider
Identifier (NPI) of the physician or other
professional who ordered or referred
such items or services.
§ 455.450 Screening categories for
Medicaid providers.
A State Medicaid agency must screen
all initial applications, including
applications for a new practice location,
and any applications received in
response to a re-enrollment request
based on a categorical risk level of
‘‘limited,’’ ‘‘moderate,’’ or ‘‘high.’’ If a
provider could fit within more than one
risk category described in this section,
the risk category with the highest level
of screening is applicable.
(a) Screening for providers designated
as limited categorical risk. When the
State Medicaid agency designates a
provider as a ‘‘limited’’ categorical risk
or the provider is publicly traded on the
New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) or
National Association of Securities
Dealers Automated Quotation System
(NASDAQ), the State Medicaid agency
must do all of the following:
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(1) Verify that a provider meets any
applicable Federal regulations, or State
requirements for the provider type prior
to making an enrollment determination.
(2) Conduct license verifications,
including State licensure verifications
in States other than where the provider
is enrolling, in accordance with
§ 455.412.
(3) Conduct database checks on a preand post-enrollment basis to ensure that
providers continue to meet the
enrollment criteria for their provider
type, in accordance with § 455.436.
(b) Screening for providers designated
as moderate categorical risk. When the
State Medicaid agency designates a
provider as a ‘‘moderate’’ categorical
risk, a State Medicaid agency must do
both of the following:
(1) Perform the ‘‘limited’’ screening
requirements described in paragraph (a)
of this section.
(2) Conduct on-site visits in
accordance with § 455.432.
(c) Screening for providers designated
as high categorical risk. When the State
Medicaid agency designates a provider
as a ‘‘high’’ categorical risk, a State
Medicaid agency must do both of the
following:
(1) Perform the ‘‘limited’’ and
‘‘moderate’’ screening requirements
described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section.
(2)(i) Conduct a criminal background
check; or
(ii) Require the submission of set of
fingerprints in accordance with
§ 455.434.
(d) Denial or termination of
enrollment. A provider, or any person
with an ownership or control interest or
who is an agent or managing employee
of the provider, who is required by the
State Medicaid agency or CMS to submit
a set of fingerprints and fails to do so
may have its—
(1) Application denied under
§ 455.434; or
(2) Enrollment terminated under
§ 455.416.
(e) Adjustment of risk level. The State
agency must adjust the categorical risk
level from ‘‘limited’’ or ‘‘moderate’’ to
‘‘high’’ when any of the following
occurs:
(1) The State Medicaid agency
imposes a payment suspension on a
provider based on credible allegation of
fraud, waste or abuse, the provider has
an existing Medicaid overpayment, or
the provider has been excluded by the
OIG or another State’s Medicaid
program within the previous 10 years.
(2) The State Medicaid agency or CMS
lifts a temporary moratorium for a
particular provider type.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
§ 455.452
Other State screening methods.
Nothing herein must restrict the State
Medicaid agency from establishing
provider screening methods in addition
to or more stringent than those required
by this subpart.
§ 455.460
Application fee.
(a) Beginning on or after March 23,
2011, States may collect the applicable
application fee prior to executing a
provider agreement from prospective or
re-enrolling providers other than—
(1) Individual physicians or
nonphysician practitioners.
(2) (i) Providers who are enrolled in
either—
(A) Title XVIII of the Act; or
(B) Another State’s title XIX or XXI
plan.
(ii) Providers that have paid the
applicable application fee to—
(A) A Medicare contractor; or
(B) Another State.
(b) If the fees collected by a State
agency in accordance with paragraph (a)
of this section exceed the cost of the
screening program, the State agency
must return that portion of the fees to
the Federal government.
§ 455.470
Temporary moratoria.
(a)(1) The Secretary consults with any
affected State Medicaid agency
regarding imposition of temporary
moratoria on enrollment of new
providers or provider types prior to
imposition of the moratoria, in
accordance with § 424.570.
(2) The State Medicaid agency will
impose temporary moratoria on
enrollment of new providers or provider
types identified by the Secretary as
posing an increased risk to the Medicaid
program.
(3)(i) The State Medicaid agency is
not required to impose such a
moratorium if the State Medicaid
agency determines that imposition of a
temporary moratorium would adversely
affect beneficiaries’ access to medical
assistance.
(ii) If a State Medicaid agency makes
such a determination, the State
Medicaid agency must notify the
Secretary in writing.
(b)(1) A State Medicaid agency may
impose temporary moratoria on
enrollment of new providers, or impose
numerical caps or other limits that the
State Medicaid agency identifies as
having a significant potential for fraud,
waste, or abuse and that the Secretary
has identified as being at ‘‘high’’ risk for
fraud, waste, or abuse.
(2) Before implementing the
moratoria, caps, or other limits, the
State Medicaid agency must determine
that its action would not adversely
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
58247
impact beneficiaries’ access to medical
assistance.
(3) The State Medicaid agency must
notify the Secretary in writing in the
event the State Medicaid agency
imposes such moratoria, including all
details of the moratoria.
(c)(1) The State Medicaid agency must
impose the moratorium for an initial
period of 6 months.
(2) If the State Medicaid agency
determines that it is necessary, the State
Medicaid agency may extend the
moratorium in 6-month increments.
(3) Each time, the State Medicaid
agency must document in writing the
necessity for extending the moratorium.
PART 457—ALLOTMENTS AND
GRANTS TO STATES
27. The authority for part 457
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Section 1102 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).
28. Section 457.900 is amended by
adding a new paragraph (a)(2)(x) to read
as follows:
§ 457.900
Basis, scope and applicability.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(x) Sections 1902(a)(77) and 1902(ii)
relating to provider and supplier
screening, oversight, and reporting
requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
29. A new § 457.990 is added to
subpart I to read as follows:
§ 457.990 Provider and supplier screening,
oversight and reporting requirements.
The following provisions and their
corresponding regulations apply to a
State under title XXI of the Act, in the
same manner as these provisions and
regulations apply to a State under title
XIX of the Act:
(a) Part 455 Subpart E of this chapter.
(b) Sections 1902(a)(77) and 1902(ii)
of the Act pertaining to provider and
supplier screening, oversight, and
reporting requirements.
PART 498—APPEALS PROCEDURES
FOR DETERMINATIONS THAT AFFECT
PARTICIPATION IN THE MEDICARE
PROGRAM AND FOR
DETERMINATIONS THAT AFFECT THE
PARTICIPATION OF ICFs/MR AND
CERTAIN NFs IN THE MEDICAID
PROGRAM
30. The authority citation for part 498
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and
1395hh).
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
58248
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules
31. Section 498.5 is amended by
adding a new paragraph (l)(4) to read as
follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(l) * * *
(4) Scope of review. For appeals of
denials based on § 424.530(a)(9) related
to temporary moratorium, the scope of
review will be limited to whether the
temporary moratoria applies to the
provider or supplier appealing the
denial. The agency’s basis for imposing
a temporary moratorium is not subject
to review.
