The Stark Reality: Understanding Stark is Complex

The Stark Reality: Understanding Stark is Complex

Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that, in all averments of fraud, such as allegations concerning the False Claims Act, (FCA) the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity.

This requirement goes beyond the general notice pleading standard found in Rule 8, which only requires a short and plain statement of the claim. Rule 9(b) demands specificity to ensure that defendants are adequately informed of the claims against them and can prepare a meaningful response.

In Jonathan Mayer v. ADCS, published October 4, 2024, a former employee faced off against a dermatology practice ADCS, who moved to dismiss the relator’s claims of upcoding and other fraudulent practices. The relator accused ADCS of the following:

  1. Upcoding from 99201 to 99202;
  2. Conducting medically unnecessary total body skin exams; and
  3. Violating Stark law

The court’s ruling illustrates the importance of specific allegations in advancing a case to discovery. In this case, the relator alleges that ADCS’s Medical Executive Committee sent a company-wide email instructing all ADCS providers to cease using a certain billing code (99201) reserved for new patient visits during which providers “conducted a problem-focused exam[ ] and used straightforward medical decision making.” Relator alleges that the elimination of this code resulted in providers billing at a higher code (99202)—one reserved for exams that involve six or more body areas or organ systems—even if a more comprehensive exam was not medically indicated. ADCS then allegedly submitted these upcoded (false) claims to the government.

The dermatology practice argued that the relator’s claim that it required providers to upcode new patient visits did not meet the stringent standards set forth in Rule 9(b). This rule mandates that fraud claims provide detailed factual backgrounds akin to the lead paragraph of a newspaper story—addressing the “who, what, when, where, and how” of the alleged fraud. The defendants contended that the relator failed to provide sufficient detail, as they merely “lumped together” various defendants and relied on vague group allegations. They claimed that the relator did not adequately describe the specific codes involved, the procedures performed, or whether any claims were actually submitted to Medicare.

The court, however, disagreed. It found that the relator’s allegations were sufficiently specific to proceed. For instance, the relator cited an email from ADCS’s Medical Executive Committee instructing providers to stop using the billing code 99201, which is reserved for basic new patient visits. The relator alleged that this directive forced providers to use the higher billing code 99202, even when the more comprehensive exam was not medically necessary. By detailing this internal communication and the consequences of the policy, the relator painted a clear picture of the alleged upcoding scheme.

ADCS also attempted to dismiss the relator’s claims regarding the performance of medically unnecessary total body skin exams. ADCS asserted that the relator did not provide particular details about these exams, including their necessity or how they led to increased billing.

In response, the court again found the relator’s allegations sufficient. The relator claimed that ADCS had an official policy requiring total body skin exams for all new patients, regardless of their medical conditions. For example, requiring a comprehensive exam for a 14-year-old with acne or a 98-year-old with dry hands illustrated a clear pattern of unnecessary testing. The relator’s review of medical records and submitted claims further substantiated the claim that these exams led to improper billing practices.

Finally, the defendants also sought to dismiss the relator’s claims under the Stark Law, asserting that the allegations lacked the necessary particularity. They pointed out that the relator failed to specify which referrals were involved, the nature of the financial relationships, and whether false claims were submitted.

Nevertheless, the court found that the relator adequately established a prima facie violation of the Stark Act. The relator alleged that ADCS dermatologists referred services to dermatopathologists within the same organization, thus engaging in self-referral prohibited under the Stark Law. This was compounded by claims that the organization required these self-referrals, raising serious legal concerns. The relator’s assertion that many thousands of pathology specimens were processed without claims submitted to Medicare added further credibility to the allegations.

Ultimately, the court ruled that the relator had pled sufficient detail to withstand the Defendants’ motion to dismiss and allowed the case to advance to the discovery phase. This outcome is significant as it emphasizes the importance of particularity in fraud claims under the FCA.

Whistleblowers must provide a detailed factual basis for their allegations, but as this case demonstrates, a well-structured narrative backed by specific examples can prevail even in the face of a motion to dismiss.

Programming note:

Listen live every Monday morning when healthcare attorney Knicole Emanuel broadcasts the “RAC Report on Monitor Mondays, 10 Eastern with Chuck Buck.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Knicole C. Emanuel Esq.

For more than 20 years, Knicole has maintained a health care litigation practice, concentrating on Medicare and Medicaid litigation, health care regulatory compliance, administrative law and regulatory law. Knicole has tried over 2,000 administrative cases in over 30 states and has appeared before multiple states’ medical boards. She has successfully obtained federal injunctions in numerous states, which allowed health care providers to remain in business despite the state or federal laws allegations of health care fraud, abhorrent billings, and data mining. Across the country, Knicole frequently lectures on health care law, the impact of the Affordable Care Act and regulatory compliance for providers, including physicians, home health and hospice, dentists, chiropractors, hospitals and durable medical equipment providers. Knicole is partner at Nelson Mullins and a member of the RACmonitor editorial board and a popular panelist on Monitor Monday.

