Transcript
Department of Health and Human Services
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
QUESTIONABLE BILLING
FOR MEDICAID PEDIATRIC
DENTAL SERVICES
IN INDIANA
Suzanne Murrin
Deputy Inspector General for
Evaluation and Inspections
November 2014
OEI-02-14-00250
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: QUESTIONABLE BILLING FOR MEDICAID PEDIATRIC
DENTAL SERVICES IN INDIANA
OEI-02-14-00250
WHY WE DID THIS STUDY
Medicaid is the primary source of dental coverage for children in low-income families and
provides access to dental care for approximately 37 million children. In recent years, a number
of dental providers and chains have been prosecuted for providing unnecessary dental procedures
to children with Medicaid and causing harm in the process.
HOW WE DID THIS STUDY
We based our analysis on Indiana Medicaid fee-for-service paid claims for general dentists and
oral surgeons who provided services to 50 or more children in 2012. Using several measures, we
identified dental providers with questionable billing who are extreme outliers when compared to
their peers in Indiana.
WHAT WE FOUND
We identified 94 general dentists and 1 oral surgeon in Indiana with questionable billing. These
providers are extreme outliers when compared to their peers. Medicaid paid these providers
$30.5 million for pediatric dental services in 2012.
These 95 dental providers—representing 11 percent of the providers we reviewed—received
extremely high payments per child; provided an extremely large number of services per day;
provided an extremely large number of services per child per visit; and/or provided certain
selected services to an extremely high proportion of children. These services included
pulpotomies, which are often referred to as “baby root canals,” and behavior management, which
includes techniques to calm or restrain a child. Notably, two-thirds of the general dentists with
questionable billing worked for four dental chains in Indiana. Three of these chains have been
the subject of Federal and State investigations. A concentration of such providers in chains
raises concerns that these chains may be encouraging their providers to perform unnecessary
procedures to increase profits.
Further, our findings raise concerns that certain providers may be billing for services that are not
medically necessary or were never provided. They also raise concerns about the quality of care
provided to children with Medicaid. Although our findings do not prove that providers either
billed fraudulently or provided medically unnecessary services, providers who bill for extremely
large numbers of services warrant further scrutiny.
WHAT WE RECOMMEND
We recommend that the Indiana Family & Social Services Administration (1) enhance its
monitoring of dental providers to identify patterns of questionable billing; (2) closely monitor
billing by providers in dental chains; (3) ensure that dental providers appropriately bill for
behavior management and educate providers on the use of behavior management; and (4) take
appropriate action on the dental providers identified as having questionable billing. The Indiana
Family & Social Services Administration concurred with all four of our recommendations.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Objective ......................................................................................................1
Background ..................................................................................................1
Methodology ................................................................................................4
Findings........................................................................................................8
Ninety-four general dentists and one oral surgeon in Indiana
had questionable billing in 2012 ......................................................8
Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................14
Agency Comments and Office of Inspector General Response.................16
Appendix....................................................................................................17
Agency Comments.........................................................................17
Acknowledgments......................................................................................21
OBJECTIVE
To identify dental providers with questionable billing for Medicaid
pediatric dental services in Indiana in 2012.
BACKGROUND
Medicaid is the primary source of dental coverage for children in
low-income families and provides access to dental care for approximately
37 million children.1 Medicaid’s Early and Periodic Screening,
Diagnostic, and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit requires States to cover all
medically necessary dental services for children 18 years of age and
under.2 Medicaid dental services must include diagnostic and preventive
services, as well as needed treatment and followup care. Diagnostic
services may include x-rays of the mouth; preventive services may include
cleanings, topical fluoride applications, and dental sealants. Dental
treatment covers a wide range of services such as fillings; tooth
extractions; and pulpotomies, which are often referred to as “baby root
canals.”
In recent years, a number of individual dental providers and chains have
been prosecuted for providing services that were medically unnecessary or
that failed to meet professionally recognized standards of care. These
providers have often been found to have suspect Medicaid billing patterns
when compared to their peers. For example, in 2013, an orthodontist with
practices in both Indiana and Texas was convicted for health care fraud in
Texas and was sentenced to 50 months in prison.3 He provided medically
unnecessary services and billed for services that were never provided. He
also maximized Medicaid reimbursement by sometimes scheduling more
than 100 Medicaid patients per day.
