Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Commission Briefing
October 12, 2010
Study Mandate
HJR 127 (2010 Session)
• JLARC to study & describe nature & extent of
fraud, waste, abuse, & inefficiency in Medicaid
• Identify programs in Virginia & other states that have
reduced these activities
• Compare nature & scope of these activities in Virginia
with other states
JLARC 2
Research Activities
• Interviews
• State agency staff
JLARC 3
In Brief
JLARC 4
In This Presentation
Background
Improper Payments & Blocked Claims
Recipient Eligibility Determinations
Recipient Fraud
Provider Enrollment
Improper Payments Detection
Provider Fraud
Potential Opportunities
JLARC 5
Medicaid Is Virginia’s
Fastest Growing Program
• Medicaid accounted for 27% of Virginia’s entire
budget growth from FY 2001 - 2010
• Second largest program in Virginia’s budget
• $4.8 billion in FY 09
JLARC 6
Medicaid Is a Joint
Federal-State Program
• States have some flexibility within broad federal
guidelines
• Department of Medical Assistance Services (DMAS)
can set eligibility standards, service provision,
payment rates
• Federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services (CMS) typically pays 50% of cost
• Recently, federal share has been 61%
JLARC 7
Expenses Vary by Type of Recipient
JLARC 8
Fee-for-Service Recipients Are
Typically More Costly
• Recipients enroll in fee-for-service program or
managed care organization (MCO)
• Fee-for-service represents 70% of cost but only 35%
of all recipients
• Payments & enrollment are shifting toward MCOs
JLARC 9
Waste, Inefficiency, Fraud & Abuse Are
Examples of Improper Payments
• Fraud & abuse are both intentional
• But in cases of abuse, services were actually provided
JLARC 11
Program Integrity Process Is Designed to
Reduce Improper Payments
JLARC 12
Several Agencies Are Involved in
Program Integrity
• DMAS enrolls providers, reviews claims, & audits
providers & recipients
• State & local Dept. of Social Services (DSS)
enroll recipients & investigate recipient fraud
• Potential fraud is referred to
• Providers: Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control
Unit (MFCU)
• Recipients: Commonwealth’s Attorney
JLARC 13
Program Integrity Responsibilities Are
Dispersed Among Several Agencies
U.S. OIG CMS
Attorneys
VDH
MFCU DMAS DSS DHP
DBHDS
Common-
wealth’s
Contractors Attorneys
Local DSS
MCOs
Circuit or
District
Courts
JLARC 14
Federal Legislation Has Added New
Program Integrity Responsibilities
JLARC 15
Federal Legislation Has Added New
Program Integrity Responsibilities
JLARC 16
In This Presentation
Background
Improper Payments & Blocked Claims
Recipient Eligibility Determinations
Recipient Fraud
Provider Enrollment
Improper Payments Detection
Provider Fraud
Potential Opportunities
JLARC 17
Finding
JLARC 18
52% of Improper Payments
Resulted From Fraud
Error
$18,817,492
Fraud
$20,220,016
FY 2009 Data
JLARC 19
87% of Non-Fraudulent Improper Payments
Came From Provider Claim Errors
Recipient Error
$2,384,906
(13%)
Provider Error
$16,326,433
(87%)
FY 2009 Data
JLARC 20
Avoided Costs Exceed Overpayments
Resulting From Fraud & Error
Identified Fraud
$20,220,016
Avoided Costs
$47,897,103
Identified Error
$18,711,339
FY 2009 Data
JLARC 21
In This Presentation
Background
Improper Payments & Blocked Claims
Recipient Eligibility Determinations
Recipient Fraud
Provider Enrollment
Improper Payments Detection
Provider Fraud
Potential Opportunities
JLARC 22
Number of Recipients Increased 10%
(FY 2005-09)
JLARC 23
Local DSS Offices Determine
Medicaid Eligibility
• Applicants provide most information
• DSS workers verify information & determine
eligibility using electronic & manual processes
• DSS must rely on other organizations, which maintain
most databases
• Eligibility determination process is very complex
JLARC 24
Manual Process Used by Local DSS
Offices Can Lead to Errors
JLARC 25
DSS’s Central & Regional Offices
Oversee & Guide Local Staff
