First, Do No Fraud: The Unworthy Pardoning of John Davis
Among the long list of pardons and commutations released on Trump’s last day, mingling with the more notorious names such as Lil’ Wayne, Steve Bannon and Kwame Kilpatrick, was a name you probably have not heard before: John Davis. The description of the crime for which he was pardoned sounds like a silly technicality in the press release: “serving as Chief Executive Officer of a healthcare company with a financial conflict of interest.” The blurb goes on to state that “no one was financially harmed” by his crime.
This is both a rather simplistic statement and a rather arguable one.
A quick word about the crimes he was convicted of, which were conspiracy to defraud the US government and 7 counts of violating anti-kickback laws. Federal law has strict rules about business arrangements among health care companies. The anti-kickback statute, or Stark law, prohibits providers who participate in federal health care programs (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare) from referring patients to certain health care services in which the provider has a financial interest. There is a specific list of the services covered by the law. Among them are imaging centers, physical therapy, clinical laboratory services and durable medical equipment companies. The reason for the restriction is to ensure that the services are actually needed by the patient and remove any financial incentive for a physician to refer a patient for unnecessary services.
John Davis was the CEO of Comprehensive Pain Specialists (CPS), a chain of pain clinics based in Tennessee. The government alleged that Davis entered into an arrangement with his co-conspirator, Brenda Montgomery, in which he agreed to refer patients to her durable medical equipment company, CCC Medical. In return, Montgomery would pay Davis a percentage of the profits from services provided. To facilitate this, Davis opened a shell company in his wife’s name, to which Montgomery sent the payments. Davis paid bonuses to health care providers who referred patients to CCC. In total, Davis and Montgomery received nearly $3 million from Medicaid for payment of claims for payments that were illegally made under federal law.
DME is rife with fraud. Have you ever received a phone call asking whether you think you could benefit from a back brace or knee brace? If so, it was likely part of a fraudulent scheme. You answer “yes” to a few questions, such as “does your back ever hurt?” and the company gets a physician to write you a “prescription” for an expensive back brace, which is billed to your insurance (though the targets of these calls are almost always Medicare beneficiaries – lists of names of these beneficiaries are another lucrative commodity.) But while Davis’s conviction is related to DME, his company has been the target of investigation in other, much larger scams.
Pain clinics like CPS largely specialize in opioid therapy and have been under much scrutiny in recent years due to the opioid epidemic. Because opioid pain killers are truly necessary for some chronic pain patients, reputable pain clinics have tried to devise ways to ensure safe usage of the drugs by their patients. One of the main ways they do this is by requiring patients to agree to regular and random urine screens. Ostensibly, the point of the screens is to make sure that the patient is using his or her medication (rather than selling it), not over-using it, and not using it in combination with other drugs that might indicate abuse.
What fraud investigators have found is that these drug tests have become a windfall for unscrupulous providers. Urinalysis can be very expensive, depending on the type of testing used. There are two basic categories of urine drug testing (UDT): qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative is a simple positive/negative; quantitative is more complicated and breaks down the amount of a substance present in the sample. Qualitative is markedly less expensive than quantitative. Moreover, qualitative testing performed in the doctor’s office, so-called “point of care” (POC) testing, is reimbursed at a much lower rate than qualitative tests performed offsite. Most practices perform the simple point of care test, then decide whether or not it is necessary to send the sample away for quantitative testing.
CPS realized quickly the money to be made from UDT. An email from Davis to its billing company instructed that for every patient given a qualitative test, the billing company should submit claims for 12 units. The reason? One test cup tests for 12 different drugs. One cup-type test might be worth $11; multiply that by 12 (all for the same cup) and it starts adding up. Especially when the same standing order was issued to drug test every patient across the board, which was the practice at CPS.
CPS did not perform the inexpensive on-site POC testing, determining POC testing was “not conducive to the current model” of business. Instead, the company opened its own lab and began sending the samples there so that they could seek a higher reimbursement. CPS began ordering both types of testing at the same time on a sample, meaning all qualitative tests were also resubmitted for the more expensive quantitative testing, even if the results were negative. Because every service billed to a federal healthcare payer must be medically necessary, the decision of whether even a positive test warrants quantitative testing requires a physician to make that determination on a case by case basis.
The federal government and the state of Tennessee have a pending civil suit against CPS, its owners (which include a Tennessee state senator), and newly pardoned CEO John Davis for the UDT scheme. The defendants maintain that the drug screenings were necessary to ensure the safety of their patients and to prevent medication abuse or misuse. However, the government alleges that in many cases, the results were not even retrieved by the providers, nor did they wait for the results before prescribing opiates to a patient. (Notably, if CPS would have performed POC testing, they could have near-instant results before giving their patients more pills.) According to the lawsuit, state and federal health care programs paid CPS nearly $80 million for urine drug screens between 2011 and 2018. In case there was any doubt that this company knew what it was doing, the lawsuit alleges the company referred to urine as “liquid gold” due to its revenue generating capabilities.
