Steven Baruch - Health Care Compliance Association

Volume Twelve 

Number Twelve 

December 2010 

Published Monthly 

Meet the first 

CHC-F Candidate: 

Steven Baruch 

Compliance & Privacy Officer Sutter Health/ 

Alta Bates Summit Medical Center 

page 14 

Feature Focus: 

Federal medical record 

requests: Setting up a RAC 

and CERT response team 

page 38 

Health Care Compliance Association • 888-580-8373 • www.hcca-info.org 

Earn CEU Credit 

www.hcca-info.org/quiz—see page 35 

Mobility disabilities: A 

technical assistance 

manual for health care 

providers 

page 4 

1 

December 2010

Global Compliance: 

Good for BusinessSM 

Hotline 

Solutions 

Training & 

Education 

Expert Advice 

Expert solutions and insight to 

protect your organization’s integrity – 

helping you avoid costly and 

potentially devastating ethics 

and compliance issues. 

Performance & 

Benchmarking 

Learn more about our 

complete ethics and 

compliance solutions. 

Contact us today at 

800-876-6023 or contactus@ 

globalcompliance.com. 

December 2010 

2 

www.globalcompliance.com 

Health Care Compliance Association • 888-580-8373 • www.hcca-info.org

Publisher: 

Health Care Compliance Association, 888-580-8373 

Executive Editor: 

Roy Snell, CEO, roy.snell@hcca-info.org 

Contributing Editor: 

Gabriel Imperato, Esq., CHC 

Editor: 

Margaret R. Dragon, 781-593-4924, margaret.dragon@hcca-info.org 

Copy Editor: 

Patricia Mees, CHC, CCEP, 888-580-8373, patricia.mees@hcca-info.org 

Layout and Production Manager: 

Gary DeVaan, 888-580-8373, gary.devaan@hcca-info.org 

HCCA Officers: 

Jennifer O’Brien, JD, CHC 

HCCA President 

Medicare Compliance Officer 

UnitedHealth Group 

Frank Sheeder, JD, CCEP 

HCCA 1st Vice President 

Partner 

Jones Day 

Shawn Y. DeGroot, CHC-F, CHRC, CCEP 

HCCA 2nd Vice President 

Vice President Of Corporate Responsibility 

Regional Health 

John C. Falcetano, CHC-F, CIA, CCEP-F, CHRC 

HCCA Treasurer 

Chief Audit/Compliance Officer 

University Health Systems 

of Eastern Carolina 

Catherine M. Boerner, JD, CHC 

HCCA Secretary 

President 

Boerner Consulting, LLC 

Daniel Roach, Esq. 

Non-Officer Board Member 

to the Executive Committee 

Vice President Compliance and Audit 

Catholic Healthcare West 

Julene Brown, RN, MSN, BSN, CHC, CPC 

HCCA Immediate Past President 

Director of Corporate Compliance 

Innovis Health 

CEO/Executive Director: 

Roy Snell, CHC, CCEP-F 

Health Care Compliance Association 

Counsel: 

Keith Halleland, Esq. 

Halleland Habicht PA 

Board of Directors: 

Urton Anderson, PhD, CCEP 

Chair, Department of Accounting and 

Clark W. Thompson Jr. Professor in 

Accounting Education 

McCombs School of Business 

University of Texas 

Marti Arvin, JD, CPC, CCEP-F, CHC-F, CHRC 

Chief Compliance Officer 

UCLA Health Sciences 

Angelique P. Dorsey, JD, CHRC 

Research Compliance Director 

MedStar Health 

Brian Flood, JD, CHC, CIG, AHFI, CFS 

National Managing Director 

KPMG LLP 

Margaret Hambleton, MBA, CPHRM, CHC 

Senior Vice President 

Ministry Integrity, Chief Compliance Officer 

St. Joseph Health System 

Dave Heller 

VP and Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer 

Edison International 

Rory Jaffe, MD, MBA 

Executive Director, California Hospital Patient 

Safety Organization (CHPSO) 

Matthew F. Tormey, JD, CHC 

Vice President 

Compliance, Internal Audit, and Security 

Health Management Associates 

Debbie Troklus, CHC-F, CCEP-F, CHRC 

Assistant Vice President 

for Health Affairs/Compliance 

University of Louisville 

Sheryl Vacca, CHC-F, CCEP, CHRC 

Senior Vice President/Chief Compliance 

and Audit Officer 

University of California 

Sara Kay Wheeler, JD 

Partner–Attorney 

King & Spalding 

Compliance Today (CT) (ISSN 1523-8466) is published by the Health Care 

Compliance Association (HCCA), 6500 Barrie Road, Suite 250, Minneapolis, MN 

55435. Periodicals postage-paid at Minneapolis, MN 55435. Postmaster: Send 

address changes to Compliance Today, 6500 Barrie Road, Suite 250, Minneapolis, 

MN 55435. Copyright 2010 Health Care Compliance Association. All rights 

reserved. Printed in the USA. Except where specifically encouraged, no part of this 

publication may be reproduced, in any form or by any means without prior written 

consent of the HCCA. For Advertising rates, call Margaret Dragon at 781-593- 

4924. Send press releases to M. Dragon, 41 Valley Road, Nahant, MA 01908. 

Opinions expressed are not those of this publication or the HCCA. Mention of 

products and services does not constitute endorsement. Neither the HCCA nor 

CT is engaged in rendering legal or other professional services. If such assistance is 

needed, readers should consult professional counsel or other professional advisors for 

specific legal or ethical questions. 


INSIDE 

4 CEU: Mobility disabilities: A technical assistance manual 

for health care providers By David H. Ganz and Gary W. Herschman 

New guidance on the accommodations that are required when 

providing accessible care for patients with disabilities. 

9 RACs are coming to Medicare Advantage, Part D and 

Medicaid By Gloryanne Bryant 

An expansion of RAC oversight means more time and resources 

will be needed and annual work plans may need revision. 

10 Provider signature guidelines and solutions: Autograph 

please! By Janet Marcus 

Verifiable author of record signatures on medical records are key 

for continuity of care and smooth claims processing. 

13 Social Networking By John Falcetano 

14 Meet the first CHC-F Candidate: Steven Baruch, Sutter 

Health/Alta Bates Summit Medical Center 

An interview by Debbie Troklus 

16 Newly Certified CHCs and CHRCs 

17 Letter from the CEO By Roy Snell 

Whistleblower 

22 CEU: The complexity of compliance basics: A CCO’s 

pursuit of knowledge By H. Rebecca Ness 

Compliance professionals need a wealth of knowledge and more 

than ordinary management skills to succeed. 

24 The evolving role of the chief compliance and ethics 

officer: A survey by the HCCA and SCCE By Adam Turteltaub 

Publicly traded, privately held, and non-profit entities vary widely 

on factors that affect the independence of compliance professionals. 

26 Physician compliance education outside of the hospital 

environment By Kia R. Earp 

A savvy office manager will keep compliance issues on the radar 

and keep the physicians and office staff informed to prevent fraud. 

29 Compliance 101: Stark and academic medical centers: 

A primer By Kenneth DeVille and Joan A. Kavuru 

A broad introduction to basic Stark issues to help compliance 

professionals find trouble spots that require further legal assistance. 

34 Health care reform and its effect on compliance 

programs By Cathy Cahill-Egolf 

As the regulatory landscape changes, new methods to combat 

fraud, waste, and abuse may change the way we do business. 

38 CEU: Feature Focus: Federal medical record requests: 

Setting up a RAC and CERT response team 

By Michael G. Calahan 

An effective, three-step approach to help you stay ahead of the 

curve as the number of record requests increases. 

42 Patient visits: Reforms increase provider responsibilities 

By Angela Miller 

Providers are required to make more face-to-face visits and be 

prepared to justify billing for services based on medical records. 

44 Individual liability for health care fraud: Enforcement 

agencies raise the stakes By Gabriel L. Imperato 

Recent settlements demonstrate the government’s willingness to 

hold individuals accountable, not just organizations. 

46 Medicare beneficiaries remain vulnerable to Medicare 

Advantage marketing schemes By Mark Stiglitz 

CMS is working to remove agents who don’t play by the rules. 

49 New HCCA Members 

3 

December 2010

December 2010 

4 

Mobility disabilities: 

A technical assistance 

manual for health 

care providers 

Editor’s note: David H. Ganz is Of Counsel to 

the Sills Cummis & Gross Employment and 

Labor Practice Group. David may be contacted 

by telephone in Newark, New Jersey at 973/ 643- 

4852 or by e-mail at dganz@sillscummis.com. 

Gary W. Herschman is Chair of the Sills Cummis 

& Gross Health and Hospital Law Practice 

Group. Gary may be contacted by telephone at 

973/ 643-5783 or by e-mail at gherschman@ 

sillscummis.com. 

On July 22, 2010, the Civil Rights 

Division of the US Department 

of Justice and the Office for Civil 

Rights of the US Department of Health and 

Human Services issued Access to Medical Care 

for Individuals with Mobility Disabilities, a 

technical assistance manual designed to help 

persons with mobility disabilities (such as 

those who use wheelchairs, scooters, walkers, 

or crutches) obtain accessible medical care. 

The manual will also assist medical providers 

in understanding how the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and Section 

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 

504) apply to them. This article provides an 

overview of the new publication, which is 

comprised of four parts. 

Overview and general requirements 

The ADA is a federal law that prohibits 

discrimination against individuals with 

disabilities in everyday activities, including 

access to medical services. Section 504 is 

By David H. Ganz and Gary W. Herschman 

another federal statute that prohibits discrimination 

against individuals with disabilities 

in programs or activities that receive federal 

financial assistance. 

Public hospitals, as well as clinics and medical 

offices operated by state and local governments, 

are covered by Title II of the ADA. 

Private hospitals and medical offices are 

covered by Title III of the ADA as places of 

public accommodation. Section 504 covers 

any of these facilities that receive federal 

financial assistance, which can include 

Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement. 

Titles II and III of the ADA and Section 504 

require that medical care providers provide 

individuals with disabilities (1) full and equal 

access to their health care services and facilities; 

and (2) reasonable modifications to policies, 

practices, and procedures when necessary to 

make health care services fully available to 

such individuals, except where to do so would 

fundamentally alter the nature of the services. 

The ADA sets out requirements for new 

construction of, and alterations to, buildings 

and facilities, including health care facilities. 

These requirements may be found in the 

federal regulations. 1 In addition, all buildings 

(including those constructed before the ADA 

became effective) are subject to accessibility 

requirements. For example, under Title II, a 

public entity must ensure that its program as 

a whole is accessible—a requirement which 


may entail removing architectural barriers. 

Under Title III, existing facilities are required 

to remove architectural barriers where such 

removal is readily achievable. If barrier removal 

is not readily achievable, the entity must make 

its services available through alternative methods, 

if those methods are readily achievable. 

Frequently asked questions 

The technical assistance manual answers 

eleven commonly asked questions relating to 

the provision of medical services to individuals 

with mobility disabilities. The topics covered 

by these questions are varied, but many 

of the answers share a common theme—that 

patients with mobility disabilities should be 

treated like all other patients. 

For example, one of the questions asks whether 

a provider can refuse to treat a patient because 

the provider does not have accessible medical 

equipment. Another asks whether it is permissible 

to refuse to treat a patient with a disability 

because more time will be spent on his or her 

exam, and a third asks whether a patient with a 

disability can be made to wait until a particular 

room becomes available. A fourth question 

asks whether a nurse with a bad back must 

nonetheless lift a patient with a disability onto 

an exam table. Given that individuals with 

mobility impairments are to be treated like 

other non-disabled patients, the answers are 

not altogether surprising. 

The technical assistance manual provides that 

generally no service can be denied simply 

because a patient has a disability. Nor may a 

patient be refused treatment simply because 

the exam may take more of the provider’s 

time—time which an insurance carrier may 

not reimburse—or be forced to wait longer 

than other patients, so that a particular exam 

table becomes available. Accessibility needs can 

be determined in advance so that equipment is 

ready for a particular person’s appointment. As

for the nurse with the bad back, the guidance 

provides that while staff should be protected 

from injury, that concern does not justify the 

failure to provide equal medical services to 

disabled patients. Staff injuries can be avoided 

by providing accessible equipment (e.g., adjustable 

exam tables, patient lifts) and training on 

proper patient handling techniques. 

Several questions address assistants; namely, 

whether a patient with a disability must bring 

an assistant to the exam, and if he or she does, 

whether the assistant must remain in the room 

while the patient is being examined and his or 

her condition is being discussed. The manual 

provides that a patient with a disability can, 

if he or she chooses, bring a friend or family 

member to the exam, but the patient is not 

required to do so. If the patient comes to the 

exam alone, then the provider must provide 

reasonable assistance (e.g., help with dressing 

and undressing, getting on and off equipment) 

so that medical care can be delivered. When 

the patient brings an assistant, the provider 

should address the patient. Whether the 

assistant remains in the room for the exam and 

ensuing discussion is the patient’s choice. 

Other questions concern exam tables. For 

example, can a doctor examine a patient who 

uses a wheelchair in that wheelchair because he 

or she cannot independently get onto an exam 

table The answer is generally no, because an 

examination in a wheelchair is less thorough 

than an exam on a table. The technical guidance 

manual makes clear that it is important that the 

patient with a disability receives medical services 

equal to those received by the patient without a 

disability. The manual also addresses the question 

of whether an office or clinic with multiple 

exam rooms must have an accessible exam table 

in every room. The answer is probably not, 

as the number of accessible exam tables will 

depend on several factors, including the size of 

the practice and the patient population. 

Two questions deal with the financial cost 

of making exam rooms and other parts of 

the office accessible to the patient with a 

disability: (1) Whose responsibility is it and 

(2) Are there tax benefits for making accessibility 

changes The manual provides that 

both tenants and landlords are responsible 

for complying with the ADA, and the lease 

may speak to who in particular must make an 

accessibility change. As for tax breaks, both 

tax credits and deductions are available to 

private businesses to offset expenses incurred 

to comply with the ADA. 

A final question asks what a provider should 

do if the staff does not know how to help a 

disabled patient. Training is the answer – 

training on how to operate accessible equipment, 

on how to assist with transfers and positions 

of disabled individuals, and on how not 

to discriminate. The manual identifies several 

resources where such training can be found. 

Accessible exam rooms 

For the patient with a mobility disability 

to receive appropriate medical care, it is 

critical that they are able to enter the exam 

room, move around, and use the accessible 

equipment provided. Features that make an 

exam room accessible to the disabled patient 

include: 

n an accessible route to and through the 

room; 

n an entry door with adequate clearance 

width, maneuvering clearance, and 

accessible hardware; 

n appropriate models and placement of 

accessible examination equipment; and 

n adequate floor space inside the room. 

An accessible doorway must have a minimum 

clear opening width of 32 inches when the 

door is opened to 90 degrees. Door hardware 

must not require tight grasping, tight pinching, 

or twisting of the wrist in order to use it. 

The hallway outside the door should be kept 

clear of obstacles, such as boxes or chairs. 

Once inside the exam room, a patient who 

uses a wheelchair or other mobility device 

must be able to approach the exam table 

and other areas of the room. There must be 

sufficient clear floor space next to an exam 

table so that a patient with a disability can 

approach the side of the table for transfer 

onto it. The minimum amount of space 

required is 30 inches by 48 inches. 

While clear floor space is needed along at 

least one side of an adjustable-height examination 

table, providing clear floor space on 

both sides allows one table to serve both right 

and left side transfers (for those individuals 

who can only transfer from the right or left 

side). Where more than one accessible room 

is available, a reverse furniture layout in the 

additional room allows for transfers from 

either side of the exam table. 

Accessible exam rooms should also have 

enough turning space for an individual in a 

wheelchair to make a 180-degree turn, using 

a clear space of 60 inches in diameter or a 60 

inch by 60 inch T-shaped space. Chairs and 

other objects should be moved to provide 

sufficient clear floor space for maneuvering 

and turning. Where portable patient lifts or 

stretchers are used (as opposed to ceilingmounted 

lifts), additional clear floor space will 

be needed to maneuver the lift or stretcher. 

Accessible medical equipment 

To ensure that a person with a mobility 

disability receives medical services equal 

to those received by a person without a 

disability, accessible medical equipment is 

important. If a patient must be lying down 

to be thoroughly examined, then a person 

with a disability must also be examined lying 

Continued on page 7 


5 

December 2010

MediRegs ® CCH ® 

The 

ComplyTrack Suite 

Total Solutions for Enterprise 

Compliance and Risk Management 

Regulatory 

Risk Assessment 

and 

Remediation 

Electronic 

Survey Tools 

& Audit 

Templates 

Incident 

Activity 

Management 

The 

ComplyTrack 

Suite 

Policy, 

Procedure & 

Document 

Management 

RAC and 

Claims-Based 

Audit 

Management 

Contract & 

Relationship 

Management 

MediRegs.com 

Aspen Publishers 

MediRegs ®

Mobility disabilities: A technical assistance manual for health care providers ...continued from page 5 

down. Similarly, if an examination calls for a 

specialized position, such as a gynecological 

examination, then a person with a disability 

must be able to access the equipment used for 

that examination. 

attached to the ceiling and run along one or 

more tracks. Free-standing overhead lifts are 

supported by a frame that rests on the floor. 

They work well when the provider does not 

want the lift to be permanently installed or 

where the existing ceiling structure cannot 

mammography machine will need to adjust 

to the individual’s height in the wheelchair or 

other chair. For weight scales, the technical 

assistance manual recognizes the importance 

of a patient’s weight for diagnostics and 

treatment, but acknowledges that individuals 

Traditional fixed-height tables and chairs 

are too high for many persons with mobility 

disabilities. Adjustable-height tables are better 

suited for them. At a minimum, an accessible 

exam table or chair should have (1) the 

ability to lower to the height of a wheelchair 

seat, 17-19 inches (possibly lower) from the 

floor, and (2) features, such as rails, straps, 

stabilization cushions, wedges, or rolled up 

towels, which stabilize and support a patient 

during the transfer and while on the table. 

The ability to get on to an exam table is a 

function of the patient’s capabilities and 

disability, as some persons may be able to 

affect the transfer without any assistance, but 

others may require help from a staff member 

or some other device, such as a transfer board 

or patient lift. 

support a ceiling-mounted lift. 

In some instances, neither a portable lift nor 

ceiling-mounted lift is feasible or possible. 

Such is the case where, for example, the 

medical equipment to be used lacks space to 

accommodate a lift or the metal components 

of a lift may not be compatible with some 

radiologic technologies. In these circumstances, 

an adjustable-height stretcher or 

gurney may be used. This typically entails a 

two-step process in which the patient first 

transfers from the wheelchair to the stretcher, 

and then from the stretcher to the table. 

Radiologic technologies and equipment, such 

as MRI, x-ray, CT scan, bone densitometry, 

and ultrasound machines present additional 

challenges. Because many of the technologies 

who use wheelchairs often are not weighed 

at the doctor’s office or hospital, because 

the provider does not have a scale that can 

accommodate a wheelchair. For this reason, 

the manual recommends that medical providers 

have either a scale with a platform large 

enough to accommodate a wheelchair, or a 

scale that is already integrated into a patient 

lift, hospital bed, or exam table. 

Properly trained staff 

Although the technical assistance manual 

focuses, in large part, on accessible equipment 

for people with mobility disabilities, it also 

emphasizes the importance of staff training in 

helping to ensure that such patients have an 

equal opportunity to receive accessible health 

care services. Accessible medical equipment 

can only do so much, unless staff knows 

A transfer board is made of a smooth rigid 

material which acts as a bridge between a 

wheelchair and another surface, along which 

the individual slides. A patient lift is a more 

elaborate device, and generally involves a sling, 

which is attached to a lift, and positioned under 

the patient who is sitting in a wheelchair. Once 

the person is moved to the table, he or she is 

then lowered onto the table, stabilized, and the 

sling is detached from the lift. 

are integrated into the table, the table may 

not be capable of being lowered sufficiently. 

Consequently, a patient lift or other transferand-position 

technique is especially important 

for access to this equipment. In addition, 

many of these technologies require the patient 

to keep still, which may be particularly 

difficult for some persons with mobility 

disabilities. In such circumstances, a staff 

person may need to hold on to the patient or 

support them with pillows, rolled-up towels, 

where it is stored and how to operate it. The 

guidance suggests that when new equipment 

is acquired, staff should be immediately 

trained on its use and maintenance. Similarly, 

new staff should be trained as soon as they 

are hired, and all staff should receive annual 

refresher training regarding the accessible 

medical equipment. 

Finally, the technical assistance manual 

stresses the importance of instructing and 

The most common types of lifts in medical 

settings are portable lifts. These typically have 

a U-shaped base that moves along the floor 

on wheels. The base goes under or fits around 

the exam table. Although these lifts can be 

moved from room to room, they require 

more maneuvering and storage space than 

overhead lifts, of which there are two general 

or wedges. 

The technical assistance manual also provides 

guidance on two others types of equipment: 

mammography equipment and scales. For 

mammography, wheelchair-bound patients 

and individuals who cannot stand for 

prolonged periods of time will have to be 

encouraging staff to ask questions of the 

patient, such as whether they need help and 

if so, how best they can help the individual. 

Because people with mobility disabilities use 

devices of different types, sizes, and weights, 

transfer in different ways, and have differing 

levels of physical abilities, understanding 

what assistance, if any, is needed and how to 

types. Ceiling-mounted lifts are permanently examined while the person is seated, so the 



7 

December 2010

Mobility disabilities: A technical assistance manual for health care 

providers ...continued from page 7 

provide that assistance will contribute to providing safe and accessible 

health care for people with mobility disabilities. 