Related Stories

Potentially Suspicious Link Uncovered

Potentially Suspicious Link Uncovered

There has been a noticeable increase in payer actions regarding readmission denials, often justified as efforts to enhance quality of care and align with Medicare’s

Read More

Leave a Reply

Please log in to your account to comment on this article.

Featured Webcasts

Enhancing Outcomes with CDI-Coding-Quality Collaboration in Acute Care Hospitals

Enhancing Outcomes with CDI-Coding-Quality Collaboration in Acute Care Hospitals

Join Angela Comfort, DBA, MBA, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P, as she presents effective strategies to strengthen collaboration between CDI, coding, and quality departments in acute care hospitals. Angela will also share guidance on implementing cross-departmental meetings, using shared KPIs, and engaging leadership to foster a culture of collaboration. Attendees will gain actionable tools to optimize documentation accuracy, elevate quality metrics, and drive a unified approach to healthcare goals, ultimately enhancing both patient outcomes and organizational performance.

November 21, 2024
Comprehensive Inpatient Clinical Documentation Integrity: From Foundations to Advanced Strategies

Comprehensive Outpatient Clinical Documentation Integrity: From Foundations to Advanced Strategies

Optimize your outpatient clinical documentation and gain comprehensive knowledge from foundational practices to advanced technologies, ensuring improved patient care and organizational and financial success. This webcast bundle provides a holistic approach to outpatient CDI, empowering you to implement best practices from the ground up and leverage advanced strategies for superior results. You will gain actionable insights to improve documentation quality, patient care, compliance, and financial outcomes.

September 5, 2024
Advanced Outpatient Clinical Documentation Integrity: Mastering Complex Narratives and Compliance

Advanced Outpatient Clinical Documentation Integrity: Mastering Complex Narratives and Compliance

Enhancing outpatient clinical documentation is crucial for maintaining accuracy, compliance, and proper reimbursement in today’s complex healthcare environment. This webcast, presented by industry expert Angela Comfort, DBA, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P, will provide you with actionable strategies to tackle complex challenges in outpatient documentation. You’ll learn how to craft detailed clinical narratives, utilize advanced EHR features, and implement accurate risk adjustment and HCC coding. The session also covers essential regulatory updates to keep your documentation practices compliant. Join us to gain the tools you need to improve documentation quality, support better patient care, and ensure financial integrity.

September 12, 2024

Trending News

Featured Webcasts

Patient Notifications and Rights: What You Need to Know

Patient Notifications and Rights: What You Need to Know

Dr. Ronald Hirsch provides critical details on the new Medicare Appeal Process for Status Changes for patients whose status changes during their hospital stay. He also delves into other scenarios of hospital patients receiving custodial care or medically unnecessary services where patient notifications may be needed along with the processes necessary to ensure compliance with state and federal guidance.

December 5, 2024
Navigating the No Surprises Act & Price Transparency: Essential Insights for Compliance

Navigating the No Surprises Act & Price Transparency: Essential Insights for Compliance

Healthcare organizations face complex regulatory requirements under the No Surprises Act and Price Transparency rules. These policies mandate extensive fee disclosures across settings, and confusion is widespread—many hospitals remain unaware they must post every contracted rate. Non-compliance could lead to costly penalties, financial loss, and legal risks.  Join David M. Glaser Esq. as he shows you how to navigate these regulations effectively.

November 19, 2024
Post Operative Pain Blocks: Guidelines, Documentation, and Billing to Protect Your Facility

Post Operative Pain Blocks: Guidelines, Documentation, and Billing to Protect Your Facility

Protect your facility from unwanted audits! Join Becky Jacobsen, BSN, RN, MBS, CCS-P, CPC, CPEDC, CBCS, CEMC, and take a deep dive into both the CMS and AMA guidelines for reporting post operative pain blocks. You’ll learn how to determine if the nerve block is separately codable with real life examples for better understanding. Becky will also cover how to evaluate whether documentation supports medical necessity, offer recommendations for stronger documentation practices, and provide guidance on educating providers about documentation requirements. She’ll include a discussion of appropriate modifier and diagnosis coding assignment so that you can be confident that your billing of post operative pain blocks is fully supported and compliant.

October 24, 2024
The OIG Update: Targets and Tools to Stay in Compliance

The OIG Update: Targets and Tools to Stay in Compliance

During this RACmonitor webcast Dr. Ronald Hirsch spotlights the areas of the OIG’s Work Plan and the findings of their most recent audits that impact utilization review, case management, and audit staff. He also provides his common-sense interpretation of the prevailing regulations related to those target issues. You’ll walk away better equipped with strategies to put in place immediately to reduce your risk of paybacks, increased scrutiny, and criminal penalties.

September 19, 2024

Trending News

Happy National Doctor’s Day! Learn how to get a complimentary webcast on ‘Decoding Social Admissions’ as a token of our heartfelt appreciation! Click here to learn more →