PART 1007—STATE MEDICAID FRAUD
CONTROL UNITS
32. The authority for part 1007
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1320 and 1395hh.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
33. Section 1007.9 is amended by
adding paragraphs (e) through (g) to
read as follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 22, 2010
Jkt 220001
§ 1007.9 Relationship to, and agreement
with, the Medicaid agency.
*
*
*
*
*
(e)(1) The unit may refer any provider
with respect to which there is pending
an investigation of a credible allegation
of fraud under the Medicaid program to
the State Medicaid agency for payment
suspension in whole or part under
§ 455.23.
(2) Referrals may be brief, but must be
in writing and include sufficient
information to allow the State Medicaid
agency to identify the provider and to
explain the credible allegations forming
the grounds for the payment
suspension.
(f) Any request by the unit to the State
Medicaid agency to delay notification to
the provider of a payment suspension
under § 455.23 of this Title must be in
writing.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
(g) When the unit accepts or declines
a case referred by the State Medicaid
agency, the unit notifies the State
Medicaid agency in writing of the
acceptance or declination of the case.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program No. 93.778, Medical Assistance
Program) (Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance Program No. 93.773, Medicare—
Hospital Insurance; and Program No. 93.774,
Medicare—Supplementary Medical
Insurance Program)
Dated: September 13, 2010.
Donald Berwick,
Administrator, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services.
Approved: September 15, 2010.
Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–23579 Filed 9–17–10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
E:\FR\FM\23SEP4.SGM
23SEP4
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 184 (Thursday, September 23, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58204-58248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23579]
[[Page 58203]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Department of Health and Human Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
42 CFR Parts 405, 424, 438, et al.
Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Programs;
Additional Screening Requirements, Application Fees, Temporary
Enrollment Moratoria, Payment Suspensions and Compliance Plans for
Providers and Suppliers; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 58204]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
42 CFR Parts 405, 424, 438, 447, 455, 457, 498, and 1007
[CMS-6028-P]
RIN 0938-AQ20
Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Programs;
Additional Screening Requirements, Application Fees, Temporary
Enrollment Moratoria, Payment Suspensions and Compliance Plans for
Providers and Suppliers
AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would implement provisions of the
Affordable Care Act that establish: Procedures under which screening is
conducted for providers of medical or other services and suppliers in
the Medicare program, providers in the Medicaid program, and providers
in the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP); an application fee
to be imposed on providers and suppliers; temporary moratoria that may
be imposed if necessary to prevent or combat fraud, waste, and abuse
under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and CHIP; guidance for States
regarding termination of providers from Medicaid and CHIP if terminated
by Medicare or another Medicaid State plan or CHIP; guidance regarding
the termination of providers and suppliers from Medicare if terminated
by a Medicaid State agency; and requirements for suspension of payments
pending credible allegations of fraud in the Medicare and Medicaid
programs. This proposed rule would also present an approach and request
comments on the provisions of the Affordable Care Act that require
providers of medical or other items or services or suppliers within a
particular industry sector or category to establish compliance
programs.
DATES: To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of
the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on November 16,
2010.
ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-6028-P. Because
of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by
facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one
of the ways listed):
1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on this
regulation to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the ``Submit a
comment'' instructions.
2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following
address only:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, Attention: CMS-6028-P, P.O. Box 8020, Baltimore, MD
21244-8020.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received
before the close of the comment period.
3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments to
the following address only:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, Attention: CMS-6028-P, Mail Stop C4-26-05, 7500
Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850
4. By hand or courier. If you prefer, you may deliver (by hand or
courier) your written comments before the close of the comment period
to either of the following addresses:
a. For delivery in Washington, DC--Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 445-G, Hubert
H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20201.
(Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building
is not readily available to persons without Federal government
identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in
the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-
in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing
by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being
filed.)
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD--Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address,
please call telephone number (410) 786-9994 in advance to schedule your
arrival with one of our staff members.
Comments mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand
or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment
period.
Submission of comments on paperwork requirements. You may submit
comments on this document's paperwork requirements by following the
instructions at the end of the ``Collection of Information
Requirements'' section in this document.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Peyton (410) 786-1812 for
Medicare enrollment issues. Claudia Simonson (312) 353-2115 for
Medicaid and CHIP enrollment and Medicaid payment suspension issues.
Joseph Strazzire (410) 786-2775 for Medicare payment suspension
issues.
Laura Minassian-Kiefel (410) 786-4641 for compliance program
issues.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Inspection of Public Comments: All comments
received before the close of the comment period are available for
viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or
confidential business information that is included in a comment. We
post all comments received before the close of the comment period on
the following Web site as soon as possible after they have been
received: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the search instructions on
that Web site to view public comments.
Comments received timely will also be available for public
inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3
weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments,
phone 1-800-743-3951.
I. Background
The Medicare program (title XVIII of the Social Security Act (the
Act)) is the primary payer of health care for 45 million enrolled
beneficiaries. Under section 1802 of the Act, a beneficiary may obtain
health services from an individual or an organization qualified to
participate in the Medicare program. Qualifications to participate are
specified in statute and in regulations (see, for example, sections
1814, 1815, 1819, 1833, 1834, 1842, 1861, 1866, and 1891 of the Act;
and 42 CFR chapter IV, subchapter G, which concerns standards and
certification requirements).
Providers and suppliers furnishing services must comply with the
Medicare requirements stipulated in the Act and in our regulations.
These requirements are meant to ensure compliance with applicable
statutes, as well as to promote the furnishing of high quality care. As
Medicare program expenditures have grown, we have increased our efforts
to ensure that only qualified individuals and organizations are
[[Page 58205]]
allowed to enroll or maintain their Medicare billing privileges.
The Medicaid program (title XIX of the Act) is a joint Federal and
State health care program for eligible low-income individuals. States
have considerable flexibility in how they administer their Medicaid
programs within a broad Federal framework and programs vary from State
to State.
The Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) (title XXI of the
Act) is a joint Federal and State health care program that provides
health care coverage to more than 7.7 million otherwise uninsured
children.
Historically, States, in operating Medicaid and CHIP, have
permitted the enrollment of providers who meet the State requirements
for program enrollment.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148),
as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
(Pub. L. 111-152) (collectively known as the Affordable Care Act) (the
ACA) makes a number of changes to the Medicare and Medicaid programs
and CHIP that enhance the provider and supplier enrollment process to
improve the integrity of the programs to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse
in the programs.
A. Statutory Authority
The following is an overview of some of the statutory authority
relevant to enrollment in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP:
Sections 1102 and 1871 of the Act provide general
authority for the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the
Secretary) to prescribe regulations for the efficient administration of
the Medicare program. Section 1102 of the Act also provides general
authority for the Secretary to prescribe regulations for the efficient
administration of the Medicaid program and CHIP.
Section 4313 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA)
(Pub. L. 105-33) amended sections 1124(a)(1) and 1124A of the Act to
require disclosure of both the Employer Identification Number (EIN) and
Social Security Number (SSN) of each provider or supplier, each person
with ownership or control interest in the provider or supplier, any
subcontractor in which the provider or supplier directly or indirectly
has a 5 percent or more ownership interest, and any managing employees
including directors and officers of corporations and non-profit
organizations and charities. The ``Report to Congress on Steps Taken to
Assure Confidentiality of Social Security Account Numbers as required
by the Balanced Budget Act'' was signed by the Secretary and sent to
the Congress on January 26, 1999. This report outlines the provisions
of a mandatory collection of SSNs and EINs effective on or after April
26, 1999.