• Rules & processes used by local DSS offices are
in Medicaid manual maintained by State DSS
• Regional DSS offices review local compliance
with program rules & assess performance
JLARC 26
Finding
JLARC 27
Federal Review Found Caseworker
Error Leads to Improper Payments
• Payment Error Rate Measurement program
• Review of 17 other states shows eligibility error results
from caseworker error
• 22% of all improper payments (federal FY 2008)
JLARC 28
Virginia Reviews Suggest Eligibility
Error Poses Financial Risk
• Federal Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control
(MEQC) reviews
• Conducted by DSS & DMAS
JLARC 29
MEQC Reviews Should Assess
Performance of Local DSS Offices
• Number & type of errors may vary by locality
• But samples are too small to calculate local error rates
JLARC 30
Recommendation
JLARC 31
Untimely Eligibility Redeterminations
Likely Cause Some Improper Payments
• Each recipient’s Medicaid eligibility must be
redetermined annually
• In FY 2009, 94.5% were on time statewide
JLARC 32
Recommendation
JLARC 33
In This Presentation
Background
Improper Payments & Blocked Claims
Recipient Eligibility Determinations
Recipient Fraud
Provider Enrollment
Improper Payments Detection
Provider Fraud
Potential Opportunities
JLARC 34
Interagency Agreement Defines Which
Cases Are Investigated by DMAS & DSS
JLARC 35
Extent of Local & State Support May
Affect Extent of Fraud Control
• Local support & emphasis varies
• 13 local DSS offices did not submit fraud control plans
JLARC 36
Finding
JLARC 37
Fraud Control Efforts Vary Among the
120 Local DSS Offices (FY 2009)
• 103 local DSS offices referred cases to DMAS
• 83 local DSS offices also investigated cases
• 23 offices then referred cases to Commonwealth’s
Attorneys
JLARC 38
Potential Increases in Fraud Control if All
Local DSS Offices Were Equally Active
Number of Cases
JLARC 39
Financial Incentive to Investigate
Fraud in SNAP but Not Medicaid
• Local DSS offices can keep 25-35% of funds
recovered from SNAP fraud
JLARC 40
Number of Medicaid Cases Investigated
Is Disproportionally Low (FY 2009)
Enrollment Cases
SNAP 976,430 9,921
JLARC 41
Recommendation
JLARC 42
Finding
JLARC 43
DMAS Fraud Investigators Use Defined
Process but Report Limited Resources
• 7,339 referrals in FY 09
• 68% from local DSS offices
JLARC 44
Less Than 2% of Referrals to DMAS
Led to Conviction of Recipient Fraud
• From FY 2005-09, DMAS forwarded 172 cases to
Commonwealth’s Attorneys
• 124 were accepted for prosecution
• 100 led to a conviction
JLARC 45
Finding
JLARC 46
Most Improper Payments Were
Addressed Administratively
• $10.5 M sought by DMAS via administrative
recovery
• Up to $1.9 M in fraud prosecuted by
Commonwealth’s Attorneys
• Awards of $568,398 from DMAS referrals
• Potential awards of $1.3 M from local DSS referrals
JLARC 47
In This Presentation
Background
Improper Payments & Blocked Claims
Recipient Eligibility Determinations
Recipient Fraud
Provider Enrollment
Improper Payments Detection
Provider Fraud
Potential Opportunities
JLARC 48
Number of Providers Increased 27%
(FY 2005-09)
JLARC 49
Finding
JLARC 50
Most Providers in Fee-for-Service Program
Meet Medicaid Enrollment Criteria
JLARC 51
DMAS Relies on Other Entities to
Perform Provider Enrollment Activities
• Licensing & certification handled by State
agencies & other entities
• Contractor performs most provider enrollment
activities
• Handles 240 applications a week, on average
(FY 2008-10)
• Reviews self-reported information plus State & federal
databases
JLARC 52
Federal Database Lists 1,080 Virginia
Providers Banned From Medicaid
• List of Excluded Individuals/Entities database
• 71% banned because of suspended or revoked
medical license
JLARC 53
Example: One Virginia Provider
Banned From Medicaid for 25 Years
A rehab facility billed Medicaid for ineligible
recipients. The owner was ordered to pay $2.6 M
in restitution & sentenced to 13 years’
imprisonment.