HEALTH CARE COMPLIANCE ASSOCIATION’S 

15 th Annual 

COMPLIANCE 

INSTITUTE 

April 10–13, 2011 

Orlando, FL 

The Walt Disney World 

Swan and Dolphin Resort 

EARLY BIRD 

REGISTRATION 

Register by or on 

January 6, 2011, 

and save $575! 

AGENDA AVAILABLE & REGISTER AT 

www.compliance-institute.org 

Conclusion 

Access to Medical Care for Individuals with Mobility Disabilities provides 

important and helpful information on how to realize the ADA’s 

requirement of providing accessible health care to persons with mobility 

disabilities. It provides guidance in the form of narrative explanation 

and illustrated examples of accessible medical equipment, room and 

office configuration, and lifting and transfer equipment and techniques. 

The publication should prove to be a valuable resource to both health 

care providers who treat patients with mobility impairments and to 

those individuals with mobility disabilities who may have encountered 

obstacles in the past. 

In addition to the practical tips, the manual can also be a source of 

authority, if a dispute were to land in court. For example, a mobilityimpaired 

individual or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

may cite to the guidance in support of a claim that accessible health 

care was denied. A provider of medical services may rely on the guidance 

as evidence that it complied with the obligations imposed by the ADA. 

Courts may also look to the technical assistance manual as support for 

its interpretation of what is and is not required by the ADA. 2 However, 

the guidance is precisely that—guidance. Courts can also reject it. 3 

Nonetheless, the manual provides a valuable resource for health care 

providers who seek to comply with the ADA and ensure that individuals 

with disabilities receive equal access to care. For those wishing to review 

the manual in its entirety, it may be viewed at, and downloaded from, 

the ADA website. 4 n 

The authors would like to thank Matthew J. McKennan, a law clerk at the 

Firm, for his assistance in preparing this article. The views and opinions 

expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect 

those of Sills Cummis & Gross PC. 

1 See 28 CFR 35.151 (for Title II entities) and 28 CFR Part 36, Subpart D (for Title III entities). Available at www. 

ada.gov/reg2.html and www.ada.gov/reg3a.html. 

2 See, e.g., Buckley v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 127 F.3d 270, 273 (2d Cir. 1997) (referring to EEOC’s 

Technical Assistance Manual on ADA, appeals court states that “EEOC interpretive guidelines ‘while not controlling 

upon the courts by reason of their authority, do constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to which 

courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance.’”) (quoting Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65 

(1986)), vacated on other grounds, 155 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 1998) (en banc); Shafer v. Preston Mem’l Hosp. Corp., 107 

F.3d 274, 280 n.5 (4th Cir. 1997) (same). 

3 See, e.g., Parker v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 121 F.3d 1006, 1014 n.5 (6th Cir. 1997) (en banc appeals court 

declines to adopt interpretation found in Department of Justice Technical Assistance Manual, finding that interpretation 

inconsistent with regulations and text of ADA), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1084 (1998); Soileau v. Guilford of 

Me., Inc., 105 F.3d 12, n.3 (1st Cir. 1997) (“While this court has found reference to the EEOC Compliance Manual 

to be helpful on occasion…the manual is hardly binding.”). 

4 See http://www.ada.gov/medcare_ta.htm. 

December 2010 

8 

2011CI_EarlyBird_halfpagevert_ad_2c.indd 1 


11/4/2010 12:03:30 PM

RACs are coming to 

Medicare Advantage, 

Part D, and Medicaid 

By Gloryanne Bryant, RHIA, RHIT, CCS, CCDS 

Editor’s note: Gloryanne Bryant is Regional 

Managing Director at HIM Northern California, 

Revenue Cycle, Kaiser Foundation Health 

Plan Inc & Hospitals. Gloryanne may be contacted 

by e-mail at Gloryanne.h.bryant@kp.org. 

Yes, the Recovery Audit Contractors 

(RACs) are coming to Medicare 

Advantage Part C, Part D, and 

Medicaid under the oversight of the Centers 

for Medicare and Medicare Services (CMS). 

Section 1902(a)(42)(B)(i) of the Social 

Security Act, requires states to establish programs 

to contract with one or more Medicaid 

RACs for the purpose of identifying underpayments 

and recouping overpayments under 

the state plan, and any waiver of the state 

plan, with respect to all services for which payment 

is made to any entity under such plan or 

waiver. Keep in mind that the three-year RAC 

demonstration program that was launched in 

California, Florida, and New York in 2005 

identified roughly $1 billion in Medicare overpayments, 

according to CMS reports. 

State Medicaid programs will have to contract 

with one or more RACs to identify underpayments 

and overpayments (and recoup overpayments), 

including in-state waiver plans. 

Medicaid RAC compensation will be linked 

to the payment inaccuracies they are able to 

identify, both over- and under-payments. The 

Medicaid RAC audits will be separate from 

the Medicaid Integrity Program (MIP) audits 

that are already being completed by Medicaid 

Integrity Contractors (MICs) in many states. 

Deborah Taylor, Director and Chief 

Financial Officer of CMS’ Office of Financial 

Management, told a Congressional panel in 

July 1 that CMS is farther ahead in implementing 

RAC audits for the Medicare Part 

D prescription program for seniors. The new 

law requires RACs to ensure plans under 

Parts C and D: 

n have anti-fraud policies in effect and to 

review the effectiveness of such policies; 

n examine claims for reinsurance payments 

to determine whether plans submitting the 

claims incurred costs in excess of allowable 

reinsurance costs; and 

n review estimates of prescription drug plans 

for high-cost beneficiaries submitted by 

private plans and compare estimates with 

the number of high-cost beneficiaries actually 

enrolled in those plans. 

The start date for these government activities 

is no later than December 31, 2010 according 

to the Patient Protection and Affordable 

Care Act, section 6411. Thus, the health 

care industry can expect to see a significant 

expansion of the RAC program. Sen. Tom 

Carper (D, Del.) chair of the Senate Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee 

on Federal Financial Management, 

Government Information, Federal Services and 

International Security, encouraged CMS to 

meet the December 31 deadline imposed by the 

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

Adding to this RAC expansion is that fact 

that President Obama signed in July the 


Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery 

Act of 2010, and this may open the door 

to more widespread private audits, industry 

experts say. The law also would add sanctions 

for programs that do not comply. 

Your Compliance Committee, RAC Committee, 

Health Information Management 

(HIM), and Business Office/Billing leadership 

should be aware of possible additional 

external audits. Compliance staff will need 

to make revisions to their annual work 

plans to address this expansion as well. So, 

we will need to monitor this closely and 

wait patiently for the details so we can plan 

accordingly. Be sure to include this topic on 

the agenda for your next compliance meeting. 

Either way, more time and resources will be 

needed from providers in the near future. n 

Resources: 

Fierce Health Finance 

(www.fiercehealthfinance.com) 

RAC Monitor (www.RACmonitor.com) 

AAPC (www.news.aapc.com) 

Healthcare Finance News 

(www.healthcarefinancenews.com) 

Lexology (www.lexology.com) 

1. Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs Subcommittee 

on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal 

Services, International Security, United States Senate, July 15, 2010. 

 

Contact Us! 

www.hcca-info.org 

info@hcca-info.org 

Fax: 952/988-0146 

6500 Barrie Road, Suite 250 

Minneapolis, MN 55435 

Phone: 888/580-8373 

To learn how to place an advertisment 

in Compliance Today, contact Margaret 

Dragon: e-mail: margaret.dragon@hccainfo.org 

phone: 781/593-4924 

9 

December 2010

December 2010 

10 

Provider signature 

guidelines and 

Editor’s note: Janet Marcus is Director of Revenue 

Cycle Services at Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, 

one of the nation’s leading independent 

healthc are management consulting firms. She 

works with health care organizations nationwide 

on a diverse range of compliance issues. For 

more information, please go to www.sinaiko. 

com or e-mail janet.marcus@sinaiko.com. 

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services (CMS) requires providers 

to authenticate the author of record 

for all Medicare services provided or ordered. 

The author of the entry is the individual 

who provided or ordered the service. 

Authentication may be accomplished through 

the provision of a hand-written or an 

electronic signature. CR 5971 (Transmittal 

#248), effective retroactively from September 

2007, was issued to prohibit the use of 

stamped signatures. These requirements 

are intended to apply to all providers. As 

of March 2008, CMS clarified that stamp 

signatures are unacceptable on any medical 

record. 

Providers of health care services have always 

been required to append their signature 

to entries in the patient’s medical record 

documentation. Specifically, the CMS manual 

states “documentation must be dated and 

include a legible signature or identity.” The 

Federal Register, 42 CFR 482.24, also makes 

a similar statement. 

solutions: 

“Autograph, please!” 

By Janet Marcus, CPC 

For certain services, in addition to the signature, 

the note describing the service ordered 

or performed requires a notation of time. 

This is particularly true for services: 

n which depend on chronological order for 

care over a short period of time (this is 

most often seen during an acute observation 

or inpatient facility stay); or 

n where time is a factor for the reimbursement; 

or 

n to fully describe the extent to which 

services were rendered. 

Importance of adhering to guidelines 

There are more than enough challenges in 

today’s health care environment. The most 

important reason the signature guidelines 

exist is to support appropriate and accurate 

patient care. When providers do not take 

the time to append their signatures in an 

acceptable format, it could potentially have 

a negative impact on the continuity of care 

for their patients and could also create future 

“headaches” as a finding during an audit. 

In addition to the challenges of patient care, 

it can be difficult to follow all the documentation 

and billing rules, submit a clean claim, 

and collect an accurate payment for services. 

So, after all that hard work, no one wants 

their claim to fail an audit due to the lack 

of a “proper” provider signature, and no 

one wants to suffer the associated potential 

consequence of lost revenue. 


Guidelines 

CMS recently published Transmittal 327, 

entitled “Signature Guidelines for Medical 

Review Purposes,” effective March 1, 2010, 

with an implementation date of April 16, 

2010. This guidance gives us an inside view 

of the requirements various government claim 

audit programs may utilize when they review 

medical records and claims as part of an audit. 

This viewpoint focuses on a claim that has 

been submitted for payment and subsequently 

selected for audit. The medical record is often 

requested as part of that review process. 

When the auditor/reviewer is determining 

whether signature guidelines have been met, 

they may have reason to contact the billing 

provider and ask a non-standardized follow-up 

question. The auditor may contact the provider 

or organization that submitted the claim and 

ask if they would like to submit an attestation 

statement or signature log within 20 calendar 

days. This is another opportunity for the 

provider to meet the signature guidelines. 

In summary, the guidelines, as stated in the 

CMS Program Integrity Manual, Chapter 

3, under section 3.4.1.1 D, “Signature 

Requirements” and as outlined in Transmittal 

327 include: 

n Services provided and/or ordered must be 

authenticated by the author. (There are 

several signature guideline exceptions outlined 

in the CMS Transmittal 327 which 

can be found at: http://www.cms.gov/ 

transmittals/downloads/R327PI.pdf); 

n Method used may be handwritten or an 

electronic signature; 

n Stamp signatures are not acceptable; 

n Handwritten signatures signify that the 

individual who has signed the record has 

knowledge, approval, acceptance, or obligation 

for the entry; 

n For illegible signatures, auditors can 

consider evidence in a signature log or

an attestation statement for the purpose 

of identifying the author of the medical 

record entry; and 

n Situations where the auditor may call upon 

the provider to inquire if they would like 

to submit an attestation statement or 

signature log. 

Auditors may consider that the handwritten 

signature requirement has been met if there is: 

n a legible full signature; 

n a legible first initial and last name; 

n an illegible signature where the letterhead, 

or other information on the page indicates 

the identity of the signatory; 

n an illegible signature accompanied by a 

signature log or an attestation statement; 

n the initials over a typed or printed name; 

n the initials not over a typed or printed 

name but accompanied by a signature log 

or attestation statement; and 

n an unsigned handwritten note where 

other entries on the same page in the same 

handwriting are signed. 

CMS considers an electronic signature as 

meeting the signature requirement; however, 

they caution providers regarding the potential 

misuse or abuse of alternate signature 

methods. If your practice is utilizing an 

electronic signature on medical records, it is 

generally recommended, that the electronic 

signature process, policy, and procedure be 

reviewed by legal counsel to validate the 

accuracy and appropriateness of the process. 

Further, a quality review of the electronic 

signature process should be conducted along 

with validation that the electronic signature 

process in place meets all of the required 

HIPAA-related guidance. 

presented; however, no indication was noted 

that the name and credential on the document 

was created as the result of secure user 

access. In this instance, the signature was not 

considered an acceptable final authenticated 

signature. In other cases, no indication of the 

author is found on the printed record, even 

though electronic history would substantiate 

the user actually made the entry themselves. 

Solutions 

To ensure your providers append their 

signature according to the guidelines, we 

recommend that you start with a review of 

your current provider signature procedures. 

Identify if there are providers who are 

appending illegible hand-written signatures 

to their medical records. Depending on the 

results of your assessment, changes may need 

to be implemented so that the signature 

guidelines and “best practice” for your group 

of providers is followed. 

Developing a corresponding written policy and 

procedure that is user friendly will ensure that 

new providers have a document they can refer 

to, and providers who may need a refresher 

have an accessible, accurate policy reference 

document. Implementing an internal quality 

review process will go a long way to ensure that 

the best practice for provider signature, policy, 

and procedure are followed. 

In situations where there are handwritten signatures, 

illegibility has been a long-standing 

issue we have observed during our medical 

record and claim audits. To combat this issue 

we recommend: 

n implementation of an electronic medical 

record; 

n if this is not an option, creation of a signature 

log for the “illegible” signors; 

n a quality assurance review of the medical 

notes for the “illegible” providers, prior 

to claims submission, and you address the 

issue promptly; and 

n review all signature guidelines with providers 

and give them an outline of what is 

considered an acceptable signature and 

what is not. 

As Benjamin Franklin once said and, as we 

say in health care, “an ounce of prevention is 

worth a pound of cure.” n 

COMPLIANCE REVIEWS, 

CODING SUPPORT SERVICES, 

UP-TO-DATE EDUCATION, 

REAL RESULTS 

By working together, we can help 

create this picture in your facility. 

Call RMC today! 

In our experience, we have observed situations 

where the accurate application of the 

electronic signature came into question when 

a printed copy of the medical record was 


December 2010 

11

ARE YOU 

PREPARED 

FOR THE 

RAC AUDITOR 

Take control with a strong defense 

December 2010 

12 

www.compliance360.com 

The RAC Auditors will soon be calling on your hospital. The RAC appeals 

process is very complex and missed deadlines can result in the automatic 

recoupment of your legitimate revenues. To minimize your risk of financial 

losses, you need to be prepared with practical, reliable processes and 

controls to ensure that critical appeals deadlines are met, with complete, 

substantiated information. 

Compliance 360 is the leader in compliance and risk management solutions 

for healthcare. More than 300 hospitals nationwide rely on us every day to 

ensure compliance with legal and industry regulations. Using our unique 

software solutions, they are always “audit ready” with both proactive 

defenses and the audit management tools needed to ensure successful 

audit response and appeals. We are proud to help these healthcare 

organizations prevent and contain compliance sanctions and we stand 

ready to help you as well. 

To learn more about the Compliance 360 Claims Auditor for managing 

RAC audits, visit www.compliance360.com/RAC or call us at 678-992-0262 

NEEDS A LO 


Social Networking 

John Falcetano 

Editor’s note: John Falcetano, CHC-F, 

CCEP-F, CHRC, CHPC, CIA is 

Chief Audit/Compliance Officer for 

University Health Systems of Eastern 

Carolina and Treasurer of the HCCA 

Board of Directors. John may be 

contacted by e-mail at 

jfalcetano@uhseast.com. 

This month, I though I would focus on another function of our social 

networking site: The ability to blog and comment on particular compliance 

topics. Today’s column provides some insight to the world of blogs. 

Suj Shah, from Chicago recently blogged about two ways to strengthen 

your employee hotline. The following are excerpts from his blog. 

Two ways to strengthen your employee hotline 

“Fear of retaliation for speaking up about ethical violations in the workplace 

not only affects whether workers are willing to report wrongdoing 

to management, it drives the level of misconduct itself,” according to a 

recent study released by the Ethics Research Center. See Research Brief, 

Retaliation: The Cost to Your Company and Its Employees (http:// 

www.ethics.org/files/u5/Retaliation.pdf). 

Second, employees are less willing to report wrongdoing when it is 

perceived that the report will not be taken seriously. One of the proposed 

amendments to the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines also emphasizes 

“taking reasonable steps” in reaction to incidents. See Amendments 

to the Sentencing Guidelines: http://www.ussc.gov/2010guid/20100503_ 

Reader_Friendly_Proposed_Amendments.pdf. 

Strengthen your employee hotline by a clear non-retaliation policy and a 

commitment to appropriate and timely report follow-up.” 

Web 2.0 is about the 

new, faster, everyone 

connected Internet. 

HCCA is embracing this approach and offers you 

a number of ways to build out your network, 

connect with compliance professionals, and 

leverage this new technology. Take advantage of 

these online resources; keep abreast of the latest 

in compliance news; and stay ahead of the curve. 

Dozens of discussion groups and 

more than 6,000 participants 

http://community.hcca-info.org 

Profiles of over 3,800 compliance 

and ethics professionals 

http://www.hcca-info.org/LinkedIn 

Follow HCCA_News to keep up with the 

latest compliance news and events 

http://twitter.com/HCCA_News 

To participate in the discussion, review the comments, or just talk 

with your peers, you can access the Social Network site by going to the 

following link: www.hcca-info.org/sn n 

Connect with compliance and ethics 

professionals on Facebook 

http://www.hcca-info.org/Facebook 

Each resource is 100% dedicated to 

compliance and ethics management. 

So sign up for whichever one works 

best for you, or for all four if you’re 

already living the Web 2.0 life. 


HCCASocialNetworking_halfpage_301nK_CTad.indd 1 

December 2010 

13 

9/2/2010 9:36:00 AM

feature 

article 

Meet the first CHC-Fellow Candidate: 

Steven Baruch, CHC, MA, MPA 

Compliance & Privacy Officer 

Sutter Health/Alta Bates Summit Medical Center 

December 2010 

14 

Editor’s note: This interview with Steven 

Baruch, the first CHC-F Candidate, was 

conducted in late summer by Debbie Troklus, 

President of the Compliance Certification Board 

and Assistant Vice President, Health Affairs/ 

Compliance, University of Louisville Health Sciences 

Center. Steven may be contacted by e-mail 

at baruchs@sutterheatlh.org. Debbie Troklus 

may be contacted by e-mail at debbie.troklus@ 

louisville.edu. 

DT: Steven, please tell our readers a little 

bit about yourself, your background, and 

how you got involved in the compliance 

profession. 

SB: Having completed graduate degrees 

in both biological science and health care 

administration, I had a long interest in 

working in health care operations. Early in 

my career, I managed various outpatient and 

health care programs. Through that work, I 

gained a great deal of experience in reviewing 

documentation related to regulatory and 

billing requirements. 

I later led a project focused on CMS and 

OIG documentation at a hospital affiliate 

of a health care network. My responsibilities 

evolved into leading the implementation of 

a comprehensive compliance program at the 

hospital. Network leaders recommended 

and supported joining HCCA, attending the 

academies, and obtaining my certification. I 

joined Sutter Health in January 2009. 

DT: Tell us about Sutter Health and Alta 

Bates Summit Medical Center and its compliance 

program. 

SB: Alta Bates Summit Medical Center is 

the San Francisco East Bay’s largest private, 

not-for-profit medical center. Our multicampus 

medical center has more than 1,000 

beds, 5,000 employees, and 1,000 physicians. 

Alta Bates Summit Medical Center is part 

of Sutter Health, a not-for-profit health care 

network. With 24 affiliated hospitals, relationships 

with 5,000 physicians, home health 

and hospice services, and education, training, 

and research centers, the Sutter Health family 

serves patients in more than 100 Northern 

California cities and towns. 

The Sutter Health compliance program is 

always evolving and improving. A 2007 internal 

analysis supported significantly expanding 

the program. Sutter Health recruited full time, 

dedicated compliance officers for the entire 

network’s affiliated hospitals and medical foundations, 

and expanded staff and resources at 

the system level to further advance consistency 

and support throughout the organization. 

DT: What resources did you use to develop 

your compliance program 


SB: I am fortunate to have a variety of 

resources and subject matter experts to call 

upon for information and support. I can 

reach out to my peer group of compliance 

officers and resource support in the Sutter 

Health network. I can also contact experts 

in HCCA. I regularly access the Health Care 

Compliance Professional’s Manual, the CMS 

and OIG websites, and documents and strategies 

I’ve developed over the years. And, I still 

reference my Compliance 101 manual and 

Compliance Academy material periodically. 

DT: What are some recent successes you have 

experienced with your compliance program

SB: I am the first full-time, dedicated 

compliance officer at Alta Bates Summit 

Medical Center. I am focused on building 

strong relationships with employees and 

leaders and establishing the Compliance 

department as a resource and partner in 

supporting the goals of the medical center. 

Ensuring that the Compliance department is 

included in the planning stages of a project 

often can help ensure that goals are achieved. 

