Tag Archives: health care fraud

Ambiguous Transactions

As any experienced fraud examiner will be happy to tell you, unambiguously distinguishing individual instances of fraud, waste and abuse, one from the other, can be challenging; that’s because transactions demonstrating characteristics of one of these issues so often share characteristics of the other(s). A spate of recent articles in the trade press confirm the public impression not only that health care costs are constantly rising but that poorly controlled health care provider reimbursement systems represent significant targets of waste and abuse, both within companies themselves and from external bad actors.

While some organizations review their health benefits programs and health administrator organizations annually, others appear to be doing relatively little in this area. Consequently, CFEs are increasingly being asked as audit team members to participate in fraud risk assessments of hearth benefits administration (HBA) programs for corporations, government entities, and nonprofit organizations. As a consequence, ACFE members are increasingly identifying practices that result in recoverable losses as well as losses that were never recovered because some among our client organizations have never effectively audited their health benefit plans.

A good place to start with this type of fraud risk assessment is for the CFE to evaluate the oversight of HBA reporting activities that could identify unidentified losses for the client organization.

Many organizations contract with third-party administrators (TPAs) to oversee their employee insurance claims process, health care provider network, care utilization review, and employee health plan membership functions. In the arena of claims processing, in today’s environment of rising costs, TPAs can make significant claim payment errors that result in financial losses to the CFE’s client organization if such errors are not promptly identified, recovered, and credited back to the plan. Claim overpayments are common in the industry; and most TPAs themselves have audit processes in place to minimize the losses to their clients. Many control assurance professionals incorrectly assume that the claim audit covers all the exposures, as the primary function of claims administration is to pay claims. This misconception can block a true understanding of the nature of the exposures and lessen the client’s sense of the necessity that systematic fraud and waste detection audits of health care claims transactions are performed, both externally and internally.

The trade press recently reported that an administrator for a U.S. federal government health benefit’s health plan changed its method of administering coordination of benefits (COB) from “pursue and pay” to “pay and pursue.” Under “pursue and pay,” the administrator determines who the primary insurance payer is before making payment. Under “pay and pursue,” the administrator pays the insurance claim and pursues a refund only if it itself is determined to be the secondary payer. In this case, the clients were billed for the payment of full benefits, even though they should have been the secondary payers. The financially strapped administrator recovered the overpayments, deposited them into a bank account, and never credited its clients. Following an audit, one of the client plans received a check for $2.3 million for its share of the refunds that were not returned to it. Is this case of apparent deception an example of fraud? Of waste? Or of abuse?

If COB savings had been routinely monitored by each of the plans, along with each client’s other cost containment activities, they would have noticed that the COB savings had fallen off and were next to nothing under “pay and pursue.” When looking at COB, CFEs and client internal auditors should review the provisions of the contract with the administrator to determine who is responsible for identifying other group coverage (OGC), the methodology for investigating OGC, time limitations for recovering overpayments, and the requirements for the reporting of savings to the client organization by the administrator. In conducting their risk assessments, client management and CFEs also should consider the controls over the organization’s oversight of monitoring COB savings and over the other cost containment activities performed by the administrator.

The COB case considered above was intentional deception, but losses also can be unintentional. To recover overpayments, the TPA can use a refund request letter to request refunds from healthcare providers (hospitals, physicians, etc.), or use the provider offset method, which deducts the overpayment from the provider’s next payment. The ACFE has reported one case in which a provider voluntarily returned an overpayment. The administrator’s policy was to return the refund check to the submitting provider with a form to complete including instructions to send the form and the check back to the administrator to initiate a provider offset on the next payment to the provider. No logs were kept of the checks received and returned to the providers. Following an audit, the client found that, because of a lack of training, personnel of its administrator had deposited the returned checks from providers into an administrative holding account. Subsequent to the investigation and administrative staff training, the client’s refund activity increased from almost nothing to more than $1 million a year. Including the monitoring and analyzing of refund activity as a component of the fraud prevention program will unfailingly provide insight into how well claim overpayments are being controlled.