In addition, FORBA Holdings, LLC (referred to hereafter as FORBA), a
dental management company that manages clinics nationwide known as
“Small Smiles Centers,” settled with the United States in 2010 for
$24 million to resolve allegations of providing services that were either
____________________________________________________________
1
Thomas P. Wall, Dental Medicaid – 2012, American Dental Association (ADA), 2012.
See also Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Annual EPSDT Participation
Report, Form CMS-416 (National), Fiscal Year 2012, April 3, 2014.
2
Social Security Act (SSA) § 1905(r)(3); 42 CFR § 441.56. Dental services are covered
up to age 18, but States may choose to extend eligibility through age 21. Indiana is
among the States that have done so.
3
The United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo, Texas,
Orthodontist Sentenced to 50 Months in Federal Prison on Health Care Fraud
Conviction, April 9, 2013. Accessed at http://www.justice.gov/usao/txn/PressRelease/
2013/APR2013/apr9goodwin_michael_HCF_sen.html on May 8, 2014.
Questionable Billing for Medicaid Pediatric Dental Services in Indiana (OEI-02-14-00250)
1
medically unnecessary or performed in a manner that failed to meet
professionally recognized standards of care to children with Medicaid.4
As part of the settlement, FORBA agreed to enter into a 5-year Corporate
Integrity Agreement with the Office of Inspector General (OIG). FORBA
subsequently changed its name to Church Street Health Management,
LLC, and was then acquired by CSHM, LLC.
In 2012, the Senate Finance and Judiciary Committees investigated CSHM
and concluded that contrary to CSHM’s claims, it is the de facto owner of
the Small Smiles clinics and that the ownership structure “undermined the
independent, professional, and clinical judgment of Small Smiles
dentists.”5 In April 2014, OIG excluded CSHM from participation in
Medicaid, Medicare, and all other Federal health care programs for a
period of 5 years.6 Other dental chains have also been investigated for
allegedly encouraging their providers to perform unnecessary procedures
to increase profits.7
Indiana Medicaid Dental Claims
Indiana covers biannual dental screenings for children with Medicaid
under the age of 21, as well as covering medically necessary treatment
services. The biannual screenings generally consist of an examination,
x-rays, cleaning, a topical fluoride application, and oral hygiene
instruction. Treatment services include fillings, crowns, and oral
surgery. The State has a number of specific policy guidelines for when
certain services are covered, as well as frequency limitations for certain
services. Indiana covers dental services on a fee-for-service basis; it
currently does not cover these services through managed care.
____________________________________________________________
4
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), National Dental Management Company Pays
$24 Million to Resolve Fraud Allegations, January 20, 2010. Accessed at
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/January/10-civ-052.html on February 20, 2014.
5
U.S. Senate Committee on Finance and Committee on the Judiciary, Joint Staff Report
on the Corporate Practice of Dentistry in the Medicaid Program, page 10. Accessed at
www.finance.senate.gov/library/prints/download/?id=1c7233e0-9d08-4b83-a530b761c57a900b on February 20, 2014.
6
The exclusion was effective September 30, 2014. OIG, OIG Excludes Pediatric Dental
Management Chain From Participation in Federal Health Care Programs. Accessed at
http://oig.hhs.gov/newsroom/news-releases/2014/cshm.asp on April 4, 2014.
7
In addition to CSHM, the Senate Finance and Judiciary Committees investigated the
following chains: Kool Smiles, ReachOut Healthcare America, Heartland Dental Care,
and Aspen Dental Management. In addition, other dental chains have also been the
subject of Federal and State investigations. For example, in 2012, the All Smiles chain
and its owner agreed to pay the United States and State of Texas $1.2 million to resolve
allegations that All Smiles violated the civil False Claims Act and the Texas Medicaid
Fraud Prevention Act. DOJ, Texas Orthodontic Clinic and Former Owner Resolve
Allegations of False Medicaid Claims, March 21, 2012. Accessed at
http://www.justice.gov/usao/txn/PressRelease/2012/MAR2012/mar21Malouf_AllSmiles_
Settlement_PR.html on June 13, 2014.