DT: What do you find to be the most challenging 

about your work as compliance officer 

SB: Aside from expected workload and 

budget challenges, it can also be challenging 

while analyzing an issue to ensure that all 

stakeholders have the opportunity to share 

their thoughts and concerns. A focus on 

fostering strong relationships can ensure that 

Compliance is considered a partner and a 

resource in activities. 

DT: What do you see as the most important 

traits for a compliance officer to be successful 

in the role 

SB: I am asked this question frequently by 

others considering a career in Compliance. I 

believe the most important trait for a compliance 

officer is the ability to build relationships 

across the large spectrum of people you 

will encounter within an organization. 

Almost anyone can learn the basics of 

compliance laws and regulations; however, 

the compliance officer must have the skills to 

translate and facilitate the implementation of 

these laws and regulations at an operational 

level. 

Compliance officers must effectively communicate 

with executives, business leaders, 

clinical teams, and general employees. Each 

of these audiences may operate uniquely and 

have different goals and expectations. 

Although Compliance may not always be 

the most popular voice in an organization, 

building and maintaining our relationships 

with our stakeholders is the key to a successful 

compliance program. 

DT: Let’s talk for a moment about HCCA. 

Why did you join 

SB: While I had been doing a lot of compliance 

activity early in my career, I had no idea 

that there was a dedicated profession and title 

for this work. When a previous employer 

identified the title and supported joining 

HCCA, it was a logical move to support my 

career interests. 

DT: What benefits has HCCA brought 

about for you 

SB: I have found tremendous value in 

HCCA’s Compliance Academies. These 

courses provided important perspective and 

education, as well as practical tips that have 

helped advance my career as a compliance 

officer. HCCA also provides unique opportunities 

to network with other compliance 

professionals, allowing me to learn from their 

experiences, tap their knowledge, share ideas, 

and continue to learn and grow professionally. 

DT: You have earned your Certification in 

Healthcare Compliance (CHC). How has 

that helped you in your current role 

SB: I believe that compliance, as an 

organized profession, continues to grow. 

Additionally, health care, as an industry, is 

in the midst of a massive transformation. 

Earning my certification in health care 

compliance establishes my expertise in this 

evolving field. The certification also lends 

credibility as I work to build strong partnerships 

and support the strategic goals of my 

hospital and health system. People are often 

surprised to learn that there is a professional 

organization and certification available for 

health care compliance. 

DT: Did you attend a Compliance 

Academy or study for the CHC on your own 

SB: Fortunately, I attended HCCA’s 

Compliance Academy to prepare for the 

certification exam. The opportunity to spend 

five days with knowledgeable professionals 

and peers, focusing solely on all aspects of 

compliance to study for the exam, was a great 

experience. I strongly advocate this approach 

with colleagues and others I mentor. I believe 

it is the best way to prepare for the exam. 

DT: You are the first CHC-F Candidate; 

Please tell us what prompted you to apply for 

status of Certified in Healthcare Compliance- 

Fellowship 

SB: I have always sought ways to challenge 

myself and continue learning. My family 

especially encouraged me to reach for this 

goal. Although I was intrigued when the 

fellowship was announced, I gave it quite 

some thought before choosing to move 

forward with the application. Ultimately, the 

enthusiasm for our profession I enjoyed after 

attending the annual Compliance Institute 

each year prompted me to complete the application 

process and become more involved 

with HCCA. 

DT: What was the process of being accepted 

into the CHC-F candidate status like for you 

SB: I learned that there were no previous 

candidates immediately after I had submitted 

my application. I was both excited and nervous 

about that prospect. I was excited that I 

would be challenged by the process and be in 

a position to set a standard. At the same time, 

I was not certain that I would be accepted. It 

was very exciting and a great honor to receive a 

telephone call from Roy Snell informing me I 

had been accepted as a candidate. 

DT: Tell us what you see in the future for 

compliance professionals 

SB: Compliance departments typically 

operate on lean budgets. Given the changes 



December 2010 

15

Meet the first CHC-F Candidate: Steven Baruch 

...continued from page 15 

coming with health care reform, I anticipate 

a great deal more scrutiny in health care 

compliance. Keeping up with the changes and 

the growing workload will be a tremendous 

challenge for all compliance officers. I’m 

also interested to learn how reform will truly 

impact all health care operations budgets in 

the next few years. 

DT: What advice do you have for individuals 

interested in a career in health care 

compliance 

SB: Talk to a compliance officer! I’d also 

definitely consider attending an HCCA 

Academy. A clinical, legal, or health care 

administration degree doesn’t hurt either. 

DT: What do you enjoy most about your 

job 

SB: I truly enjoy the variety of tasks 

that come my way. Very few positions in a 

hospital allow you to become involved in 

so many aspects of hospital operations. I’m 

never bored. I also get to work with many 

interesting people, with different backgrounds, 

education, and knowledge. I learn 

new things every day about clinical issues, 

hospital operations, regulations, and laws. n 

The CCB offers 

certifications in 

Healthcare Compliance 

(CHC), Healthcare 

Research Compliance 

(CHRC), and the 

Certified in Healthcare 

Compliance Fellowship 

(CHC-F). 

Certification benefits: 

n Enhances the credibility 

of the compliance 

practitioner 

n Establishes professional 

standards and status for 

compliance professionals 

in Healthcare and 

Healthcare Research 

n Heightens the credibility 

of compliance practitioners 

and the compliance 

programs staffed by these 

certified professionals 

n Ensures that each certified 

practitioner has the 

knowledge base necessary 

to perform the compliance 

function 

n Facilitates communication 

with other industry 

professionals, such as 

physicians, government 

officials and attorneys 

n Demonstrates the hard 

work and dedication 

necessary to succeed in the 

compliance field 

CCB 

The Compliance 

Professional’s 

Certification 

The Compliance Certification Board (CCB) 

compliance certification examinations are 

available in all 50 states. Join your peers and 

demonstrate your compliance knowledge by 

becoming certified today. 

Congratulations! The following individuals 

have recently successfully completed the CHC 

certification exam, earning their certification: 

Claire A. Arcamone Debbi Mark 

Christine W. Austin 

Kimberly L. Brandt 

Aja M. Brooks 

Tracey A. Conley 

Paul G. Daniels 

Joanne De Sarlo 

Annemarie Engelhardt 

Amy E. Freitas 

Lisa A. Hylton 

Angie Iturrino 

Terry P. Matherne 

Kimberly A. McGuire 

Kourtney K. Nett 

Jacqueline S. Petro 

Joshua L. Proffitt 

Carla A. Russo 

Kenneth R. Smoot 

Brenda Turner 

Patrick R. Z. Wilder 

Rachel E. Williams 

Congratulations! The following individuals 

have recently successfully completed the CHRC 

certification exam, earning their certification: 

Diane M. Bauer 

Julia M. Campbell 

Paula Carney 

Kimberly Dupage 

Linda M. Gonia 

S. Rebecca Holland 

Sheri D. Lindsay 

James William Luca 

Stephanie G. Madrigal 

Blanca A. Malagon 

Michael K. Meeks 

Gregory A. Pesely 

Susan M. Torok-Rood 

Bruce A. Uveges 

Kenneth F. Winter 

Emily B. Wood 

For more information about certification, please call 888/580-8373, email 

ccb@hcca-info.org, or visit our website at www.hcca-info.org. 

December 2010 

16 


If you have any questions that you would like 

Roy to answer in future columns, please e-mail 

them to: roy.snell@corporatecompliance.org. 

Whistleblower 

I had an interesting phone call from another association that wanted 

help telling the government about all the problems associated with 

the whistleblower provisions of the Dodd-Frank bill. The bill says 

that whistleblowers can receive large cash bonuses for turning in a 

company, if there is a prosecution. Their concern was that the bill 

would cause people to bypass the in-house anonymous reporting 

mechanism, because the government was offering money. My first 

reaction was one of agreement. Then I realized that we already had a 

lot of experience with this situation and something didn’t smell right. 

But, we talked quite a bit before it hit me. 

I told them that we try to spend the majority of our time helping our 

members set up compliance programs to find and fix ethics, policy, and 

regulatory problems, so we don’t really get into regulatory lobbying. I also 

said that we don’t really want to come down in favor of, or in opposition 

to, a regulation we may need to enforce. I mentioned how independence 

is the key to our success, and we really need to be impartial. 

Then I talked a little about their concerns with her. I really had not 

thought about their concerns, so it was interesting. At one point I 

said, you know that those who contract with the government have 

had this for 150 years, with the False Claims Act. It was set up to fine 

those who billed the government for horses but delivered donkeys 

during the Civil War (true story). If you pointed out a false claim, 

you got bucket loads of money. The False Claims Act was not used for 

years, and then an enterprising prosecutor dusted off the 150-year-old 

law. Soon there were hundreds of prosecutors using it. For the last 

16 years, the government had been actively using the False Claims Act 

to fine those who have billed them for things that they didn’t deliver, 

such as toilet seats, hammers, and medical services. In fact, so far this 

year, the government has received several billion dollars in fines and 

penalties with the use of the False Claims Act. Much of that could 

have had a significant payout to whistleblowers, if the government 

started the case on a tip. The reward is typically in the mid-teens to 

low twenty percent range. A couple of 

cases resulted in payments to whistleblowers 

in the tens of millions of dollars. I told 

my caller that we have a lot of experience 

with this, but that something didn’t seem 

right about their concern that this caused 

people to go to the government first. We 

have had a lot of experience with the 

potential problems associated with paying whistleblowers, and what 

impact it has had on the use of internal reporting mechanisms. 

The conversation that followed was quite interesting. I said that 

although all industries have not had this experience, many have. I told 

her, off the top of my head, that few people have ever complained about 

the problem of bypassing the internal reporting mechanism. I told her 

that I think most people would say that most employees give them a 

chance before they report to the government. I said that almost all the 

stories I hear about a whistleblower who went to the government came 

with a tearful story about how the company ignored them, or worse. 

I’ll share a story I had as a consultant. I got a call from someone 

who wanted me to educate their leadership. I wanted the job, so I 

sent them a price so low that they couldn’t refuse. They refused. Ten 

months later I got a call to come to them ASAP. I did. After I did the 

training, they said, “Help us implement a better compliance program 

ASAP.” I did. While I was there, I inquired as to the reason for the 

about–face, and I asked where the person was who originally called 

me. They said that the government had announced that they were 

going to start an investigation over a potential fraud issue. The person 

who picked up the compliance job had been going through the desk 

of the recently departed employee and found my proposal. They told 

me she left because they would not fix some problems. They told me 

she went to the government. They ended up being found guilty of 

fraud and paid a $2 million fine. It was a small company, and the fine 

had a big impact. Before going to the government, she begged them. 

She pleaded with them. She went so far as to ask them to go through 

training so maybe then they could understand her concerns. This is 

by no means an isolated case. Many whistleblower stories begin with 

internal discussions and some receive poor treatment. It’s easy to call 

these people names. But before you do, you might think about what 

situation we have put them in. 


ROY sNELL 

Can you imagine knowing about the fraud, wondering if maybe the 

government would come in and accuse you of knowing about the 


December 2010 

17

Letter from the CEO ...continued from page 17 

December 2010 

18 

problem and not fixing it She might have been thinking that if there 

was trouble, her company could decide to throw her under the bus. 

Did she really have a choice At the very least, she needed to quit. 

You beg, you plead, and sometimes they ignore you. They make you 

feel like you are at risk personally and financially for failing to fix the 

wrongdoing. Think about it. When you are in the midst of fraud, and 

even if the people who don’t “get” your concerns are good people, you 

get concerned. You start thinking, “What if I get wrapped up in this” 

People in this position panic. They start seeing things very grimly. They 

think that they have to go on record as not being a part of this. And if 

their leadership won’t stop the problem or listen to them, or worse yet, 

starts treating them poorly, they feel they are left with no option. 

Because the False Claims Act (with a bounty) has been used extensively, 

I called a former OIG agent. I asked him what percentage of 

whistleblowers had reported internally first He said, “75%.” I have 

since talked to a whistleblower attorney who, remarkably, reported 

the exact same percentages. I also talked to another OIG agent. All of 

these people deal primarily with cases that are eligible for a bounty and 

prefer cases that were reported internally first. They were emphatic 

that the reported case was much easier to prove/win. That means that 

of the people I talked to, more than 75% of cases that are pursued are 

reported internally first. 

I also found a special report by the New England Journal of Medicine 

entitled “Whistle-Blowers’ Experiences in Fraud Litigation against 

Pharmaceutical Companies.” 1 They reported that of the 22 cases they 

studied, 18 whistleblowers had given their company a chance first. 

Some were ignored. Some were ordered to continue doing what they 

were told to do (12 of 22). Wherever you look, the data indicates 

that our problem is not that a bounty will cause the undermining of a 

compliance program; the problem is that we are ignoring people. 

There are many reasons to go to the government that have nothing to 

do with money. We can pretend it is the money. We can hope it’s the 

money. We can explain away our own failure by saying it’s the money; 

but is it really about the money I think the money is a secondary 

reason, but the primary reason people do this sort of thing is the way 

we treat them and the concern they have about being accused by the 

government as being part of the problem. 

There are a ton of these stories. In cases like this, almost every whistleblower 

story starts with “They were ignored.” Many start with “I was 

ignored,” and then they describe the retaliation, shunning, isolation, 

and occasionally, firing. After seeing all this, it is very difficult to 

understand the concerns about the Dodd-Frank Bill. At first blush, I 

would say that the money might cause people to bypass their internal 

reporting mechanisms; but upon reflection, it’s really not what I have 

seen after 16 years of very close observation. 

Here is an excerpt from an interview that Adam Turteltaub, our Vice 

President of Membership Development, did with Eric Havian, a 

prominent qui tam lawyer. 

AT: What motivates people to go outside the company and knock 

on your door There’s a supposition that money is the main driver. 

EH: The prospect of receiving enough money to replace the lost 

income from being blackballed can give a reluctant whistleblower 

the incentive to come forward, but money is typically not the main 

driver. A number of our clients who have received millions have given 

most of it away. The primary motivator for most people is frustration. 

By the time a potential client arrives in our office, they typically feel 

humiliated and insulted. From their point of view, they have taken 

difficult steps to bring a possible violation to light, tried their best to 

resolve it—all at great personal risk to their careers. They followed the 

Employee Manual. The problem arises when nobody else does. 

Initially, their supervisors might not take them seriously. When an 

employee persists—a risky decision that is often agonizing—a supervisor 

might respond more aggressively, suggesting that the employee won’t 

advance or indicating his/her career will end if the employee continues 

to pursue the matter. Eventually, word spreads among co-workers that 

the employee is a troublemaker. Then he/she is socially isolated. The 

employee may become so preoccupied with the matter and so ostracized 

from co-workers that the employee’s performance indeed suffers. That 

failure may be a sign of strong integrity, not weak capability. 

By the time these potential clients arrive in our office, they are so 

grateful to have someone who will listen to them with an open mind, 

without defensiveness, that they feel renewed and want to stop the 

fraud in any way they possibly can. Whistleblowers are often the best 

clients. They are respectful and willing to work hard on their cases, and 

they scrupulously follow instructions. The reason they come to us is 

not just for a potential reward; it’s our willingness to hear what they are 

saying. But, the money certainly doesn’t hurt. 

AT: What have the whistleblowers typically done internally at their 

companies to get their story heard before they come to you 

EH: Almost all of them have elevated the issue up the reporting 

chain. It is rare that they have not gone at least two levels above their 

immediate direct report. Typically they have also approached someone 

in Compliance or Human Resources. q 


I called Joe Murphy, and before I told him my view, he jumped in and 

said that government “bounties” really don’t prevent people from asking 

their company to fix the problem first. He said people go to the government 

because, when they complained, they were ignored; or that when 

they complained, they encountered retaliation. Joe has been promoting 

compliance programs prior to any record of compliance programs 

existing. He is a very honest man. He is very realistic. I haven’t seen 

whistleblowers go to the government first. Joe hasn’t seen it. I’m thinking 

that this is a problem that doesn’t exist. It’s a red herring. It’s a shell 

game. People are trying to convince us that the Dodd-Frank bill is the 

problem, when the problem actually might be.... us. 

We should probably spend as much time on following the rules as we do 

complaining about them. And the other association is now lobbying against 

a regulation that they claim will do something that we have some evidence 

that it doesn’t do. What they could be doing is telling their members the 

truth. But alas, as the other great genius, Jack Nicolson said, some people 

can’t handle the truth. That association’s members are no more likely to 

listen to her than they are to listen to their employee who has concerns. 

Please excuse the sweeping generalization, but don’t excuse the message. 

Many people raise concerns that get addressed. The point is that too 

many–far too many–are ignored. They don’t go to the government because 

of Dodd and Frank. They are going to the government because of us. 

I decided to call this other association back and tell them the truth. 

I could have skirted around the issue but I told them that it would 

be difficult for us to complain that Dodd-Frank would usurp the 

in-house hotline when we have experience to the contrary. Wouldn’t 

be too ethical and all that. I was straight with her. She seemed bright 

and caring. I said you know, if you really want to make a difference, 

you should not go tell Dodd-Frank they are wrong; you should 

probably go back and tell your members they are wrong. If you really 

wanted to help companies, you should tell them to stop ignoring, or 

worse yet, stop treating whistleblowers so poorly. 

The ironies here are fascinating. The compliance profession doesn’t 

lobby, in part because we feel there is enough lobbying. In fact, if we 

spent half of the money that we spend telling the government that they 

are wrong on compliance, we just might not get all the regulations we 

are getting. It’s bizarre really. We spend billions telling them we don’t 

need the regulations they are writing. Back at the office, we break 

another law or do something unethical. Then 

the government writes a longer law or a new 

law. Instead of putting in an effective process 

for finding and fixing problems (a compliance 

program) we lobby some more, and we fail to 

follow the law, because we are distracted with 

lobbying, which results in more regulations and 

more lobbying, and we miss more problems that 

result in more laws and more lobbying and.... 

Albert Einstein once said, “The definition of 

insanity is doing the same thing over and over 

again and expecting different results.” If we 

want fewer regulations, we should probably stop 

doing unethical things and breaking the laws. 

Lobbyists have been in DC for eons, and the 

government is running out of paper. 

Stop spending money trying to get the government to listen to you. 

Spend some money on trying to get your management to listen to 

your employees. They don’t make themselves whistleblowers – we 

make them whistleblowers. To some, whistleblowing is distasteful. 

What is really distasteful is making them do it. You will most likely 

get a chance before they go to the government; maybe not much of a 

chance, but a chance none-the-less. These people are often shy and 

fearful. They may not be the best communicators. They probably 

don’t have much authority. You really have to be a good listener to 

make up for their shortcomings. Most of all, if you are not going to 

listen, you really should be sure that they are not treated poorly. It 

may not be the money that causes them to go to the government. You 

can get the Dodd-Frank bill repealed and you may not have solved the 

problem. The money the employee may get really isn’t the problem. 

The problem is that you end up paying big fines and taking a huge 

public relations hit. It’s in our best interest to listen. n 

1. Aaron S. Kesselheim; David M. Studdert; and Michelle M. Mello: Whistle-Blowers’ Experiences in Fraud 

Health Care Auditing & Monitoring Tools 

More than 100 sample policies, 

procedures, guidelines, and forms to 

enhance your compliance auditing 

and monitoring efforts. Updated 

biannually with new tools. 

For more information, visit 

www.hcca-info.org/books, 

or call 888-580-8373. 


December 2010 

19

Data Breach Resolution 

RISK ASSESSMENT IN A HITECH WORLD 

Navigating your way 

through a successful 

healthcare data breach 

resolution can be a 

challenge. The key is 

being prepared. 

Experian ® can help. 

With a proven track record of servicing 

over 1,600 data breach incidents in 

virtually every industry, Experian has 

the experience and resources to help 

you steer the way to calm waters. 

Risk Defined 

Risk is a function of the likelihood of a given threatsource’s 

exercising a particular potential vulnerability, 

and the resulting impact of that adverse event on the 

organization. 1 This is a concept that has long been 

wrestled with at many levels of business and government. 

Unfortunately, it is a hard concept to grasp…until it 

grasps you. It’s all too human to dismiss risk as an 

amorphous and intangible possibility, rather than a 

very real probability if ignored. This is the crossroad 

that we find ourselves at with HITECH and healthcare 

privacy and security today. 

Why Conduct a Risk Assessment 

If one asks themselves why conduct a HITECH Risk 

Assessment, today, the answers are surely more 

poignant than 5 or more years ago. Whether it is the 

increased fines of up to $1.5 million, or the fact that 

the State Attorney General can bring a civil action to 

your doorstep, or that the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) 

is now mandated to conduct audits, there is certainly 

a greater air of seriousness and more teeth behind the 

legislation. 

Conducting a HITECH Risk Assessment 

The risk assessment process varies according to an 

organization’s particular business needs and available 

skills. 

However, at its core, the most basic risk assessment 

process must answer the questions: What is at risk 

What can go wrong What is the probability that it 

would go wrong What are the consequences if it 

does go wrong 

December 2010 

20 

Risk assessment processes require the definition 

and inventory of systems and the business processes 

they support; an assessment of potential vulnerability 

and threat; a decision to act or not; evaluation of the 

effectiveness of the action; and communication about 

decisions made. 


Once these steps are completed, the process should be 

repeated on a regular basis to ensure that the decisions 

made and controls implemented remain effective in 

reducing risk and meeting business needs and goals. 