As if they had not helped themselves to enough of the health care dollar cookie jar, the lawsuit further details other schemes perpetrated by CPS and Davis, including over $2 million in unnecessary genetic testing, which is only reimbursable under specific medial circumstances not present in the claims submitted by CPS; submitting reimbursement claims for unwarranted or unallowable psychological testing for which Medicare paid $2.4 million; billing over $136,000 for a non-covered acupunctural procedure using a code for a different, allowable procedure; and providing financial incentives to clinic providers to encourage the ordering of more and more testing, from a $5 iPad-based psych evaluation to a $150 spinal cord stimulation test.
The civil complaint, which is available on PACER if you have an account, runs 104 pages and details many more specific instances of CPS principals behaving badly. So far, only Davis has been convicted criminally, but the US and the state of Tennessee are seeking damages in triple the amount of fraudulent claims, plus penalties in the ongoing civil case.
I am not privy to the charging decisions of the DOJ or why none of the other principals involved in the CPS schemes besides John Davis have been indicted. It could have to do with how far removed they are from the daily operations of the clinic and its providers, though the complaint seems to put them right into the thick of the decision making. Perhaps it doesn’t matter, since they, too, may have simply been pardoned by the former president, rendering it all for naught.
The press release about the pardons says nobody was financially harmed by John Davis’s crimes. I disagree. He defrauded all of us, the taxpayers, of money meant for the health care needs of the poor, disabled, and elderly. When the high cost of health care is debated and lamented, remember folks like John and the owners of CPS who essentially stole tens of millions of dollars from Medicaid and Medicare under the guise of helping those who suffer from chronic pain.
How did CPS operate for 7 years undetected? They didn’t. The feds began scrutinizing CPS as early as 2014, with audit findings that resulted in demands for repayment. The company fought for years while the investigators built a case, culminating in Davis’s indictment and the civil case against the others.
How, you may wonder, does this much money flow out to one business without catching someone’s attention? It does not speak well for the ability of the government to be in charge of health care payments. There are a few reasons. One problem is that there are companies like CPS all over the country, new ones popping up every day. Ferreting them out is not always easy. It is not enough to look at the billings and sound the alarm on the dollar amount alone.
Health care fraud investigations are very complex and take a long time. Making determinations of whether or not something is medically necessary is subjective; for every doctor who reviews a file and finds no medical necessity for a procedure, there is a doctor willing to disagree. Then, there is the burden of proving knowledge – specific knowledge for a criminal case, not merely implied – and that can be difficult when you have multiple clinicians, billing staff, management, etc. There is a paper trail to be followed and money to be traced. These are not, generally speaking, dumb criminals, but smart, sophisticated criminals with very good lawyers.
Another issue is that federal health care programs largely use a “pay and chase” model. Claims systems are largely automated. No human reviews a claim and approves the payment; that would be impossible due to the millions of claims processed every day. Instead, they use a system of “edits”, computer programs that scan the claims for the presence or absence of certain conditions required for payment of a particular service. If all the right boxes are checked on the claim form, the system will kick out a payment. Potential fraud and wrongdoing is only caught later, be it through a whistle blower, anonymous tipper, or audit.
In recent years, state and federal authorities have increasingly tried to get ahead of the game and root out bad actors before they make themselves unjustly rich through fraud. Health care fraud investigators have begun to employ data mining techniques to identify anomalies early on, such as providers with an abnormally high utilization of a particular service. It is not always fraud, but it can be a place to start looking more closely.
John Davis’s pardon is easily overlooked, with the more noteworthy names like Bannon making the headlines. Hopefully, knowing more about the depth and breadth of what he was actually doing sparks a little more umbrage.
This. So many financial criminals declare they hurt no one. And yet they are why the healthcare industry can’t be trusted to regulate itself.
And yes, improper payments are an issue (https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/2019-estimated-improper-payment-rates-centers-medicare-medicaid-services-cms-programs) but they often lack context – for instance its nearly impossible to find trend data over time. There’s a lot of reporting on total healthcare cost trends – ever upwards – but not fraud.Report
With very little info I assume that…
1) Serious Fraud is a serious problem to the tune of many Billions of dollars.
2) The real problem (i.e. the bulk of why our system costs too much) is with what’s legal, not with what’s illegal.Report
This is the kind of thing that should be employed anywhere the government is handing out money for services rendered, be it healthcare, or defense, or what have you. Obviously the specifics of the tools would vary, but I would hope federal and state governments leverage such tools, and have people who continuously develop such tools.Report
we leverage them where they are available, but we can’t keep people on staff to develop new ones – Google and Amazon (among others) pay way better then we do.Report
That is an evergreen issue with the .gov.Report
There are already all kinds of ways the gov’t can find out about “miss doings”. I’ve worked in the defense industries, and currently am in an aligned industry. Charge your time card wrong–it’s mischarging and possible fraud. Getting disbarred for fraud is a damn big motivator. I recall one leader commenting: there’s only 2 ways to get fired at this company. Posting porn on the bulletin board and time card fraud, and I’m not 100% sure about the first. I’ve seen people walked out the door the same day for stuff like that.