JLARC 54
Several Aspects of Provider Enrollment
Process Merit Further Review
• DMAS does not verify physical presence
• Only checks mailing address
JLARC 55
In This Presentation
Background
Improper Payments & Blocked Claims
Recipient Eligibility Determinations
Recipient Fraud
Provider Enrollment
Improper Payments Detection
Provider Fraud
Potential Opportunities
JLARC 56
DMAS Processed 35 Million Claims
in FY 2009
• Total Cost Was $5.04 Billion
• Grew 24% since FY 2005
• 12% of Virginia’s State budget
JLARC 57
Claims Are Submitted by Providers &
Managed Care Organizations (MCOs)
% of Claims % of Cost
MCOs
MCOs
(21%)
(27%)
Fee-for-Service Fee-for-Service
Providers Providers
(79%) (72%)
JLARC 58
Prior Authorization Prevents
Inappropriate Fee-for-Service Claims
• Reviews intended to ensure services are
medically necessary
• Only certain services are reviewed
• DMAS uses contractors & other State agencies to
perform most reviews
JLARC 59
Provider Claims Processed to Ensure
Compliance With Regulations & Policy
JLARC 60
Change to Virginia Public Procurement Act
Would Allow More Pre-Payment Reviews
JLARC 61
More Pre-Payment Reviews Could
Lead to More Avoided Costs
• Indiana’s use of pre-payment reviews reportedly
avoided costs of $4.5 million (FY 2005-07)
• Triggered if earlier audits indicated fraud or error
JLARC 62
Recommendation
JLARC 63
Post-payment Reviews Intended
to Identify Improper Payments
• Provider audits examine sample of paid fee-for-
service claims
• Audit plan based on assessing risk posed by different
provider types
• Data analysis then finds “outliers” for review
• Fee-for-service claims data are reviewed to find
providers with irregular claims
JLARC 64
Improper Payments Detection Could Be
Improved if MCO Encounter Data Were Used
JLARC 65
Finding
JLARC 66
Pre-payment Reviews Avoided Costs
of $38 Million in FY 2009
• Prior authorization avoided $26 M (FY 09)
• Total avoided costs of $133 M (FY 2008-10)
JLARC 67
Provider Audits Identified $7.7 Million
in Overpayments in FY 2009
• Total overpayments of $34 M (FY 2005-09)
• $20,000 in identified overpayments per audit
JLARC 68
Findings
JLARC 69
Federal Review Suggests Some
Sampled Claims Were Paid in Error
• Payment Error Rate Measurement review
• Sampled federal FY 2006 claims
• Suggests DMAS does not find all error & fraud
JLARC 70
Return on Investment Suggests New
Resources Would Be Beneficial
• Audits by Program Integrity Division staff
identified $2.62 for every $1 spent (FY 09)
• Contract auditors had average return of $1.76 for
every $1 spent
• Does not reflect actual recoveries or collections
of improper payments
• Like other State agencies, DMAS does not regularly
track its collections rate
JLARC 71
In This Presentation
Background
Improper Payments & Blocked Claims
Recipient Eligibility Determinations
Recipient Fraud
Provider Enrollment
Improper Payments Detection
Provider Fraud
Potential Opportunities
JLARC 72
Medicaid Fraud Control Unit
Investigates Potential Fraud & Abuse
• Statute directs MFCU to “conduct audits and
investigations of providers”
• Created in 1982
• Funded through federal & special funds
JLARC 73
85 Convictions Resulted From Cases in
Which MFCU Participated (FY 2005-09)
• Most common convictions are home health
(28%) & pharmaceutical manufacturers (21%)
• 71% of cases tried in federal courts
JLARC 74
Finding
JLARC 75
MFCU Reports $706 Million Recovered
From Its Cases (FY 2005-09)
JLARC 76
Purdue OxyContin Case Accounts for
90% of All Recoveries (FY 2005-09)
• $634 M awarded to federal & state governments
and private parties
State Police $ 44 M
MFCU $ 40 M
DHP $ 20 M
DMAS $ 1 M (VA share of Medicaid fraud)
Total to Virginia $105 M
JLARC 77
In This Presentation
Background
Improper Payments & Blocked Claims
Recipient Eligibility Determinations
Recipient Fraud
Provider Enrollment
Improper Payments Detection
Provider Fraud
Potential Opportunities
JLARC 78
Potential Opportunities to Further
Reduce Fraud and Error
• Additional review needed of new & previously
noted issues
• New issues include
• Improved coordination between agencies
• DMAS’s oversight of MCOs & other contractors
• Use of additional program integrity activities from
other states
• Potential creation of Medicaid Inspector General
JLARC 79
Key Findings
JLARC 80
JLARC Staff for This Report
JLARC 81