In the context of Medicare Advantage (“MA”) reform initiatives, we previously addressed the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (“CMS”) December 27, 2022 proposal to amend its regulations set forth at 42 C.F.R. § 401.305(a) regarding the standard for an “identified overpayment” under Medicare Parts A–D, to align such regulations with section 1128J(d)(4)(A) of the Social Security Act, which incorporates by reference the “knowledge” standard from the Federal False Claims Act (“FCA”) (the “2022 Proposed Rule”).  The 2022 Proposed Rule specifically proposes removing the currently existing “reasonable diligence” standard and, instead, adopting the FCA’s definition of “knowing” and “knowingly” as set forth in the FCA, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(1)(A).  Aside from a notable omission in the 2024 MA and Part D final rule, the public had been anxiously awaiting any update from CMS about its proposed amendments set forth in the 2022 Proposed Rule—until recently.

On July 10, 2024, in connection with its calendar year 2025 physician fee schedule publication, CMS issued a proposed rule that included, not only retaining its amendment proposals set forth in the 2022 Proposed Rule (discussed above), but also an additional proposal to amend its regulations set forth at 42 C.F.R. § 401.305(b) regarding the deadline for reporting and returning overpayments (the “2024 Proposed Rule”).  We note that, as with the 2022 Proposed Rule, the proposals set forth in the 2024 Proposed Rule affect Medicare Part A–D, even though they are couched in the physician fee schedule publication.  In the 2024 Proposed Rule, CMS proposes to add a new subsection that specifies the circumstances under which the deadline for reporting and returning overpayments would be suspended to allow time for an investigation and calculation of overpayments.  As proposed, the new subsection would suspend the 60-day deadline for returning overpayments (or continue the suspension following the completion of a timely, good-faith investigation) when the following occurs:

  1. A person has identified an overpayment but has not yet completed a good-faith investigation to determine the existence of related overpayments that may arise from the same or similar cause or reason as the initially identified overpayment; and
  2. The person conducts a timely, good-faith investigation to determine whether related overpayments exist.

In such case, the obligation to return the initially identified overpayment and related payments will remain suspended until the earlier of the date that:

  1. The investigation of related overpayments has concluded and the aggregate amount of the initially identified overpayments and related overpayments is calculated; or
  2. Is 180 days after the date on which the identified overpayment was identified.

According to CMS, this amendment proposal responds to many of the comments it received relating to the 2022 Overpayment Rule’s proposal to remove a perceived six-month time period to investigate all overpayments that was referenced in an example set forth in the 2016 preamble creating the currently existing regulation.  As explained by CMS in the 2024 Proposed Rule:  The 2022 Proposed Rule “was silent on this [latter] point and did not remove this time period to investigate overpayments.  We understand the importance of allowing time to investigate and calculate overpayments.  Therefore, we propose to codify this allowance into regulation proposed at [§] 401.30(b)(3)(ii).”

Takeaways

As is evident by the 2024 Proposed Rule, CMS continues to recognize and reinforce the value of suspending the deadline for returning overpayments from self-disclosing parties to CMS pursuant to its Voluntary Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol and to the Office of Inspector General pursuant to its Health Care Fraud Self Disclosure Protocol.  Additionally, CMS acknowledges the amount of time potentially needed to investigate and, ultimately, to identify any overpayments to be reported and returned.  However, the suspension of the requirements are only allowable pursuant to a good-faith investigation.  Although CMS has yet to define or explain what it means by good-faith, one can likely presume a common sense, diligent approach to such an investigation as being sufficient.

CMS is soliciting comments to the 2024 Proposed Rule until 5 p.m. on September 9, 2024.  Proskauer will continue to monitor for developments in the interim.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Matthew J. Westbrook Matthew J. Westbrook

Matt Westbrook is an associate in the Corporate Department and a member of the Health Care Group. His practice focuses on providing regulatory compliance advice for the Firm’s health care clients, including service providers, health plans, operators, investors, and lenders, among others. Matt…

Matt Westbrook is an associate in the Corporate Department and a member of the Health Care Group. His practice focuses on providing regulatory compliance advice for the Firm’s health care clients, including service providers, health plans, operators, investors, and lenders, among others. Matt specifically provides advice on fraud and abuse matters arising under the Federal False Claims Act (FCA), Civil Monetary Penalties Law, Federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS), and Physician Self-Referral Law (Stark Law), as well as on the regulations promulgated by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Department of Health and Human Services, including the Office of Inspector General (OIG), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Before joining the Firm, Matt served as senior counsel in OIG’s Administrative and Civil Remedies Branch. At OIG, Matt was responsible for determining whether to impose administrative sanctions, including civil money penalties and Federal health care program exclusions, against health care providers and suppliers, and whether to impose civil money penalties on hospitals and physicians in connection with matters referred to CMS under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). During his tenure, Matt also litigated exclusion appeals before administrative law judges and appellate panels of the Departmental Appeals Board; advised United States Attorney’s Offices on exclusions appealed to Federal district courts; resolved voluntary self-disclosures submitted by providers and grant and contract recipients; and participated in the negotiations and settlements of FCA matters by the Department of Justice involving the AKS, Stark Law, CMS reimbursement issues, and DEA and FDA compliance issues. In connection with certain FCA resolutions, Matt also negotiated and monitored corporate integrity agreements.

On the Florida junior circuit and in college, Matt was a competitive tennis player. Matt played on the varsity team and was captain his senior year at Rhodes College, earning ITA Division III and SCAC All-Academic Honor Roll awards his sophomore, junior, and senior years. Matt is an active member of the American Health Law Association (AHLA) and currently serves as a Vice Chair of AHLA’s Fraud and Abuse Practice Group.

Photo of Whitney Phelps Whitney Phelps

Whitney Phelps provides practical and strategic counsel, solutions and analysis for healthcare stakeholders of all kinds. She has particular expertise in managed care and value-based contracting, including with various alternative payment arrangements between providers and payers. Her experience includes advising on a broad…

Whitney Phelps provides practical and strategic counsel, solutions and analysis for healthcare stakeholders of all kinds. She has particular expertise in managed care and value-based contracting, including with various alternative payment arrangements between providers and payers. Her experience includes advising on a broad range of complex healthcare transactions and regulatory matters relating to long-term care, home care, behavioral health, risk contracting and ambulatory services.

Whitney has deep capabilities negotiating complex joint ventures and other transactions, with special attention to New York regulatory compliance. Whitney also has extensive experience representing health care entities before the New York State Executive Branch, including with respect to shaping health care policy and Medicaid redesign, as well as laws and regulations impacting regulated healthcare entities in New York.

Whitney also served as Director of Managed Care and Associate Counsel at the Healthcare Association of New York State.