A United States Attorney鈥榮 Office is attempting to bootstrap the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services billing guidelines on overlapping surgeries into a False Claims Act case, the AHA and Hospital and Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania argue in a friend-of-the-court brief filed yesterday in a case involving University of Pennsylvania Medical Center. The billing guidance 鈥渆xplicitly 鈥 permits overlapping surgeries as long as a qualified backup physician is available,鈥 and there is no serious allegation in this case that those billing guidelines were even breached, the brief states. It notes that medical guidance on overlapping surgeries was updated by the American College of Surgeons in 2015 and CMS鈥 billing guidelines have largely deferred to that medical guidance since then. 鈥淭his has allowed hospitals to develop policies 鈥 that are consistent with ACS guidance, and best suited to their patients鈥 individual circumstances and their surgical teams鈥 own professional experience,鈥 the associations say. The brief further notes that the court should not permit CMS billing guidelines to be 鈥渕orph[ed] into actionable fraud against the government.鈥 

Related News Articles

Headline
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau today released a final rule Jan. 7 banning medical bills on credit reports and prohibiting lenders from using medical鈥
Headline
The AHA July 29 applauded a proposed rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to address concerns raised by the AHA and other organizations鈥
Headline
The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions held a hearing July 11 on medical debt. The AHA submitted a statement for the hearing that鈥
Headline
The Department of Justice May 9 announced the formation of a task force focusing on competition concerns in health care. The unit, the Task Force on Health鈥
Headline
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Sept. 21 launched a rulemaking process to remove medical bills from credit reports by releasing a document that鈥
Headline
A Texas judge yesterday held that the federal government鈥檚 revised independent dispute resolution process for determining payment for out-of-network services鈥