The Risk Assessment Phases include: 

Phase I: Inventory of Systems and Processes 

Phase II: Threat and Vulnerability Assessment 

Phase III: Evaluation of Controls 

Phase IV: Decision 

Phase V: Communication and Monitoring 

The Incident Preparedness Plan 

With the risks as high as they are in some cases, it is 

vital that healthcare organizations conduct Incident 

Preparedness Planning in conjunction with the Risk 

Assessment Plan. This plan should be re-evaluated on 

an annual basis. Here are some key considerations for 

what should be included in your organization’s Incident 

Preparedness Plan: 

• Create an Incident Response Team 

• Conduct Breach Preparedness Training 

• Engage an experienced Data Breach Service 

• Choose a provider that will be prepared to handle 

the following when a data breach occurs: 

3 Handle notification of the breach 

3 Conduct Fraud Resolution 

3 Provide Call Center Support 

3 Provide Reporting 

3 Provide Credit Monitoring/Identity Protection 

Products and Solutions that include things 

such as: Internet Scan and Lost Wallet 

solutions that help consumers report, 

cancel and reissue items such as, credit, debit 

and medical and dental insurance cards 

To read the whitepaper in its entirety, please go to 

www.experian.com/dbhcca. 

Know the Facts 

Of the 385 organizations that experienced data 

breaches so far this year, 113 were in healthcare. 2 

How will your company respond if it happens to you 

Know Who to Call 

Twenty-five percent of the breaches we have 

serviced this year alone have been in healthcare. 

With a proven track record of servicing over 1,600 

data breach incidents, Experian has the experience 

and resources to help you steer the way to calm waters. 

READ MORE visit our website 

www.experian.com/dbhcca 

CALL 866 751 1323 for a FREE consultation 

RISK ASSESSMENT IN A HITECH WORLD Written in Collaboration By: 

1: NIST Risk Management Guide for Information Systems Special 

Publication 800-30 

2: Identity Theft Resource Center’s report for July 28, 2010 


December 2010 

21

December 2010 

22 

The complexity of 

compliance basics: 

A CCO’s pursuit of 

Editor’s note: H. Rebecca Ness is a health care 

professional with specific expertise in governance 

and compliance. She has 25 years of senior level 

management experience in health care and 

higher education. As a Compliance Officer and 

Governance Director, she designed, developed, 

and implemented governance infrastructures, 

board education programs, and a corporate 

compliance program. Rebecca may be reached at 

becness@myfairpoint.net. 

Have you ever stopped to think 

about the complexity of compliance 

basics Pick up any copy of 

HCCA’s Compliance Today or other corporate 

compliance journal and read the table of 

contents. You will find a daunting list of topics 

that you as the corporate compliance officer 

(CCO) must possess a commanding knowledge 

of to keep your organization informed 

about current trends, maintain an effective 

compliance program, and stay on top of the 

proliferation of changes in state and federal 

law, as well as all the regulatory agencies that 

have a say in running the health care system. 

The foundation 

First, let’s go back to the starting line where every 

CCO professional begins the knowledge quest 

marathon. You must be familiar with and have 

a working knowledge of the Federal Sentencing 

Guidelines (FSG), 1998 OIG Program 

Guidance, the 2005 Supplemental Guidance, the 

OIG seven elements of an effective compliance 

program, and the current OIG Work Plan. 

knowledge 

By H. Rebecca Ness 

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines define 

an effective compliance program as one 

that “shall be reasonably designed, implemented 

and enforced so that the program 

is effective in preventing and detecting 

criminal conduct.” 1 The two OIG compliance 

guidance documents are filed in the Federal 

Register, February 23, 1998 2 and January 31, 

2005. 3 These documents provide a roadmap 

for compliance officers to design an effective 

program customized to their organization and 

to conduct ongoing evaluation of compliance 

program effectiveness. Originating in 

the FSG, the seven elements of an effective 

compliance program are incorporated in 

the OIG 1998 program guidance. These 

elements are the essential building blocks for 

a compliance program. OIG publishes an 

annual Work Plan that outlines a summary of 

prospective government initiatives. The OIG 

Work Plan, available online, 4 is an essential 

tool for individual organizations to identify 

and prioritize risk areas within their organization 

and develop their own work plan. 

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are a 

good example of how government guidance 

is a moving target that requires the diligence 

of the CCO to remain current with amendments 

and recommendations. Created by the 

US Sentencing Commission in 1987, the 

FSG established uniformity in sentencing 

ranges for individual defendants. In 1991, 

Congress established sentencing guidelines for 

organizations which apply to public, private, 


and not-for-profit entities. Fines were created 

for federal crimes, and this change brought 

an enhanced focus on effective compliance 

programs to mitigate penalties. In 2004, 

further amendments to the FSG impacted 

compliance programs through the development 

of standards increasing governing body 

and executive leadership accountability for 

knowledge and oversight of the compliance 

program. Additional 2004 amendments focus 

on sufficient resources to operate the compliance 

program, monitoring and auditing for 

effectiveness, as well as communication and 

training. In 2005, the US Supreme Court 

declared the FSG unconstitutional. Although 

mandatory sentencing was overturned, the 

FSG are still used to advise the determination 

of sentences. The most recent amendments, 

which went into effect November 1, 2010, 

contain new implications for compliance 

programs. Key focus areas include remediation 

and restitution as well as establishment of a 

direct reporting obligation to the governing 

authority. 

If you have made it through the above 

foundational documents, you are ready to 

move into the regulatory environment. Major 

compliance regulations that all CCOs must be 

familiar with include the Deficit Reduction Act 

(DRA), the False Claims Act (FCA), Stark Law, 

Anti-kickback Statute (AKS), Health Insurance 

Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA 

Privacy and Security), Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the 

Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act 

(EMTALA), Fraud Enforcement Recovery Act 

of 2009 (FERA), and IRS Form 990. The complexity 

lies in both understanding these basic 

regulations and ensuring that your organization 

complies with the letter of the law. 

The next step for the CCO is to learn the 

impact on these regulations of the recently 

enacted Health Care Reform Law made up of 

the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

of 2010 (PPACA) and the Health Care and 

Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. In addition, 

compliance basics would not be complete 

without the numerous fraud and abuse recovery 

initiatives and programs that are currently 

underway. 

While dealing with these external government 

and regulatory demands you must develop, 

implement, and perform an ongoing review 

and update of the operational documents 

for your compliance program: the compliance 

plan, policies and procedures, code of 

conduct, annual risk assessment, and annual 

compliance work plan. 

Knowledge management 

The laws and regulations mentioned above are 

all essentials in compliance basics. Developing 

this baseline understanding is Compliance 101, 

preparing you to implement your own 

program. After reading through a recent issue 

of Compliance Today, 5 the following topics 

are just a few that were discussed: 

n Professional coding and “Incident To” 

n Fraud and abuse laws 

n Meaningful use for electronic health 

records (EHRs) 

n HIPPA / HITECH compliance 

n Hospice care 

n Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs) 

n Research and clinical studies 

n Anti-kickback Statute 

n Stark Law 

n False Claims Act (FCA) 

n Medicaid Integrity Contractors (MICs) 

n Internal investigations 

n CMS Conditions of Participation 

What does this say about the profile of 

today’s CCO Should you have a law degree 

Should you have formal education in health 

care administration, public policy, nursing, 

finance, or business administration Should 

you be certified in coding, internal audit, risk 

management, business ethics, accounting, or 

project management The reality of the dayto-day 

activities of a CCO suggests that you 

need a working knowledge of all the above. 

You may be reading this and thinking it is just the 

old adage “preaching to the choir.” You already 

know the daily myriad of issues waiting to be 

addressed when you go to work each day. Apart 

from stating the obvious to seasoned CCOs, this 

suggests that among the core competencies of 

your job description the most important may be 

missing – knowledge management. 

Knowledge management, a discipline in its 

own right, has been discussed and written 

about for years. A good summary of this field 

is found in the book, Working Knowledge, 

How Organizations Manage What They 

Know. 6 In addition to distinguishing the 

difference between data, information, and 

knowledge, the authors discuss the concepts 

of knowledge as a corporate asset and linking 

knowledge to economic value, business strategy, 

work processes, organizational culture, 

and employee behavior. Herein is another 

complexity faced by today’s CCO: You have 

to master the art of linking and leveraging 

knowledge of an overwhelming breadth of 

content in order to implement and maintain 

an effective compliance program, and ensure 

the sustainability and enhancement of your 

health care organization, as required by 

government and regulatory agencies. 

Further examination of the CCO profile 

reveals the necessity of being an effective 

manager. Required management skills include 

good communication skills, problem solving, 

facilitating change, and analytical thinking. 

Developing effective lines of communication 

is one of the OIG’s seven elements and one 

of the greatest challenges in the basics of 

compliance. Because of the varied audiences 


a CCO addresses, the ability to communicate 

through written material, oral presentations, 

and listening to others are critical skills to 

success. Are you able to summarize the constant 

changes in the regulatory environment 

to the board of trustees in a succinct manner, 

providing the understanding necessary for 

them to execute their fiduciary duties, but 

not overwhelming them with details Are you 

able to present at new employee orientation 

or management training sessions in a manner 

that makes compliance real and relatable to 

the diverse education level of employees 

Effective lines of communication also lead 

to establishing a culture of compliance that 

reaches all employees. Once this compliance 

culture is in place, the CCO can more easily 

facilitate the organizational changes required 

to keep pace with the proliferation of new 

laws and regulations. 

The ability to think in a methodical and 

discerning way, identify cause and effect 

patterns, analyze data, and develop the right 

solution to a problem defines analytical thinking. 

This skill serves the CCO in the role of 

change agent when initiating appropriate 

processes resulting from an internal audit or 

newly enacted federal law. 

Successfully navigating compliance basics and 

the tidal waves of change in the health care regulatory 

environment necessitates the complexity 

found in the profile of a successful CCO. 

A profession of honor 

At the foundation of this complexity of laws, 

regulations, plans, policies, and procedures 

that make up an effective compliance program, 

there is one simple basic premise. Compliance 

is living out the value of integrity. 

Yes, CCOs have surely seen and heard the 

phrase “Compliance is integrity in action.” 


December 2010 

23

December 2010 

24 

The evolving role of 

the chief compliance 

and ethics officer 

A Survey by the HCCA and SCCE 

For more than 15 years, the role of the compliance 

and ethics officer has been growing. 

What was once an area of responsibility for 

a few individuals has grown to a full-fledged 

profession. 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

75% 

70% 

None 

46% 

Recent changes to the Federal Sentencing 

Guidelines are elevating the importance of 

the compliance officer even higher. Under 

provisions that went into effect on November 

1, 2010, organizations may now receive a 

reduction in fines and other penalties, even if 

senior executives are involved in the wrongdoing. 

However, to obtain that reduction, 

“individuals with operational responsibility 

for the compliance and ethics program [must] 

have direct reporting obligations to the organization’s 

governing authority or appropriate 

subgroup thereof.” 

By Adam Turteltaub CHC, CCEP 

12% 

7% 8% 

9% 

This latest change provides governmental 

encouragement for the compliance officer to 

have a direct line to the board, elevating the 

importance of the compliance professional. 

Yet, this also raises the risks for compliance 

Figure 1 

Severance package by type of organization 

Less than three 

months salary 

20% 

13% 12% 

8% 8% 

6% 

3% 3% 

3 – 6 months 

salary 

Severance Package by type 

Non -profit 

For profit, privately held 

For profit, publicly traded 

7 months to a 

year’s salary 

More than one 

year’s salary 

officers. To senior leadership, a compliance 

officer may appear to be a potential challenge 

to their control of what the board sees. 

At the same time, there has been a growing 

movement, led in many ways by the US 

government, to move compliance out of 

the General Counsel’s office and make it a 

separate function. Such has been the case 

with several high profile settlements. 

To assess the impact that these forces have 

had on the Compliance office, and the 

protection being afforded to the compliance 


officer, the HCCA and SCCE jointly fielded a 

survey of compliance and ethics professionals. 

The research focused on the protection 

accorded through severance agreements. It 

also examined where in the organizational 

chart the compliance officer is located. 

Findings 

Despite the increased emphasis on compliance 

and the growing understanding of the 

risks associated with the roles, compliance 

officers enjoy scant protection when it comes 

to severance. Of the more than 800 chief 

ethics and compliance officers (CECO) 

who responded to the survey, 71% have no 

severance package. Of those who did have 

a package, roughly one third had just three 

months or less. 

The story was very different, though for those 

working at publicly traded companies. More 

than half (54%) of respondents from publicly 

traded companies reported having a severance 

package, compared with 25% at non-profits and 

30% at privately-held organizations (figure 1). 

For about a quarter of companies, the 

compliance program is housed in the General 

Counsel’s office, but here, too, the company 

type and industry played an important role. 

Figure 2 

Compliance is housed in 

the General Counsel's office 

90% 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

21% 

Non-profit 



27% 

51%

100% Why is Compliance not a part of the General Counsel's office 

90% 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

86% 85% 

50% 

Never has been 

in GC’s office 

8% 7% 

21% 

Moved some 

time ago 

Figure 3 

7% 

1% 1% 

Non-profit 

Moved because of 

FSG requirements 



Moved because 

of Pfizer CIA 

8% 

5% 

Other 

21% 

Conclusions and Implications 

To act in a truly independent manner, more 

compliance and ethics professionals will need 

severance packages. Serving as a CECO 

requires a great deal of integrity and the 

willingness to ferret out wrongdoing wherever 

it may occur. That can, at times, include 

taking on senior executives and challenging 

well-established business practices. This puts 

the CECO at risk for termination, or calls for 

him or her to resign. The lack of adequate 

severance packages leaves compliance and 

ethics professionals at great risk, if their 

integrity and the company’s plans collide. 

Overall, 26% of respondents reported that 

compliance was housed in the GC’s office, 

but for non-healthcare companies, the figure 

was 42%, compared to just 20% for healthcare. 

Likewise, publicly traded companies 

were much more likely to make compliance 

a part of the GC’s office, with 51% reporting 

this as the structure. (figure 2). 

Just because the compliance function was 

located in the GC’s office did not necessarily 

mean the CECO was also the GC. Only 

about one quarter (26%) of those who 

reported that compliance was located in the 

GC’s office also reported that the CECO was 

the GC as well. 

Despite a growing consensus that Compliance 

should be independent from the GC’s office 

—and despite several settlements requiring 

it—companies that run Compliance out of 

the GC’s office generally plan on continuing 

to do so. Most of them (93%) report that 

they have no plan to move Compliance. 

For non-profits where Compliance is not a 

part of the GC’s office, the separation is not a 

recent phenomenon. A large majority (86%) 

of those surveyed reported that Compliance 

had never been a part of the GCs office, and 

another 8% reported that it had moved out of 

it that office some time ago (figure 3). 

For publicly traded companies, only one half 

reported that compliance had never been a 

part of the GC’s office. This is a much lower 

percentage than either non-profit or privately 

held organizations. And, for publicly traded 

companies in which Compliance had moved 

out of the GCs office, several reported it 

had done so because of a corporate integrity 

agreement. 

EOE/AA. Women, minorities, veterans and persons with 

disabilities are encouraged to apply. 

© 2010 NAS 


(Media: delete copyright notice) 

Compliance Today 

Despite several indications that the US 

government is not pleased with compliance 

officers reporting to the General Counsel, 

there seems to be little movement to change 

the organizational chart. Companies that 

have Compliance reporting to the General 

Counsel appear content to let things remain 

as they are. n 

To view the complete survey results, visit www. 

www.hcca-info.org/EvolvingRole 

WE’VE BUILT OUR REPUTATION AS AN 

EXCELLENT EMPLOYER, ONE PERSON AT A TIME. 

The benefi ts of working at VCU Health System, one of the nation’s top teaching hospitals, are clear. We’re 

a Magnet ® hospital and one of Working Mother’s 100 Best Companies. A great place for work/life balance, 

we provide outstanding benefi ts that include child and elder care, fl exible work options, extensive medical 

benefi ts, competitive pay and prepaid tuition. 

HOSPITAL COMPLIANCE AUDITOR 

This position will lead the initiative in designing, implementing and performing audits for hospital billing 

within VCUHS Compliance Service’s Auditing and Monitoring Program. This position will report to the Director 

of Compliance Services, and be responsible for annual work plan proposals based on his/her analysis of 

information from the OIG, external enforcement and ongoing risk assessment. 

To qualify, you must have: 

• Bachelor’s degree in a related fi eld, preferably with a clinical background 

• Coding certifi cation 

• 3-5 years' experience in a medical center environment 

To apply and learn more, please visit our website 

www.VCUHS.jobs or contact Tricia Spencer at 

tspencer@mcvh-vcu.edu. 

December 2010 

25

December 2010 

26 

Physician compliance 

education outside 

of the hospital 

environment 

Editor’s note: Kia R. Earp is a Revenue Cycle 

Consultant, Revenue Cycle Solutions for Dell 

Services, USA. Kia may be contacted by 

telephone in Boston, Massachusetts at 617/276- 

4025 or by e-mail at Kia_Earp@dell.com. 

has become one 

of the most frequently used 

“Compliance” 

terms in health care today— 

especially within the hospital environment. 

Hospitals are faced with ever increasing challenges 

of remaining up to date on all aspects 

of health care compliance. This includes all 

facets of compliance (e.g., billing, research, 

human resources, all Office of Inspector 

General focuses, Recovery Audit Contractors, 

etc). The full list could take up the remainder 

of this page. The role of the compliance officer 

and the Compliance department within 

the acute care facility is vastly different from 

that of the information that is received by 

physicians, physician group practices, and 

private physician practices. 

Fortunately, larger physician group practices 

have ties to the medical centers with which 

they have relationships. This typically allows 

these groups to receive formal compliance 

training, and hopefully, the appropriate 

required education as well. Unfortunately, 

more often than not, physicians only receive 

the basics of compliance during their 

orientation period, or during a mandatory 

annual Compliance session that frequently 

only covers the highlights of the aspects of a 

By Kia R. Earp, CHC, CCS, CCS-P 

well-functioning compliance program. Very 

rarely do these educational sessions go into 

great detail about how easy it could be for 

one of them to commit a simple act of fraud 

or abuse. 

Independent physician practices with no 

“formal” ties to hospitals/health centers are 

a population at greatest risk for exposure of 

violating compliance rules and regulations. 

There are several reasons why this is the case, 

many of which could be easily avoided. The 

primary reason is lack of communication. 

Physician practices, as with most clinicians, 

have a primary goal to provide outstanding 

patient care. This is the primary concern of 

the clinician, as well it should be. In today’s 

age of scorecards, dashboards, and physician 

measures, there is a competitiveness that 

exists, not just between hospitals to provide 

excellent care, but for physicians as well. All 

of this information is readily available on the 

Internet at the click of the mouse, if a patient 

decides to conduct research on Dr. Jones 

before his/her visit. 

As we visualize an independent physician 

practice, there is typically some form of 

office manager, there may be nursing staff 

or medical assistants, possibly phlebotomy 

staff, and then physicians. After treatment of 

the patient is completed, the next priority in 

these smaller offices is collecting money. This 

is accomplished by getting claims out the 

door as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, 


documentation may not always support the 

medical necessity for the visit level being 

billed, or there may be unbundling of procedures 

being performed within the setting. 

These staff are not trained compliance professionals 

and often do not have the knowledge 

to know where to search. Subscribing to 

periodicals or joining organizations such as 

HCCA will allow the office staff to remain 

up to date with new rules and regulations as 

they are disseminated from the regulatory 

authorities. Failure to do so can be interpreted 

as fraud and/or abuse. Unfortunately for the 

physician, “I didn’t know better” is not a valid 

reason for billing for services that were not 

performed or appropriately documented. 

A savvy office manager can make excellent 

use of the office budget by joining HCCA 

or other similar, non-medical professional 

organizations. I have seen, over the years, 

that only a handful of medical professional 

organizations/societies do a commendable 

job of keeping their membership updated 

with rules and regulations as they pertain 

to billing, compliance, fraud, and abuse. 

By establishing that connection with a 

group such as HCCA, Healthcare Financial 

Management Association (HFMA), American 

Association of Healthcare Administrative 

Management (AAHAM), or Medical Group 

Management Association (MGMA), the connection 

is made, and the individual running 

the operations of the office is now tapped into 

a wealth of information that might not be 

otherwise available to the clerical and clinical 

staff. The decision would then need to be 

made regarding how and when this information 

is distributed to the physicians within 

the practice. Even a confident office manager 

who subscribes to ten publications and is a 

member of five organizations is only as good 

as the information that is disseminated to the 

clinicians within the practice.

Routine meetings should be set up so that 

any important information can be reviewed 

with the staff. This is always done best during 

downtime when the office has a “slow” day, 

rather than a typical busy Monday morning 

or “leave early” Friday afternoon. 

Physicians have an obligation to not only 

remain current and up to date on the latest 

medical technology that applies to their 

specialty, but to remain current on any issues 

that impact their practice—this includes 

Compliance. One only needs to pick up a 

newspaper and read about a physician being 

arrested for some fraudulent or abusive activity. 

The majority that we read about in our weekly 

updates from HCCA are purposeful and truly 

fraudulent. However, there are those who honestly 

do not know any better. This population of 

clinicians may be attributed to the independent 

physician office practice and the true lack of 

communication and knowledge that exists 

regarding compliance rules and regulations. 

One item that every billing clinician should 

routinely be required to do is review the 

back page of the CMS-1500 Form. 1 There 

is a statement that clearly reads “Any person 

who knowingly files a statement of claim 

containing any misrepresentation or any false, 

incomplete, or misleading information may 

be guilty of a criminal act punishable under 

law and may be subject to civil penalties.” 