Section 936(a)(2) of the Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108-173)
amended the Act to require the Secretary to establish a process for the
enrollment of providers of services and suppliers. We are authorized to
collect information on the Medicare enrollment application (that is,
the CMS-855, (Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval number
0938-0685)) to ensure that correct payments are made to providers and
suppliers under the Medicare program as established by title XVIII of
the Act.
Section 1902(a)(27) of the Act provides general authority
for the Secretary to require provider agreements under the Medicaid
State Plans with every person or institution providing services under
the State plan. Under these agreements, the Secretary may require
information regarding any payments claimed by such person or
institution for providing services under the State plan.
Section 2107(e) of the Act, which provides that certain
title XIX and title XI provisions apply to States under title XXI,
including 1902(a)(4)(C) of the Act, relating to conflict of interest
standards.
Section 1903(i)(2) of the Act relating to limitations on
payment.
Section 1124 of the Act relating to disclosure of
ownership and related information.
Sections 6401, 6402, 6501,10603, and 1304 of the ACA
amended the Act by establishing: (1) Procedures under which screening
is conducted for providers of medical or other services and suppliers
in the Medicare program, providers in the Medicaid program, and
providers in the CHIP; (2) an application fee to be imposed on
providers and suppliers; (3) temporary moratoria that the Secretary may
impose if necessary to prevent or combat fraud, waste, and abuse under
the Medicare and Medicaid programs and CHIP; (4) procedures to
terminate providers if terminated by Medicare or another State plan;
(5) requirements for suspensions of payments pending credible
allegations of fraud in both the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
II. Provisions of the Proposed Regulations
A. Provider Screening Under Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP
1. Statutory Changes
Section 6401(a) of the ACA, as amended by section 10603 of the ACA,
amends section 1866(j) of the Act to add a new paragraph, paragraph
``(2) Provider Screening.'' Section 1866(j)(2)(A) of the Act requires
the Secretary, in consultation with the Department of Health of Human
Services' Office of the Inspector General (HHS OIG), to establish
procedures under which screening is conducted with respect to providers
of medical or other items or services and suppliers under Medicare,
Medicaid, and CHIP. Section 1866(j)(2)(B) of the Act requires the
Secretary to determine the level of screening to be conducted according
to the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse with respect to the category of
provider of medical or other items or services or supplier. The
provision states that the screening shall include a licensure check,
which may include such checks across State lines; and the screening
may, as the Secretary determines appropriate based on the risk of
fraud, waste, and abuse, include a criminal background check;
fingerprinting; unscheduled or unannounced site visits, including pre-
enrollment site visits; database checks, including such checks across
State lines; and such other screening as the Secretary determines
appropriate. Section 1866(j)(2)(C) of the Act requires the Secretary to
impose a fee on each institutional provider of medical or other items
or services or supplier that would be used by the Secretary for program
integrity efforts including to cover the cost of screening and to carry
out the provisions of sections 1866(j) and 1128J of the Act. We discuss
the fee in section II.B. of this proposed rule.
Section 6401(b) of the ACA amends section 1902 of the Act to add
new paragraphs (a)(77)(i) and (ii), which require States to comply with
the process for screening providers and suppliers as established by the
Secretary under 1866(j)(2) of the Act.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We believe that the reference to section 1886(j)(2) of the
Act in section 6401(b)(1) of the Affordable Care Act is a
scrivener's error. We believe the Congress intended to refer to
section 1866(j)(2) of the Act, which, as amended by section 6401(a)
of the Affordable Care Act, requires the Secretary to establish a
process for screening providers and suppliers. Because the drafting
error is apparent, and a literal reading of the reference to section
1886(j)(2) of the Act would produce absurd results, we propose to
interpret the cross-reference to section 1886(j)(2) in the new
section 1902(ii) of the Act as if the reference were to section
1866(j)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 58206]]
We note that the statute uses the terms ``providers of medical or
other items or services,'' ``institutional providers,'' and
``suppliers.'' The Medicare program enrolls a variety of providers and
suppliers, some of which are referred to as ``providers of services,''
``institutional providers,'' ``certified providers,'' ``certified
suppliers,'' and ``suppliers.'' In Medicare, the term ``providers of
services'' under section 1861(u) of the Act means health care entities
that furnish services primarily payable under Part A of Medicare, such
as hospitals, home health agencies (including home health agencies
providing services under Part B), hospices, and skilled nursing
facilities. The term ``suppliers'' defined in section 1861(d) of the
Act refers to health care entities that furnish services primarily
payable under Part B of Medicare, such as independent diagnostic
testing facilities (IDTFs), durable medical equipment prosthetics,
orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS) suppliers, and eligible professionals,
which refers to health care suppliers who are individuals, that is,
physicians and the other professionals listed in section 1848(k)(3)(B)
of the Act. For Medicaid and CHIP, we use the terms ``providers'' or
``Medicaid providers'' or ``CHIP providers'' when referring to all
Medicaid or CHIP health care providers, including individual
practitioners, institutional providers, and providers of medical
equipment or goods related to care. The term ``supplier'' has no
meaning in the Medicaid program or CHIP.
Section 424.502 contains additional definitions that apply to these
and other terms used throughout this proposed rule including the
following:
Authorized official means an appointed official (for
example, chief executive officer, chief financial officer, general
partner, chairman of the board, or direct owner) to whom the
organization has granted the legal authority to enroll it in the
Medicare program, to make changes or updates to the organization's
status in the Medicare program, and to commit the organization to fully
abide by the statutes, regulations, and program instructions of the
Medicare program.
Delegated official means an individual who is delegated by
the ``Authorized Official,'' the authority to report changes and
updates to the enrollment record. The delegated official must be an
individual with ownership or control interest in, or be a W-2 managing
employee of the provider or supplier.
Managing employee means a general manager, business
manager, administrator, director, or other individual that exercises
operational or managerial control over, or who directly or indirectly
conducts, the day-to-day operation of the provider or supplier, either
under contract or through some other arrangement, whether or not the
individual is a W-2 employee of the provider or supplier.
Owner means any individual or entity that has any
partnership interest in, or that has 5 percent or more direct or
indirect ownership of the provider or supplier as defined in sections
1124 and 1124A(A) of the Act.
Physician or nonphysician practitioner organization means
any physician or nonphysician practitioner entity that enrolls in the
Medicare program as a sole proprietorship or organizational entity.
The new screening procedures implemented pursuant to new section
1866(j)(2) of the Act would be applicable to newly enrolling providers
and suppliers, including eligible professionals, beginning on March 23,
2011. These new procedures would be applicable to currently enrolled
Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP providers, suppliers, and eligible
professionals beginning on March 23, 2012. These new screening
procedures implemented pursuant to new section 1866(j)(2) of the Act
would be applicable beginning on March 23, 2011 for those providers and
suppliers currently enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP who
revalidate their enrollment information. Within Medicare, the March 23,
2011 implementation date will impact those current providers and
suppliers whose 5-year revalidation cycle (or 3-year revalidation cycle
for DMEPOS suppliers) results in revalidation occurring on or after
March 23, 2011 and before March 23, 2012.