Questionable Billing for Medicaid Pediatric Dental Services in Indiana (OEI-02-14-00250)
2
Indiana also allows dental providers to use “behavior management”
techniques when treating children. Behavior management may range from
soothing an uncooperative child to using physical restraints, such as a
“papoose board,” to stabilize the child.8 Dental providers must document
the reason for the use of behavior management in the medical record and
provide evidence that the child required more management than was
reasonable and necessary compared to other children of the same age.9
According to the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD),
physical restraints should be used only when less restrictive methods are
not effective and should not be used frequently because they have the
potential to produce physical or psychological harm.10
Indiana has several systems in place to oversee Medicaid pediatric dental
claims. The State has claims-processing “edits”—system processes to
ensure proper payment of claims—that it uses to review submitted claims
before paying for them. These edits ensure, among other things, that the
services were provided within State frequency limitations or at certain
time intervals. In addition, the State analyzes claims to identify providers
with unusual billing patterns, such as overutilization, upcoding, or
unbundling.11 For example, Indiana’s recent analyses, which used
algorithms based on the State’s coverage policies, included reviews of
dental cleanings, fluoride applications, and oral examinations. The State
also conducted a review for potential upcoding for certain services, such
as simple extractions that were upcoded to surgical extractions.
Related Work
This report is part of a series. Other reports in this series will examine
Medicaid dental providers in other States. An additional report covering
multiple States will determine the extent to which children enrolled in
Medicaid received dental services.
The first report in this series identified 23 general dentists and
6 orthodontists with questionable billing in New York.12 Medicaid paid
these providers $13.2 million for pediatric dental services in 2012. Almost
a third of these 23 general dentists were associated with a single dental
chain that had settled lawsuits for providing services that were medically
____________________________________________________________
8
A “papoose board” is a board with straps that is used to limit a patient’s movement and
hold the patient steady during a medical procedure.
9
Providers may bill for behavior management only once per visit.
10
AAPD, Guideline on Behavior Guidance for the Pediatric Dental Patient, 2011.
11
Overutilization is the provision of services beyond what is medically necessary.
Upcoding is the practice of billing for a service that is more expensive than the service
that was actually provided. Unbundling is the practice of maximizing reimbursement by
billing separately for the components of a procedure that has an all-inclusive payment
code.
12
OIG, Questionable Billing for Medicaid Pediatric Dental Services in New York,
OEI-02-12-00330, March 2014.
Questionable Billing for Medicaid Pediatric Dental Services in Indiana (OEI-02-14-00250)
3
unnecessary or that failed to meet professionally recognized standards of
care to children.
The second report in this series identified 26 general dentists and 1 oral
surgeon with questionable billing in Louisiana.13 Medicaid paid these
providers $12.4 million for pediatric dental services in 2012. Almost a
third of the providers worked for two dental chains.
In addition, a recent OIG audit found that providers inappropriately billed
for orthodontic services provided to 43 of 100 sampled beneficiaries in
New York City, totaling an estimated $7.8 million in inappropriate
reimbursement.14 Some of these services were provided without the
required approval, whereas other services were undocumented or were
never provided. These deficiencies occurred because the State agency and
providers did not ensure that cases were reviewed annually to determine
the need for continuing care and did not ensure that services were
adequately documented.
METHODOLOGY
We based our analysis on Medicaid paid dental claims provided by Indiana
with service dates from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012. We
excluded claims for services with special payment rates, such as those
submitted by Federally Qualified Health Centers.15 We analyzed claims
from “rendering dental providers”—the providers who provided the
services, as opposed to billing providers—to ensure that we compared
claims from the providers who performed the services.
We focused our analysis on general dentists and oral surgeons. We
analyzed the two provider types separately because their billing patterns
varied significantly. We did not include pediatric dental specialists
because the wide variation in their billing behavior made it difficult to
analyze them as one peer group. Some pediatric dental specialists provide
services that make them similar to general dentists, while others in this
group provide more complex services. In addition, we did not do a
____________________________________________________________
13
OIG, Questionable Billing for Medicaid Pediatric Dental Services in Louisiana,
OEI-02-14-00120, August 2014.
14
OIG, New York Improperly Claimed Medicaid Reimbursement for Orthodontic
Services to Beneficiaries in New York City, A-02-11-01003, October 2013.
15
We also excluded services provided in a hospital setting because these services differ
from services provided in an office setting. In total, we identified 1,524 dental providers
who provided services to children with Medicaid in 2012 on a fee-for-service basis.
