Monday, July 6, 2015

Addressing an Epidemic of Fraud in the Healthcare Wasteland

A friend of mine whom I'll refer to as Jasper (not his real name) is a 40-something year old male who was diagnosed a few years ago with Parkinson's disease. Several months ago he gave me a call, knowing that I have a health benefits background. Jasper had learned from his physical therapist that he was approaching the limits his health plan placed on the annual number of physical therapy sessions. The physical therapist had told Jasper not to worry, when the limit was reached, the office would re-file his case under a new diagnosis, which would trigger a new benefit-eligible episode of care, allowing it to continue delivering service, billing for it, and getting reimbursed for it.

Addressing an Epidemic of Fraud in the Healthcare Wasteland

0 comments

A friend of mine whom I’ll refer to as Jasper (not his real name) is a 40-something year old male who was diagnosed a few years ago with Parkinson’s disease.  Several months ago he gave me a call, knowing that I have a health benefits background.  Jasper had learned from his physical therapist that he was approaching the limits his health plan placed on the annual number of physical therapy sessions.  The physical therapist had told Jasper not to worry, when the limit was reached, the office would re-file his case under a new diagnosis, which would trigger a new benefit-eligible episode of care, allowing it to continue delivering service, billing for it, and getting reimbursed for it.

Jasper was relieved to know that clinical services that seemed to be helping him maintain his strength and physical activity would be continued, but he realized he would continue to be responsible for a 20% co-payment.  “What do you think I should do,” he asked, “should I continue with my therapy?” 

“Well, let’s start with the question of how willing you are to commit insurance fraud,” I asked.  I explained that “filing under a new diagnosis,” when in fact it was just more service addressing the same old diagnosis, was fraudulent.  Undoubtedly, being able to continue billing under a fee-for-service arrangement would benefit the provider, but I asked Jasper to think about whether the additional physical therapy visits would benefit him.

Upon reflection, Jasper realized that he had not learned any new exercises or self-management strategies in his most recent visits to the therapist, and that he could easily continue to do those exercises at home.  With some additional discussion, he concluded that the costs of continuing his therapy -- 20% co-payments for each visit, plus the inconvenience and lost productivity cost – far outweighed any marginal benefit of additional visits.  To the best of my knowledge, Jasper didn’t factor into his decision the other 80% of cost that his self-funded employer would be paying for each unnecessary visit.

Cases such as Jasper’s are commonplace.  In "Eliminating Waste in US Health Care," Berwick and Hackbarth examined the total cost of waste by category. In the aggregate, they deemed approximately 34% of spending in the United States on healthcare services to be waste – $910 billion, including $177 billion attributed to fraud and abuse, and $192 billion to overtreatment.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) allocates additional resources to the prevention and detection of fraud and abuse, and financial recovery when detected.  Among key provisions, the ACA provides an additional $350 million over 10 years for fraud prevention and detection, tightens controls on provider licensure and Medicare and Medicaid participation, increases penalties and recovery guidelines when fraud is detected, and facilitates data-sharing among various federal programs for fraud detection purposes.  The question is whether these increased resources and tightened policies are sufficient to cap the fraud gusher.

Jasper’s example suggests to me that we also need to continue to educate the public about the fraud and abuse epidemic.  Not only is over-utilization (whether deliberately fraudulent or just knowing that “erring on the side of caution” can be lucrative) wasteful and potentially harmful, it also is driving down our ability to cover services for the poor, elderly, and uninsured, and making it more difficult for American businesses to compete in a global economy.

Putting more of the economic burden on consumers through higher deductibles and other out-of-pockets may help to motivate the public to ask the right questions (what will this cost, how will it benefit me, etc.), but these efforts need to be coupled with extensive education on how health benefits work, how to be an informed consumer, and… how to avoid being an accessory to a crime.


From Obamacare to Medicare to managed care, read more of The Field Clinic here »

0 comments
We encourage respectful comments but reserve the right to delete anything that doesn't contribute to an engaging dialogue.
Help us moderate this thread by flagging comments that violate our guidelines.

Comment policy:

Philly.com comments are intended to be civil, friendly conversations. Please treat other participants with respect and in a way that you would want to be treated. You are responsible for what you say. And please, stay on topic. If you see an objectionable post, please report it to us using the "Report Abuse" option.

Please note that comments are monitored by Philly.com staff. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable. Personal attacks, especially on other participants, are not permitted. We reserve the right to permanently block any user who violates these terms and conditions.

Additionally comments that are long, have multiple paragraph breaks, include code, or include hyperlinks may not be posted.

Read 0 comments
 
comments powered by Disqus
About this blog

The Field Clinic reports and analyzes health care laws, government policies, and political trends that are transforming the care we receive and the way we pay for it. Read more about our panel of bloggers here.

This blog is produced in partnership with Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan health-policy research and communication organization not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. Portions of this blog may also be found on Inquirer.com and in the Inquirer's Sunday Health Section.

Follow the Field Clinic on Twitter.

RSS feed.

Robert I. Field, Ph.D., J.D., M.P.H. Professor, School of Law & Drexel School of Public Health
Jeffrey Brenner, MD Founder of the Camden Coalition of Healthcare Providers, Medical Director of the Urban Health Institute at Cooper University Healthcare
Andy Carter President & CEO, The Hospital & Healthsystem Assoc. of Pa.
Robert B. Doherty Senior Vice President of Governmental Affairs & Public Policy American College of Physicians
David Grande, MD, MPA Assistant Professor of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania
Tine Hansen-Turton Chief Strategy Officer of Public Health Management Corporation
Drew A. Harris, DPM, MPH Director of Health Policy Program at the Jefferson School of Population Health
Antoinette Kraus Director of the Pennsylvania Health Access Network
Laval Miller-Wilson Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Health Law Project
David B. Nash, MD, MBA Founding Dean of the Jefferson School of Population Health
Mark V. Pauly, Ph.D. Professor of Health Care Management, Business Economics and Public Policy at The Wharton School
Howard J. Peterson, MHA Managing Partner of TRG Healthcare, a national healthcare consulting firm
Paula L. Stillman, MD, MBA Healthcare consultant with special expertise in population health and disease management
Elizabeth A. W. Williams Senior Vice President & Chief Communications Officer for Independence Blue Cross
Latest Health Videos
Also on Philly.com:
letter icon Newsletter