When assessing for fraud risk regarding refund activity for health insurance overpayments, CFEs should pay attention to the collection methods used by the administrator, overpayment amounts and time limitations for recovery, and the use of external vendors and their shared savings on recoveries. Reporting from the administrator should be required to include an analysis of refund activity, the reasons for the refund(s), breakout between solicited and unsolicited refunds, and the balance of outstanding refunds.

Sometimes it cannot be determined whether an organization’s losses are intentional or unintentional. For example, in one review, several organizations contracted with a marketing firm specializing in a new approach to control health-care costs. The marketing firm hired an administrator to process the claims for its clients. After four months with the firm, an alert accountant at one of the organizations questioned why funding requests coming from the marketing firm were running 20 percent higher each month than they had been with the previous administrator. The organization’s finance division requested a review which revealed that the marketing firm had been billing its clients based on claims processed by the administrator, including claims not paid. The firm insisted it had not been aware that the funding requests resulted in client overbilling and agreed to refund the overbilled amounts to the organization.

Monitoring and approving the funding requests against some measure of expected costs can identify when costs should be investigated. When reviewing funding requests, assurance professionals should pay attention to the internal funding approval process, supporting detail provided by the administrator to support the funding, funding limitation controls to identify possible overfunding for follow-up investigation, bank account setup and account access, and the internal funding reconciliation process.

While losses may occur because of the administrator’s practices, losses (waste) also can go undetected because the organization does not perform adequate oversight of the practices used on its accounts. Preferred provider organization (PPO) discounts are common in managed health care plans. When organizations use PPO networks that are independent of the administrator’s contracted network, the PPO networks receive the claim first to reprice it with the negotiated rate. The PPO network generates a repricing sheet, which is sent with the original claim to the administrator for processing and payment.

In one case, no one explained the repricing sheets to the claim examiners, so they ignored them. The claims system automatically priced and loaded the administrator’s network claims with the negotiated rates into the claims system. However, because the client’s external PPO network fees were not in the claims system, the claims were paid at billed charges. The client lost an estimated $750,000 in discounts over a one-year period and was paying 34 percent of the savings to the PPO networks for savings that it never received. The client did not detect the lost discounts because it never reconciled the discounts reported by the PPO’s quarterly billings for its share of the savings to a discount savings as reported by the administrator.

While examining risks regarding discounts, CFE’s auditors should review the administrator’s or independent PPO network’s contracts regarding PPO pricing and access to pricing variation for in-network provider audits, alternative savings arrangements using external vendors for out-of-network providers, and reporting of PPO discount savings. Within their own organizations, auditors should be instructed to review the internal process of monitoring discount reporting and reconcile PPO shared savings to the administrator reporting the discounts.

There are frequent reports on fraud, abuse, and errors in government health programs issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Inspector General and by the U.S. Government Accountability Office; all these reports can be of use to CFEs in the conduct of our investigations. Because many of our client organization’s health plans mirror government programs, the fraud risk exposure in organizations is almost everywhere the same. Organizations have incurred tremendous losses by not systematically reviewing benefits administration and through lack of understanding of the dynamics of health plan oversight within their organizations. Developing and promoting a team response within an organization to foster understanding of the exposures in the industry is a practical role for all CFEs. This posture puts fraud examiners (as members of the fraud/abuse prevention and response team) in a position to provide management with assurance that the reporting on the millions spent on employees’ health benefits is accurate and reasonable and that associated costs are justified.

Your Friendly Pharmacy

The tragic consequences of the currently raging opioid epidemic are splashed across the headlines and vividly displayed in television documentaries every day and yet, unless they specialize in the healthcare sector, I’ve found that most CFEs and forensic accountants are relatively unfamiliar with the mechanics of prescription drug and pharmacy fraud.

