And the Money Kept Rolling In...

By Julie Mason, Principal, Medicare Compliance Solutions

Several days ago, CMS announced the 17 Medicare Advantage (MA) plans subject to civil monetary penalties (CMPs) based on their 2016 audit findings.  Until this year, the months of February and March in the MA space meant the application season.  Now, based on CMS’ March 1 memo on CMPs, it is the application-and-enforcement actions season.  Unlike past years, when CMS posted audit-based enforcement actions on a rolling basis throughout the year, they are now holding public notification of audit-based CMPs until the first quarter of the following year.  (Although the CMS memo didn’t explicitly address timing of intermediate sanctions—e.g., freezing of enrollment and marketing—one should presume those actions will be imposed and announced on a more immediate basis.)  This change in process allows CMS to evaluate all audits simultaneously (grading on a curve?), and that can’t happen until the end of audit season, typically November or early December.  Add a couple of months for decision-making by CMS and the twenty layers of review required to issue just about anything, and that brings us to deep into the first quarter of the next year.

So what does this mean for MA plans scheduled for a 2017 audit, or the many MA plans who suspect they’re on the 2017 audit hit-list?  For one, it means that audited MA plans may not know until well after the audit closes whether they will be sanctioned.   Following a CMS audit, there is often a fair amount of conjecture amongst senior management regarding whether the audit findings are significant enough to result in sanctions or enforcement actions.  It’s not a fun exercise, and will be more protracted now that sanctions are announced in one fell swoop in the first quarter of the following year.  For all MA plans, it means there won’t be a clear window on CMS’ approach to enforcement during the current year.  And with a new and unpredictable administration in place (sort of), we will all be looking for clues.  The March 1 memo stated that sanctions and enforcement actions for regulatory violations identified through sources other than audits would continue to be posted to the CMS website “within the normal timeframe after notification to the sponsor,” which typically has been within a few days or so.  But non-audit related sanctions and enforcement actions are few and far between, or at least they have been up until now. 

Are there any clues in the audit and enforcement action trends over the last few years to signal what we can expect in 2017?  Yes and no.  Looking at the available CMS data we can draw a few broad conclusions.    These are based on information in the March 1 CMP memo, the 2015 Part C and Part D Program Audit and Enforcement Report (https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Compliance-and-Audits/Part-C-and-Part-D-Compliance-and-Audits/Downloads/2015_C_and_D_Program_Audit_and_Enforcement-Report.pdf), the Part C and Part D Enforcement Actions page on the CMS website (https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Compliance-and-Audits/Part-C-and-Part-D-Compliance-and-Audits/PartCandPartDEnforcementActions-.html) and the Program Audits Results page of the CMS website (https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Compliance-and-Audits/Part-C-and-Part-D-Compliance-and-Audits/ProgramAuditResults.html).  (Note: CMS will likely issue the 2016 Program Audit and Enforcement Report sometime this year, but possibly not for a while; they didn’t issue the 2015 report until September 2016.  That report contained a brief comparison of 2014 and 2015 audit and CMP statistics, but was no more sophisticated than the rough analysis herein.) 

Looking at 2016 compared to 2015, CMS audited significantly more plans in 2016 (37) than 2015 (22) (Figure 1).  The average audit score fell from 1.76 in 2015 to 1.22 in 2016, about a 30% decrease.  But the percentage of audited plans that were issued a CMS fell only 9%, and still remains at around half of audited plans (46%).  CMS has stated that enforcement actions are not based on a plan’s overall audit score, but on the impact the conditions have on members’ access to medical care and prescription drugs.  So we can assume that, at least to some degree, plans are generally faring better in the audits with fewer conditions, but within that smaller number of conditions there are some that directly and significantly impact (or are likely to impact) members’ access to care and drugs and thus result in a CMP.

The dollar amounts of CMPs are based on formulas that CMS described in its Civil Money Penalty Methodology policy, released in final form on December 15, 2016.    Because the methodology considers many factors (type of member harm, number of members and/or contracts affected, and aggravating and mitigating factors), and includes limits based on size of the plan, it is more difficult to draw conclusions from the CMP amounts, both overall and average, imposed for 2016 audits.  (Figure 2).  We do know that the CMP methodology increases the per enrollee and per determination amounts used to calculate a CMP from the amounts used by CMS in previous years, to encourage greater compliance with CMS requirements.  We can assume that approach will continue for the 2017 audits. 

