Written By: Alan J. Brander, CSO at SpendMend, firstname.lastname@example.org
Medical Device warranty tracking and credit payments have become a focal point for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), as evidenced by several new requirements in past last ten years. Hospital compliance of those rules are being closely scrutinized by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) through the Office of Audit Services (OAS).
The reason for this focus is twofold:
- The US Government is the largest single purchaser of implantable medical devices in the world. Spending approximately $35B dollars per year. In the period between 2012 -2014, Medicare paid $30B for cardiac devices alone.
- Recent audits show that hospitals have done a poor job of self-regulation and reporting. A NY Times article from May 4, 2017, quoted the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) OIG audit report; a NY area hospital was required to repay $14M dollars due to overpayments. Audits like this have fueled CMS, which recently announced it plans to recoup $1 Billion in improper payments by 2020 through wide spread audits, according to a new rule that hit the federal register on November 1, 2018. CMS has also stated that they intend to recoup a subsequent $381 Million in improper payments (at minimum) every year beyond their 2020 goal.
The last 10 years have seen a huge increase in surgically implanted devices designed to decrease morbidity, mortality, and improve patient lifestyle. These devices remain in the patient after the conclusion of the procedure for one or more of the following reasons: organ support (i.e. pacemakers), limb or joint replacement (i.e. hips, knees), or automation of monitoring and therapy delivery (neural stimulators or medication pumps). Many of these devices are high tech and may include batteries and computer chips which can fail, malfunction, or have early battery depletion. Even low-tech devices like hips or knees can fail or be recalled. Manufactures of these devices stand behind their product and provide either free replacement cost or partial money back.
The hospital is required to pursue either a no cost replacement or available credits if the device is under warranty. This is determined by returning the explanted device back to the manufacture for testing. The manufacturer then assesses the cause of the device failure then sends credits as applicable. The hospital is supposed to report the credits they receive and if the amount is greater > 50% of the device cost. The hospital is legally responsible to return those monies to the payor of the original procedure. This is known at the 50% Rule. A second rule, known as the Prudent Buyer Standard states that a hospital owes the warranty money to the payor, even if they do not send the explant for review or if they do not recover the funds.
Regardless of intention, failure to refund the payor for Medicare overpayments puts hospitals in violation of the False Claims Act and will prove an extremely costly mistake. In 2019 the U.S. government increased the penalties to a per violation charge of $11,463 plus 3X the amount of the violation in question – to a maximum of $22,927 plus 3X the amount of the violation in question. The determination of how and why a violation would trigger a minimum versus a maximum violation was not reported in the update.
To put this is more relatable terms, in a recent use case at a SpendMend client, a Southeastern regional healthcare system with only 1 location and 256 Beds incurred fines of nearly $2 Million.
This seems straight forward…right? Let’s summarize, if an implantable device is recalled, malfunctions, or fails: send the device back to the manufacture. The manufacturer will determine the cause of failure and issue a credit if the device qualifies. If the hospital receives a replacement or a credit, which they are to keep, unless it is equal or greater than 50% of the device cost. If the 50% Rule applies, then they must send those monies back to who paid for it. If hospitals do not follow these processes, they will be forced to pay significant penalties and fines. The OIG is reporting that hospitals are not only failing to properly report, but also, they go so far as to say that hospitals lack the internal procedure and control to manage this process.
The complexity of the explant process, vendor return requirements, and the lag time of 3-6 months to get a determination, is the root cause of many of these errors. There are several hospital departments involved: clinical, pathology, supply chain, compliance, hospital finance, patient billing, and coding. Each has a part, but rarely does anyone own it. Manufactures have several hoops to go through as well as documentation you must provide before they to proceed with testing. The hospital gets a credit check several months after the device has been sent. The Patient Billing department has no idea a credit was received and rarely told to revise a bill and return a credit.
Here are some suggestions to decrease your risk.
- Find a third-party firm that provides tracking and oversite. The tracking is only as good as your staff’s charting. The oversite and auditing are important to catch what is missed.
- Globally, develop a system wide policy to guide which devices to return, and a procedure that clearly outlines each departments responsibility.
- Define an owner or champion of the process.
- Develop a report that provides a minimum data set to aid in returns. Consider putting a flag in the EMR when an eligible device is explanted. Make sure device description and serial number is a required field. Do not let your Vendor reps retrieve and initiate the process, or if they do make sure there is a tracking sign off by supply chain to record the relevant data like patient name, encounter number and device serial number in the ERP system.
- Make sure that the RMA and return kit is obtained from the vendor, accurately filled out and returned with in the 30 to 45-day window.
- To aid in the return create a specific form and process, ideally managed by supply chain. With every return always ask for a product analysis and report to be returned to the hospital.
- Consider OCR technology to scan and track credit memos. Make sure your policy and procedure include consistent notification of Patient Accounts of any credit > to 50%.