Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Office of Medicaid Inspector General (“OIG”) recently issued an updated Special Advisory Buletein on The Effect of the Exclusion from Participation in Federal Health Care Programs (“Special Advisory Bulletin”)



The Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (“OIG”) recently issued its updated Special Advisory Bulletin on the Effect of Exclusion from Participation in Federal Health Care Programs (“Special Advisory Bulletin”), which describes the scope and effect of the legal prohibition on payments by federal health care programs for services and items furnished by or at the direction of an excluded individual. 

The OIG is empowered to impose civil money penalties against health care providers who employ or contract with an excluded person to provide items and services for which payments may be made under a federal health care program. Additionally, the OIG is further authorized to impose liability on an excluded person if the person orders or prescribes an item or a service while excluded and knows or should know that a claim for the item or service may be made to a federal health care program. For health care providers enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid, ensuring regulatory compliance remains crucial and screening for excluded persons is a key element in compliance.
Exclusion From Federal Health Care Programs

The effect of an OIG exclusion is broad—no payment may be made by a federal health care program for any items or services furnished (1) by an excluded person or (2) at the medical direction or on the prescription of an excluded person. This broad prohibition also extends beyond direct patient care. For example, the following instances of indirect services are prohibited:

o    Services performed by excluded individuals who work for or with a hospital, nursing home, home health agency, or managed care entity when such services are related to, for instance, preparation of surgical trays or review of treatment plans, regardless of whether such services are separately billable or are part of a bundled payment;
o    Services performed by excluded pharmacists or other excluded individuals who input prescription information for pharmacy billing or who are involved in any way in filling prescriptions for drugs that are billed to a federal health care program; and
o    Transportation services that are paid for by a federal health care program, such as those provided by excluded ambulance drivers or ambulance company dispatchers.
Excluded persons are also prohibited from furnishing administrative and management services that are payable by federal health care programs, even where the administrative and management services are not separately billable. For example, the following would be prohibited:
o    An excluded individual serving in an executive or leadership role at a provider that furnishes items or services payable by federal health care programs; and
o    An excluded individual providing other types of administrative and management services, such as health information technology services and support, strategic planning, billing, accounting, staff training and human resources, unless wholly unrelated to federal health care programs.
Additionally, items or services furnished at the medical direction of or on the prescription of an excluded person are not payable when the person furnishing the item or services knows or should know of the exclusion. This prohibition applies even where the federal payment itself is made to a state agency or provider that is not excluded.

CMP Liability

An excluded person violates the exclusion if the person furnishes to federal health care program beneficiaries items or services to be paid by federal health care programs. An excluded person that submits such a claim or causes such a claim to be submitted may be subject to a civil money penalty of $10,000 for each claimed item or service furnished during the period of exclusion. The individual may also be further subjected to an assessment of up to three times the amount claimed as well as subsequent denial of reinstatement into the program. Similarly, such conduct may also lead to criminal prosecutions or civil actions. For example, knowingly presenting or causing to be presented a false or fraudulent claim may subject the individual to criminal liability for fraud as well as civil money penalties.
CMP Liability For Employing Or Contracting With An Excluded Person

A provider may be subject to liability if an excluded person participates in any way in the furnishing of items or services (including providing direct or indirect patient care, administrative and management services, and items or services furnished at the medical direction of or on the prescription of an excluded person) when the provider knows or should know of the exclusion. Liability may result even if the excluded person does not receive payments from the provider for his or her services. Similarly, an excluded person may not provide services payable by federal health care programs, regardless of whether the person is an employee, a contractor, or a volunteer or has any other relationship with the provider.
Under certain and limited conditions, an excluded person may be employed by or contract with a provider that receives payments from federal health programs:
o    Where the federal health care program does not pay, directly or indirectly, for the items or services furnished by the excluded person;
o    Where a provider employs or contracts with an excluded person to furnish items or services solely to a non-federal health care program beneficiary.
Providers that identify potential liability on the basis of the employment of, contracting with, or arranging for services with an excluded person may be required to use the OIG’s Provider Self-Disclosure Protocol (“SDP”) to disclose and resolve the potential liability.
How To Determine Whether A Person Is Excluded

