How Compliance Hotlines Can Save You Money!


Compliance Hotlines

By Paul Weidenfeld, March 4, 2016.  An essential element of all compliance plans is developing and promoting “effective lines of communications.” In support of that element, Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS/OIG) has been urging providers to adopt anonymous compliance hotlines since 1998. CMS, on the other hand, actually requires that Fee-For-Service Contractors (by its 2005 Guidance), and Managed Care and Prescription Drug Contractors (through manual provisions) have “mechanisms that permits anonymous reporting.”

But many providers, while complying, view hotlines with suspicion. They fear that a “successful” compliance hotline might incentivize “whistleblowers” and ultimately result in additional risk and cost to their organization. Though understandable, this fear is misplaced. Properly implemented and supported, hotlines provide valuable support to compliance plans and overall risk management programs. Rather than increasing risk and costing money, compliance hotlines demonstrably decrease risk and save money. Here’s how:

 

Tips are the Most Common Means of Detecting Fraud

Fraud accounts for an estimated 10% of healthcare spending (almost $1 Billion in 2013). The best way to reduce fraud’s impact is through early detection and quick resolution. According to a recent report on occupational fraud by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) “tips” are easily the most common means of detecting fraud. It found that over 40% of all cases were detected by a tip — more than twice the rate of any other detection method – and as the percentage of detections by tip increases, detection by other, external means decrease.

The Importance of Compliance Hotlines in Generating Tips

The ACFE report referred to above also looked at the impact of compliance hotlines on generating tips and it found that companies with compliance hotlines discovered fraud through tips 51% of the time as compared to 33% for companies that didn’t have a hotline. Not surprisingly, the companies without compliance hotlines also had higher rates of detection through other means such as external audits and law enforcement. Several factors are cited for the disparity, but the principle reason is the anonymity and confidentiality afforded by hotlines. Indeed, it was reported that 60% of all employee tips were anonymous.

Why Detection by “Tip” is Important

In addition to being the most common means, tips are the most cost-effective way of detecting fraud by external means. Several factors contribute to this, but the report found a significant difference in results for frauds detected by tips as compared to any other external detection method. For example, the median duration and cost of a fraud discovered by tip was 18 months and $150,000, whereas frauds detected by external audit or by accident lasted at least a year longer and cost over twice as much to resolve. Matters detected by law enforcement, a worst case scenario, lasted 30 months and cost $1,250,000!

Compliance Hotlines Don’t Create “Additional” Problems

It is unrealistic to think that issues identified though a hotline would have “fixed themselves and gone away” or, perhaps, never have been found. More likely, the problem would continue unabated until it was discovered by accident or it was picked up by an audit (hopefully, an internal one), or until an employee who would have reported it lost faith in the organization’s ability to deal with the problem and aired his concerns outside the organization – perhaps to law enforcement, perhaps to a lawyer or maybe to both. Regardless, once a problem reaches that point, it is outside the control of the organization. Thus, any resolution will be a long time coming and expensive when it gets there!

Conclusion

Compliance Hotlines save organizations money. By increasing the number of tips, organizations can learn about more problems. This gives them the ability to respond to them sooner and fix them faster. Therefore, small problems won’t become big ones – and big problems can be managed before they become disasters!

Give us a call at 800-294-0952 or fill out the form below to hear how our cost-effective compliance hotline system can save your organization money!


Follow us on twitter to get all the latest news and updates on exclusion and compliance! https://twitter.com/@exscreening/

 

OIG Exclusion

Paul Weidenfeld is the CEO of Exclusion Screening, LLC and co-founder with Robert W. Liles. Both Paul and Robert are long time health care lawyers and both were also former Health Care Fraud Coordinators for the Department of Justice. Call or contact Paul today at paul.weidenfeld@www.exclusionscreening.com, or at (800) 294-0952 if you have any questions.

DOJ Files Another False Claims Act Case Based on OIG Exclusion Violations

oig exclusion violations

DOJ Pursuing Action on Two Separate OIG Exclusion Violations

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Philadelphia filed a False Claims Act case last week based primarily on OIG exclusion violations. The complaint alleges that the defendant filed several documents concealing his exclusion and his role in Mental Health Clinics ostensibly run by his wife. Medicare and Medicaid do not pay for services provided, either directly or indirectly, by someone who is on the OIG List of Excluded Individuals (LEIE) or on a State Medicaid Exclusion List. The lawsuit comes on the heels of a suit with similar allegations brought by that office in May. It further evidences the increasing interest of OIG and DOJ in enforcing exclusion regulations and exclusion screening requirements.

The filing was announced by United States Attorney Zane David Memeger. He stated that, “this civil complaint reflects our focus on pursuing individuals who defraud Medicaid and Medicare, especially after they have previously defrauded those programs and been barred from participating in them.” The complaint also alleges fraudulent billing for services provided without proper supervision and by unqualified persons.

While both cases involve similar fact patterns (persons concealing their exclusion status and involvement in a company) and were filed within months of each other, it is significant to note that they arose in completely different ways. The most recent case’s complaint is a whistleblower lawsuit that was brought to the government by an ex-employee. The older case, however, arose from an OIG led investigation.

Final Thoughts

There are two clear takeaway points from these cases. First, exclusion violation enforcement cases can come to the attention of the government in several different ways. Second, the DOJ, OIG and CMS have a number of different enforcement options at their disposal! So remember, compliance is always the best option!

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.




Read more on OIG Exclusion

OIG Exclusion

Paul Weidenfeld, Co-Founder and CEO of Exclusion Screening, LLC, is the author of this article. He is a longtime health care lawyer whose practice has focused on False Claims Act cases and health care fraud matters generally. Contact Paul should you have any  questions at: pweidenfeld@exclusionscreening.com or 1-800-294-0952.