The reality is that, in many communities across America today, obtaining illegal prescriptions and the related controlled drugs of choice can be as easy as ordering a sandwich. Licensed physicians in every part of the country are daily arrested for on-demand prescribing of Oxycontin, Vicodin and Xanax. The resulting grand jury indictments usually feature some version of charges related to ‘prescribing drugs outside the usual course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose’.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. non-medical use of prescription painkillers results in more than $72.5 billion annually in direct healthcare costs and identifies prescription drugs as the second most-abused category of drugs after marijuana. In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (OIG) has released several reports on prescription drug fraud in the Medicaid and Medicare Part D populations.

This epidemic has not only led to an increase in prescription drug fatalities, it’s also fueled opportunities for a host of ethically challenged individuals. This category of fraudsters has many faces: patients, patients’ family members, prescribers, pharmacy staff, medical employees, service contractors, recruiters and countless others are continuously involved in ever-mutating prescription drug fraud schemes.

Patients who commit prescription fraud often do so to acquire drugs to support their own addictions. But prescription drugs are a commodity with a high resale value, so fraudsters also divert prescription drugs for profit. Fraudsters illegally sell Oxycontin for $1 to $2 per milligram on the street. Some retirees on fixed incomes visit physicians complaining of phantom pain just so they can receive prescriptions for controlled drugs to re-sell for additional income.

Sometimes medical services’ employees, patients, family members, family friends and others fraudulently acquire prescription pads. In a recently reported case, owners of a professional cleaning service stole prescription pads and an ink signature pad from a doctor’s office they were hired to clean.

Some bypass obtaining prescriptions entirely by stealing controlled substances directly from pharmacies. Many pharmacies in hard hit areas no longer carry selected drugs or have increased their security.

Here are other common examples of the various ways individuals have chosen to defraud the system:
• Doctor shopping: visiting multiple doctors in search of prescriptions.
• Pharmacy shopping: filling prescriptions at multiple pharmacies to avoid being denied service.
• Prescription alteration: increasing dosage, quantity or refills on existing prescriptions.
• Washed prescriptions: washing ink off written prescriptions to create blanks and re-writing new fraudulent prescriptions.
• Forged prescriptions: using copy machines or computers to create fake prescriptions.
• Fax and phone prescriptions: faxing fraudulent prescriptions to pharmacies or phoning pharmacies to call in and/or verify prescriptions.
• Illegal market: acquiring drugs from illegal sources.

Regarding providers, some medical providers have turned to selling prescriptions to patients or anyone willing to pay their fees, even when there’s no medical justification for the drug therapies; this activity might or might not take place in the prescribers’ place of business.

As the ACFE indicates, prescribers of large volumes of pain drugs risk being identified as “pill mill” operators. Pain clinics, legitimate and otherwise, often prescribe large volumes of controlled pain drugs. In typically reported cases, patients line up outside the pain clinics prior to their opening because they know they can easily obtain prescriptions for controlled drugs.

Prescribers who knowingly commit prescription fraud have turned to some of the following schemes to defraud the system:

• Medically unnecessary prescribing.
• Internet prescribing.
• Self-prescribing.
• Diversion.
• Collusion.

Like enterprising patients and prescribers, pharmacies that participate in fraud schemes often do so for enhanced profit. In a recent case which received enhanced media coverage, a pharmacist, a doctor and others were among the a number arrested for “prescription harvesting”. The accused fraudsters stole patients’ identities to bill Medicare and Medicaid for $18 million in illegitimate prescriptions. Approximately $7.3 million in taxpayer dollars was lost in this scheme.

Other prosecuted pharmacy schemes have included:

• False claims: submitting claims for payment for which no prescription or authorization exists.
• Buy-backs: buying back prescriptions from patients – often at a discount.
• Kickbacks: receiving or providing monetary incentive for selling certain prescriptions.
• Shell or vanishing pharmacies: operating pharmacies in name only – or operating pharmacies just long enough to submit false claims for profit.
• Shell ownership: masking pharmacies’ ownership to hide identities of the true owners.
• Online pharmacies: selling controlled substances illegally with relative anonymity.
• Counterfeit products: knowingly dispensing counterfeit drugs.