To aid providers, the OIG maintains a List of Excluded Individuals and Entities (the “LEIE”) on its website. The New York State Office of the Medicaid Inspector General maintains its own list as well.  When verifying individuals and entities using the LEIE, the Special Advisory Bulletin recommends that providers maintain documentation of the initial name search performed, such as a screen-shot and any additional searches. Because the LEIE contains information available at the time of the exclusion, providers should also verify by searching for other names (e.g. maiden name) as well. Additionally, although a provider may contract with another entity to screen a person or entity against the LEIE, a provider is nonetheless charged with the responsibility of determining and knowing whether an individual or entity has been excluded.

Conclusion
For health care providers enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid, due diligence and monitoring of employees and contractors, as well as potential employees and contractors, is absolutely necessary. The failure to do so may result in liability such as exclusions and civil monetary penalties. Moreover, in light of the Federal and State governments ongoing and increased efforts to protect against fraud and abuse, effective regulatory compliance efforts remain crucial.

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Why An Irrevocable Trust Is Better than giving a Gift.



Why Use a Trust? Why Not Just Give the Money Away?

If someone is trying to protect assets and still qualify for long-term care benefits from the government, their strategy could be to gift away their assets to children or other family members. After the transfer, they apply for their benefits, or in the case of Medicaid, wait five years before applying.
This strategy poses a number of dangerous risks. The person who receives the assets could die, become estranged, get divorced, invest badly, spend the money, or even lose the money to creditors.
Consider that a long-term care crisis could bring about the need for assisted living. If the assets have been lost or spent, there may be no way to pay for care.
What is an Irrevocable Trust?

A trust is a fancy term for a three-party legal relationship. The trust involves the Settlor (person funding the trust), the Trustee (person managing the trust), and the beneficiaries (people who will receive the trust property).
When you create a trust you actually transfer ownership of property from yourself to your trustee(s). The trustee(s) then holds legal title to the property, the beneficiaries hold equitable title, and you, the Settlor, no longer have any title to the property. This is a significant step, especially where the trust is irrevocable.

Irrevocable means that once you create the trust, you can't undo the trust and get the property back without the consent of the trustee and the beneficiaries.

An Irrevocable Trust Could Have Many Advantages Over an Outright Gift Continued Control
The Settlor who creates and funds an irrevocable trust can establish the rules and determines the uses of the trust assets. The settlor can name the trustees and beneficiaries and retain the right to change beneficiaries through a power of appointment in the grantor’s will.
The Settlor can even choose to employ a Trust protector.  You can design a trust to have a third party "trust protector" (see Forbesmagazine: 8/25/2012 Trust Protectors), which is a position usually filled by a close relative overseeing the trustee. The protector has the power to change a trustee, remove a beneficiary, eliminate or reduce distributions, or even change the terms of the trust itself.

Retained Income

The settlor can decide to retain the income produced by the trust, even if there is no access to the trust principal. Receiving income tends to make the grantors feel like the assets still belong to them. This may ease their concerns about funding an irrevocable trust and losing the direct control of their assets.
Tax advantages

An irrevocable trust offers many tax advantages over a direct gift, especially on the subject of capital gains taxes. If the trust is structured as a grantor-type trust, all appreciated assets transferred into the trust, such as real estate or a stock portfolio, can still receive a step-up in basis upon the death of the grantor. If these same assets were gifted directly to the beneficiaries, they would retain the same basis as the donor had, and in most cases owe a great deal more in capital gains taxes.
This style of trust also provides a tax advantage for a grantor’s principal home. The trust retains the  grantor’s capital gains tax exclusion under 26 U.S.C. § 121, which would not be available if the residence was gifted directly to the beneficiaries during the lifetime of the owner.
Settlors can even set up their trusts so all of the trust income is tax deferred until the trustee distributes the income to beneficiaries. This can provide some incredible tax advantages to the grantor’s family.
Creative Options

Consider that you could designate your spouse as a "discretionary" beneficiary. The trust could be drafted so that a distribution could be made to your spouse when needed.
Another option would be for each partner to create a trust for the other. Each trust just has to have enough differences so that they aren't considered reciprocal.
Protection From Beneficiary Mistakes

Using a trust avoids the risk that a beneficiary could die and that the funds are inherited by the beneficiary’s heirs. It also protects the assets if the beneficiary loses money in a divorce.