Figure 1

CMS Audit Scores

 

2014

2015

2016

# MA plans/PDPs audited

27

22

37

% of audited plans with CMPs

59%

55%

46%

Average overall audit score

1.61

1.76

1.22

Highest overall audit score

3.25

3.35

2.70

Lowest overall audit score

0.31

0.47

0.23

 

 

Figure 2

CMPs based on CMS audit findings

 

2014 Audits

2015 Audits

2016 Audits

# of CMPs imposed

16

12

17

Total CMP amount

$3.75 million

$8.48 million

$7.29 million

Average CMP amount

$234,194

$707,075

$429,136

Highest CMP

$689,000

$3.1 million

$2.5 million

With the significant decrease in the average overall audit score from 2015 to 2016, health plans have demonstrated that greater compliance with CMS requirements is possible.  And CMS no doubt interprets its continuing pressure on plans through the imposition of CMPs as a major factor in the decreased audit scores.  Therefore, there is little reason to expect a drop-off in audit-based CMPs in 2017.  MA plans and PDPs that have not had a CMS program audit in the last several years should heed this as a call to action to thoroughly prepare for one.  

About Medicare Compliance Solutions 


Categories: compliance, regulatory
Tags: compliance, regulatory, CMS

Log on to Your Rise Account

Forgot your password?
Create an Account

Association Sponsors

Latest Posts

Keep M.E.A.T. on Your List for a Healthy Audit

By Jeanmarie Loria, Advize Health, LLC If you’re reading this article, chances are you already know what HCC Coding is – but we’ll give you a refresher anyway. Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) and Risk Adjustment Coding is a CMS-mandated payment model. This model works to identify those with chronic and other serious illnesses and prescribes a risk factor score to each patient, taking into consideration their ailments and other demographics. With every payment model comes a specific set of audit and review requirements that must be met to maintain the integrity of the system, and this is where MEAT (Monitor, Evaluate, Assess/Address, Treat) comes in handy. In a face to face visit M.E.A.T. maybe found in the chief complaint, history of present illness, review of systems, physical exam, assessment and/or plan....
Read More

Getting It Right: True North in Healthcare Reform

The movement to repeal and replace "ObamaCare" created so much political noise that clear thinking has been hard to come by. The 2010 legislation that created the marketplace for individuals and small business (the Affordable Care Act or ACA), has almost evolved into a political Rorschach test. The more that politicized options and alternatives to repealing, replacing, or repairing it were discussed, the harder it was to put into focus the original problems the legislation was designed to address. Nevertheless, the rancorous divisions over what needs to happen to fix problems in the individual insurance market remain a distraction from the real issue at hand: the cost of healthcare weighing down the economy and what we need to do to fix it. With all the intense debates swirling around this topic, an impression emerges that “solving the ObamaCare issues” is something that must be accomplished as an isolated matter, discrete and independent of other problems. The heated debates concentrate on the mechanics and tactics required to solve the "uninsured problem", the "under-insured problem", and for some, the federal budget problems created by the subsidies for low-income enrollees in these plans. This single-issue mono-vision obscures a reality that must be addressed. This perspective completely misses the fact that something is going on that is far more corrosive to the wellbeing of all of us as consumers of health care, as taxpayers, and as a nation: something that overshadows the tug ‘o war over ObamaCare. The critical and overlooked issue is that health care expenditures in the U.S are at least twice as expensive as other nations, which consume so much of the national economy...
Read More

Upcoming Conference

 

Qualipalooza: The 2nd Annual RISE Quality Leadership Summit 

This unique event incorporates three conferences presented side-by-side: the Star Ratings Strategic Planning Forum, the HEDIS Forum, and the CAHPS, HOS & Member Survey Forum. Register for one conference for an in-depth examination of a single area, or design your own event by opting for the all-access pass and choosing the sessions from each conference which correspond exactly to your interests.

More

Upcoming Webinar

Successful and Meaningful Techniques for Integrating Risk and Quality Interventions

Quality measurement and risk adjustment regulations are increasing and the financial impact upon health plans is progressively driving accountability and influencing profitability through payments, penalties, and bonuses. To improve performance and optimize risk and quality payments, Health Plans need to streamline processes, employ best practices for data capture, and focus on strategic interventions that use a member-centric approach.  

Connect With Us

Copyright © 2014 Resource Initiative & Society for Education. All rights reserved.