Recruiters are intermediaries who engage partners to carry out fraudulent activity. In most cases, recruiters conspire with prescribers and/or pharmacies to enlist patients to carry out their fraudulent billings and/or diversion schemes. Documented cases show that patients, prescribers, pharmacies and recruiters have conspired to submit false claims, and to support buy-backs, kickbacks and diversions.

More than 80 pharmacists, physicians and others in a large metropolitan area conspired to establish a network of pill mills that issued prescriptions, many for controlled drugs such as hydrocodone and oxycodone, to patients without a legitimate need. The patients used Medicaid, Medicare or private insurance coverage to pay for the drugs. The principal pharmacist owned and operated 26 different pharmacies; following prosecution, he was sentenced to 17 years in prison.

Many U.S. federal, state and private organizations are now vigorously data mining prescription activity to detect fraud at all levels. Federal examples include the Drug Enforcement Agency, the DOJ OIG and routine Federal analysis of vendor contracts. Each U.S. state (except Missouri) now has a Prescription Drug Monitoring Program, which receives all information on prescription drug activity for controlled substances from both cash and insurance provider imbursed prescription transactions. Also, state law enforcement and vendors provide detection activities. Health care entities in the private sector, such as health plans and other payers, sometimes perform the data mining themselves or work with vendors. Private citizens frequently act as whistleblowers to expose fraudsters.

The entities charged with exposing schemers now use numerous methods to detect fraud and are developing new approaches every day just to keep up with all the evolving scenarios. Audits can be an effective detection method when conducted by trained, knowledgeable staff. Those who are called upon to perform desk and onsite audits must be cognizant of current activities and patterns and ensure that involved investigative groups are working together so leads from these audits can be directed to the appropriate law enforcement entities.

To identify aberrant behaviors, investigators utilize a number of different detection processes including:

• Sending confirmation letters to patients or prescribers to validate services received or rendered.
•Analyzing patient, prescriber, pharmacy and drug activities to identify aberrant utilization, prescribing, dispensation and/or processing patterns.
• Analyzing drug utilization by therapy classification and/or risk category.
• Reviewing prescribers by medical specialty to identify individuals prescribing outside the normal scope of their specialties.
• Focusing on geographic areas where fraud is an issue.
• Applying geospatial analyses to determine distances traveled by patients and to identify clusters.
• Searching for historical and current patterns to anticipate future fraudulent behaviors.
• Expert fraud examiners can assist in many ways in the performance of different types of analytics on prescription claim data. They use public and private data sources and sophisticated algorithms for retrospective, predictive and geospatial analyses.

Prescription drug fraud goes far beyond the headlines about controlled drugs. The ACFE reports that fraudsters also target high-dollar retail drugs of all kinds. These medications are used for the treatment of HIV, mental health issues, diabetes and cancer and can all command high fees from desperate patients.

It’s imperative for CFEs, forensic accountants and other assurance professionals to be aware of past and present drug diversion schemes and mindful of the changing health care environment and its associated vulnerabilities no just to keep pace with fraudsters but, more importantly to more effectively support the law enforcement professionals who rely on us for the high quality investigative materials so vital to successful prosecutions.

The Healthcare Fraud Circus

The trade press indicates that healthcare expenditures are again on the rise while the ACFE tells us that approximately $25 million dollars per hour is stolen, wasted or abused in the provision of healthcare services in the US alone. Not surprisingly, our Chapter members, CFEs and forensic accountants, employed by both governmental and private institutions, are being increasingly called upon to grapple with the fallout.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) defines healthcare fraud as the intentional deception or misrepresentation that an individual knows, or should know, to be false, or does not believe to be true, and makes, knowing the deception could result in some unauthorized benefit to himself or some other person(s). The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) is more specific, defining the term federal healthcare offense as “a violation of, or a criminal conspiracy to violate” specific provisions of the U.S. Code, “if the violation or conspiracy relates to a health care benefit program” 18 U.S.C. § 24(a).