Questionable Billing for Medicaid Pediatric Dental Services in Indiana (OEI-02-14-00250)
4
separate analysis of other dental specialists because there were too few to
analyze.16
General Dentists
Our analysis focused on 787 general dentists who provided services to
50 or more children with Medicaid during 2012. These dentists served a
total of 264,851 children with Medicaid. We developed a number of
measures to identify dentists with questionable billing who are extreme
outliers when compared to their peers. We developed these measures
based on input from officials from CMS, The American Academy of
Pediatric Dentistry, and The American Dental Association. We also
discussed these measures, as well as the State’s oversight of Medicaid
pediatric dental claims, with staff from the State Medicaid agency—the
Indiana Family & Social Services Administration—and with the State’s
Fraud & Abuse Detection System contractor. We developed these
measures to capture several different types of fraud, waste, and abuse. For
these measures, we included only the children with Medicaid served by
these dental providers; we did not include other children whom they
served.
For each general dentist, we calculated the following three measures for
2012:
•
the average Medicaid payment per child served,
•
the average number of services provided per day, and
•
the average number of services provided per child per visit.
We developed five additional measures for general dentists who provided
selected services in 2012. For each dentist who provided the following
service, we calculated the proportion of children with Medicaid who
received:
•
fillings,
•
extractions,
•
stainless steel crowns,
•
pulpotomies, and
•
behavior management.17
____________________________________________________________
16
In 2012, five periodontists, three orthodontists, and two prosthodontists provided
services to 50 or more children with Medicaid in Indiana. (Prosthodontists specialize in
dental prostheses, such as crowns, bridges, implants, and dentures.)
17
For this study, we added a measure on behavior management because the State has few
restrictions on its use, compared to the other States we are reviewing. For example,
New York allows behavior management to be used only with developmentally disabled
children.
Questionable Billing for Medicaid Pediatric Dental Services in Indiana (OEI-02-14-00250)
5
For each measure, we analyzed the averages and the distribution for all
general dentists.
Next, we set a threshold for each measure that, if exceeded, indicated that
the dentist had billed an extremely high amount or number compared to
other general dentists in the State. We used a standard technique for
identifying outliers, known as the Tukey method.18 Under the Tukey
method, outliers are values greater than the 75th percentile plus 1.5 times
the interquartile range. Additionally, under this method, extreme outliers
are values greater than the 75th percentile plus 3 times the interquartile
range. For this study, we only employed this more conservative approach
to identify extreme outliers. We considered dentists who exceeded the
threshold for one or more of the eight measures to have questionable
billing.
Oral Surgeons
Unlike general dentists, who provide a variety of services, oral surgeons
typically perform a more complex set of procedures. For this analysis, we
analyzed 81 oral surgeons who provided services to 50 or more children
with Medicaid in 2012.19 These oral surgeons served a total of
10,338 children with Medicaid.
For this analysis, we calculated three measures for each oral surgeon:
•
the average Medicaid payment per child served,
•
the average number of services provided per day, and
•
the average number of services provided per child per visit.
As with our analysis for general dentists, for each of these measures, we
set the thresholds for extreme outliers at the 75th percentile plus 3 times
the interquartile range. Oral surgeons who exceeded these thresholds were
extreme outliers compared to their peers and were considered to have
questionable billing.
Additional Analysis
For each general dentist or oral surgeon who exceeded the threshold for
one or more of the measures, we conducted Internet searches on the
provider’s background and analyzed his or her claims and payment
history. In a few cases, we excluded providers who were actually
specialists but had not indicated this on their claims. For the remaining
providers, we identified providers who worked for a dental chain in 2012,
____________________________________________________________
18
See J.W. Tukey, Exploratory Data Analysis. Addison-Wesley, 1977.
A total of 117 oral surgeons provided services to children with Medicaid in 2012. Of
these, 81 oral surgeons provided services to 50 or more children with Medicaid.
19
Questionable Billing for Medicaid Pediatric Dental Services in Indiana (OEI-02-14-00250)
6
based on the billing addresses associated with their claims.20 We
researched public records to determine whether any of these chains had
been subject to State or Federal investigations.
Limitations
We designed this study to identify general dentists and oral surgeons who
warrant further scrutiny. None of the measures we analyzed confirm that a
particular provider is engaging in fraudulent or abusive practices. Some
providers may be billing extremely large amounts or numbers for
legitimate reasons.
Standards
This study was conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for
Inspection and Evaluation issued by the Council of the Inspectors General
on Integrity and Efficiency.
____________________________________________________________
20
We defined a dental chain as an entity with five or more locations within a State or
around the country.