2. Summary of Existing Screening Measures
Before we outline the new measures we are proposing under the ACA,
it may be helpful to provide a summary of some of the screening
measures already being utilized in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP.
Pursuant to other authority, but with the notable exceptions of
criminal background checks and fingerprinting, Medicare, generally
through private contractors, already employs a number of the screening
practices described in section 1866(j)(2)(B) of the Act to determine if
a provider or supplier is in compliance with Federal and State
requirements to enroll or to maintain enrollment in the Medicare
program.
a. Licensure Requirements--Medicare and Medicaid
Over the past several years, we have taken a number of steps to
strengthen our ability to deny or revoke Medicare billing privileges
when providers or suppliers do not have or do not maintain the
applicable State licensure requirements for their provider or supplier
type or profession. We established reporting responsibilities for all
providers, suppliers, and eligible professionals in earlier regulations
at Sec. 424.516(b) through (e). Today, to ensure that only qualified
providers and suppliers remain in the Medicare fee-for-service (FFS)
program, we require that Medicare contractors review State licensing
board data on a monthly basis to determine if providers and suppliers
remain in compliance with State licensure requirements. Medicare
billing privileges would be revoked for those providers and suppliers
who do not report a final adverse action (for example, license
revocation or suspension, felony conviction) within the applicable
reporting period, as required in Sec. 424.516(b) through (e). Medicare
suppliers of DMEPOS and IDTFs are already subject to similar provisions
in Sec. 424.57(c) and Sec. 410.33(g), respectively. DMEPOS suppliers
are also subject to additional requirements including accreditation and
surety bonding, pursuant to 42 CFR 424.57(c)(22) through (26) and 42
CFR 424.57(d).
Medicare Advantage organizations (MAOs) are required to verify
licensure of providers and suppliers, including physicians and other
health care professionals, in accordance with Sec. 422.204.
For Medicaid and CHIP, most States do some checking of in-State
provider licenses. For example, in some States, the existence of the
license may be verified, but little attention might be given to any
restrictions on the license.
b. Site Visits--Medicare
Pursuant to Sec. 424.517, Medicare conducts the following site
visits and takes the following actions, generally through private
contractors under CMS direction:
The National Supplier Clearinghouse (NSC) Medicare
Administrative Contractor (the Medicare contractor that processes
enrollment applications for suppliers of DMEPOS) conducts pre-
enrollment site visits to DMEPOS suppliers that are not associated with
a chain supplier of
[[Page 58207]]
DMEPOS (a chain supplier of DMEPOS is a supplier with 25 or more
distinct practice locations.)
The NSC also conducts unannounced post-enrollment site
visits to DMEPOS suppliers for which CMS or the NSC believes there is a
likelihood of fraudulent or abusive activities to ensure those DMEPOS
suppliers remain in compliance with the supplier standards found at
Sec. 424.57(c).
CMS at times exercises its right to--
Have the NSC conduct ad hoc pre- and post-enrollment site
visits to any DMEPOS supplier;
Have Medicare contractors conduct pre-enrollment site
visits to all IDTFs; and
Conduct ad hoc pre-and post enrollment site visits to any
prospective Medicare provider and supplier or any enrolled Medicare
provider or supplier.
In addition, under 42 CFR parts 488 and 489, a State survey agency
or an approved national accreditation organization with deeming
authority conducts pre-enrollment surveys for certified providers and
suppliers to determine whether they meet the applicable Federal
conditions and requirements for their provider or supplier type before
they can participate in the Medicare program.
We believe these efforts need to be expanded to include additional
site visits and site visits to additional provider and supplier types
in order to protect the Medicare FFS program from unscrupulous or
potentially fraudulent providers and suppliers.
We note that the site visits discussed here and elsewhere within
this preamble and the proposed regulations are separate and apart from
the site visits that are conducted pursuant to the Clinical Laboratory
Improvement Amendments (CLIA). We intend to work with our State survey
agency partners in coordinating these site visits so as to avoid
duplication and burden on providers.
c. Database Checks--Medicare
Today, Medicare contractors employ database checks of eligible
professionals, owners, authorized officials, delegated officials,
managing employees, medical directors, and supervising physicians (at
IDTFs and laboratories) as part of the Medicare provider and supplier
enrollment process. These include database checks with the Social
Security Administration (SSA) (to verify an individual's SSN), the
National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES) to verify the
National Provider Identifier (NPI) of an eligible professional, and
State licensing board checks to determine if an eligible professional
is appropriately licensed to furnish medical services within a given
State. These checks also include checking a provider or supplier
against the HHS OIG's List of Excluded Individuals/Entities (LEIE) and
the General Service Administration's Excluded Parties List System
(EPLS). All of the database checks are used to assess the eligibility
and qualifications of providers and suppliers to enroll in the Medicare
program, to confirm the identity of an eligible professional to ensure
that he or she may be considered for enrollment in the Medicare
program.
Also, on a monthly basis, CMS' Medicare contractors systematically
compare enrolled providers, suppliers, and eligible professionals
against the information in the Medicare Exclusions Database. The
Medicare Exclusions Database identifies providers, suppliers, and
eligible professionals who have been excluded from the Medicare and
Medicaid programs by the HHS OIG. When a match is found, the HHS OIG
exclusion information is systematically noted in the Medicare
enrollment record of the provider, supplier, or eligible professional.
In the Medicare program today, we deny or revoke the billing privileges
of providers, suppliers, and eligible professionals who have been
excluded by the HHS OIG. If the HHS OIG lifts the exclusion, the
provider, supplier or eligible professional must reapply for enrollment
in the Medicare program. In addition, Medicare contractors also review
State licensure Web sites on a monthly basis to ensure that eligible
professionals continue to meet State licensing requirements.
In addition, since January 2009, we have compared date of death
information obtained from the Social Security Administration Death
Master File (SSA DMF) with the information maintained in the National
Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES), the system that assigns a
NPI to individual and organizations. Based on this comparison and the
subsequent verification, we have deactivated the NPIs of more than
11,500 individuals who were previously assigned a type 1 (individual)
NPI. We automatically transfer this information from NPPES to the
Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System (PECOS), CMS' national
Medicare enrollment repository to deactivate a deceased individual's
Medicare billing privileges. In addition, Medicare contractors are
required to review and act upon monthly files that contain a list of
nonpractitioner individuals enrolled in the Medicare program who have
been reported to the SSA as deceased. These individuals include:
Owners, authorized officials, and delegated officials.