This is one of the greatest mistakes that 

physicians can make. Because the majority of 

all billing is completed electronically now, the 

physicians’ name is printed in the appropriate 

box on the claim form—but by doing so, the 

clinician is attesting that all services listed on 

the form were performed by him/her. Routine 

reminder of that statement brings the physician 

staff back to reality very quickly. 

A well-informed office can easily accomplish 

any of these tasks. As with any compliance 

communication or research, time is involved. 

An enormous amount of time is spent 

reviewing material and clarifying information 

contained therein. This is where smaller 

independent physician practices may lack the 

necessary resources in order to accomplish 

this task. Unfortunately, there are several 

larger acute care health care systems that can 

also make this statement as well. However, 

this cannot be used as an excuse to exempt 

one self of the obligations of health care 

compliance. The information is available. 

In addition to organizations and societies, 

there are social networking sites available 

as well. And of course, we cannot forget 

something as simple as “Google©.” Several of 

our readers probably lack sophisticated tools 

at their facility and may begin their research 

just by using Google to begin steering them 

in the appropriate direction. 

And finally, there is always room for interpretation. 

In several areas of compliance, the 

answer is as gray as the sky on a cloudy day. 

In those instances, additional research must 

be conducted. If your research is complicated, 

never utilize your initial find. Confirm your 

findings by completing additional research. 

It is time consuming, but well worth the 

outcome if it will avoid fines, exclusion from 

CMS programs and more importantly, jail 

time for fraud. 

There are even more areas where the rules are 

extremely specific. Locating them may prove 

challenging, however, CMS has an amazing 

number of manuals for readers to peruse to 

research a myriad of issues during their leisure 

time. The best starting point is always the CMS 

website. As disorganized as the newly designed 

home page may appear to be, it is simple to 

navigate, and once you are in the correct section 

of the website, locating your information may 

prove easier than initially thought. 


Additionally there is the notorious Federal 

Register. Each year the font of the Federal 

Register appears smaller and smaller as the 

regulations become lengthier and more complex 

to manage. This is far more complicated 

to dissect than any manual, due in part to the 

fact that there are proposed rules and final 

rules. If you mistakenly select the proposed 

rule, then your hours of research may have 

been in vain and your outcomes incorrect. 

So, network with other organizations. There 

is no shortage of them, but make certain if 

you do join one, that it is a reputable one that 

provides sound and accurate information. 

Also local, regional, and national conferences 

can be attended. These are not always 100% 

compliance-related, nor should they be for 

the smaller office practitioner. Conferences 

offer the attendee an excellent opportunity to 

learn a great many things regarding clinical 

information, fraud and abuse cases, as well as 

how to operate more soundly within a rapidly 

changing health care environment. 

Office managers must communicate with the 

physicians in the practice. Failure to communicate 

is one of the number one problems, 

not just in health care, but in everyday life. 

We must communicate clearly, concisely, 

and in a manner that does not to confuse 

the audience. Hopefully, by improving upon 

some of these practices, it will sharpen the 

compliance knowledge within the physician 

practice that operates outside of the hospital 

environment. It will also allow them to gain 

greater insight into the “big tornado plus 

a typhoon” that we all know and love as 

Compliance. n 

1 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, C. f. (2008, December 

1). CMS-1500 Claim Form Instructions. Retrieved 08 21, 2010, from 

CMS-1500 Claim Form Instructions. Available at http://www.medicarenhic.com/providers/pubs/CMS_1500_Claim_Form.pdf 

December 2010 

27

Essential Insight 

According to the American Health 

Lawyers Association’s membership 

rankings, King & Spalding is the largest 

healthcare law firm in the United States. 

We achieved this by delivering value and 

security to our clients every day. 

www.kslaw.com/health

COMPLIANCE 

101 

Stark and academic 

medical centers: A 

primer 

By Kenneth DeVille, PhD, JD, CIP, CHC, 

CHRC; and Joan A. Kavuru, JD, RN 

Editor’s note: Kenneth DeVille is a Professor in 

the Department of Bioethics and Interdisciplinary 

Studies at Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina 

University in Greenville, North Carolina. He 

serves as the university’s Ethics Liaison to the North 

Carolina State Ethics Commission and is an adjunct 

member of the Department of Public Health. 

He has served as the Chief Compliance Officer for 

the School of Medicine, as the university HIPAA 

Privacy Officer, and as the Administrative Director 

of the university and medical center Institutional 

Review Board. He may be contacted by e-mail at 

devillek@ecu.edu. 

Joan A. Kavuru practices health care regulatory 

law and most recently held the position of 

Health Care Regulatory Specialist at The Brody 

School of Medicine at East Carolina University. 

Previously, she founded and served as the 

Director of the Office of Compliance as well as 

the HIPAA Privacy Officer at East Carolina 

University. She recently relocated to the Philadelphia 

area and may be contacted by e-mail at 

jkavuru@gmail.com. 

The Stark federal self-referral statute 1 

is well known to experienced compliance 

officers and health law attorneys. 

Under Stark’s basic tenet, physicians 

cannot refer patients for a “designated health 

service” (DHS), payable by Medicare, to a 

health care “entity” with which the physician 

or an immediate family member has a financial 

relationship. The referral prohibition is 

absolute in the absence of meeting one of a 

limited list of specific, and sometimes technical, 

statutory exceptions. 

Practicing within an academic setting or 

faculty practice plan (FPP) does not immunize 

practitioners and institutions from the Stark 

proscriptions. Indeed, in 2008, Memorial 

Health University Medical Center, a teaching 

hospital headquartered in Savannah, Ga., agreed 

to pay $5.08 million to settle Stark allegations. 2 

But, an early revision of Stark created a special 

exception for academic medical centers (AMCs) 

to account for their unique practice arrangement 

(hereinafter “AMC exception”). 3 

Teaching hospitals, medical schools, physicianfaculty, 

and FPPs are typically linked in an 

intricate, ongoing, symbiotic relationship 

involving a myriad of leases, service contracts, 

research support agreements, shared projects, 

and financial transfers. Teaching hospitals 

sometimes subsidize the teaching, research, 

and service missions of the AMC by providing 

grants, subsidies, or other transfers to the 

associated medical school. Or, the teaching 

hospital may employ faculty physicians to 

serve as medical directors or in other administrative 

roles. These activities and others that 

involve financial relationships between entities 

providing DHSs and referring physicians 

raise potential Stark concerns and require 

the satisfaction of a specific Stark exception. 

However, if the elements of the AMC exception 

are met, all such financial arrangements 

may be permissible under this exception. 

Unfortunately, some AMCs and FPPs will not 

meet the AMC exception, thereby requiring an 

analysis of other Stark exceptions. 

This commentary describes the elements of the 

Stark AMC exception and outlines the analysis 

that practitioners and entities within an AMC 


will have to pursue when that exception is not 

satisfied. Stark remains a complex, highly-technical 

statute, and institutions should always rely 

on qualified legal counsel to analyze individual 

fact patterns. This discussion provides only a 

broad introduction to the standard issues and 

nomenclature so that compliance officers can 

spot issues, develop appropriate policies, create 

relevant data bases, and highlight potential 

concerns for leadership and their own legal 

counsel to address in more detail. 

Basic framework of Stark 

Stark I, a provision of the Social Security Act, 

became effective on January 1, 1992. Narrowly 

drawn, it prohibited physicians and other 

identified providers from referring Medicare 

patients for laboratory services in which the 

referring physicians or their immediate families 

held a “financial interest” in the lab. So-called 

Stark II expanded the law and prohibits 

referrals for DHSs to any “entity” in which 

the referring physician, dentist, oral surgeon, 

podiatrist, ophthalmologist, or chiropractor 

has a financial relationship, either through 

investments or through compensation. 

For purposes of Stark, “compensation” is 

construed broadly and includes any remuneration, 

payment, discount, or in-kind 

benefit paid to the referring physician by the 

DHS provider. “Entity” includes the health 

provider’s own practices, as well any other 

public or private partnership, corporation, 

or foundation that provides DHS in return 

for CMS reimbursement. DHSs are specifically 

delineated and include anything from 

laboratory and radiological services, to durable 

medical equipment, to home health services 

and outpatient prescription drugs. 4 Fines for 

Stark violations can reach $15,000 for each bill 

submitted to Medicare on a prohibited DHS, 

and both providers and entities can be subject 

to exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid 


December 2010 

29

Stark and academic medical centers: A primer ...continued from page 29 

December 2010 

30 

programs. Stark Phase III is the most recent 

articulation of the federal anti-referral statute. 5 

The Stark Law identifies a number of specific 

financial arrangements that may qualify as 

“exceptions” to the basic anti-referral prohibition. 

It is important to note that these exceptions 

are based on very detailed requirements 

that must be met precisely in order for the 

referral relationship to be deemed legitimate 

under Stark. This list of exceptions includes 

the AMC exception. 6 

Academic medical center exception 

Four basic elements must be satisfied to meet 

the AMC exception under Stark. First, in 

order to constitute an AMC under the exception, 

the entity must include: 

n an accredited medical school; 

n an FPP that is organized as a tax-exempt 

organization or is the part of a tax-exempt 

organization; and 

n a hospital in which the majority of medical 

staff are physician-faculty members and in 

which a majority of admissions are made 

by physician-faculty. 

Second, the referring physician who works 

within the qualified AMC must be a bona 

fide employee of a component of the 

academic health center, hold a bona fide 

faculty appointment at the medical school, 

and provide “substantial” academic or clinical 

teaching services for which the faculty receives 

compensation. The “substantial” requirement 

is met if the physician devotes a minimum 

of 20% or 8 hours of the work week to academic 

activities, which may include research, 

classroom, or clinical teaching responsibilities. 

The referring faculty physician’s compensation 

must be “set in advance,” not exceed 

fair market value (FMV), and not take into 

consideration the volume or value of referrals 

to any of the components of the AMC. 

Additional and specific regulatory guidance 

exists on the “set in advance” and FMV 

requirements under Stark. 

Third, transfers of money not based on 

services provided or leases from one entity 

within the AMC to another entity or faculty 

physician within the AMC must support 

the missions of teaching, research, indigent 

care, or community service. The relationship 

between/among the entities within the AMC 

must be articulated in writing and adopted by 

the governing bodies of each of the relevant 

entities in the AMC. Money paid to a 

physician for research by an entity within the 

AMC must be used solely to support research. 

Fourth, the money transfers made from 

one entity to another, or to a referring 

faculty physician, may not violate the federal 

Anti-kickback Statute. 7 Thus an independent 

anti-kickback analysis must also be conducted 

before an arrangement can be deemed to meet 

the AMC exception. 8 There is very little litigation 

or appellate precedent exploring the AMC 

exception. But, a federal district court in U.S. 

ex. rel. Villanfane v. Solinger et al. has taken a 

“relatively flexible approach to interpreting the 

various requirements of the AMC exception” 

and suggested that the exception will not be 

held to “hypertechnical” requirements. 9 

Impact and limitations of the AMC exception 

The AMC exception, when satisfied, allows 

medical schools, FPPs, and affiliated hospitals 

to work together to meet the common goal 

of teaching, research, and clinical care for 

the community without running afoul of 

a complicated and frequently burdensome 

Stark analysis that otherwise would have to be 

resolved on a project-by-project, contributionby-contribution 

basis. Quite simply, if the 

AMC exception is met, Stark does not apply 

to referrals made by AMC physicians to AMC 

components. As importantly, satisfaction of 

the AMC exception will allow the granting of 


funds for mission purposes from one entity (a 

teaching hospital) to another (typically a medical 

school). Although obvious, it is important 

to emphasize that Stark requirements still 

must be satisfied when faculty physicians 

establish financial relationships with entities 

outside of the AMC or when components of 

the AMC establish financial relationships with 

physicians outside the AMC. 

Despite the exception’s relatively clear elements 

and the suggestion from Solinger that 

future courts may take a “flexible” approach 

in its application, many AMCs will be unable 

to take advantage of its benefits. In some 

cases, the teaching hospital will not meet the 

requirement that faculty physicians constitute 

the threshold 50% of the hospital’s medical 

staff. In other AMC arrangements, faculty 

physicians will not account for 50% of the 

hospital admissions census. This may prove true, 

especially in teaching hospitals with open staff 

arrangements. Or, faculty physician admissions 

in a particular AMC setting might satisfy the 

50% threshold for a teaching hospital in a given 

year, but fluctuate up and down in subsequent 

years. In such settings, if the financial arrangement 

between two or more AMC components 

(e.g., a teaching hospital, medical school, or 

FPP) is based on a multi-year contract, the failure 

to satisfy the 50% threshold during any year 

of the term could constitute a Stark violation. 

Much depends, as well, on the precise nature 

of the legal and financial organization of the 

FPP. The FPPs that most resemble traditional 

private group practice arrangements with 

profits distributed to the physician membership 

will obviously be the least likely to meet the 

exception; but plans that rely on salaried faculty 

physicians will typically be permitted. 

FPP arrangements that distribute bonuses to 

physicians based on performance measures 

should be scrutinized in order to ensure that 

they do not violate the requirement that the

total compensation of the referring physician 

be “set in advance.” But, performance 

incentives for faculty physicians may be 

allowable if they do not represent compensation 

for increasing referral volume or value. 

Consequently, FPP bonuses for teaching, 

research, quality, administrative activities, 

publication, and cost improvements may all 

be legitimate. Similarly, the AMC exception 

may not apply if the referring faculty physician 

is paid directly by the AMC entity (i.e., 

the teaching hospital) as an “independent 

contractor” instead of as a requirement and/or 

consequence of his or her employment with 

the medical school or FPP. 10 

Stark analysis when the AMC exception 

cannot be met 

Congress undoubtedly intended to provide a 

“bright-line rule,” a clear test, so that faculty 

physicians and the components of AMCs would 

be free to pursue their joint missions together, 

but no AMC can be assured that it automatically 

meets the requirements of the exception. 

Some clearly will not. Given this reality and 

the complicated nature of the AMC exception 

analysis itself, attorneys and compliance advisors 

should be prepared to explore other means of 

ensuring that the overlapping and symbiotic 

associations in AMCs do not violate Stark 

prohibitions. As a result, many AMCs have 

found it either necessary, or prudent, to analyze 

the financial arrangements involving their component 

entities under other Stark exceptions, 

especially the exception earmarked for “indirect 

compensation” arrangements. 

Direct compensation relationships 

under Stark 

In absence of a valid AMC exception, the 

key to evaluating the Stark implications of a 

financial arrangement in an AMC setting is the 

determination of whether a “direct compensation 

relationship” or an “indirect compensation 

relationship” exists between the referring 

physician and the DHS entity. Distinct exceptions 

must be met for “direct” versus “indirect” 

compensation relationships. If neither a “direct” 

nor an “indirect” compensation arrangements 

exists, then Stark does not apply, and meeting 

an exception is not required. 

A “direct compensation relationship” is 

deemed to exist if payments are made to 

the referring faculty physician (or his or her 

immediate family member) by the DHS entity 

without any intervening person or entity. 11 A 

“direct” relationship will also exist when the 

referring physician has an ownership interest in 

the DHS entity to which patients are referred. 

Direct compensation relationships, as discussed 

above, are required to satisfy the highly 

restrictive and technical exceptions. It is true 

that teaching hospitals and other AMC entities 

contract for the services of faculty physicians 

who refer patients inside the AMC for DHSs. 

But, such contracts are typically with the 

medical school, FPP, or physician organization, 

rather than with the individual physicians 

themselves. For that reason, direct compensation 

relationships with faculty physicians are 

rare. Some faculty physicians may establish 

“direct” relationships with providers of DHS 

outside the AMC, and will therefore be 

required to meet one of the Stark exceptions in 

those settings, but that is usually not the case 

within the AMC. As a result, the majority of 

AMC financial arrangements will be analyzed 

under the “indirect” compensation test. 

Indirect compensation relationships 

under Stark 

In contrast to “direct” relationships, “indirect compensation 

relationships” are deemed to exist if: 

n there exists an unbroken chain of persons 

or entities that have financial relationships 

between the referring physician and the 

DHS provider; 

n the referring physician receives compensation 

from that DHS provider that varies 


with the volume or value of referrals to 

that DHS provider; and 

n the DHS provider has actual knowledge 

or acts in reckless disregard or deliberate 

ignorance of the nature of its financial 

relationship with the referring physician. 

If an “indirect compensation” relationship 

exists, the indirect compensation exception 

must be met. 12 Although somewhat less onerous 

than the direct compensation exceptions, 

the application of the indirect exception is 

complex too, and requires knowledge of the 

special “unit-based compensation” rules under 

Stark and, as always, the advice of qualified 

legal counsel. 13 Again, if the arrangement 

meets the definition of neither a direct nor 

indirect relationship, Stark does not apply. 

Indirect compensation and Stark Phase III 

revisions 

Prior to the implementation of the 2007 Phase 

III Stark regulations, many AMCs relied heavily 

on the indirect compensation relationship to 

justify mission support payments between 

components of the AMC. In a common AMC 

arrangement, an FPP and/or its associated 

medical school employs faculty physicians who 

refer patients for care to DHS providers (e.g., 

teaching hospitals) within the AMC. Many 

AMCs took the position that mission support 

payments for teaching, research, community 

service, and indigent care from a teaching 

hospital to the FPP or medical school did not 

meet the definition of an indirect compensation 

relationship—the compensation paid to 

the referring physicians did not vary with or 

otherwise reflect the volume or value of referrals 

by the referring physician to the DHS entity. 

Under this line of reasoning, because there 

was also no “direct” financial relationship, the 

arrangement was not subject to Stark and was 

not required to conform to any of its exceptions. 


December 2010 

31

Stark and academic medical centers: A primer ...continued from page 31 

The “stand in the shoes” doctrine 

The foregoing justification for many financial 

arrangements in the AMC setting was 

profoundly complicated by the 2007 Phase III 

revisions of Stark and the introduction of the 

so-called “stand in the shoes” doctrine. Simply 

stated, the “stand in the shoes” doctrine declares 

that a referring physician will be deemed to 

have a “direct compensation arrangement” with 

a DHS provider if the only intervening entity 

between the physician and the DHS provider is 

his or her “physician organization.” 14 

As a practical matter, this revision could have 

meant that a “physician organization” (whose 

physician members referred patients to a 

DHS provider within an AMC) could not 

accept reimbursement or compensation of any 

sort without meeting one of the stipulated 

direct compensation exceptions—an onerous, 

impractical, and sometimes impossible task in 

an AMC setting. Mission support payments 

from DHS providers to FPPs and medical 

schools appeared especially vulnerable, because 

there was no direct compensation exception 

applicable to mission support payments made 

for general teaching, research, community 

service, and indigent care purposes. Other 

financial arrangements between the FPP/ 

medical school, too, might be analyzed as 

direct compensation relationships, because the 

referring faculty physician might be deemed as 

having the same direct compensation relationship 

as the physician organization. 15 

Final “stand in the shoes” regulations 

After multiple delays, extensive commentary, 

competing proposals, and deliberation, CMS 

amended the “stand in the shoes” requirements 

in the 2009 Final Hospital Inpatient Prospective 

Payment System (IPPS) rules. 16 These 

most recent revisions clarify the operation of 

the “stand in the shoes” doctrine for AMC 

entities that wish to analyze their internal 

financial relationships with faculty physicians. 

Simply stated, CMS declared that a physician 

will be deemed to “stand in the shoes” of 

his or her physician organization only if the 

intervening entity between the physician and 

the DHS provider is a physician organization 

and the physician has an ownership or investment 

interest in that physician organization. 17 

The revised definition of “ownership and 

investment interest” is pivotal. The revised 

rule emphasizes that physicians whose ownership 

interests are merely nominal, or titular, 

in nature will not stand in the shoes of their 

physician organization. These arrangements 

include ownership or investment interests in 

which the referring physician does not receive 

the benefit of such an interest, such as distribution 

of profits, dividends, proceeds of sale, 

or other types of returns on investments. 18 

The impact of these changes and clarifications 

is significant, especially for AMCs, 

Stark Act 

The Stark Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn, is one of the most complex statutes, including 

interpretive regulation, that prohibits a physician from referring to a designated 

health entity if the physician has a financial arrangement with such entity. 

Designated health services include the following: clinical laboratory, physical and 

occupational therapy, radiology, radiation therapy and supplies, durable medical 

equipment, parenteral and enteral nutrition, prosthetics orthotics and prosthetic 

devices, home health, outpatient prescription drugs, and inpatient and outpatient 

hospital. Further, financial arrangements include both compensation arrangements 

and investment or ownership arrangements. 

If a physician has a compensation arrangement with an entity that bills for 

designated health services, the physician cannot refer to such entity unless the 

arrangement meets all components of an exception. There are numerous 

exceptions that apply to the Stark Act, some of which apply only to 

investment/ownership arrangements, some that apply only to compensation 

arrangements, and some that apply to both ownership/investment arrangements 

and compensation arrangements. Each financial arrangement will need to be carefully 

analyzed to make sure that either the Stark Act does not apply, or all components of an 

applicable exception are met. 

Complicating such arrangements further, physicians, under the Stark Act, include all of 

the following family members related to the physician: husband or wife; birth or 

adopted parent, child, siblings; stepparent, stepchild, stepbrother, or stepsister; 

father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law or 

sister-in-law; grandparent or grandchild; and spouse of a grandparent or grandchild. 