Questionable Billing for Medicaid Pediatric Dental Services in Indiana (OEI-02-14-00250)
7
FINDINGS
Ninety-four general dentists and one oral surgeon in
Indiana had questionable billing in 2012
We identified 94 general dentists and 1 oral surgeon with questionable
billing.21 We identified these providers by looking at general dentists and
oral surgeons in Indiana who served more than 50 children with Medicaid
in 2012.
The providers with questionable billing are extreme outliers when
compared to their peers. Although they made up only 11 percent of the
general dentists and oral surgeons we reviewed, they provided care to
39 percent of the children with Medicaid served by the providers we
reviewed.22 Medicaid paid these 95 providers $30.5 million for pediatric
dental services in 2012.
Two-thirds of the general dentists with questionable billing worked for
four dental chains. Three of these chains have been the subject of State
and Federal investigations.
These billing patterns indicate that certain dental providers may be billing
for services that are not medically necessary or were never provided.
They also raise concerns about quality of care and whether children
treated by these providers were harmed by these procedures. Although our
findings do not prove that providers either billed fraudulently or provided
medically unnecessary services, providers who bill for extremely large
numbers of services warrant further scrutiny.
Nine General Dentists Received Extremely High Payments Per
Child
General dentists in Indiana received an average payment of $254 for each
child with Medicaid. Nine dentists, however, received an average of more
than $650 per child.23 One dentist averaged $1,082 per child. Four of
these dentists received more than $3,000 per child for a total of
57 children. Extremely high payments raise concerns about whether these
dentists are billing for unnecessary services or services that they did not
____________________________________________________________
21
Several dental providers exceeded the threshold for more than one measure.
The 787 general dentists and 81 oral surgeons we reviewed served a total of
268,538 children with Medicaid. Some children were seen by both a general dentist and
an oral surgeon.
23
Dental providers sometimes exceeded (rather than just meeting) the thresholds for
questionable billing, and therefore the numbers in the text are sometimes greater than
those for the thresholds presented in the tables on pages 9 and 10.
22
Questionable Billing for Medicaid Pediatric Dental Services in Indiana (OEI-02-14-00250)
8
provide. See Table 1 for more information on general dentists with
extremely high average payments or large numbers of services.
Table 1: General Dentists With Extremely High Average Payments or Large
Numbers of Services
Measure
Average Payments Per
Child
Average Number of
Services Per Day
Average Number of
Services Per Child Per
Visit
Average for General
Dentists *
Threshold of
Questionable
Billing
Number of Dentists
Who Exceeded
Threshold
$254
$645
9
18
51
64
4
7
4
Source: OIG analysis of Indiana Medicaid claims data, 2014.
Note: One dentist exceeded two thresholds.
* Includes general dentists who served 50 or more children with Medicaid in 2012.
Sixty-Four General Dentists Provided an Extremely Large
Number of Services Per Day
General dentists in Indiana provided an average of 18 services per day to
children with Medicaid. Sixty-four dentists each averaged at least
51 services per day, with 1 dentist averaging 144 services per day. These
dentists provided extremely large numbers of services on certain days of
the year, with 1 dentist providing over 250 services per day on
13 different days. On 1 day, she provided 343 services. If this dentist
spent only 5 minutes performing each service, it would have taken over
28 hours to complete all 343 of these services. An extraordinarily large
number of services per day raises concerns that a dentist may be billing for
services that were not medically necessary or were never provided, as well
as raising concerns about the quality of care being provided.
Four General Dentists Provided an Extremely Large Number of
Services Per Child Per Visit
General dentists in Indiana provided an average of four services per
Medicaid child during a single visit. Four dentists, however, averaged 7 or
more services per child per visit, with 1 dentist averaging 12 services per
child per visit.
These dentists provided extremely large numbers of services to certain
children during a single visit, raising concerns both about potential
fraudulent billing and about quality of care. Each of these dentists
provided more than 20 services in a single visit to a total of 49 children.
Questionable Billing for Medicaid Pediatric Dental Services in Indiana (OEI-02-14-00250)
9
One dentist provided 39 services to a child during a single visit. These
services consisted primarily of fillings and extractions.
Twenty-Seven General Dentists Provided Selected Services to
an Extremely High Proportion of Children They Served
When compared to their peers in the State, 27 general dentists provided
selected services to an extremely high proportion of children with
Medicaid that they served. This billing behavior warrants further scrutiny,
as it may indicate billing for services that were not medically necessary or
were never provided. It also raises concerns about quality of care and
whether or not children treated by these dentists were harmed by these
procedures. See Table 2 for more information on general dentists who
provided selected services to an extremely high proportion of children.