The statute goes on to define a health care benefit program as any public or private plan or contract, affecting commerce, under which any medical benefit, item, or service is provided to any individual, and includes any individual or entity who is providing a medical benefit, item, or service for which payment may be made under the plan or contract. Finally, health care fraud is defined as knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud a healthcare benefit program or obtaining, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any of the money or property owned by. . . any healthcare benefit program. HIPAA establishes specific criminal sanctions for offenses against both private and public health insurance programs. These offenses are consistent with the common definitions of fraud in that they involve false statements, misrepresentations, or deliberate omissions that are critical to the determination of benefits payable and which may obstruct fraud investigations.

Practitioners new to fraud examination and forensic accounting in the healthcare arena need to develop a familiarity with the players involved in the provision of and payment for healthcare services if they are to effectively investigate identified instances of fraud, waste, and abuse in this ever-expanding sector of the economy.

Healthcare fraud differs from healthcare abuse. CMS says that abuse refers to incidents or practices that are not consistent with the standard of medical care (in other words, with substandard care)

–Unnecessary costs to a program, caused either directly or indirectly;
–Improper payment or payment for services that fail to meet professional standards;
–Medically unnecessary services;
–Substandard quality of care (e.g., in nursing homes);
–Failure to meet coverage requirements.

Healthcare fraud, in comparison, typically takes one or more of the following forms:

–False statements or claims;
–Elaborate schemes;
–Cover-up strategies;
–Misrepresentations of value;
–Misrepresentations of service.

It’s important to appreciate that healthcare is a dynamic and segmented market among parties that deliver or facilitate the delivery of health information, healthcare resources, and the financial transactions that underly and support the functioning of all the many components of the total business process. To fully appreciate what healthcare fraud looks like, it’s important to understand traditional and nontraditional players. The patient is the individual who actually receives a healthcare service. The provider is an individual or entity that delivers or executes the healthcare service. The payer is the entity that processes the financial transaction. The plan sponsor is the party that funds the transaction. Plan sponsors include private self-insurance programs, employer-based premium programs, and government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. A vendor is any entity that provides a professional service or materials used in the delivery of patient care. Complicating matters is that each one of these player entities has a distinct perspective and point of view of the overall process which can differ significantly from that of each of the others.

So, what does healthcare fraud look like from the individual patient’s perspective? The patient may submit a false claim with no participation from any other party. The patient may exaggerate a workers’ compensation claim or allege that an injury took place at work when in fact it occurred outside of work. The patient may participate in collusive fraudulent behavior with other parties. A second party may be a physician who fabricates a service for liability compensation. The patient may be involved in an established crime ring that involves extensive collusive behavior, such as staging an auto accident. The schemes typically repeat themselves as well as constantly evolve in the creativity they demonstrate.

And from the provider’s perspective? The fraud schemes can vary from simple false claims to complex financial arrangements. The traditional scheme of submitting false claims for services not rendered has always been and continues to be a problem. Other maneuvers, such as submitting duplicate claims or not acknowledging duplicate payments, are issues as well.

Some schemes manifest great complexity and sophistication in their understanding of payer systems. One example is the rent-a-patient scheme where criminals pay “recruiters” to organize and recruit beneficiaries to visit clinics owned or operated by the criminals. For a fee, recruiters “rent,” or “broker,” the beneficiaries to the criminals. Recruiters often enlist beneficiaries at low-income housing projects, retirement communities, or employment settings of low-income wage earners. Detecting complicated misrepresentations that involve contractual arrangements with third parties or cost report manipulations submitted to government programs requires a niche expertise for identification representing an opportunity for anti-fraud practitioners expert in data mining.

