What Should Health Care Organizations Do to Reduce Billing Fraud and Abuse?

Whether physicians are being trained or encouraged to commit fraud within corporatized organizational cultures through contractual incentives (or mandates) to optimize billing and process more patients is unknown. What is known is that upcoding and misrepresentation of clinical information (fraud) costs more than $100 billion annually and can result in unnecessary procedures and prescriptions. This article proposes fraud mitigation strategies that combine organizational cultural enhancements and deployment of transparent compliance and risk management systems that rely on front-end data analytics.

Ethical Issues in Physician Billing Under Fee-For-Service Plans.

Medical ethics has become an important and recognized component of physician training. There is one area, however, in which medical students receive little guidance. There is practically no discussion of the financial aspects of medical practice. My objective in this paper is to initiate a discussion about the moral dimension of physician billing practices. I argue that physicians should expand their conception of professional responsibility in order to recognize that their moral obligations toward patients include a commitment to honest and forthright billing practices. I argue that physicians should aspire to a standard of clinical accuracy-not legal adequacy-in describing their activities. More generally, physicians should strive to promote an integrity-based professional culture, first and foremost by stigmatizing rather than celebrating creative billing practices, as well as condemning the misguided sense of solidarity that currently makes it taboo for physicians to criticize each other on this score.

The Role of Physicians in the Allocation of Health Care: Is Some Justice Better than None?

Physicians' advocacy obligations are best understood as going beyond advocacy on behalf of individual patients, which I call the "individualistic view," to include advocacy for intelligent research-based allocation schemes that promote good outcomes and cost-effective care for all patients, which I call the "systemic view." This systemic view includes moving beyond self-interest to promote less-wasteful and more cost-conscious allocation decisions and the setting of priorities at all levels to expand health care access. It includes physician involvement in discussions with patients in the context of clinical care, involvement in the formulation and administration of benefit structures and other allocation policies, and, finally, involvement in promoting public dialogue about health care priorities. This involvement is based on a concept of a deliberative process that can result in "just enough" decisions within systems for the preservation and promotion of health care and other societal goods.

EXPLORING VALUES OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AGENCIES USING REFLECTIVE MULTICRITERIA AND RARE DISEASE CASE.

OBJECTIVES: Tackling ethical dilemmas faced by reimbursement decision makers requires deeper understanding of values on which health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are founded and how trade-offs are made. This was explored in this study including the case of rare disease. METHODS: Representatives from eight HTA explored values on which institutions are founded using a narrative approach and reflective multicriteria (developed from EVIDEM, criteria derived from ethical imperatives of health care). Trade-offs between criteria and the impact of incorporating defined priorities (including for rare diseases) were explored through a quantitative values elicitation exercise. RESULTS: Participants reported a diversity of substantive and procedural values with a common emphasis on scientific excellence, stakeholder involvement, independence, and transparency. Examining the ethical imperatives behind EVIDEM criteria was found to be useful to further explore substantive values. Most criteria were deemed to reflect institutions' values, while 70 percent of the criteria were reported by at least half of participants to be considered formally by their institutions. The quantitative values elicitation highlighted the difficulty to balance imperatives of "alleviating or preventing patient suffering," "serving the whole population equitably," "upholding healthcare system sustainability," and "making decisions informed by evidence and context" but may help share the ethical reasoning behind decisions. Incorporating "Priorities" (including for rare diseases) helped reveal trade-offs from other criteria and their underlying ethical imperatives. CONCLUSIONS: Reflective multicriteria are useful to explore substantive values of HTAs, reflect how these values and their ethical underpinnings can be operationalized into criteria, and explore the ethical reasoning at the heart of the healthcare debate.

A Call for Saving Interdisciplinary Pain Management.

Chronic pain is pervasive and costly. In 2011, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a landmark report on chronic pain, which estimated that more than 100 million Americans suffer from chronic pain, making pain a major and significant public health problem. The benefits of interdisciplinary pain management programs are undeniable and have been demonstrated for over a half century. Until health care leaders and other stakeholders such as insurers work together to ensure best practices in pain management, we will certainly end up in a lose-lose situation for both the health care teams and patients. In order to impact health care policy more effectively, we need to better understand the politics of health policy decision making. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(12):1021-1023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.0611.

Home Nutrition Support: Ethics and Reimbursement.

Ethical dilemmas challenge providers on both sides of the hospital and clinic doors. In addition to establishing the nutrition care plan and guiding the client into the home setting with safe and effective parenteral or enteral nutrition therapy, procuring home nutrition support involves meeting documentation requirements and verifying that clients meet reimbursement criteria for home therapy based on third-party payer criteria. Providers have entered a realm for which training has been scarce and they face moral and ethical dilemmas involving serving as patient advocates, possibly stretching the truth to fit the clinical documentation to criteria vs maintaining professional integrity. Nutrition research and evidence-based practice have outpaced modifications to policies including Medicare's national and local coverage determinations, the bulk of which have not seen revisions in 32 years. This review elucidates clinical dilemmas and urges a political call to action to advocate for changes in current, outdated requirements for reimbursement. Given the current healthcare environment and trend toward expedited hospital stays, patients may be better served (and nourished) with revised guidelines.

The ethics of insurance limiting institutional medical care: It's all about the money.