Table 2: General Dentists Who Provided Selected Services to an Extremely
High Proportion of Children With Medicaid They Served
Measure
Proportion of children
who received extractions
Proportion of children
who received pulpotomies
Proportion of children
who received stainless
steel crowns
Proportion of children
who received fillings
Proportion of children
who received behavior
management
Average for General
Dentists *
Threshold of
Questionable
Billing
Number of Dentists
Who Exceeded
Threshold
9%
28%
9
2%
9%
6
4%
22%
2
31%
86%
1
5%
17%
13
Source: OIG analysis of Indiana Medicaid claims data, 2014.
Note: Four dentists exceeded two thresholds.
* Includes general dentists who served 50 or more children with Medicaid in 2012.
Extractions. Nine general dentists performed extractions on an extremely
high proportion of the children with Medicaid that they served.
Twenty-eight percent or more of the children served by these dentists had
one or more teeth extracted, compared to an average of 9 percent of
children served by general dentists performing extractions in the State.
Three dentists performed extractions on more than half the children they
served, with one dentist performing extractions on 92 percent of the
children he served.
Pulpotomies. Six general dentists provided pulpotomies to an extremely
high proportion of children with Medicaid that they served. Eleven
Questionable Billing for Medicaid Pediatric Dental Services in Indiana (OEI-02-14-00250)
10
percent or more of the children served by these dentists received
pulpotomies, compared to an average of only 2 percent of children served
by all general dentists who provided pulpotomies. One dentist provided
pulpotomies to 15 percent of the children he served. Another dentist
provided 5 or more pulpotomies per child per visit for 12 children.
Stainless Steel Crowns. Two general dentists provided stainless steel
crowns to an extremely high proportion of children with Medicaid whom
they served. Twenty-four percent or more of the children served by these
dentists received stainless steel crowns, compared to an average of only
4 percent of children served by all general dentists who provided stainless
steel crowns.
Fillings. One general dentist provided fillings to an extremely high
proportion of the children with Medicaid that he served. Eighty-eight
percent of the children served by this dentist received fillings, compared to
an average of 31 percent of children served by all general dentists who
provided fillings.
Behavior Management. Thirteen general dentists provided behavior
management to an extremely high proportion of children with Medicaid
that they served. As previously noted, Indiana allows providers to bill for
behavior management, which can include the use of additional staff or the
use of physical restraints. Four of the thirteen dentists provided behavior
management to more than half of the children they served; one dentist
used behavior management for 98 percent of the children she served.
Although Indiana does not have strict criteria for when a dentist may
provide behavior management, a dentist’s providing a high proportion of
children with this service raises questions as to whether such a service was
necessary. In particular, providers must carefully consider whether
physical restraints should be used at all, because they have the potential to
produce physical or psychological harm.24
In addition, 11 of the 13 dentists billed for behavior management
inappropriately. These dentists were paid more than once for behavior
management for the same child for the same visit, when the State requires
that providers bill for it only once. One of these dentists received such
multiple payments for 448 visits. In total, these 11 dentists received about
$46,000 for behavior management.
____________________________________________________________
24
AAPD, Guideline on Behavior Guidance for the Pediatric Dental Patient, 2011.
Questionable Billing for Medicaid Pediatric Dental Services in Indiana (OEI-02-14-00250)
11
One Oral Surgeon Provided an Extremely Large Number of
Services Per Day
Oral surgeons in Indiana provided an average of six services per day to
children with Medicaid in 2012. One oral surgeon, however, provided an
average of 19 services per day. He provided over 30 services on 15 days
and 72 services on 1 day. Forty percent of the services he provided were
extractions. Given that procedures performed by oral surgeons may take
more time than routine dental services, this provider’s billing patterns
raise concerns both about potential fraudulent billing and about quality of
care and children’s safety.
Two-Thirds of the General Dentists With Questionable Billing
Worked for Four Dental Chains; Three of Which Have Been the
Subject of State and Federal Investigations
Of the 94 general dentists with questionable billing, 62 worked for four
dental chains in Indiana. Three of these chains have been the subject of
Federal and State investigations. These investigations found that dentists
provided services that were either medically unnecessary or were
performed in a manner that failed to meet professionally recognized
standards of care to children. A concentration of dental providers with
questionable billing in a small number of dental chains raises concerns
that these chains may be encouraging their providers to perform
unnecessary procedures to increase profits.
