The New “Seventh Element” of Compliance: Screening and Evaluating Employee Suitability!


Co-Founder, Exclusion Screening, Element of ComplianceThe recently issued Resource Guide for Measuring Compliance Program Effectiveness, reconfigures the traditional formulation of the “Seven Elements of an Effective Compliance Program by making the “Screening and Evaluation of Employees, Physicians, Vendors and other Agents” an element unto itself – or the new “Seventh Element of Compliance!” The Resource Guide, a product of roundtable discussions by staff members of the Office of Inspector General and compliance professionals and prepared under the auspices of the Health Care Compliance Association (HCCA), serves to once again underscore the critical role of exclusion screening and background checks in compliance

The Importance of the Hiring Process in Health Care

Employee suitability is critically important in healthcare because most of a provider’s operational costs, and almost all of his risks, are directly related to his employees. Whereas most industries are trying to respond to a wide range of risks over which they have little or no forewarning or control (for example, the impact of weather, the availability of supplies or critical equipment, or the failure of equipment they neither own or operate), the majority of risks to health care providers are mostly known and directly related to employee conduct or misconduct (medical malpractice, patient safety, financial fraud, drug diversion, regulatory violations, data and record security, etc.)

The hiring process in healthcare also important because of the value that employees can provide for an organization. “Good” employees enhance the value of organizations; they perceive potential risk and report or fix it, they provide important modeling for new employees, they care for patients in a way that engenders loyalty, they pitch-in, they are honest and show up for work! And so on. Thus, while employees are often the source of loss and cost – they can also represent a sustainable resource that gives an organization a competitive advantage. Viewed in this context, the importance of the hiring process and determining the suitability of employees to a provider’s compliance program becomes clearer still.

Exclusion Screening and Background Checks

An important aspect of determining an applicants overall suitability is “screening” them with Federal and State Exclusion and Sanction Lists. The Resource Guide holds forth that screening should be accomplished upon hire and monthly thereafter, and the importance of thorough screening cannot be overstated as most exclusions are imposed as a result of conduct connected to fraud, patient abuse or neglect, or the sale or abuse of drugs or fraud. Further, regardless of “why” an OIG Exclusion is imposed, persons or entities excluded from Federal Health Care Programs are deemed as a matter of administrative law to “pose unacceptable risks to patient safety and/or to the financial integrity of government programs.”

Exclusion Violation Enforcement

Federal Health Care Programs will not pay for any items or services furnished or provided, directly or indirectly, by an excluded individual or entity. This broad “payment prohibition,” which can extend even to volunteers, renders anyone who is excluded “radioactive“ when it comes to health care. Any claim connected to an excluded person is a potential overpayments, employing or contracting with an excluded person can result in the imposition of civil money penalties, and there have even been False Claims Act cases brought against providers that have used excluded persons.

The OIG signaled that enforcement of exclusion violation was going to be an agency priority in 2013 when it issued its “Updated Special Advisory Bulletin on the Effect of Exclusion from Participation in Federal Health Care Programs” and revised the “Self-Disclosure Protocol.” Since that time, it has created a special unit tasked with exclusion enforcement as a priority and sought to expand its exclusion authority on several occasions.

Conclusion

The risks and benefits associated with the hiring process are significant; a fact emphasized all the more by the addition of “Screening and Evaluation of Employees, Physicians, Vendors and other Agents” as the new 7th Element for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Compliance Plans. Providers are urged to do thorough screening as part of their hiring process and to take all possible actions toward ensuring a positive work force, and to avail themselves of the assistance of reputable vendors to assist them in this process.

Are you taking the necessary precautions to ensure you are not working with an excluded entity? We know it can be difficult to screen every Federal and State exclusion list. Call Exclusion Screening at 1-800-294-0952 or fill out the form below to hear about our cost-effective solution and for a free quote and assessment of your needs.



 

About the Author
Paul Weidenfeld is a long time health care lawyer who has specialized in litigation arising out or, or relating to healthcare fraud and the False Claims Act. A former federal prosecutor and National Health Care Fraud Coordinator for the Department of Justice, Paul is a frequent speaker who has earned recognition both as a Federal Prosecutor and as a member of the private bar.  Paul is also a co-founder of Exclusion Screening, LLC, a company that offers providers a simple, cost effective way to meet their exclusion screening obligations.