Thus, even if a designated health service entity, like a hospital, is not contracting directly 

with a physician, the Stark Act may be implicated if the party with whom the hospital is 

contracting is related to a referring physician. The restrictions imposed by the Stark Act 

are not eliminated, therefore, merely by contracting with a family member of a . 

If you would like more information, visit the Captain Integrity website at 

http://www.captainintegrity.com or contact a representative at 1.866.222.0706. 

December 2010 

32 


teaching hospitals, medical schools, and 

FPPs in which there are no physician owners. 

Payments from a DHS entity to a physician 

organization in which the member physicians 

have no ownership interests may once 

again be analyzed under the more forgiving 

indirect compensation relationship rules. As a 

consequence, payments from a DHS provider 

(like a teaching hospital) to a non-physician 

owned physician organization or medical 

school, in the form of mission support funds, 

may be permitted under Stark provided that: 

(1) the relationship does not satisfy the basic 

definition of indirect compensation relationships; 

or, (2) if they are considered indirect 

compensation relationships, the payments, 

remunerations, compensation or benefits satisfy 

the exception for indirect compensation 

relationships. Recall however, that payments 

between DHS entities and physician-owned 

physician organizations—inside or outside of 

AMCs—may still be deemed direct compensation 

relationships under the “stand in the 

shoes” doctrine and will be required to meet 

one of direct compensation exceptions. 

Despite the latitude the recent changes have 

given AMCs, CMS has not given a blanket 

green light to all manner of mission support 

payments. In response to a commenter in 

the final regulations who contended that a 

physician organization’s non-owner physician 

employees would be highly unlikely to benefit 

from “infusion of capital” or a mission support 

payment to the physician organization, CMS 

cautioned that there might still be scenarios in 

which excessive reimbursement would undermine 

the indirect compensation protection: 

…[W]e are aware of situations where 

non-owner physician employees and 

contractors have compensation arrangements 

that are not based on fair market 

value and benefit from payments made to 

their physician organizations from entities 

to which the physician employees and 

contractors refer patients for DHS. 19 

In addition, CMS has noted in previous commentary 

that even fixed aggregate compensation 

may sometimes constitute a prohibited 

direct or indirect compensation relationship if 

such compensation exceeds fair market value 

or has been inflated to reflect the volume 

or value of referrals the physician makes to 

the DHS entity. 20 As such, even when there 

are no physician owners within a physician 

organization—which is often the case in FPP 

arrangements—it is still important to ensure 

that physician salaries are fair market value and 

are not otherwise inflated in ways that may 

reflect the volume or value of referrals to the 

DHS entity. Finally, as noted above, it is vital 

to understand that although certain mission 

support payments between a DHS entity and 

a non-physician owned physician organization 

may fall outside of Stark, those arrangements 

will also need to be analyzed under the federal 

Anti-kickback Statute, an additional reason 

why FMV analyses continue to play a central 

role in FPP compliance due diligence. 

Finally, it is important to note that in addition 

to the indirect compensation relationship exception, 

other exceptions may be helpful to AMCs 

with respect to the various business relationships 

among the AMC entities. For example, 

the physician recruitment exception under 

Stark has been helpful in allowing certain types 

of physician salary support and incremental 

overhead expense allowances to FPPs. 21 

Additionally, the personal services exception 

may be used to protect relationships, such as 

medical director arrangements or other services 

that faculty physicians may provide to the DHS 

entity. Again, however, if there are no FPP physician 

owners, the personal services exception 

(which is a direct compensation relationship 

exception) will likely not be necessary to protect 

the financial arrangement under Stark. 


Conclusion 

Stark Law requirements pose a special 

challenge in the AMC setting in which a 

multiplicity of entities, institutions, practitioners, 

and missions co-exist and interact. 

The AMC exception was specially crafted to 

allow affiliated medical schools, physician 

faculty, and teaching hospitals to follow 

together their broad and multifaceted goals 

of teaching, research, clinical care, and community 

service. Where the AMC exception 

is satisfied, the component parts of the AMC 

will be granted broad latitude to pursue their 

joint missions. AMCs that do not meet the 

exception may still work together, but will 

have to seek protection under other, narrower 

Stark exceptions. In either instance, every 

factual scenario and every AMC arrangement 

is unique, and the highly technical provisions 

require that each be analyzed on a case-bycase 

basis by competent legal counsel before 

determining that the specific relationship is 

allowable under Stark. n 

1 The Stark “self referral” statute appears at: 42 U.S.C. § 1395 et seq. 

The accompanying regulations issued by the Centers for Medicare and 

Medicaid Services (CMS) appear at: 42 CFR §411.350 – §411.389 

(2010) 

2 US Department of Justice, Press Release: Savannah’s Memorial Health 

University Medical Center to Pay U.S. $5.08 Million to Resolve Fraud 

Allegations. April 28, 2008. Available at http://www.justice.gov/usao/ 

gas/pr/2008/45_08MemorialHealthUniv.pdf 

3 The AMC exception now appears at 42 C.F.R. §411.355(e) 

4 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: Code List for Certain 

Designated Health Services (DHS). Available at https://www.cms. 

gov/PhysicianSelfReferral/40_List_of_Codes.asp 

5 Charles B. Oppenheim, Jenni Rosenberg: Compliance 101: An 

introduction to the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute and Stark Law. 

Compliance Today, November 2008, pp. 54-56 

6 See 42 U.S.C. § 1395 (b)-(e) 

7 42 C.F.R. § 411.355(e)(1)(i-iv) 

8 Federal Anti-Kickback prohibitions may be found at 42 U.S.C § 

§ 1320a–7b (2000) 

9 U.S. ex rel. Villanfane v. Solinger at al., 543 F. Supp. 678 (W.D. Ky. 

2008); and Anjana D. Patel, Robert J. Senska: Court analyzes first case 

under Stark’s academic medical center exception. Compliance Today, 

September 2008, pp. 11-13 

10 Gerald M. Griffith: Pros, Cons and Further Questions on the AMC Exception. 

Health Lawyers Weekly (AHLA), May 2008;6(20), p. 32; and 

Frances Fernald, ed: A Guide to Complying with Stark Physician Self 

Referral Rules. Washington, DC: Atlantic Information Services, 2010, 

1322.1.5; and Mark R. Fitzgerald: Financial Support Arrangements 

Between Academic Medical Centers and Faculty Practice Plans. Powers, 

Pyle, Stutter and Verville, Newsletter, March, 2003. Available at http:// 

www.ppsv.com/news-publications-29.html. 

11 42 C.F.R. § 411.354(a)(2)(i) 

12 42 C.F.R. § 411.354(c)(2); and 42 C.F.R. § 411.357(p) 

13 42 C.F.R. § 42 C.F.R. 411.357(e) 

14 42 C.F.R. § 411.354(c)(1)(ii) 

15 73 Fed. Reg. 48434, 48691 (Aug. 19, 2008) 

16 73 Red. Reg. 48434 (Aug. 19, 2008) 

17 73 Fed. Reg. 48434, 48693 (Aug. 19, 2008) 

18 42 C.F.R. § 411.354(c)(3)(ii)(C) 

19 73 Fed. Reg. 48694 

20 69 Fed. Reg. 16054, 16059 (March 26, 2004) 

21 42 C.F.R. § 411.357(e) 

December 2010 

33

December 2010 

34 

Health care reform 

and its effect on 

compliance programs 

Editor’s note: Cathy Cahill-Egolf is the Chief 

Compliance and Regulatory Officer, Clinical 

Practice Management Plan, State University of 

New York at Stony Brook. She may be contacted 

by telephone at 631/444-8026 or by e-mail at 

Cathy.Cahill@sunysb.edu. 

Recent health care reform has brought 

significant changes to the American 

health care system. It is arguably the 

most important—yet controversial–legislation 

in the history of health care in our country 

since President Lyndon Johnson signed the 

Social Security Act in 1965, which established 

the Medicare and Medicaid programs. 

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care 

Act (PPACA), as amended by the Health 

Care Reconciliation Act of 2010, contains 

expansion of access and health insurance 

coverage for up to 32 million Americans. 

The cost of this legislation is estimated by the 

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) at $938 

billion. Part of the legislation increased federal 

funding to fight fraud and abuse by more 

than $200 million over 10 years. The CBO 

anticipates $1.75 in savings for every $1 spent 

to fight fraud. 1 The cost will be largely funded 

through various taxes and fees. For health 

care compliance professionals, the statute 

offers new challenges requiring compliance 

programs to be revised and updated. 

It has long been the goal of the federal government 

to combat waste, fraud, and abuse 

by health care providers. Numerous mechanisms 

to combat fraud and abuse are already 

in place. In the past, the Office of Inspector 

By Cathy Cahill-Egolf 

General (OIG) provided guidelines for model 

compliance programs that identified potential 

health care fraud and assisted health care 

organizations in initiating risk assessments. 

Criminal and civil penalties have been in 

effect for those health care providers who have 

committed fraud against a federal health care 

program. One of the most frequently used 

tools to combat fraud and abuse is the False 

Claims Act, which prohibits an individual 

from knowingly and willfully making a false 

statement in relation to a claim for payment 

for items or services furnished under a federal 

health care program. Under the Health Care 

Fraud Statute, the term “knowingly” doesn’t 

require a person to have actual knowledge of 

the law or intent to violate the law. 2 

With the advent of health care reform, the 

Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary 

will have expanded authority for enforcement 

to reduce fraud and abuse. The Secretary will 

be able to utilize the Civil Monetary Penalty 

Statute to prohibit excluded individuals from 

ordering services and will require reporting 

and refunding any overpayments to Medicare 

and Medicaid within 60 days of identifying 

the overpayments. 3 In addition, the Secretary 

will now have the authority to suspend a 

provider’s payments pending an investigation 

of any credible allegation of fraud and abuse 

against that provider. 4 The Secretary will 

share data with other agencies in an effort to 

identify potential fraud. 5 

PPACA made changes to the Federal 

Sentencing Guidelines (FSG). 6 The FSG 

were enhanced by requiring the United States 


Sentencing Commission to ensure that: 

n The FSG and policy statements reflect the 

serious harms associated with health care 

fraud, and in appropriate circumstances, 

provide increased penalties for persons 

convicted of health care offenses; 

n As part of the review, consultation occurs 

with individuals or groups representing 

health care fraud victims, law enforcement 

officials, the health care industry, and 

federal judiciary; 

n Reasonable consistency exists with other 

relevant directives and with other guidelines 

under the FSG; 

n Any aggravating or mitigating circumstances 

that might justify exceptions be 

accounted for, including circumstances 

for which the FSG provide sentencing 

enhancements; 

n Any necessary conforming changes to the 

FSG are made; and 

n The FSG adequately meet the purposes of 

sentencing. 

The ultimate goal of changing the FSG is to 

substantially increase the penalties for individuals 

who commit a federal health care offense 

that results in more than $1 million in losses. 

There have already been steep penalties for 

making false statements; a $10,000 penalty per 

offense could be imposed with potential triple 

damages. 7 Under PPACA, the OIG may now 

impose a $50,000 civil monetary penalty per 

violation to those who knowingly make false 

statements. 8 Also, monetary penalties may be 

imposed on any person, organization, agency, 

or other entity that fails to grant timely access to 

books and records when requested by the HHS 

Inspector General for auditing and inspection 

purposes. 9 

Provider screening is another method the government 

is using to reduce the risk of fraud, 

waste, and abuse. Beginning in March 2011, 

procedures will be in effect to screen new

providers who participate in the Medicare, 

Medicaid, and CHIP programs. Providers 

already participating in these programs will be 

subject to these procedures in March 2012. 

The level of screening will be conducted 

commensurate with the category of provider 

and the potential risk of fraud for this 

type of health care provider. The screening 

must include a licensure check, which may 

include licensure validation across multiple 

states. Depending on the level of risk for the 

category of provider, additional screening 

levels may include a criminal background 

check, fingerprinting, unscheduled and unannounced 

site visits (including pre-enrollment 

site visits), database checks, as well other 

screening as determined by the Secretary. 10 

Additional safeguards have been put in place to 

protect the Medicare and Medicaid programs 

against fraud and abuse. As a condition of 

enrollment, some providers will be required to 

establish a compliance program. 11 Any physician 

who renders services or refers a patient 

for services must be enrolled in the Medicare 

Internet-based Provider Enrollment, Chain 

and Ownership System (PECOS) program. 12 

The Secretary has the authority to exclude 

from participation any health care provider 

who makes a false statement on an enrollment 

application or any other documents submitted 

to a federal health care program. Effective 

January 1, 2011 suppliers and providers of 

medical services or equipment who qualify 

for a National Provider Identifier (NPI) must 

include this NPI number on all claims. 13 

Over the past few years, Recovery Audit Contractors 

(RACs) were hired by the government 

to investigate Medicare fee-for-service 

claims to identify past improper payments. 

PPACA has expanded their jurisdiction to 

include claims associated with the Medicare 

Advantage plans and the Medicare Part D 

programs. 14 We can expect these audits to 

ramp up before the end of the year. With the 

increase in jurisdiction will come an increase 

in government scrutiny. In response to a 

report issued by the Government Accountability 

Office in March of 2010, CMS has 

adopted numerous measures to oversee the 

accuracy of RAC claims’ reviews. 

Compliance professionals need to keep ahead 

of the curve. The following are some steps 

a compliance officer may take to maintain 

their commitment to compliance, identify 

potential vulnerabilities, and reduce their risk 

of fraud and abuse: 

n Provide annual training to the board of 

directors regarding changes in the law 

and their responsibility in overseeing the 

compliance program; 

n Review your current Code of Conduct and 

incorporate the FSG changes into your 

compliance program, 

n Ensure that annual risk assessments are 

done to identify areas of potential vulnerabilities 

by reviewing the OIG’s annual 

Work Plan and by monitoring articles 

published by your MAC to announce 

forthcoming prepayment reviews; 

n Ensure that the organization routinely 

checks the government exclusion lists for 

all current and prospective employees; 

n Ensure that providers and staff receive 

ongoing training; and 

n Audit medical record documentation and 

provide regular feedback to physicians. 

Conclusion 

Health care reform will take years to implement. 

HHS intends to aggressively expand 

their efforts to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. 

Compliance officers will need to carefully 

examine the many facets of PPACA. They will 

need to keep abreast of–and even participate 

in–the regulatory process. Assessing how 

these changes will impact the organization 

will be crucial. Compliance officers must 


take the lead and be proactive. The analysis 

of the potential impacts of health care reform 

and sound strategy will ensure that the 

organization is prepared for these changes. 

A comprehensive compliance program will 

always be the most effective tool in managing 

the regulatory landscape ahead. n 

1. See “Affordable Health Care for America Act; Preventing Waste, Fraud, 

and Abuse,” Fact Sheet Prepared by the House Committees on Ways 

and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Education and Labor; October 

29, 2009, available at http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/ 

publications/AHCAA-FRAUDABUSE-102909.pdf. 

2. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b); The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act $ 

10606 (Pub.L. No. 111-148)(2010), amending 18 U.S.C. § 24(a). 

3. PPACA § 6402. 

4. Id. at § 6402(h)(1). 

5. Id. at §§ 6402, 6403 and 6504. 

6. PPACA § 10606. 

7. The False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §3729. 

8. PPACA § 6402(d). 

9. Id. at § 6408. 

10. Id. at § 6401. 

11. PPACA at §6401 

12. Id. at § 6405(a) 

13. Id. at § 6402(a). 

14. Id. at § 6411(b). 

Be Sure to Get 

Your CHC CEUs 

Articles related to the quiz in this issue of 

Compliance Today: 

n Mobility disabilities: A technical 

assistance manual for health care 

providers—By David H. Ganz and 

Gary W. Herschman, page 8 

n The complexity of compliance basics: 

A CCO’s pursuit of knowledge—By 

H. Rebecca Ness, page 20 

n Federal medical record requests: Setting 

up a RAC and CERT response team— 

By Michael G. Calahan, page 39 

To obtain one CEU per quiz, go to www. 

hcca-info.org/quiz and select a quiz. 

Fill in your contact information, read 

the articles, and take the quiz online. Or, 

print and fax the completed form to CCB 

at 952/988-0146, or mail it to CCB at 

HCCA, 6500 Barrie Road, Suite 250, 

Minneapolis, MN 55435. Questions 

Please call us at 888/580-8373. 

Compliance Today readers taking the 

CEU quiz have one year from the 

published date of the CEU article to 

submit their completed quiz. 

December 2010 

35

December 2010 

36 



December 2010 

37

focus 

feature 

Federal medical record requests: 

Setting up a RAC & CERT Response Team 

By: Michael G. Calahan, PA, MBA 

December 2010 

38 

Editor’s note: Michael G. Calahan is currently the Director of Physician 

Services at Kforce Healthcare, Inc., working in the Washington, DC Metro 

area. He specializes in compliance, revenue cycle management, clinical 

documentation improvement, coding, and billing in the facility and physician 

arenas. He may be contacted by e-mail at mcalahan@kforce.com. 

There was no avoiding it: a federal RAC request for medical 

records (called an Additional Documentation Request 

or ADR) had arrived in the afternoon mail. The letter was 

passed around the office, starting with the mail clerk and then to 

the lead coder, next to the coding manager who propped it up on 

her monitor as a reminder to hand it off to the clinic director, until 

finally it ended up in the director’s inbox several days later. The director 

had known this was imminent, but did not anticipate having to 

handle the scenario today, while three key staff were out on vacation, 

the clinic physicians were busy with full schedules as usual, and her 

most trusted administrative assistant was fulfilling his last day of 

employment in the clinic. In a rush to get the request completed and 

returned (“out of sight, out of mind”), she hastily pulled the requested 

records herself, decided which medical record (MR) notes were to be 

copied, passed off the copying to the unit secretary and, within 30 

minutes, completed the entire task. She affixed a stamp to the return 

envelope and dropped the “audit package” into the outgoing mailbox. 

Whew, that was that! Or was it Let’s start at the beginning. 

Facilities and physician practices are inundated with requests for 

medical information of every nature: clinic visit notes, health insurance 

authorizations, managed care referrals, handicap parking certificates, 

forms to sign, forms to copy, forms to fax, etc. It is a never-ending cycle 

of administrative requests, all based on the foundation of the health care 

encounter: medical record (MR) documentation. Whether paper-based 

or in electronic form, MR documentation is critical to the long-established 

and far-reaching responsibilities of modern health care providers. 

Coincidentally, MR documentation is also the source used by oversight 

entities that work with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 

Services (CMS) to audit providers and ultimately approve or deny 

services, take back monies, suspend claims in pre-payment reviews, 

perform probe audits, levy fines, and even prosecute providers. In 

an arena where so much MR documentation is created, processed, 

and maintained, it is a surprise to find that judgments such as “no 

documentation was submitted,” “documentation was not received by 

the due date,” “missing documentation in support of services billed,” 

and/or “documentation does not indicate medical necessity” tend to 

be the most prevalent reasons for provider service denials and stern 

repayment demands. 

The demand for reviewing MR documentation is only set to increase. 

The high profile initiative called the Comprehensive Error Rate Testing 

(CERT) program oversees each Medicare Administrative Contactor’s 

(MAC’s) payment history and originates MR demands to providers. 

The MACs likewise perform pre-payment and post-payment reviews, 

requesting MR copies for everything from complicated inpatient stays 

to non-physician practitioner (NPP) office visits. More recently, the 

Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) initiatives have become a familiar 

part of the health care landscape. Providers should expect RAC 

requests for MRs to be a part of the norm going forward, with such 

requests being issued as often as every 45 days and reaching back to 

services provided as early as Oct. 1, 2007. The ceiling limits for MR 

requests are dependent on the type/size of the facility or physician 

practice (in volume of claims or in number of providers). All of these 

oversight programs promise to increase as the government tightens its 

grip on fraud, waste, and abuse. 

Unfortunately, the track record for success under these mounting 

documentation requests is less than stellar, if official reports by local 

MACs and the CERT bodies are correct. The RAC enterprise is 


ecognized now by the federal government as capable of causing and/or 

uncovering potential high-risk areas of organizational “vulnerability” 

because of the enormous quantities of MR demands set to be sent to 

providers. To this extent, responses to RAC requests have recently been 

addressed in part by CMS in an article via the Medicare Learning Network. 

1 Although it is addressed to inpatient hospital and skilled nursing 

providers, the article has implications and lessons for all providers. 

Addressing “RAC high dollar improper payment vulnerabilities,” CMS 

issued warnings that provider vulnerabilities lie in (a) non-compliance 

with timely submission of requested medical documentation and/or in 

reply to a RAC request that (b) insufficient documentation … did not 

justify services billed, [did not justify the] medically necessary and/or 

[were not] correctly coded/billed.” The situation can still be remedied, 

however. 

Providers must ensure that specific internal administrative structures 

or ADR response mechanisms are set up to process, track, and manage 

the numerous federal MR requests. Now, with the RACs gearing up 

for full-blown facility and physician medical necessity and complex 

reviews (thereby set to increase the number of MR requests), providers 

must take this opportunity to establish an internal MR request 

management system. 

How does the typical provider, whether a facility, clinic, or physician 

practice, set up such a system Establishing a simple but effective 

three-step approach to manage the requests is tantamount to success. 

The three steps are: 

n Establish straightforward, methodical protocols for the receipt, 

processing, tracking, and fulfillment of all official MR requests; 

n Appoint a flexible MR request “response team” to handle and manage 

these requests; and 

n Perform post-fulfillment “impact” analyses of each request’s outcome, 

reviewing the final adjudication of the cases audited to assess 

fiscal impact on clinical operations (e.g., improved documentation), 

technical processes (e.g., more accurate coding), as well as any negative 

impact on revenue. 