And from the payer’s perspective? The fraud schemes perpetrated by this group tend to be pursued mostly in response to transactions between the payer and a government plan sponsor. They include misrepresentations of performance guarantees, not answering beneficiary questions on claims status, bad-faith claim transactions, and financial transactions that are not contractually based. Other fraudulent activities include altering or reassigning the diagnosis or procedure codes submitted by the provider. Auditing payer activities also requires a niche expertise involving operational as well as contractual issues.

Healthcare fraud schemes perpetrated by employers include underreporting the number of employees, employee classifications, and payroll information; failing to pay insurance premiums, which results in no coverage; creating infrastructures that make employees pay for coverage via payroll deductions; engaging in management activities that discourage employees from seeking medical treatment; and referring employees to a medical facility and in turn receiving compensation for the referrals.

Vendor perpetrated schemes furnishes numerous examples involving a range of participants, from professional healthcare subcontractors to suppliers of equipment, products, services, and pharmaceuticals. These schemes include false claims, claims for altered products, counterfeit medications, and services from unlicensed professionals. They include collusive behavior among several entities as well as between individual professionals.

In summary, the take away for anti-fraud professionals is that Healthcare fraud is growing at an accelerated rate in the United States. Traditional schemes include false claim submissions, care that lacks medical necessity, controlled substance abuse, upcoding (billing for more expensive procedures), employee-plan fraud, staged-accident rings, waiver of copayments and deductibles, billing experimental treatments as nonexperimental ones, agent-broker fraud relationships, premium fraud, bad-faith claim payment activities, quackery; overutilization (rendering more services than are necessary), and kickbacks. Evolved schemes include complex rent-a-patient activities, 340 B program abuse activities (setting aside discounted drugs, making them unavailable to those in need), pill-mill schemes (schemes to falsely bill prescriptions), counterfeit drug activities, and organized criminal schemes.

CFEs and forensic accountants have a significant role in combating all of this. The good news is that much information is available to guide practitioners from both governmental and private sources.

Dr. Fraudster & the Billing Anomaly Continuum

healthcare-fraudThis month’s member’s lecture on Medicare and Medicaid Fraud triggered a couple of Chapter member requests for more specifics about how health care fraud detection analytics work in actual practice.

It’s a truism within the specialty of data analytics having to do with health care billing data that the harder you work on the front end, the more successful you’ll be in materializing information that will generate productive results on the back end.  Indeed, in the output of health care analytics applications, fraud examiners and health care auditors now have a new set of increasingly powerful tools to use in the audit and investigation of all types of fraud generally and of health care fraud specifically; I’m referring, of course, to analytically supported analysis of what’s called the billing anomaly continuum.

The use of the anomaly continuum in the general investigative process starts with the initial process of detection, proceeds to investigation and mitigation and then (depending on the severity of the case) can lead to the follow-on phases of prevention, response and recovery.   We’ll only discuss the first three phases here as most relevant for the fraud examination process and leave the prevention, response and recovery phases for a later post.

Detection is the discovery of clues within the data.  The process involves taking individual data segments related to the whole health care process (from the initial provision of care by the health care provider all the way to the billing and payment for that care by the insurance provider) and blending them into one data source for seamless analysis.  Any anomalies in the data can then be noted.  The output is then evaluated for either response or for follow-up investigation.  It is these identified anomalies that will go on at the end of the present investigative process to feed the detection database for future analysis.

As an example of an actual Medicare case, let’s say we have a health care provider whom we’ll call Dr. Fraudster, some of whose billing data reveals a higher than average percentage of complicated (and costly) patient visits. It also seems that Dr. Fraudster apparently generated some of this billings while travelling outside the country.  There were also referred patient visits to chiropractors, acupuncturists, massage therapists, nutritionists and personal trainers at a local gym whose services were also billed under Dr. Fraudster’s tax ID number as well as under standard MD Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) visit codes.  In addition, a Dr. Outlander, a staff physician, and an unlicensed doctor, was on Dr. Fraudster’s staff and billed for $5 an hour.  Besides Outlander, a Dr. Absent was noted as billing out of Dr. Fraudster’s clinic even though he was no longer associated with the clinic.