MAOs, as required by Sec. 422.204, generally use database checks
to verify licensure and licensure sanctions and limitations with State
licensing boards and the Federation of State Medical Boards, DEA
certificates with the National Technical Information Service (NTIS),
history of adverse professional review actions and malpractice from the
National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), accreditation status of
institutional providers and suppliers with national accrediting boards,
such as The Joint Commission (TJC), and search for HHS OIG exclusions
using the HHS OIG Web site https://www.oig.hhs.gov/fraud/exclusions/list
of excluded.html.
d. Criminal Background Checks--Medicare
As described in Sec. 424.530(a) and Sec. 424.535(a), CMS or its
designated Medicare contractor may deny or revoke the Medicare billing
privileges of the owner of a provider or supplier, a physician or
nonphysician practitioner, and terminate any corresponding provider or
supplier agreement for a number of reasons, including an exclusion from
the Medicare, Medicaid, and any other Federal health care program, a
felony within the preceding 10 years that is considered detrimental to
the Medicare program, and/or submission of false or misleading
information on the Medicare enrollment application. While we currently
require our Medicare contractors to verify data submitted on, and as
part of, the Medicare provider/supplier enrollment application, our
contractors are not able to verify information that may have been
purposefully omitted or changed in a manner to obfuscate any previous
criminal activity. In addition, criminal background checks are not
routinely used in the FFS Medicare screening process.
e. Medicare MAO Requirements
As mentioned earlier in this section, MAOs already employ a number
of screening procedures in accordance with regulations and CMS manual
instructions. Specifically, under Sec. 422.204(b)(3) in the case of
providers meeting the definition of ``provider of services'' in section
1861(u) of the Act, basic benefits may only be provided through
providers if they have a provider agreement with CMS permitting them to
furnish services under original Medicare. With respect to other
entities like suppliers, Sec. 422.204(b)(3) requires that they ``meet
the applicable requirements of title XVIII and Part A of title XI of
the Act.''
[[Page 58208]]
Given these requirements we are considering to what extent MAOs should
be required to apply the identical screening requirements we are
proposing for the original Medicare program or whether substantively
similar alternative approaches adopted by MAOs would be acceptable.
Accordingly, we solicit public comments on whether or to what extent
MAOs should be required to implement the same enhanced screening
requirements for providers, suppliers and physicians that we are
proposing for the original Medicare program.
f. Fingerprinting--Medicare
We do not currently use fingerprinting in the Medicare screening
process.
g. Screening--Medicaid and CHIP
States vary in the degree to which they employ screening methods
such as unscheduled and unannounced site visits and database checks,
including such checks across State lines, criminal background checks,
and fingerprinting. However, there are at least a few States that
utilize each of those methods.
States also vary in what they require their managed care entities
(MCEs) \2\ to do in terms of screening network-level providers that are
not also enrolled in the Medicaid program as FFS providers. We are
considering to what extent States must require their MCEs to apply the
identical screening requirements we are proposing for the States or
whether substantively similar alternative approaches adopted by MCEs
would be acceptable. Accordingly, we solicit public comments on whether
or to what extent MCEs should be required to implement the same
enhanced screening requirements for Medicaid and CHIP providers that we
are proposing for State Medicaid and CHIP programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For purposes of this preamble and the proposed regulations,
``managed care entity'' and ``MCE'' will have the meaning Medicaid
managed care organization (MCO), primary care case manager (PCCM),
prepaid inpatient health plan (PIHP), prepaid ambulatory health plan
(PAHP), and health insuring organization (HIO). This definition
differs from the meaning in section 1932(a)(1)(B) of the Social
Security Act, which limits MCEs to Medicaid MCOs and PCCMs. We
propose a more inclusive definition for the regulation so that all
those entities in States' managed care programs will provide
disclosure information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Proposed Screening Requirements
a. Medicare
Section 1866(j)(2)(B) of the Act requires the Secretary to
determine the level of screening applicable to providers and suppliers
according to the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse the Secretary
determines is posed by particular categories of providers and
suppliers.
In considering how to establish consistent screening standards, we
are proposing to designate provider and supplier categories that would
be subject to certain screening procedures based on CMS' assessment of
fraud, waste and abuse risk of the provider or supplier category,
taking into consideration a variety of factors including studies
conducted by the HHS OIG and the GAO and other sources. We would
designate categories of providers or suppliers (for example, ``newly
enrolling DME suppliers'' or ``currently enrolled home health
agencies'') that would be subject to screening procedures in each
category based on our assessment of the level of risk presented by the
category of provider. There will be 3 levels of risk: ``limited,''
``moderate'' and ``high,'' and each provider/supplier category will be
assigned to one of these 3 levels. The screening procedures applicable
to each risk level will be set by us and are included in this proposed
rule. The categories described below and associated risk levels
assigned are designed to identify those categories of providers and
suppliers that pose a risk of fraud, waste, and abuse.
Under this proposed approach, the relevant Medicare contractor (for
example, fiscal intermediary, regional home health intermediary,
carriers, Part A or Part B Medicare Administrative Contractor (A/B
MAC), or the NSC Administrative Contractor) would utilize the screening
tools mandated by us for the risk level assigned to a particular
provider or supplier category.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed assignment of specific
provider and supplier types to established risk levels, including what
criteria should be considered in making such assignments, whether such
assignments should be released publicly, whether they should be subject
to agency review and updated according to an established schedule (that
is, annually, bi-annually), and the extent to which they should be
updated according to evolving risks. We are also soliciting comments on
any additional database checks that we should consider as a type of
screening.
Based on the level of risk assigned, we propose that the Medicare
contractors would establish and conduct the following categorical
screenings.
Table 1--Category of Risk and Required Screening for Medicare
Physicians, Non-Physician Practitioners, Providers, and Suppliers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of screening required Limited Moderate High
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verification of any provider/ X X X
supplier-specific
requirements established by
Medicare.....................
Conduct license verifications, X X X
(may include licensure checks
across States)...............
Database Checks (to verify X X X
Social Security Number (SSN),
the National Provider
Identifier (NPI), the
National Practitioner Data
Bank (NPDB) licensure, an OIG
exclusion, taxpayer
identification number, tax
delinquency, death of
individual practitioner,
owner, authorized official,
delegated official, or
supervising physician).......
Unscheduled or Unannounced ............ X X
Site Visits..................
Criminal Background Check..... ............ ............ X
Fingerprinting................ ............ ............ X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described above, we already require Medicare contractors to
ensure that every provider or supplier meets any applicable Federal
regulations or State requirements, including applicable licensure
requirements \3\ for the provider or supplier type prior to making an
enrollment determination. In addition, we also require that Medicare
[[Page 58209]]
contractors conduct monthly reviews of State licensing board actions to
determine if an individual practitioner, such as a physician or non-
physician practitioner continues to meet State licensing requirements.