One chain has been under scrutiny in several States for providing
unnecessary services.25 For example, in Georgia, it was the subject of two
State audits and was found to have provided numerous instances of
medically unnecessary services and poor-quality care.26 As a result, two
Medicaid managed care organizations in the State excluded this chain
from their networks in 2007.27 Thirty-one dentists whom we identified
with questionable billing worked for this chain.
A second chain settled with the U.S. Government for $24 million to
resolve allegations of providing services that were either medically
unnecessary or were performed in a manner that failed to meet
professionally recognized standards of care to children.28 It was also the
____________________________________________________________
25
David Heath and Jill Rosenbaum, The Business Behind Dental Treatment for
America’s Poorest Children, The Center for Public Integrity, June 26, 2012. Accessed at
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/06/26/9187/business-behind-dental-treatmentamerica-s-poorest-kids on April 21, 2014.
26
Ibid.
27
Ibid.
28
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), National Dental Management Company Pays
$24 Million to Resolve Fraud Allegations, January 20, 2010. Accessed at
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/January/10-civ-052.html on July 13, 2012.
Questionable Billing for Medicaid Pediatric Dental Services in Indiana (OEI-02-14-00250)
12
subject of lawsuits on behalf of more than 100 plaintiffs in Ohio,
New York, and Oklahoma for allegedly providing unnecessary or
excessive services.29 The chain was recently excluded from participation
in Medicaid, Medicare, and all other Federal health care programs for a
period of 5 years because of material breaches in its Corporate Integrity
Agreement with OIG. Sixteen dentists whom we identified as having
questionable billing worked for this chain.
The third chain, which operates mobile school-based clinics, has been the
subject of investigations arising from complaints that dentists affiliated
with it had treated children without their parents’ permission and had
provided medically unnecessary services.30 The Senate Finance and
Judiciary Committees also investigated this chain, citing a potential
pattern of treatment without parental consent.31 For example, according to
the Committees’ report, a 4-year-old ‘‘medically fragile’’ boy in Arizona
was treated without a parent’s consent, receiving pulpotomies and stainless
steel crowns while being physically restrained by three staff
members.32 Subsequent examinations initiated by the family suggested
that the dental work provided was unnecessary. Thirteen dentists with
questionable billing worked for this chain.
____________________________________________________________
29
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville
Division, Affidavit of Martin McGahan, the Chief Restructuring Officer of Church Street
Health Management, LLC, in Support of Chapter 11 Petitions and First Day Pleadings.
See also District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, Parnell v.
FORBA Holdings, LLC; District Court of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma,
Hernandez v. Forba Holdings, LLC; and Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Varano v.
FORBA Holdings, LLC.
30
Sydney P. Freedberg, Dental Abuse Seen Driven by Private Equity Investments,
Bloomberg News, May 16, 2012. Accessed at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/201205-17/dental-abuse-seen-driven-by-private-equity-investments.html on April 25, 2014.
31
U.S. Senate Committee on Finance and Committee on the Judiciary, Joint Staff Report
on the Corporate Practice of Dentistry in the Medicaid Program. Accessed at
www.finance.senate.gov/library/prints/download/?id=1c7233e0-9d08-4b83-a530b761c57a900b on February 20, 2014.
32
Ibid.
Questionable Billing for Medicaid Pediatric Dental Services in Indiana (OEI-02-14-00250)
13
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Dental providers who participate in Medicaid provide much-needed access to
dental services for children in the program. When children lack such access,
untreated decay and infection in their mouths can result in more complicated and
expensive dental and medical interventions later in life. At the same time, we
have concerns about the extreme billing patterns of a number of general dentists
and one oral surgeon in Indiana. Specifically, these 95 dental providers—
representing 11 percent of the providers we reviewed—received extremely high
payments per child; provided an extremely large number of services per day;
provided an extremely large number of services per child per visit; and/or
provided certain selected services to an extremely high proportion of children.
Medicaid paid these providers $30.5 million for pediatric dental services in 2012.
Although our findings do not prove that providers either billed fraudulently or
provided medically unnecessary services, providers who bill for extremely large
numbers of services warrant further scrutiny.