Monday, August 19, 2013

City schools have 22 of state’s top 25 performers on Common Core exams










 Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott and Chief Academic Officer Shael Polakow-Suransky announce that New York City's graduation rate held steady at 64.7 percent as students met new graduation requirements, Tweed Courthouse, Monday, June 17, 2013.
Bryan Smith for New York Daily News

‘City schools have made great strides over the past decade,’ said Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott.


City school officials managed to find a few glimmers of good news on the new tougher state tests that sent math and reading scores plummeting last week, a city analysis shows.
Of the 25 top-performing schools statewide, 22 are in the city, the Education Department found.
“Ten years ago, there were no New York City schools in the top 25 schools in the state; today, the city has 22,” said Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott in a statement, adding that’s up from 19 last year.
City kids’ abysmally low passing rates on this year’s exams — just under 30% for math and 26% on reading — have presented a challenge for the Bloomberg administration’s efforts to make the case for the last 12 years of school reforms. Only 31% of state students passed math and reading.
This latest analysis of the tests for grades 3 to 8 highlights 22 stellar city schools, most of whom have an advantage going into the exams.

They are designated for gifted students — or select their students based on a rigorous application process. In most of the state, kids attend their neighborhood school, though other districts also have selective schools.
The city, following up on a classroom-by-classroom computer analysis by the Daily News, ranked schools by averaging the passing rate for both the math and the reading test across all grades.
At the top school, Manhattan’s Anderson School, an average of 97% of students scored proficient on the tests.
The school is one of five designated for the city’s most gifted students, who must score on or above the 97th percentile of a placement exam beginning at age 4.
“Our teachers just work very hard, and so do the kids,” said Anderson principal Jodi Hyde.

“At 4 years old, they don’t come in understanding the Common Core,” the term for the new tougher standards that require more critical thinking and analysis.
But critics took issue with the city’s efforts to spin the numbers into good news.
“We don’t believe the test scores are the be-all and end-all; this administration made them that,” said teachers union president Michael Mulgrew.
“That’s why it’s mind-boggling how bad they messed up.”

THE SCHOOLS:


1              The Anderson School     97%        Manhattan
2              The Christa McAuliffe School\I.S. 187      96%        Brooklyn
3              Baccalaureate School for Global Education           95%        Queens
4              New Explorations into Science, Technology and Math94%           Manhattan
5              P.S. 748 Brooklyn School For Global Scholars        92%       Brooklyn
6              P.S. 77 Lower Lab School               90%        Manhattan
7              Special Music School       89%        Manhattan
8              New York City Lab Middle School for Collaborative Studies        89%        Manhattan
9              Success Academy Charter School - Bronx 2           87%        Bronx
10           Scholars' Academy          87%        Queens
11           The Active Learning Elementary School  87%        Queens
12           East Side Middle School                85%        Manhattan
13           P.S. 188 Kingsbury           84%        Queens
14           M.S. 255 Salk School of Science  84%        Manhattan
15           P.S. 203 Oakland Gardens            83%        Queens
16           Mark Twain I.S. 239 for the Gifted & Talented     81%        Brooklyn
17           Cobbles Elementary School         79%        Monroe County
18           Brooklyn School of Inquiry           79%        Brooklyn
19           Success Academy Charter School - Bronx 1           79%        Bronx
20           TAG Young Scholars        78%        Manhattan
21           City Honors School-Fosdick Masten Park in Erie County  77%        Erie County
22           Milton School    77%        Westchester County
23           P.S. 321 William Penn     77%        Brooklyn
24           P.S. 172 Beacon School Of Excellence      76%        Brooklyn
25           P.S. 199 Jessie Isador Straus        76%        Manhattan

Source: NY Daily News


Monday, August 12, 2013

Six residents at luxury Brighton Beach condo complex busted for Medicaid fraud

The Oceana complex in Brighton Beach boasts seaside condos, marble lobbies, indoor and outdoor swimming pools — and six residents busted for Medicaid fraud.