In the case of organizational entities, we also require our Medicare
contractors to conduct monthly or periodic checks to determine if an
organizational entity continues to meet the Federal and State
requirements for its provider or supplier type. Such verifications help
ensure that a prospective provider or supplier is eligible to
participate in the Medicare program or that an existing provider or
supplier is eligible to maintain its Medicare billing privileges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ We note that under section 408 of the reauthorized Indian
Health Care Improvement Act, ``[a]ny requirement for participation
as a provider of health care services under a Federal health care
program that an entity be licensed or recognized under the State or
local law where the entity is located to furnish health care
services shall be deemed to have been met in the case of an entity
operated by the [Indian Health] Service, an Indian tribe, tribal
organization, or urban Indian organization if the entity meets all
the applicable standards for such licensure or recognition,
regardless of whether the entity obtains a license or other
documentation under such State or local law.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently in the Medicare program, DMEPOS suppliers are required to
re-enroll every 3 years, and other providers are required to revalidate
their enrollment every 5 years. The terms revalidation and re-
enrollment are often used interchangeably, but are actually specific to
these provider types. To eliminate any confusion about which term
applies to which provider or supplier, we are proposing language at 42
CFR 424.57(e) to change all references to re-enroll or re-enrollment to
revalidate or revalidation. In addition, the ACA requires that no
provider or supplier shall be allowed to enroll in Medicare or
revalidate its enrollment in Medicare after March 23, 2013 without
being screened pursuant to the authorities covered by this proposed
rule. To assist CMS in assuring that the statutory effective date is
met, we are proposing at 42 CFR 424.515 to permit CMS to require that a
provider or supplier revalidate its enrollment at any time. After the
revalidation, the current cycle for revalidation (3 years for DMEPOS,
and 5 years for all other providers) would apply.
(1) Limited
In general, we consider physicians, nonphysician practitioners, and
medical clinics and group practices to pose limited risk because these
professionals are State licensed and we are not aware of any recent
studies or other evidence that indicates that these suppliers, as a
category, pose an elevated risk to the Medicare program.
Similarly, we believe that a provider or supplier that is publicly
traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) or the National
Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotation System (NASDAQ)
poses a limited risk because of the financial oversight provided by
investors, corporate boards of directors, and the Security and Exchange
Commission. Finally, based on our own data analysis including analysis
of historical trends and CMS's own experience with provider screening
and enrollment we believe that the following providers and suppliers
currently pose a limited risk to the Medicare program: Ambulatory
surgical centers (ASCs); end-stage renal disease (ERSD) facilities;
Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs); histocompatibility
laboratories; hospitals, including critical access hospitals (CAHs);
Indian Health Service (IHS) facilities; mammography screening centers;
organ procurement organizations (OPOs); mass immunization roster
billers, portable x-ray suppliers; religious nonmedical health care
institutions (RNHCIs); rural health clinics (RHCs); radiation therapy
centers; public or government owned or affiliated ambulance services
suppliers (defined as an ambulance supplier owned in whole or in part
by a State or local government), and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs).
Accordingly, we propose to include the categories of providers and
suppliers listed above within the ``limited'' level of risk. We think
the additional government oversight of ``government owned or
affiliated'' ambulance service providers justifies placing these
providers in the limited category.
In Sec. 424.518(a), we propose that the following screening tools
will apply to providers and suppliers in categories designated as
``limited'' risk: (1) Verification that a provider or supplier meets
any applicable Federal regulations, or State requirements for the
provider or supplier type prior to making an enrollment determination;
(2) verification that a provider or supplier meets applicable licensure
requirements; and (3) database checks on a pre- and post-enrollment
basis to ensure that providers and suppliers continue to meet the
enrollment criteria for their provider/supplier type.
To assist readers in understanding the type of providers and
suppliers that we propose to include in the ``limited'' risk level, we
are providing the following table.
Table 2--Medicare Providers and Suppliers Designated as a ``Limited''
Categorical Risk for Screening Purposes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provider/supplier category
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physician or non-physician practitioners and medical groups or clinics.
Providers or suppliers that are publicly traded on the NYSE or NASDAQ.
Ambulatory surgical centers, end-stage renal disease facilities,
Federally qualified health centers, histocompatibility laboratories,
hospitals, including critical access hospitals, Indian Health Service
facilities, mammography screening centers, organ procurement
organizations, mass immunization roster billers, portable x-ray
supplier, religious non-medical health care institutions, rural health
clinics, radiation therapy centers, public or government owned or
affiliated ambulance services suppliers, and skilled nursing
facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Moderate
For those provider and supplier categories with a ``moderate''
level of risk, we propose that Medicare contractors will conduct
unannounced pre- and/or post-enrollment site visits in addition to
those screening tools applicable to the ``limited'' level of risk.
Based on the success of pre- and/or post-enrollment site visits
conducted by the NSC during the enrollment process for suppliers of
DMEPOS and a similar process established by carriers and A/B MACs
during the enrollment of IDTFs, we believe that unscheduled and
unannounced pre- and post-enrollment site visits help ensure that
suppliers are operational and meet applicable supplier standards or
performance standards. In addition, we believe that unscheduled and
unannounced pre- and post-enrollment site visits are an essential tool
in determining whether a provider or supplier is in compliance with its
reporting responsibilities, including the requirement in Sec. 424.516
to notify the Medicare contractor of any change of practice location.
Moreover, Sec. 424.530(a)(5) and Sec. 424.535(a)(5) give CMS and
its Medicare contractors the authority to deny or revoke Medicare
billing privileges for providers and suppliers respectively if the
provider or supplier is not operational or the provider does not
maintain the established provider or supplier performance standards.
And while we do not believe that unscheduled or unannounced site visits
are necessary for all providers and
[[Page 58210]]
suppliers, we do believe that a number of businesses, like the ones
mentioned below, pose an increased risk to the Medicare program, due at
least in part to the lack of individual professional licensure.
Moreover, as discussed below, we have found that certain types of
providers and suppliers that easily enter a line or business without
clinical or business experience, for example by leasing minimal office
space and equipment, present a higher risk of possible fraud to our
programs. As such, we believe that because these types of providers
pose an increased risk of fraud they should be subject to substantial
scrutiny before being permitted to enroll and bill Medicare, Medicaid,
or CHIP. This type of pre-enrollment scrutiny will help us move away
from the ``pay and chase'' approach. With the exception of providers
and suppliers that are publicly traded on the NYSE or NASDAQ and
therefore considered ``limited'' risk, we propose that the following
prospective provider and supplier types be considered a ``moderate''
risk for the purpose of determining the appropriate level of screening:
nonpublic, non-government owned or affiliated ambulance service
suppliers, community mental health centers (CMHCs), comprehensive
outpatient rehabilitation facilities (CORFs), hospice organizations,
IDTFs, and independent clinical laboratories.
Most of these provider and supplier types are generally highly
dependent on Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP to pay their salaries and
other operating expenses and are subject to less additional other
government or professional oversight than the providers and suppliers
in the limited risk category. Accordingly, we believe it is appropriate
and necessary to conduct unscheduled and unannounced pre-enrollment
site visits to ensure that these prospective providers and suppliers
meet CMS' enrollment requirements prior to enrolling in the Medicare
program. Moreover, we believe that post-enrollment site visits are also
important to ensure that the enrolled provider or supplier remains a
viable health care provider or supplier in the Medicare program.
Accordingly, we propose in Sec. 424.518(b)(i) that in addition to
the categorical screening tools used with respect to limited risk
providers and suppliers that Medicare contractors shall conduct
unannounced and unscheduled site visits prior to enrolling the
following prospective providers and suppliers with the exception of
providers and suppliers that are publicly traded on the NYSE or NASDAQ
and therefore considered ``limited'' risk: Nonpublic, nongovernment
owned or affiliated ambulance services suppliers, CMHCs, CORFs, hospice
organizations, IDTFs, and independent clinical laboratories. In
addition, we propose that the following currently enrolled Medicare
providers should be categorized as ``moderate'': Currently enrolled
(revalidating) home health agencies or suppliers of DMEPOS. (Except
that any such provider that is publicly traded on the NYSE or NASDAQ is
considered ``limited'' risk.)