Additionally, those who “become aware” of issues of fraud are REQUIRED to 1) address it or 2) report it or both. So, when some dumbass say in an email “I’ve been charging overhead for two weeks, I need the real charge number for this effort”, and copies me, I have to go talk to him / his boss. If I don’t, I’m subject to getting fired myself.
All that said, there’s still a ton of mismanagement and fraud that goes on, although I suspect its more prevalent in the heath care fields.Report
It does kick back some false positives.
Friend of mine gets..cysts of some sort under her scalp. Benign, but by the time she gets around to dealing with them (ie, they’ve gone from “oh that’s there” to “constant mild headaches” from skin tension) she has five or six scattered around.
No dermatologist will remove more than one or perhaps two at a time, because — and I quote — “Insurance refuses to pay for more in a single visit, not without weeks of constant back and forth, because they assume we’re padding the bill. But we can do three or four sessions spaced four weeks apart, and they’ll approve it. Even though it costs MORE than doing it all at once!”.
Mind you, while just “one or two” is the most common, it’s not exactly rare for someone prone to them to have half a dozen or more that have to be dealt with every 10 years or so.
And having said all that, I wish they’d deploy those datamining tools on pharmaceuticals. I just filled a prescription that my insurance claimed cost 300 dollars, Walgreens claimed cost 75 (with coupon) if I bypassed insurance, and you can buy over the counter in Europe for about 20 bucks. (And was, in fact, about 30 bucks cash 10 years ago).
It’d be like walking into a pharmacy for a prescription for cortisone cream and being told it’s 200 dollars for a small tube, and all the OTC stuff has suddenly disappeared.Report
Governments. For Medicaid, each state handles the payments so would need a data mining system specific to its software. Tricare and Medicare don’t use the same software. This is one of my simple-government hobby horses. One system handling the payments and we could afford to build a decent audit system. Dozens of systems? Not so much.Report
Hospital Systems are often (normally?) created by vendors who are strongly motivated to NOT make their data/systems portable or compatible with other systems.
If the data isn’t portable then the vendors have lock in and ideally will force other groups to use their system. From their point of view portability is just helping their competitors.Report
It’s always interesting to me how we can somehow manage to have universal standards for X, but for Y? – Oh HELL NO!Report
This isn’t so much a market failure (the market has this option) as a government failure. The gov largely runs HC. It’s let this situation pop up and it’s not public enough so self interested players quietly lobby for the lack of laws to fix it.
IMHO it’s an example of dis-economies of scale of government. The rarest resource in the universe is the attention of senior management. If it takes an active role by senior management to fix this by making portability and access a priority, then it probably doesn’t happen.
Worse, above a certain size senior management is always going to be busy with other things and the amount of lobbying ($) by those opposed scales with the size of the organization.Report
Agreed, it is on the medical systems to insist upon a set of standards, and I just don’t see them doing that. And if the problem is senior management not having the attention to give to it, then I have to wonder if senior management is worth the cost*?
*Note that I am off the opinion that 98% of senior management are not worth the cost, in that most of then do not actually add anywhere close to the value they extract from an organization.Report
At Best, Senior Management here would either be the President of the US or maybe one of his Cabinet. At Worst, Senior Management is Congress.
At the very worst it’s a combo of them where you need Congress to pass a law at the urging of the President.
Think Turbo Tax where, to protect their business model, the company successfully got Congress to pass a law which prevents the IRS from supplying software to the public which would tell us what we owe.Report
All states have a Medicaid Fraud Control Unit. Until recent years, they were forbidden to data mine- they could only work off of referrals. Now they will allow it, but you have to apply to CMS for a waiver to get permission to conduct data mining activities.
Then the issue is getting access to the date, which is under control of the Medicaid office (MFCUs are separate and independent from the Medicaid agency by statute, because they investigate fraud within the program as well.) Getting that access is not easy. And then you need staff with the training to dig through it.
Medicaid programs have their own program integrity divisions but they have varying degrees of effectiveness. Some do next to nothing. When fraud is suspected it is supposed to be referred to the fraud units.
It’s not super efficient and it is slow as molasses.Report
Does the pardon mean that this guy can be used as a source to charge others now? Like, he no longer gets to plead the 5th?Report
I don’t know. He has not been charged for anything other than the DME scam so possibly still at risk on the other stuff.Report
Thanks for this Em; good stuff.
I scanned the pardon list yesterday and the thing that jumped out at me was that most of the people on it were business fraudsters like this guy. Birds of a feather, and stuff.Report