One of the ocean-view penthouses at the gated, 14-building complex, where condos sell for upward of $1.6 million and the garage is flush with Bentleys, is owned by Kristina Zelinsky.

The 34-year-old woman likes to shop at Jimmy Choo, vacation in Vegas and tool around in a leased Porsche, Aston Martin and BMW.

But for a decade, Zelinsky brazenly availed herself of the state’s Medicaid program meant for the poor, prosecutors charge.

KRISTINA ZELINSKY Drives a Porsche.
KRISTINA ZELINSKY Drives a Porsche.
The value of the benefits Zelinsky and her family allegedly stole totaled more than $25,000. She applied in 2003, claiming she had no income and her husband made just $22,000 a year, the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office says.

Zelinsky was busted last week, charged with welfare fraud, grand larceny and offering a false instrument for filing. If convicted of the most serious charge, she faces up to seven years in prison.

“When a person such as Ms. Zelinsky lives in luxury and owns vehicles that most people only see in movies, New York state taxpayers should not finance her health care,” said James Cox, the state’s Medicaid inspector general.

Zelinsky is the sixth person charged with Medicaid fraud since 2011 who calls the 865-unit complex home, and with 500 residents there on Medicaid, there will likely be many more.

“It’s probably a scam that everybody who lives there knows about,” said a source familiar with the case. “They spread like wildfire.”

A stone’s throw from the boardwalk, the luxury complex is filled with immigrants from the former Soviet Union. Russian is the lingua franca.

The Medicaid IG found many of the Medicaid recipients there were legitimately collecting benefits because they were elderly or disabled relatives of condo owners or had themselves fallen on hard times.

Investigators in 2010 probed about 100 residents and issued subpoenas for bank records.
About 30 cases were turned over to the office of Brooklyn DA Charles Hynes and the city Human Resources Administration.

The first Oceana residents to be charged were penthouse dwellers Dr. Pavel Kulik, 45, and his wife, Oksana Shulim, 46.

Shulim claimed on her Medicaid application that she had no income and was supported by Kulik, whom she described as a “friend.”

Investigators found a joint savings account for the couple with more than $450,000.
Shulim pleaded guilty to one of the charges against her, and the couple paid back $22,000.
Kulik, who now rents in a luxurious Central Park South condominium building and enjoys a 300-square-foot terrace, told The Post, “I was proven innocent.” 

The rehab-medicine specialist, who has offices in Rego Park and Brighton Beach, was fined $20,000 in 2009 by the state for ordering excessive tests and failing to maintain accurate patient records.
Oceana resident Janna Doheny claimed on her 2004 Medicaid application she earned just $1,550 a month working at a Queens jiggle joint.

But prosecutors alleged she had $170,000 cash in a Long Island safety-deposit box. She purchased five apartments at Oceana between 2002 and 2010.
She pleaded guilty to welfare fraud and paid back $85,000.

But she is not out of hot water.

Doheny bought an investment property in Hollywood, Fla. in 2006 with a partner, Limor Arika. Doheny was in charge of collecting rent from tenants and paying the mortgage, but failed to do so, according to Arika, who sued her and says Doheny owes her $80,000. The case is ongoing.
Doheny’s lawyer did not return a call. She doesn’t live at Oceana anymore.

Former Oceana residents Valeri Kolossovsky and Tamara Kolossovskaya were arrested on welfare-fraud charges in June. The value of the health care they allegedly received on the taxpayer’s dime was about $35,000.

Zelinsky managed to collect another government benefit -- a loan from the US Small Business Administration for $165,300. Documents show the loan was for Zelinsky’s business called MZ Dent, although it is unclear what the company does.

Source: NYPost.com