We believe that the providers and suppliers described above have
the similar risk level as suppliers of DMEPOS and IDTFs, for both of
which we already require a pre-enrollment site visit prior to
completing the enrollment process.
We are also proposing in Sec. 424.518(b)(ii) that the Medicare
contractor shall conduct an unannounced and unscheduled pre-enrollment
and/or post-enrollment on-site visit for the following providers and
suppliers that are not publicly traded on the NYSE or NASDAQ during the
revalidation process: non-public, non-government owned or affiliated
ambulance services suppliers; CMHCs, CORFs, DMEPOS suppliers, HHAs,
hospice organizations, IDTFs, and independent clinical laboratories.
For the same reasons that we believe that a Medicare contractor should
conduct a pre-enrollment site visit, we believe that Medicare
contractors should conduct post-enrollment site visits during the
revalidation process for the provider and supplier types described
above.
HHS OIG and GAO have issued studies indicating that several of the
provider and supplier types cited above have an elevated risk. In an
October 2007 report titled, ``Growth in Advanced Imaging Paid under the
Medicare Physician Fee Schedule'' (OEI-01-06-00260), the HHS OIG
recommended that CMS consider conducting site visits to monitor IDTFs'
compliance with Medicare requirements.'' In addition, in an April 2007
report titled, ``Medicare Hospices: Certification and Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services Oversight'' (OEI-06-05-00260), the HHS OIG
recommended that CMS seek legislation to establish additional
enforcement remedies for poor hospice performance. In response to this
recommendation, CMS stated that it was considering whether to pursue
new enforcement remedies for poor hospice performance. While the
Medicare enrollment process is not designed to verify the conditions of
participation, we do believe that more frequent onsite visits may help
identify those hospice organizations that are no longer operational at
the practice location identified on the Medicare enrollment
application.
In a January 2006 report titled, ``Medicare Payments for Ambulance
Transports'' (OEI-05-02-000590), the HHS OIG found that ``twenty-five
percent of ambulance transports did not meet Medicare's program
requirements, resulting in an estimated $402 million in improper
payments.''
In an August 2004 report titled, ``Comprehensive Outpatient
Rehabilitation Facilities: High Medicare Payments in Florida Raise
Program Integrity Concerns'' (GAO-04-709), the GAO concluded that,
``[s]izeable disparities between Medicare therapy payments per patient
to Florida CORFs and other facility-based outpatient therapy providers
in 2002--with no clear indication of differences in patient needs--
raise questions about the appropriateness of CORF billing practices.
After finding high rates of medically unnecessary therapy services to
CORFs, CMS's claims administration contractor for Florida took steps to
ensure appropriate claim payments for a small, targeted group of CORF
patients. Despite its limited success, billing irregularities continued
among some CORFs and many CORFs continued to receive relatively high
payments the following year. This suggests that the contractor's
efforts were too limited in scope to be effective with all CORF
providers.''
In addition to GAO and HHS OIG studies and reports, a number of
Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPIC) and Program Safeguard
Contractors (PSC), organizations used by CMS in helping to fight fraud
in Medicare, have taken a number of administrative actions including
payment suspensions and increased medical review, for the provider and
supplier types shown above. For example, the Zone 7 ZPIC contractor in
South Florida has conducted onsite reviews at 62 CORFs since January
2010 and recommended revocation for 51 CORFs, or 82 percent of the
CORFS in the area. The same contractor has conducted an onsite reviews
at 38 CMHCs located in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach County since
January 2010, and recommended that 30 CMHCs be revoked for
noncompliance (79 percent of the CMHCs in the area). In each instance
where the ZPIC requested a revocation, the CMHC was also placed on
prepay review. We have also conducted an analysis of IDTF licensure
requirements and have found several circumstances that indicate
[[Page 58211]]
irregularity and potential risk of fraud. Although independent clinical
laboratories are subject to survey against CLIA requirements, there are
nonetheless a number of potentials for fraud, not the least of which is
the sheer volume of service and associated billing generated by these
entities.
Also, while we believe that prospective suppliers of DMEPOS that
are not publicly-traded on the NYSE or NASDAQ are a ``high''
categorical risk (see discussion below), we believe that there is ample
evidence to support the use of post-enrollment site visits as a
reliable and effective tool to ensure that a current supplier of DMEPOS
remains operational and continues to meet the supplier standards found
in Sec. 424.57(c). In a March 2007 report titled, ``Medical Equipment
Suppliers Compliance with Medicare Enrollment Requirements'' (OEI-04-
05-00380), the HHS OIG concluded that, ``By helping to ensure the
legitimacy of DMEPOS suppliers, out-of cycle site visits may help to
prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in the Medicare program. CMS may want
to consider the findings of our study as they determine how and to what
extent out-of-cycle site visits of DMEPOS suppliers will occur.''
Today, the NSC MAC utilizes on post-enrollment site visits as the
primary screening to determine ongoing compliance with the enrollment
criteria set forth in Sec. 424.57(c). Therefore, we have included
currently enrolled DMEPOS suppliers in the ``moderate'' category.
We also note that, in addition to the new screening measures being
proposed in this rule, under the existing regulation at Sec. 424.517,
a Medicare contractor may conduct an unannounced or unscheduled site
visit at any time for any provider or supplier type prior to enrolling
a prospective provider or supplier or for any existing provider or
supplier enrolled in the Medicare program. While the primary purpose of
an unannounced and unscheduled site visit is to ensure that a provider
or supplier is operational at the practice location found on the
Medicare enrollment application, a Medicare contractor may also verify
established supplier standards or performance standards other than
conditions of participation (CoP) subject to survey and certification
by the State Survey agency, where applicable, to ensure that the
supplier remains in compliance with program requirements.
To assist readers in understanding the type of providers and
suppliers that we propose to include in the ``moderate'' risk level, we
are providing the following table.
Table 3--Medicare Providers and Suppliers Designated as a ``Moderate''
Categorical Risk for Screening Purposes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provider/supplier category
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community mental health centers; Comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation
facilities; Hospice organizations; Independent diagnostic testing
facilities; Independent clinical laboratories; and Nonpublic,
Nongovernment owned or affiliated ambulance services suppliers. (Except
that any such provider or supplier that is publicly traded on the NYSE
or NASDAQ is considered ``limited'' risk.)
Currently enrolled (revalidating) home health agencies. (Except that any
such provider that is publicly traded on the NYSE or NASDAQ is
considered ``limited'' risk.)