Establishing methodical protocols 

Whether set up via electronic health record (EHR) software (with 

automatic chart flagging/tracking functions) or via a paper-based system, 

oversight protocols should be established to respond to all official 

MR demands. Protocols should administer various aspects of the 

fulfillment process in a premeditated and thoughtful way, avoiding a 

pervasive reflexive response that might adversely influence staff when 

processing these MR requests. Such knee-jerk responses can cause 

personnel to fulfill the MR demands in a hurried manner (e.g., the 

opening example in this article) just to get them completed, perhaps 

overlooking critical pieces of documentation that might otherwise 

save the claims from being downcoded or denied with resultant repayment 

demands. The oversight protocols should include steps for: 

n receipt and logging of all official MR demands; 

n retrieval of charts and culling of pertinent date-of-service (DOS) 

information; 

n inspection and final verification of the information to be copied 

and sent; 

n copying the documents; and 

n mailing the requested information by certified means. 

An important consideration for facilities, clinics, and physician 

practices with multi-locations is centralization: Will this fulfillment 

process be centralized (working through one appointed MR request 

response team), or will there be a team in place at each of the facility 

locations Once the requests have been fulfilled, a plan of action for 

communicating audit results back to a central point within the health 

care system or within the multi-office physician practice might be 

essential for fiscal controls. 

A flexible MR request response team 

From any perspective, forming a MR request response team to exert 

control over federal MR demands simply reverberates with intelligence. 

Even in the smallest of physician practices, in which the physician 

would play an active role on the team, a highly effective team 

can be created. Four main appointments of a MR response team, with 

various assigned duties that can be mixed and matched, should be 

accomplished: 

n Clinic director or practice manager – responsible for overseeing 

the entire process and ensuring internal compliance as well as 

performing post-fulfillment analyses; 

n Administrative leader – responsible for ensuring all administrative 

personnel assigned to the team perform their functions and for 

performing final inspection and verification of all submitted audit 

packages; 

n Clinical leader – responsible for reviewing all culled clinical data to 

ensure appropriateness and accuracy (e.g., demonstration of medical 

necessity and inclusion of prior visit documentation influencing 

the date-of-service under audit, etc.,); and 

n Unit secretary, file clerk, or medical secretary – responsible for 

opening and logging the official MR demands from the mail, pulling 

charts, performing an initial round of culling the identified MR 



December 2010 

39

Managed Care 

Compliance Conference 

February 6–8, 2011 

Scottsdale, AZ | FireSky Resort 

HCCA’s Managed Care Compliance Conference provides essential 

information for individuals involved with the management of compliance 

at health plans. Plan to attend if you are a compliance professional from a 

health plan (all levels from officers to consultants), in-house and external 

counsel for a health plan, internal auditor from a health plan, regulatory 

compliance personnel, or managed care lawyer. 

learn more at www.hcca-managedcare-conference.org 

Improving Governance Practices 

Audit & 

Compliance 

committee conference 

February 7–8, 2011 | Scottsdale, AZ 

Learn more at 

www.auditcompliancecommittee.org 

This conference is designed for 

board members and members of 

a board audit and/or compliance 

committee of not-for-profit health 

care organizations. Compliance 

officers may attend with their 

board member(s). CEOs, CFOs, 

and other senior officers are also 

welcome to attend. 

The Audit & Compliance Committee Conference is jointly sponsored by the 

Health Care Compliance Association (HCCA) and the American Hospital 

Association’s (AHA) Center for Healthcare Governance 

December 2010 

40

Federal medical record requests: Setting up a RAC & CERT Response Team ...continued from page 39 

documents from the chart, routing the chart to the next level (i.e., 

a clinical leader for clinical data verification), and receiving, after 

final approval for copying and certified mailing, the various chart 

documents selected to fulfill the official MR request. This person, if 

he/she is responsible for opening/routing the practice mail, will also 

direct all post-fulfillment adjudication notices to the clinical director 

or practice manager for appropriate follow up. 

Obviously, if other persons are responsible for various duties along 

the way, then those persons would be injected into this process at the 

appropriate points. Alternates should be appointed in the case of staff 

vacations, absences, etc. This is a highly flexible arrangement of roles 

and responsibilities, and it can be constructed in many different ways, 

depending on the size, staffing, and physical location(s) of its various 

team members. 

decisions, which should be carried out if the encounters in question 

have been misjudged or assessed prematurely in some crucial way (e.g., 

specific documentation was not available and therefore was left out of 

the original audit package, a signature log or physician attestation is 

needed to authenticate the documents after-the-fact, etc.) The various 

audit types (e.g., CERT, RAC) will lumber under different assessment 

rules and appeal rights for the provider; the facility and practice leaders 

should be familiar with these rules and rights. Negative impact on 

revenue should be viewed with a critical eye and questions asked, such 

as: Are the MR requests resulting in denials with attached repayment 

demands for simple services that, if documented with higher quality 

levels or coded more accurately, would be approved and paid Opportunities 

for operational improvement and growth may not always be 

obvious, but even minor documentation and/or coding changes can 

potentially save the facility or practice thousands of dollars annually. 

Performing impact analyses 

Post-audit analysis of each case must be performed; it is essential that 

the facility, clinic, or physician practice leaders view each final ruling 

by the oversight entity (e.g., CERT, MAC or RAC) as an opportunity 

for growth and possible restructuring or clarification of duties. This 

can include necessary modifications in documentation (e.g., EHR 

training, documentation and/or dictation techniques, establishing 

process points to be followed, and/or enhancing data integrity/quality), 

coding education and fortification, improved billing standards, or 

all of these actions. This might also include opportunities to appeal the 

The ubiquitous and ever-growing number of federal MR requests sent 

to providers should be treated the same way an IRS tax audit would 

be treated: with great care, attention to detail, and inspection of all 

documents to be forwarded. Once the requested records have been 

mailed to the entity, providers should anticipate receipt of final results 

on every case and perform appropriate follow up actions to correct 

functional inadequacies in administration, clinical operations, or 

coding and billing. n 

1 CMS: Medical Learning Network: MLN Matters SE1024 “Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) Demonstration 

High-Risk Vulnerabilities – No Documentation or Insufficient Documentation Submitted” revised July 14, 

2010. Available at http://www.cms.gov/mlnmattersarticles/2010mman/itemdetail.aspitemid=CMS1237489. 

The Health Care Compliance 

Professional’s Manual 

With Annual Subscription Service 

• Hard-copy subscribers receive quarterly updates 

• Internet subscribers receive updates as soon as they are issued 

Published by CCH and HCCA Members: $369/year Non-members: $409/year 

The Health Care Compliance Professional’s Manual gives you all the tools you need to plan and execute a customized 

compliance program that meets federal standards. Available via print or the Internet, the Manual walks 

you through the entire process, start to finish, showing you how to draft compliance policies, build a strong 

compliance infrastructure in your organization, document your efforts, apply self-assessment techniques, 

create an effective education program, pinpoint areas of risk, conduct internal probes and much more. 

To order, visit the HCCA website at www.hcca-info.org, or call 888-580-8373. 


December 2010 

41

December 2010 

42 

Patient visits: 

Reforms increase 

Editor’s note: Angela Miller is President of 

Medical Auditing Solutions LLC. She may be 

contacted by telephone in Dallas at 972/459- 

1508 or by e-mail at angela@MedicalAuditing 

Solutions.com. 

Physician practices must prepare for 

a number of changes brought about 

by the health care reform law passed 

earlier this year. The following are four regulatory 

changes that physician practices need 

to consider: 

1. Physicians must see all Medicare patients 

(face to face) within 30 days prior to initial 

orders for durable medical equipment 

(DME) and home health agency (HHA) 

service and, in some cases, between 61-90 

days after the service is set up. 

2. Physicians must provide copies of medical 

records for services they order, or risk 

having their National Provider Identifier 

(NPI) number revoked for 12 months. 

3. Only a Medicare provider can order 

services covered by Medicare, for example 

DME, HHA, pharmacy, etc. 

4. All health care providers are required 

to have a seven-element compliance 

program. 

All of these changes are in the health care 

reform legislation 1 signed in March 2010, 

but the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 

Services (CMS) has not published the requirements 

yet. However, this article will provide 

the effective dates from the legislation. It does 

provider 

responsibilities 

By: Angela Miller, CHC 

take some time to get a rhythm and training 

synchronized in an office setting, so let’s 

start now. 

Providing medical records or NPI is shut off 

It would be to the physician’s benefit to 

provide a copy of the medical record at the 

time a referral is made, rather than waiting 

until Medicare or another provider requests 

it. It will save staff time. (Not what you want 

to hear, I know.) The physician’s office should 

obtain copies of hospital records that justify 

billing for services to patients in the hospital 

setting. The hospitals have not provided those 

records in past audits, and subsequently, the 

physician was dinged with an overpayment. 

Failure to provide records upon request for 

the services ordered will result in a revoked 

NPI number for a minimum of one year for 

physicians. This will impact Medicare and 

commercial payer contracts as well, because 

physicians must maintain good standing with 

Medicare to keep those contracts in many 

cases. This went into effect February 23, 2010. 

The penalty of a revoked NPI number may 

impact the hospital in the future. 

Some physician’s offices only fax these 

medical records and referral orders and don’t 

make phone calls. The referral order is already 

being faxed or “e-transmitted” to the servicing 

provider; the chart is typically there with the 

order being faxed. It will save the staff time 

to provide a fax copy of the chart notes and 

physician’s order at the time of the referral. 


Face-to-face requirements 

There is good news! Medicare will also 

require a face-to-face visit by the physician 

for all initial orders of DME, home health, 

and hospice. CMS requires a face-to-face 

within 30 days on some items now, so we 

may expect one within 30 days of initial order, 

across the board. Medicare currently requires 

some follow-up visits between 61 and 90 days 

(primarily for respiratory equipment) and 

annual renewal orders within 90 days prior 

to renewal of all services. This has not been 

required for all DME and all HHA orders, but 

with the Health Care Reform bill, it is. Back 

in the early 1990s, Medicare required an initial 

“date last seen” within 30 days, and it had 

to be provided on the Certificate of Medical 

Necessity (CMN), when most services required 

a CMN. So, the good news is that physicians 

get to increase their revenue through office 

visits prior to ordering or renewing services. 

Renewal is more applicable to DME than 

HHA, but physicians will want to see those 

patients periodically as well. At this point, 

every dollar you can add to the bottom line 

is a benefit. When CMS gives you lemons; 

make lemonade! This was effective January 1, 

2010. Some services already have a published 

requirement for face-to-face evaluations prior 

to order or “setup.” This will expand the current 

requirements to all DME, home health, 

and hospice initial setup and recertifications. 

Keep in mind, this includes existing patients 

who may have home health care, but now 

need a walker. A physician must meet face to 

face with the patient to order the walker. This 

also includes homebound patients as well, 

and CMS has not made any clarification as 

to how these patients will be handled for the 

face-to-face situation. No exceptions have 

been made at this point. 

Also, remember that every time a practitioner 

sees the patient, a review must be made of the

medication and services previously ordered protocol (which also includes repeat visits 

as part of the history and physical. The practitioner 

also has to document the patient’s well as full history and physical), can receive 

within a set time frame, based on disease as 

continued need for those medications or a 1%-2% annual bonus. This may not be a 

services. Medicare is looking for documentation 

of continued need in the chart notes past reimbursement cuts. 

large bonus, however, it will help replace the 

the initial order date. CMS wants to make 

sure the practitioner is managing the patient’s Electronic medical records requirements 

disease state and Medicare are not paying for EMR is an expensive dirty “word” for many 

services that are not needed. 

physicians; however, the EMR (if used and 

set up appropriately) can help them manage 

I never said the points were going to make all of these points automatically: 

sense. In the past, physicians may have called n The appointments can be scheduled at the 

in limited services for the patient without an time of visit. 

office visit, which does save Medicare money. n Appointment reminders can be automated. 

Check to see if the EMR has the 

We can hope that CMS will issue further 

clarification on this topic. 

capability to send voice mail messages to 

remind patients of their appointment one 

Ordering services for Medicare patients week and one day before the appointment. 

No more keeping the Medicare patient base This may be extra, but weigh costs against 

as cash patients and ordering any time for time for someone to run a report, make 

service, medication, etc., because Medicare the calls, leave a message, and repeat again. 

will no longer pay for those services if the n EMR systems can be set up to manage 

physician is not a Medicare provider. This disease states, but I have heard complaints 

became effective July 1, 2010. This will be about how cumbersome it is. 

managed and monitored via the National Plan n EMR systems can integrate fax receipt of 

and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES), lab work or download of labs and other 

NPI, and the Provider Enrollment, Chain records. Give it at least 6 months before 

and Ownership System (PECOS) database you give up. 

websites. CMS will not confirm that overpayments 

will not be assessed for orders by physicians 

who have not registered by July 1, 2010. $25K and going up. They all require commit- 

There are excellent systems starting around 

CMS has extended the deadline to January 3, ment, change, strategic conversion planning, 

2011; however, CMS is saying they could still and dedication! 

recoup paid claims between July 1, 2010 and 

January 3, 2011. It is critical to register in Conclusion 

PECOS as soon as possible. 

As you can see, many of these requirements 

go hand in hand. These new requirements 

Quality of Care bonus program 

should be part of the newly required 

All of these processes will help you with seven-element compliance program. The 

quality of care as well. Providers have an compliance program will be instrumental in 

opportunity for a Medicare and Medicaid keeping health care providers in compliance 

Quality Data Set annual bonus. Physicians with all the requirements discussed. The 

who are following disease management requirements may not always make sense; 


however, physicians have to operate within 

those guidelines to maintain a successful 

business. Unfortunately, complaining about 

it only makes us feel better, but the elephant 

is still in the room. The best strategy is to 

complain through constructive comments to 

your elected officials, while working toward 

implementation before the remaining “drop 

dead” effective dates are published. This will 

allow health care providers time to budget 

and plan as well as to perfect the office 

processes. n 

1 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Helpful Links 

You can reference the full Health Care 

Reform bill text at http://www.cbsnews. 

com/htdocs/pdf/Senate_health_care_ 

bill.pdf 

The amendments are at http://www. 

cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/House_reconciliation_package_031810.pdf 

A compliance program has been 

required for providers collecting $5 million 

or more per year in Medicaid funds 

collectively since 2006. More information 

is available at http://www.cms.gov/ 

smdl/downloads/SMD121306.pdf 

New York Office of Inspector General 

implemented state requirements 

for effective compliance program 

10/1/2009, available at http:// 

www.omig.state.ny.us/data/content/ 

view/79/1/ 

December 2010 

43

December 2010 

44 

Individual liability 

for health care fraud: 

Enforcement agencies 

raise the stakes 

Editor’s note: Gabriel L. Imperato is the Managing 

Partner of the Fort Lauderdale office of 

Broad and Cassel. He is certified as a specialist 

in health law and is a former member of the 

Board of Directors for the Health Care Compliance 

Association. Mr. Imperato represents individuals 

and organizations accused of criminal or 

civil health care fraud and handles compliance 

matters for health care organizations. He may be 

contacted by telephone at 954/745-5233 or by 

e-mail at gimperato@broadandcassel.com. 

The legacy of health care fraud 

enforcement has primarily targeted 

organizations for criminal, civil, 

and administrative liability for fraudulent 

and abusive practices. These enforcement 

efforts continue in all sectors of the health 

care industry; however, a trend in actions 

against individuals has surfaced in a number 

of recent cases. An increasing number of 

management, operational, and even legal 

personnel of organizations have been held 

individually accountable in direct enforcement 

actions or through assumed obligations 

under Corporate Integrity Agreements (CIA) 

with the Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

These developments more than adequately 

reflect what government officials have been 

saying for some time about holding individuals 

responsible and using it as a highly 

effective method to deter future health care 

fraud. This article will discuss several recent 

examples of enforcement actions that resulted 

By Gabriel L. Imperato, Esq., CHC 

in individual accountability for health care 

fraud against federal health programs. 

Individual accountability and recent CIAs 

In recent years, the government has ratcheted 

up its efforts to prosecute and prevent health 

care fraud. As a result, an increased number 

of health care organizations have entered into 

CIA’s. A CIA is the alternative to excluding 

a health care provider or supplier organization 

from participating in federal health 

programs. In September of 2009, Pfizer, Inc. 

(Pfizer) entered into a five-year CIA with the 

OIG-HHS concerning off-label promotion 

of several drugs, including Bextra. However, 

Pfizer’s CIA contains several requirements not 

previously seen in other CIA’s. The Pfizer CIA 

designates the type of authority which the 

chief compliance officer (CCO) must have 

and the specific responsibilities to be carried 

out by the CCO. The CIA requires the CCO 

to be a member of senior management and 

to report to the chief executive officer (CEO) 

of Pfizer. The CIA specifically prohibits the 

CCO from being subordinate to Pfizer’s 

General Counsel or chief financial officer 

(CFO). Furthermore, the CIA requires that 

an Audit Committee of the board of directors 

be established to meet quarterly and review 

the effectiveness of the CIA. Additionally, 

the CCO is required to be the chairman of 

the Compliance Committee, which must 

support the CCO in fulfilling duties under 

the CIA. The CCO must also have authority 

to report compliance matters directly to the 


Audit Committee of the board of directors 

at any time deemed appropriate. The CIA 

also explicitly requires the CCO to enforce 

practices, policies, and procedures to ensure 

compliance with federal health programs and 

Food and Drug Administration requirements 

and the obligations under the CIA. The 

CCO is also to monitor daily activities of the 

organization and to make quarterly reports 

to the Audit Committee and the board of 

directors of Pfizer. 

The terms of the CIA designate individual 

business unit managers and certain employees 

to monitor and oversee the compliance 

activities under the CIA and to certify compliance. 

The CIA requires these business unit 

employees to certify to specific statements 

that they have: 

n reviewed reports from an internal group 

within Pfizer formed to conduct promotional 

quality assessments; 

n reviewed summary reports of speaker 

programs, advisory boards, consultant 

payments, and travel and entertainment 

expenses; 

n reviewed sales compensation exclusion 

criteria; 

n reviewed corporate compliance group 

statistics, and also 

n that they are not aware of any violations of 

law, regulation, or of Pfizer policy, or the 

requirements of the CIA. 

Furthermore, the CIA requires that if there 

is an issue identified, any potential violations 

will be referred to the Corporate Compliance 

group or a member of the Pfizer Legal division 

for further review and follow up. 

In April of 2010, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals 

LP and AstraZeneca LP (AstraZeneca) also 

entered into a five-year CIA with OIG-HHS 

concerning the illegal marketing of a drug 

for off-label uses. AstraZeneca’s CIA contains

individual accountability provisions not 

unlike the provisions contained in Pfizer’s CIA 

from 2009. Section III of AstraZeneca’s CIA 

delineates which members of AstraZeneca’s 

management team have accountability and 

certification responsibilities under the CIA. 

The requirements of the AstraZeneca CIA 

parallel the Pfizer CIA regarding compliance 

officer authority and responsibilities, 

establishment of a Compliance Committee 

for US operations, and also detail specific 

compliance responsibilities for the board 

of directors. The AstraZeneca CIA requires 

certain business unit managers and employees 

to monitor, oversee, and certify compliance 

with the CIA and overall compliance by the 

organization. The CIA also obligates members 

of the board of directors to explicitly oversee 

the organization’s compliance program and 

to resolve and attest to the organization’s 

compliance effectiveness. 

Although the management accountability and 

certification requirements under the Pfizer 

and the AstraZeneca CIAs are not identical, 

the same underlying theme is present under 

each agreement: individual responsibility and 

accountability for passive or active noncompliance 

within the certifying employee’s area 

of authority. The message is clear—management 

and other high ranking employees who 

are responsible for compliance can no longer 

turn their backs on noncompliance within 

an organization. Corporate employees may 

well have to answer to the government for the 

noncompliance of their organizations. 

Individual liability for aiding in health care 

fraud 

In September of 2007, the government 

charged Christi Sulzbach, a Tenet Hospital 

System (Tenet) Compliance Officer and 

General Counsel, under the False Claims 

Act in a case in the Southern District of 

Florida. The allegations against Sulzbach 

were related to a CIA she signed on behalf of 

Tenet Healthcare in 1994, which remained 

in effect until 1999. The Complaint alleged 

that Sulzbach made a sworn declaration in a 

compliance report, which was prepared under 

her direction and authority, that Tenet was 

in conformity with its CIA, when in fact, 

Sulzbach had personal knowledge this was 

not the case. Sulzbach allegedly had reviewed 

several contracts between Tenet and physicians 

in which physicians’ salaries were based 

on the number of referrals they garnered for 

the facility, a clear violation of the Stark Law. 

Because Sulzbach signed off on the compliance 

report, and it was her responsibility to 

oversee compliance, and she allegedly acted 

in dereliction of her duties, the government 

filed a complaint against her for causing the 

submission of false claims. However, the 

government brought suit against Sulzbach ten 

years after her purported misdeeds. The court 

ultimately found that the government had 

enough knowledge earlier during its investigation 

of the matter to trigger the three year 

post-knowledge statute of limitations period. 

Thus, the court dismissed all claims against 

Sulzbach on her summary judgment motion 

because the government’s complaint against 

Sulzbach was untimely. Nevertheless, the case 

underscores the extent to which the Department 

of Justice will go to hold individuals 

accountable for health care fraud. 