Dr F. Inest practices surgery at a renowned medical center but is concerned because increasing numbers of medical insurers are excluding his institution from coverage. Many of his former referring physicians are beginning to send their patients elsewhere for this reason. The marketing people have been busy increasing their advertising buys and exploring new business models. There is even talk about reducing expensive clinical trials. However, regardless of his affiliation, he has little control over these and other organizational decisions that directly impact his practice clinically and fiscally. What should he do?

Focus group study of public opinion about paying living kidney donors in Australia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The unmet demand for kidney transplantation has generated intense controversy about introducing incentives for living kidney donors to increase donation rates. Such debates may affect public perception and acceptance of living kidney donation. This study aims to describe the range and depth of public opinion on financial reimbursement, compensation, and incentives for living kidney donors. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Twelve focus groups were conducted with 113 participants recruited from the general public in three Australian states in February 2013. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the transcripts. RESULTS: Five themes were identified: creating ethical impasses (commodification of the body, quandary of kidney valuation, pushing moral boundaries), corrupting motivations (exposing the vulnerable, inevitable abuse, supplanting altruism), determining justifiable risk (compromising kidney quality, undue harm, accepting a confined risk, trusting protective mechanisms, right to autonomy), driving access (urgency of organ shortage, minimizing disadvantage, guaranteeing cost-efficiency, providing impetus, counteracting black markets), and honoring donor deservingness (fairness and reason, reassurance and rewards, merited recompense). Reimbursement and justifiable recompense are considered by the Australian public as a legitimate way of supporting donors and reducing disadvantage. Financial payment beyond reimbursement is regarded as morally reprehensible, with the potential for exploitative commercialism. Some contend that regulated compensation could be a defensible strategy to increased donation rates provided that mechanisms are in place to protect donors. CONCLUSIONS: The perceived threat to community values of human dignity, goodwill, and fairness suggests that there could be strong public resistance to any form of financial inducements for living kidney donors. Policy priorities addressing the removal of disincentives may be more acceptable to the public.

No payments, copayments and faux payments: are medical practitioners adequately equipped to manage Medicare claiming and compliance?

The complexity of Medicare claiming means it is often beyond the comprehension of many, including medical practitioners who are required to interpret and apply Medicare every day. A single Medicare service can be the subject of 30 different payment rates, multiple claiming methods and a myriad of rules, with severe penalties for non-compliance, yet the administrative infrastructure and specialised human resourcing of Medicare may have decreased over time. As a result, medical practitioners experience difficulties accessing reliable information and support concerning their claiming and compliance obligations. Some commentators overlook the complexity of Medicare and suggest that deliberate misuse of the system by medical practitioners is a significant contributor to rising healthcare costs, although there is currently no empirical evidence to support this view. Quantifying the precise amount of leakage caused by inappropriate claiming has proven an impossible task, although current estimates are $1-3 billion annually. The current government's proposed copayment plan may cause increases in non-compliance and incorrect Medicare claiming, and a causal link has been demonstrated between medical practitioner access to Medicare education and significant costs savings. Medicare claiming is a component of almost every medical interaction in Australia, yet most education in this area currently occurs on an ad hoc basis. Research examining medical practitioner experiences and understanding regarding Medicare claiming and compliance is urgently required to adapt medicine responsibly to our rapidly changing healthcare environment.

Coalition Priorité Cancer and the pharmaceutical industry in Quebec: conflicts of interest in the reimbursement of expensive cancer drugs?

In the context of scarce public resources, patient interest groups have increasingly turned to private organizations for financing, including the pharmaceutical industry. This practice puts advocacy groups in a situation of potential conflicts between the interests of patients and those of the drug companies. The interests of patients and industry can converge on issues related to the approval and reimbursement of medications. But even on this issue, interests do not always align perfectly. Using the Quebec example of Coalition Priorité Cancer (CPC) as a case study, we examine the ethical issues raised by such financial relationships in the context of drug reimbursement decision-making. We collected, compiled and analyzed publicly available information on the CPC's organization and activities; this approach allowed us to raise and discuss important questions regarding the possible influence exerted on patient groups by donors. We conclude with some recommendations.

Expanding physician education in health care fraud and program integrity.

Program integrity (PI) spans the entire spectrum of improper payments from fraud to abuse, errors, and waste in the health care system. Few physicians will perpetrate fraud or abuse during their careers, but nearly all will contribute to the remaining spectrum of improper payments, making preventive education in this area vital. Despite the enormous impact that PI issues have on government-sponsored and private insurance programs, physicians receive little formal education in this area. Physicians' lack of awareness of PI issues not only makes them more likely to submit inappropriate claims, generate orders that other providers and suppliers will use to submit inappropriate claims, and document improperly in the medical record but also more likely to become victims of fraud schemes themselves.In this article, the authors provide an overview of the current state of PI issues in general, and fraud in particular, as well as a description of the state of formal education for practicing physicians, residents, and fellows. Building on the lessons from pilot programs conducted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and partner organizations, the authors then propose a model PI education curriculum to be implemented nationwide for physicians at all levels. They recommend that various stakeholder organizations take part in the development and implementation process to ensure that all perspectives are included. Educating physicians is an essential step in establishing a broader culture of compliance and improved integrity in the health care system, extending beyond Medicare and Medicaid.