Currently enrolled (re-validating) suppliers of DMEPOS.(Except that any
such supplier that is publicly traded on the NYSE or NASDAQ is
considered ``limited'' risk.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) High
For those provider and supplier categories within the ``high''
level of risk, we propose that, in addition to the screening tools
applicable to the ``limited'' and ``moderate'' levels of risk, Medicare
contractors would use the following screening tools in the enrollment
process: (1) Criminal background check; and (2) submission of
fingerprints using the FD-258 standard fingerprint card. (The FD-258
fingerprint card is recognized nationally and can be found at local,
county or State law enforcement agencies where, for a fee, agencies
will supply the card and take the fingerprints.) We propose that these
tools would be applied to owners, authorized or delegated officials or
managing employees of any provider or supplier within the ``high''
level of risk. We believe that criminal background checks will assist
CMS in determining if an individual, such as an owner, authorized
official, or delegated official, or managing employee of a high-risk
provider or supplier type, submitted a complete and truthful Medicare
enrollment application and whether an individual is eligible to enroll
in the Medicare program or maintain Medicare billing privileges. We
also believe that use of fingerprinting will help in verification of an
individual's identity and help resolve issues associated with identity
theft as discussed below. We believe that this position is supported by
testimony of the GAO before the subcommittees for Health and Oversight
and Ways and Means within the House of Representatives on June 15,
2010, stating in part that ``[c]hecking the background of providers at
the time they apply to become Medicare providers is a crucial step to
reduce the risk of enrolling providers intent on defrauding or abusing
the program. In particular, we have recommended stricter scrutiny of
enrollment processes for two types of providers whose services and
items CMS has identified as especially vulnerable to improper
payments--home health agencies (HHAs) and suppliers of durable medical
equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS).''
In Sec. 424.518(c)(1), we are proposing that, unless they are
publicly traded on the NYSE or NASDAQ, newly enrolling HHAs and
suppliers of DMEPOS are within the ``high'' risk level. Based on our
experience and on work conducted by the HHS OIG and the GAO, and
because we do not have the monitoring experience with newly enrolling
DMEPOS suppliers or HHAs that we have with those currently enrolled, we
have placed these providers and suppliers in the ``high'' risk
category. We are especially concerned about newly enrolling HHAs and
suppliers of DMEPOS because of the high number of HHAs and suppliers of
DMEPOS already enrolled in the Medicare program and program
vulnerabilities that these entities pose to the Medicare program. Below
is a list of HHS OIG and GAO reports identifying home health agencies
and suppliers of DMEPOS as posing an elevated risk to the Medicare
program.
In a December 2009 report titled, ``Aberrant Medicare Home
Health Outlier Payment Patterns in Miami-Dade County and Other
Geographic Areas in 2008'' (OEI-04-08-00570), the HHS OIG recommended
that CMS continue with efforts to strengthen enrollment standards for
home health providers to prevent illegitimate HHAs from obtaining
billing privileges.
[[Page 58212]]
In a February 2009 report titled, ``Medicare: Improvements
Needed to Address Improper Payments in Home Health'' (GAO-09-185), the
GAO concluded that the Medicare enrollment process does not routinely
include verification of the criminal history of applicants, and without
this information individuals and businesses that misrepresent their
criminal histories or have a history of relevant convictions, such as
for fraud, could be allowed to enter the Medicare program. In addition,
the GAO recommended that CMS assess the feasibility of verifying the
criminal history of all key officials named on the Medicare enrollment
application.
In a February 2008 report titled, ``Los Angeles County
Suppliers' Compliance with Medicare Standards: Results from Unannounced
Visits'' (OEI-09-07-00550) and in a March 2007 report titled, ``South
Florida Suppliers' Compliance with Medicare Standards: Results from
Unannounced Visits (OEI-03-07-00150), the HHS OIG recommended that CMS
strengthen the Medicare DMEPOS supplier enrollment process and ensure
that suppliers meet Medicare supplier standards. The HHS OIG provided
several options to implement this recommendation including: (1)
Conducting more unannounced site visits to suppliers; (2) performing
more rigorous background checks on applicants; (3) assessing the fraud
risk of suppliers; and (4) targeting, monitoring, and enforcement of
high-risk suppliers.
In a September 2005 report titled, ``Medicare: More
Effective Screening and Stronger Enrollment Standards Needed for
Medical Equipment Suppliers'' (GAO-05-656), the GAO concluded that,
CMS is responsible for assuring that Medicare beneficiaries have
access to the equipment, supplies, and services they need, and at
the same time, for protecting the program from abusive billing and
fraud. The supplier standards and NSC's gate keeping activities were
intended to provide assurance that potential suppliers are qualified
and would comply with Medicare rules. However, there is overwhelming
evidence--in the form of criminal convictions, revocations, and
recoveries--that the enrollment processes and the standards are not
strong enough to thoroughly protect the program from fraudulent
entities. We believe that CMS must focus on strengthening the
standards and overseeing the supplier enrollment process. It needs
to better focus on ways to scrutinize suppliers to ensure that they
are responsible businesses, analogous to Federal standards for
evaluating potential contractors.
We recognize that there may also be circumstances where a
particular provider or supplier or group of providers and suppliers may
pose a higher risk of fraud, waste, and abuse than the level identified
for their category generally. Therefore, in Sec. 424.518(c)(3), we are
proposing specific criteria that we would use to adjust the
classification of a provider or supplier into a higher risk level than
would generally apply to the category of provider or supplier, in order
to address specific program vulnerabilities. We are soliciting comments
on specific additional circumstances that might justify shifting a
provider or supplier into a higher risk level than would generally
apply to its category. We are also soliciting comment on the criteria
that we could use to shift the risk level back down.
In Sec. 424.518(c)(3)(i), we are proposing to adjust a provider or
supplier from the ``limited'' or ``moderate'' risk level to the
``high'' risk level when CMS has evidence from or concerning a
physician or nonphysician practitioner that another individual is using
their identity within the Medicare program. While our Medicare
contractors have implemented procedures to reduce the possibility of
identity theft and use of physician's identity for the purposes of
enrolling and fraudulently billing the Medicare program, we believe
that we have a responsibility to all individuals participating in the
Medicare program to take the necessary steps to investigate and resolve
any allegations of identity theft. We do not intend to fingerprint the
individual physician or other eligible professional who has been the
victim of identity or provider number theft.
In Sec. 424.518(c)(3), we are proposing to adjust a provider or
supplier from the ``limited'' or ``moderate'' level of risk to the
``high'' level of risk based on: the provider or supplier having been
placed on a previous payment suspension; or the provider or supplier
has been excluded by the HHS OIG or had its Medicare billing privileges
denied or revoked by a Medicare contractor within the previous 10 years
and is attempting to establish additional Medicare billing privileges
for a new practice location or by enrolling as a new provider or
supplier. In addition, we believe that providers that have been
terminated or otherwise precluded from billing Medicaid should be
adjusted from the ``limited'' or ``moderate'' category to the ``high''
category. We believe that such providers or suppliers pose an elevated
level of risk to the Medicare program.
In Sec. 424.518(c)(3)(iv), we are proposing to adjust providers or
suppliers from the ``limited'' or ``moderate'' level of risk to the
``high'' level of risk for 6 months after CMS lifts a temporary
moratorium (see section II.C. of this proposed rule) applicable to such
providers or suppliers. This would include providers and su