Auditing a Compliance Hotline Provider

Compliance Hotline Auditing

Under the Affordable Care Act, medical service providers must establish compliance programs to enroll in the Federal health care programs. HHS has neither issued regulations on the core requirements of these compliance plans nor set a date for mandatory compliance. Providers, however, should consider adopting a compliance hotline program prior to the mandate not only because a requirement is imminent, but also to prevent fraud and demonstrate good faith.

Elements of an Effective Compliance Program

One of the seven elements of an effective compliance program is developing open lines of communication. CMS recommends that lines of communication run in multiple directions and include a process for anonymous reporting to provide an outlet for employees who may fear retaliation.

Many providers utilize an outside vendor to facilitate anonymous reporting. If you elect to use an outside vendor, you should choose a well-managed hotline that is focused on the health care sector. In addition, your organization should periodically audit the hotline to measure its effectiveness.

Considerations of a Compliance Hotline Auditing

When auditing a compliance hotline vendor you should consider (a) does the hotline have established policies and procedures, (b) how is the hotline managed, and (c) does the hotline meet its goals.

Some questions you might use to review the hotline’s management, operation, and effectiveness include:

  1. Does the hotline follow its established policies and procedures?
  2. Do the policies discuss how to document and follow-up calls?
  3. Does the hotline act on calls and/or emails promptly?
  4. Does the hotline follow up with callers who provide contact information?
  5. Are hotline administrators properly trained to answer calls and ask appropriate questions?
  6. Does your department tasked with reviewing hotline reports receive reports in a timely manner?
  7. Are the reports provided by the hotline detailed enough to allow your organization to follow up and investigate?
  8. Is caller anonymity being protected?
  9. Are hotline files protected?

In addition, you should also evaluate your office’s internal use of the hotline by considering the questions below.

  1. Are employees aware and reminded that the hotline is available?
  2. Does the department tasked with handling reports follow up properly?
  3. Are your employees using the hotline?
  4. Do employees seem confident about the effectiveness of the hotline?
  5. Does the department handling hotline reports file and protect reports appropriately?

If you answered “no,” to one or more of these questions, it may be time to consider a new vendor. Call Exclusion Screening, LLC today to discuss our ComplianceHotline, which is staffed by Certified Medical Compliance Officers, today at 1-800-294-0952.

Compliance Hotline Auditing

Ashley Hudson, Associate Attorney at Liles Parker, LLP and former Chief Operating Officer for Exclusion Screening, LLC, is the author of this article.

Anonymous Compliance Hotline Reports – Friend or Foe?

compliance

In the compliance world, anonymous tip lines are touted as a simple and effective method to ensure that providers receive pertinent information about wrongdoing within their offices.  Compliance professionals, however, have divided opinions about the trustworthiness of anonymous compliance hotline reports. An argument in favor of an anonymous reporting option is that it provides an avenue for employees who fear retaliation. A criticism is that anonymous reports may be inaccurate or frivolous. Recent reports shed light on this interesting issue.

The Compliance Report Numbers

According to a 2014 Helpline Calls and Incident Reports survey conducted by the Society of Compliance and Ethics, 39% of compliance professionals reported that anonymous reports were substantiated at the same rate as named reports. Nine percent of respondents found that anonymous reports were substantiated more often than named reports. However, another 35% reported that they were substantiated less often than named reports. The 2015 Hotline Benchmark Report by NAVEX Global adds some clarity to these somewhat contradictory results. According to its data, anonymous reports were substantiated 36% of the time, or 9% less than reports from named individuals. The NAVEX report notes that the gap in substantiation between anonymous and named reports has actually remained at 9% during the last four years. It further goes on to suggest that the gap may be due to an investigator’s inability to follow-up anonymous reports.

Takeaways

An anonymous reporting option is a valuable tool available through ComplianceHotline and will enhance a provider’s compliance program. These reports may be substantiated at a slightly lower rate than named reports. Still, this is not necessarily due to nonsensical reports. Furthermore, capturing issues through both named and anonymous reports ensures that a provider is aware of all issues and may help to keep lawsuits at bay. Call Exclusion Screening, LLC today to enhance your compliance program with our ComplianceHotline solution at 1(800) 294-0952.

Compliance

Ashley Hudson, Associate Attorney at Liles Parker, LLP and former Chief Operating Officer for Exclusion Screening, LLC, is the author of this article.