OIG-HHS is not far behind and, in October 

of 2009, it entered into a settlement agreement 

with Michael Baskt, PhD to settle 

suspected violations of the Stark Law and 

Civil Monetary Penalties Law (CMPL). Baskt 

was accused of violating the federal Stark Law 

and CMPL in connection with his duties as 

CEO of Community Memorial Hospital in 

California. The accusations stemmed from 

Baskt’s personal involvement with arrangements 

that constituted kickbacks and resulted 


in false Medicare claims. Baskt denied all 

suspected violations in his settlement agreement, 

but agreed to pay $64,000 to resolve 

the action. 

And, OIG-HHS is also aggressively holding 

physicians accountable for violations of 

the Stark Law and Anti-kickback Statute. 

A recent settlement involving a physician’s 

relationship with two different medical device 

companies was premised on the contention 

that the consulting agreements between the 

physician and the medical device companies 

violated the federal Anti-kickback Statute. 

The merits of the OIG’s contention are debatable, 

but the settlement signals the intent to 

aggressively pursue physician liability, as well 

as organization liability, for violations of the 

self-referral and anti-kickback laws. 

Conclusion 

Although neither Baskt, Sulzbach, nor 

Montijo were ever held civilly or criminally 

liable, the allegations filed against each of 

them are important, because they reflect 

the government’s willingness to prosecute 

individuals who aid in the commission of 

health care fraud. No longer will those engaging 

in fraud be shielded from liability by the 

government’s tendency to focus accountability 

on health care organizations. As the 

government continues to step up its efforts 

to prevent health care fraud, individuals 

involved in compliance and supervision need 

to tread carefully. When individuals who are 

responsible for compliance sign their names 

on a document or become personally involved 

in illegal transactions, they can face civil and 

criminal liability, whether or not they were 

actively engaged in fraud. 

The author would like to acknowledge the 

contributions of Elizabeth Hertz, a summer 

associate in the Fort Lauderdale office of Broad 

and Cassel. 

December 2010 

45

Medicare 

beneficiaries remain 

vulnerable to 

Medicare Advantage 

marketing schemes 

By Mark Stiglitz 

of 2008 (MIPPA) in which it prohibited or 

limited certain sales and marketing activities 

by sales agents and organizations that offer 

MA plans. In general, MIPPA’s provisions 

were intended to ensure that sales agents 

enroll Medicare beneficiaries “based on the 

plan that best meets their health care needs.” 

Specifically, MIPPA required CMS, for 

example, to issue regulations that limit sales 

agent compensation. MIPPA also required 

sales agents to pass an annual marketing test 

and to be state licensed. 

December 2010 

46 

Editor’s Note: Mark Stiglitz is a Team Leader 

with the Office of Evaluation and Inspections 

(Region V), Office of Inspector General, U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services. The 

author may be contacted by telephone in Chicago 

at 312/353-9867 or by mail at 233 N. Michigan 

Ave., Suite 1390, Chicago, IL 60601. 

The Medicare program offers beneficiaries 

the option of enrolling in 

private insurance plans under 

Medicare Advantage (MA) or remaining in 

original (fee-for-service) Medicare. Between 

January 2008 and July 2010, enrollment in 

MA plans increased from just over 9 million 

to nearly 12 million, about of a quarter of all 

Medicare beneficiaries. 

Over several years, beneficiary complaints 

about inappropriate marketing practices used 

to enroll beneficiaries in MA plans reached 

Congress and the Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), the federal agency 

charged to oversee Medicare. These complaints 

included reports that sales agents had marketed 

MA plans without licenses, portrayed 

themselves as Medicare employees, or misled 

Medicare beneficiaries about MA plan benefits. 

Protecting enrollees from inappropriate 

sales agent marketing practices is critical to 

ensuring that Medicare beneficiaries enroll 

in plans that meet their health care needs. 

Most beneficiaries must remain enrolled in 

one plan throughout the year. Therefore, if 

beneficiaries enroll in plans that do not best 

meet their needs, they may have to remain in 

these plans until the following year. 

Background 

MA plans are health plans offered to 

Medicare beneficiaries by private companies 

approved by CMS. MA plans must cover 

all the services that original Medicare covers, 

except hospice care. In addition to these 

services, MA plans may offer extra coverage, 

such as vision, hearing, dental, or health and 

wellness programs. Most MA plans also 

include Medicare outpatient prescription 

drug coverage. 

MA plans may contract with independent 

sales agents or employ sales agents to 

market their plans to Medicare beneficiaries. 

Independent sales agents may market MA 

plans on their own, or as employees of field 

marketing organizations (FMO) that typically 

provide sales agents with enrollment leads 

and marketing assistance. MA plans pay 

independent sales agents directly or through 

an FMO. 

In July 2008, Congress enacted the Medicare 

Improvements for Patients and Providers Act 


OIG evaluation 

OIG analyzed six selected MA organizations 

(MA organizations are companies that offer 

one or more MA plans), focusing on their 

compliance with three MIPPA marketing 

provisions: (1) compensation of sales agents, 

(2) annual training and testing of sales 

agents, and (3) use of state‐licensed sales 

agents. These three provisions are critical to 

protecting Medicare beneficiaries, because 

they address sales agents’ financial motivation 

and their qualifications to market MA 

plans. OIG purposively selected the six MA 

organizations based on their size and the rate 

of marketing complaints they received. 1 

Beneficiaries remain vulnerable to sales 

agents’ marketing 

OIG found that the five MA organizations 

using independent sales agents (one MA organization 

did not use independent sales agents) 

had compensation practices that resulted in 

inappropriate financial incentives. These five 

MA organizations’ compensation practices 

may have led sales agents to enroll Medicare 

beneficiaries in MA plans that did not best 

meet beneficiaries’ health care needs. 

Three of the five MA organizations made 

payments to agents in excess of the amount 

approved by CMS. In addition, three of the 

five made payments to FMOs that may have

created inappropriate financial incentives to 

encourage sales agents to enroll Medicare 

beneficiaries in MA plans that paid more. 

One MA organization did both. This may 

have occurred because CMS regulations lack 

specificity concerning payments to FMOs. 

OIG also found that five of the six selected 

MA organizations did not ensure that all sales 

agents were qualified under CMS’s regulations. 

These MA organizations used unqualified 

sales agents who either had not passed 

the required annual marketing test or were 

not licensed at the time they took Medicare 

beneficiaries’ enrollment applications. 

In OIG’s random sample of 30 sales agents 

per organization, there were 12 unqualified 

sales agents, the majority of whom had not 

passed the annual marketing test. Each 

organization had systems in place to ensure 

that only qualified sales agents submitted 

enrollment applications. However, in most 

instances these systems failed to detect applications 

taken by unqualified sales agents in 

our sample. In addition, no MA organization 

had a policy to contact Medicare beneficiaries 

discovered to have been enrolled by an 

unqualified sales agent to ensure that they 

knew of their enrollment or understood the 

plans’ rules. MA plans are required to have 

systems in place to confirm that beneficiaries 

are aware of their enrollment and that they 

understand the plans’ rules. 

OIG recommendations to protect 

beneficiaries 

Each of the six selected MA organizations 

failed to follow at least one of the marketing 

regulations concerning sales agent compensation 

and qualifications. Such instances 

represent gaps in organizations’ oversight and 

implementation of the sales agent marketing 

rules. In addition, results from CMS’s 

oversight of marketing activities indicate that 

compliance concerns are not limited to the six 

selected MA organizations we reviewed. 

As a result, OIG recommended that CMS: 

n take appropriate actions regarding the 

specific instances of noncompliance documented 

in the report; 

n audit MA organizations and include an 

assessment of the vulnerabilities identified 

in the OIG report; 

n issue additional regulations concerning 

FMO payments; 

n issue regulations requiring MA organizations 

to contact all new enrollees to ensure 

that they understand plan rules; and 

n issue guidance clarifying that MA organizations 

should immediately terminate 

unlicensed sales agents upon discovery. 

In response to the final report, CMS provided 

an action plan describing how it will address 

all of OIG’s recommendations. In fact, CMS 

has sent warning letters or notices of noncompliance 

to five of the MA organizations 

identified in the OIG report. CMS stated 

that it recognizes the importance of taking 

Need a quick and cost-effective 

way to earn CEU credits 

Want the latest news on breaking 

issues and best practices 

All of this from the convenience 

of your own office 

the appropriate compliance and enforcement 

actions against sales agents who inappropriately 

market to Medicare beneficiaries. n 

1. The OIG report, Beneficiaries Remain Vulnerable to Sales Agents’ 

Marketing of Medicare Advantage Plans, OEI-05-09-00070, can be 

found on the OIG Web site at http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei- 

05-09-00070.pdf. 

The complexity of compliance basics: A CCO’s pursuit 

of knowledge ...continued from page 23 

An effective compliance program promotes 

the proper and ethical manner of conducting 

the business of health care. While mastering 

the complexity of compliance basics, you may 

feel mired in the tedious details of the regulatory 

environment. However, remember that 

compliance is a profession that focuses on 

critical values, and you are contributing to the 

mission of high-quality patient care delivery 

by facilitating an organizational culture that 

is grounded in ethical behavior. The profile of 

today’s accomplished corporate compliance 

officer is truly a profession of honor. n 

1 Federal Sentencing Guidelines §8B2.1(a) (2) 

2 Federal Register Vol. 63, No. 35, Feb. 23, 1998, 8987 

3 Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 19 Jan. 31, 2005, 4859 

4 www.oig.hhs.gov/publications 

5 Compliance Today, Volume Twelve, Number Eight, August 2010 

6 Thomas Davenport and Laurence Prusak: Working Knowledge: How 

Organizations Manage What They Know (Boston: Harvard Business 

School Press, 1998, 2000). 

Try one of HCCA’s 

upcoming Web 

Conferences, and 

earn 1.2 CEU credits. 

It doesn’t get any easier. 

learn more about 

upcoming web 

conferences and 

register at 

www.hcca-info.org/ 

webconferences 


TryWebConf_quarterpage_CTad.indd 1 

7/8/2010 9:15:55 AM 

December 2010 

47

HCCA Recognizes and Thanks Its Corporate Members 

H 

HAYES 

MANAGEMENT 

CONSULTING 

HealthNow 

HealthNow New York Inc. 

Liberty 

® 

December 2010 

48 


New HCCA Members 

n Coquette O’Rourke, Wichita Clinic, PA 

Illinois 

n Deborah Bielanski, Norwegian American 

Hospital 

n Ellen M. Bower, Southern Illinois Healthcare 

n Joan Davis, Greenville Regional Hospital 

n Lee Ehrlichman, LifeWatch Services, Inc 

n Cheryl Felchner, HSHS Medical Group 

n Dinita S. Galvez, Carle Foundation Hospital 

n Linda M. Gonia, OSF Healthcare System 

n Sheryl Y. Head, SwedishAmerican Health 

System 

n Gregg F. McAllister, Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services 

n Rebecca L. Morgan-Boyd, Carle Foundation 

Hospital 

n Wendy Neuman, McHenry County Mental 

Health Board 

n Susan O’Neill, Tenet 

n Gregory Pesely, OSF Healthcare System 

Indiana 

n Loretta E. Babbitt, Health Venture Management 

n Mary Kopp, Clarian Health Partners 

Iowa 

n Caroline Giddings, Mercy Medical Center 

Kansas 

n Jean C. Dean, Trego County Lemke Memorial 

Hospital 

Kentucky 

n Aleetha Ellis, Fresenius Medical Care North 

America 

n Frances Meserve, Hospice of Western Kentucky 

Louisiana 

n Byron Johnson, Kohler HealthCare Consulting 

n Stacy Perron, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of 

Louisiana 

Maine 

n Douglas Jennings, Jennings Law Office 

n Megan M. Rochelo, Univ of New England 

n Jennifer Sweet, Athenahealth, Inc. 

n Jan Trott, Maine Medical Center Research Inst 

Maryland 

n Merri-Ellen James, CMS 

n Bobbie Knickman, CMS 

n Lynn Merritt-Nixon, CMS 

n Judi L. Olinger, Humanim 

Massachusetts 

n Eileen Beaulieu, Milton Hospital 

n Fran Helms, Pro Sports Therapy 

n Connie Sexton Herbstman, CMS 

n Robin Morin, HealthAlliance Hospitals, Inc 

Michigan 

n Ryan Ruzziconi, Diplomat Specialty Pharmacy 

Minnesota 

n Michelle Dugas, ActivStyle, Inc. 

n Lisa Howard, Amethyst Consulting Services 

n Karen Matz, UMPhysicians 

n Shirley Qual, United Health 

n Tammy J. Ree, CHAN Healthcare Auditors 

n Christina Rich, Medtronic, Inc 

n Eric Riensche, Felhaber Larson Fenlon & Vogt 

n Maggie Weyrens, UCare 

Mississippi 

n Christy E. Roberts, Georgia Regional Health 

System 

Missouri 

n Denise Berger, Des Peres Hospital 

n Kathy M. Crites, BJC HealthCare 

n Keith Daniels, St John’s Hospital - Aurora 

n Regina Everett, Grace Hill Neighborhood 

Health Centers 

n David Feess, Liberty Hospital 

n Mary Lee Harlan-Newberry, University of 

Missouri Health Care System 

n Katherine Hartman, Heartland Health 

n Kathleen M. Radcliff, Hedrick Medical Center 

n Homer G. Robinson, Barnes-Jewish Hospital 

n Michael W. Wardlow, St. John’s Regional 

Medical Center 


Thank You 

To the more than 1,670 attendees of the Compliance Institute 

more than 850 attendees of HCCA’s other National Conferences 

more than 670 attendees of Compliance Academies 

more than 1,450 participants in our Regional Conferences 

more than 115 attendees at both the Privacy and Research Academies 

more than 1,690 participants in our Web Conferences 

more than 6,700 HCCAnet members 

more than 4,200 LinkedIn members 

more than 11,000 Twitter followers 

more than 500 Facebook fans 

And, most of all, thank you to our more than 6,700 HCCA members 

for helping advance the Health Care Compliance and Ethics profession in 2010. 

We look forward to serving you in 2011 and for many more years to come. 


December 2010 

49

New Members ...continued from page 49 

Montana 

n Julie Ouzts, Intermountain Children’s Home 

Nebraska 

n Louise A. Notson 

Nevada 

n Alice Wong, Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center 

New Hampshire 

n Jean Courteau, Littleton Regional Hospital 

n Joyce McCormick, Catholic Medical Center 

n Erin L. Pettigrew, Core Physicians 

New Jersey 

n Tina M. Adams, Meridian Health 

n Garineh Dovletian, The Medicines Company 

n Susan Torok-Rood, Univ of Medicine & 

Dentistry of NJ 

New York 

n Inga H. Back, Oswego County Health Dept 

n Junior Bazzey, NYU College of Dentistry & 

Nursing 

n Jacqueline Bravo, The Brooklyn Hospital Center 

n Alex Chang, Columbia Univ Medical Center 

n Jane F. Collins, CVPH Medical Center 

n Nicole Downer, City of New York 

n Necia Doyon, Cobleskill Regional Hospital 

n George Fatoush, MediSys Health Network 

n Frances Gardner 

n Kathleen Owens, ENT & Allergy Associates LLP 

n Lynn Reno, ARCS 

n Ann Rooney, County of Onondaga 

n James Shannon, Wilson Elser Moskowitz 

Edelman & Dicker LLP 

n Daniella Volcy, Evelyn Douglin Center 

Ohio 

n Jeanine Fisher, Licking Memorial Health System 

n Christina Laskovski, Summa Health Systems 

Oregon 

n Laurinda S. Andrist, Oregon Imaging Centers 

n Beth Lori, Pacific Retirement Services, Inc. 

Pennsylvania 

n Dana A. Borghi, Mercy Health System 

n Thompson Boyd, Hahnemann Univ Hospital 

n Ellen Capone, Children’s Hosp of Philadelphia 

n Stacey Carr, St. Joseph Medical Center 

n Kevin Dill, Pepper Hamilton, LLP 

n Rodney Farley, LW Consulting 

n Paul Flanagan, Hahnemann Univ Hospital 

n Robert A. Gongaware, Indiana Regional 

Medical Center 

n Cheryl A. Kettinger, Magee Rehab Hospital 

n Philip Munkacsy, Elan Pharmaceuticals Inc 

n Lisa Schorr, Wesley Spectrum Services 

n Jay Stollak, Elan Pharmaceuticals 

n Catherine T. Sullivan, Integrity First Consulting 

Rhode Island 

n Kara Butler, Quality Partners of Rhode Island 

South Carolina 

n Hunter Kome, Oconee Medical Center 

Tennessee 

n Adam C. Baggett, Tract Manager, Inc 

n Rick Diaz, Psychiatric Solutions, Inc. 

n Cheryl M. Fairley, Memorial Health Partners 

n Sara E. Hall, Meditract Inc/Tract Manager 

n Kmily Manns, Tenet 

n Vicki Moody, State of Franklin Healthcare 

Associates 

n Katy J. Thomas, Tract Manager 

Texas 

n Christine Ackerson, Baylor Health Care System 

n Vanessa Benavides, Tenet Healthcare 

n Michelle Castro, Doctors Hospital at White 

Rock Lake 

n Russell N. Fail, Baptist Healthcare System 

n Joan Marine 

Vermont 

n Susan Purcell Montiel, Southwestern Vermont 

Healthcare 

Virginia 

n Laura Bracis, Inova Health System 

n Thomas Coker, Georgetown University Hospital 

n Kristin Murphy, Inova Health System 

Washington 

n Michael G. Huppe, Kadlec Clinic 

n Jennifer Rogalla, Health Care Data 

Management Government Services 

n Michelle Solomon 

West Virginia 

n Terri Bonasso, Fairmont General Hospital 

Wisconsin 

n Pamela Brunner 

n Shawn M. Halcsik, Evergreen Rehabilitation 

n Jane M. Quinn, HospiceCare Inc 

Switzerland 

n Tamara Tubin, CareFusion Switzerland 317 

SARL n 

Update Your HIPAA Training 

with Coastal Training Technologies’ employee training 

DVDS, newly updated to cover mandates of the Health 

Information for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) 

Act. 

Each video is less than 20 minutes, 

and comes with 10 participant handbooks to 

test comprehension. 

To order, visit the HCCA 

website at www.hcca-info.org, or call 

888-580-8373. 

December 2010 

50 


• Internal Audit 

• Litigation Support 

• Denials Management 

• Compliance Consulting 

McBee Associates’ uncompromising commitment to compliance with health care policy and 

regulations is an integral part of all phases of client engagements. The firm helps clients establish, 

update, and review compliance programs to ensure regulatory, financial, and operational integrity. 

McBee Associates believes that compliance is good business. 

McBee Associates is your total solution firm. 

Uncompromising 

Commitment to 

Compliance 

Performance. Profitability. Partnership. 

Contact Frank Smith 

800.767.6203 


December 2010 

51

HCCA’s 2011 events 

HCCA offers first-class education, resources, and networking opportunities for everyone 

in the health care compliance field. Whatever your focus, HCCA has a conference for you. 

NatioNal CoNfereNCes 

Managed Care 


February 6–8 | Scottsdale, AZ 

Audit & Compliance 

Committee Conference 

February 7–8 | Scottsdale, AZ 

Compliance Institute 

April 10–13 | Orlando, FL 

Research Compliance 

Conference 

June 12–15 | Austin, TX 

Physician Practice/Clinic 


October 16–18 | Philadelphia, PA 

DAtes AnD loCAtions 

Are subjeCt to CHAnge. 

for upDAtes, visit 

www.hcca-info.org 

BasiC CompliaNCe aCademies 

February 7–10 

San Francisco, CA 

March 14–17 

San Antonio, TX 

June 6–9 

Scottsdale, AZ 

August 8–11 

New York, NY 

september 19–22 

Chicago, IL 

October 24–27 

Las Vegas, NV 

november 14–17 

Orlando, FL 

December 5–8 

San Diego, CA 

researCH 


January 31—February 3 


August 15–18 

Las Vegas, NV 

HealtH Care privaCy 


March 28–31 

Orlando, FL 

October 3–6 


WeB CoNfereNCes 

Explore current hot topics for compliance 

professionals with instant and up‐to‐date 

education from the convenience of 

your own office. New conferences are 

announced regularly, and prior sessions are 

available for purchase on CD‐ROM. Visit 

www.hcca‐info.org for the latest updates. 

regioNal CoNfereNCes 

southeast 

January 21 | Atlanta, GA 

south Atlantic 

January 28 | Orlando, FL 

southwest 

February 18 | Dallas, TX 

Alaska 

February 24–25 | Anchorage, AK 

Upper north Central 

May 6 | Columbus, OH 

Upper northeast 

May 20 | New York, NY 

Pacific northwest 

June 10 | Seattle, WA 

West Coast 

June 17 | Los Angeles, CA 

new england 

September 9 • Boston, MA 

Upper Midwest 

September 16 • Minneapolis, MN 

Midwest 

September 23 • Kansas City, KS 

north Central 

October 3 • Indianapolis, IN 

east Central 

October 14 • Pittsburgh, PA 

Hawaii 

October 21 • Honolulu, HI 

Mountain 

October 28 • Denver, CO 

Mid Central 

November 4 • Louisville, KY 

south Central 

November 11 • Nashville, TN 

Desert southwest 

November 18 • Phoenix, A

Steven Baruch - Health Care Compliance Association

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?