First off, in the initial detection phase, its seems Dr. Fraudster’s high-volume activity flagged an edit function that tracks an above-average practice growth rate without the addition of new staff on the claim form.  Another anomalous activity picked up was the appearance of wellness services presented as illness based services.  Also the billed provision of services while travelling is also certainly anomalous.

The following investigation phase involves ascertaining whether various activities or statements are true.  In Dr. Fraudster’s case, evidence to collect regarding his on-staff associate, Dr. Outlander, may include confirmation of license status, if any; educational training, clinic marketing materials and payroll records.  The high percentage of complicated visits and the foreign travel issues need to be broken down and each activity analyzed separately in full detail.  If Dr. Fraudster truly has a high complication patient population, most likely these patients would be receiving some type of prescription regime.  The lack of a diagnosis requirement with associated prescriptions in this case limited the scope of the real-life investigation.  Was Dr. Fraudster prescribing medications with no basis?  If he uses an unlicensed Doctor on his staff, presents wellness services as illness related services, and sees himself (perhaps) as a caring doctor getting reluctant insurance companies to pay for alternative health treatments, what other alternative treatment might he be providing with prescribed medications?  Also, Dr. Fraudster had to know that the bills submitted during his foreign travels were false.  Statistical analysis in addition to clinical analysis of the medical records by actual provider and travel records would provide a strong argument that the doctor had intent to misrepresent his claims.

The mitigation phase typically builds on issues noted within the detection and investigation phases.  Mitigation is the process of reducing or making a certain set of circumstances less severe.  In the case of Dr. Fraudster, mitigation occurred in the form of prosecution.  Dr. Fraudster was convicted of false claims and removed from the Medicare network as a licensed physician, thereby preventing further harm and loss.  Other applicable issues that came forward at trial were evidence of substandard care and medical unbelievability patterns (CPE codes billed that made no sense except to inflate the billing).  What made this case even more complicated was tracking down Dr. Fraudster’s assets.  Ultimately, the real-life Dr. Fraudster did receive a criminal conviction; civil lawsuits were initiated, and he ultimately lost his license.

From an analytics point of view, mitigation does not stop at the point of conviction of the perpetrator.  The findings regarding all individual anomalies identified in the case should be followed up with adjustment of the insurance company’s administrative adjudication and edit procedures (Medicare was the third party claims payer in this case).  What this means is that feedback from every fraud case should be fed back into the analytics system.  Incorporating the patterns of Dr. Fraudster’s fraud into the Medicare Fraud Prevention Model will help to prevent or minimize future similar occurrences, help find currently on-going similar schemes elsewhere with other providers and reduce the time it takes to discover these other schemes.  A complete mitigation process also feeds detection by reducing the amount of investigative time required to make the existence of a fraud known.

As practicing fraud examiners, we are provided by the ACFE with an examination methodology quite powerful in its ability to extend and support all three phases of the health care fraud anomaly identification process presented above.  There are essentially three tools available to the fraud examiner in every health care fraud examination, all of which can significantly extend the value of the overall analytics based health care fraud investigative process.  The first is interviewing – the process of obtaining relevant information about the matter from those with knowledge of it.  The second is supporting documents – the examiner is skilled at examining financial statements, books and records.   The examiner also knows the legal ramifications of the evidence and how to maintain the chain of custody over documents.  The third is observation – the examiner is often placed in a position where s/he can observe behavior, search for displays of wealth and, in some instances, even observe specific offenses.

Dovetailing the work of the fraud examiner with that of the healthcare analytics team is a win for both parties to any healthcare fraud investigation and represents a considerable strengthening of the entire long term healthcare fraud mitigation process.