Our findings raise concerns that certain dental providers may be billing for
services that are not medically necessary or were never provided. They also raise
concerns about the quality of care provided to these children. Prior OIG reports
have also found vulnerabilities in the oversight of Medicaid dental providers.
Additionally, OIG has identified some specific vulnerabilities regarding the
practices of certain dental chains. Notably, two-thirds of the general dentists with
questionable billing worked for four dental chains in Indiana. Three of these
chains have been the subject of Federal and State investigations. A concentration
of such providers in chains raises concerns that these chains may be encouraging
their providers to perform unnecessary procedures to increase profits.
Together, these findings demonstrate the need to improve the oversight of
Medicaid pediatric dental services. OIG is committed to conducting additional
studies of dental providers. We are also committed to examining access to
Medicaid dental services and to continuing to conduct investigations and audits of
specific dental providers with questionable billing.
Indiana must use the tools at its disposal to effectively identify and fight fraud,
waste, and abuse, while at the same time ensuring that children have adequate
access to quality dental care in the Medicaid program.
Therefore, we recommend that the Indiana Family & Social Services
Administration:
Enhance its monitoring of dental providers to identify patterns of
questionable billing
The State should enhance its monitoring of Medicaid dental providers. To do this,
it should use the measures that we developed for this report to better identify
Questionable Billing for Medicaid Pediatric Dental Services in Indiana (OEI-02-14-00250)
14
providers with patterns of questionable billing. State monitoring can result in cost
savings, as well as ensuring that children receive quality dental care.
Closely monitor billing by providers in dental chains
A concentration of dental providers with questionable billing in a small number of
dental chains raises concerns that these chains may be encouraging their providers
to perform unnecessary procedures to increase profits. We recommend that the
State more closely monitor claims that are submitted by providers in dental
chains. To do so, it must (1) identify the chains in its State, (2) identify all
Medicaid providers in each chain, and (3) review claims from providers in each
chain for patterns of questionable billing. The State should then follow up on
individual providers and chains as warranted.
Ensure that dental providers bill only once per visit for behavior
management and educate providers on the use of behavior
management
The State should ensure that dental providers bill only once per visit for behavior
management. It should do this by implementing a claims processing edit that
would automatically limit billing for behavior management to once per visit. The
State should also educate providers about the potential physical or psychological
harm that may result from excessive or inappropriate use of behavior
management.
Take appropriate action on the dental providers identified as having
questionable billing
In a separate memorandum, we will refer to the State the dental providers that we
identified as having questionable billing. The State should review these
providers’ billing patterns; review dental records and supporting documentation;
and/or perform unannounced site visits. Then the State should determine what
action(s) are most appropriate. These actions include, but are not limited to
(1) law enforcement actions, if fraud is identified; (2) referral to the State’s board
of dentistry for licensure violations; (3) recoupment of payments, if the State
determines that claims were paid in error; (4) revocation of Medicaid billing
privileges; (5) education about how to appropriately bill for pediatric dental
services; and (6) no action, if the State determines that a given provider does not
demonstrate a vulnerability to the program or to children with Medicaid.
Questionable Billing for Medicaid Pediatric Dental Services in Indiana (OEI-02-14-00250)
15
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
RESPONSE
The Indiana Family & Social Services Administration (the Administration)
concurred with all four of our recommendations.
The Administration concurred with our first recommendation and stated that it
would enhance its monitoring of dental providers through its existing fraud and
abuse detection system.
The Administration concurred with our second recommendation and described its
efforts to closely monitor billing by providers in dental chains. It stated that it
will work with other State agencies to develop the means to link all providers who
are in the same chain. The Administration added that, moving forward, its risk
assessment process will identify whether a single provider is part of a larger
network and determine whether all members in the same dental chain should be
reviewed.
The Administration concurred with our third recommendation and described its
efforts to ensure that dental providers bill only once per visit for behavior
management and to educate providers on the use of behavior management. The
Administration stated that it is changing its payment system to stop the service
code from being paid multiple times during the same visit. Further, it noted that it
will recoup any erroneous payments from providers. In addition, the
Administration will review all paid claims for behavior management to identify
dental providers who are outliers amongst their peers. Finally, the Administration
reported that it will develop a publication to all dental providers reiterating the
State’s guidelines on billing for behavior management.
The Administration concurred with our fourth recommendation and described its
plans to take appropriate action with the dental providers that we identified as
having questionable billing. It indicated that the State has an established process
to investigate and take action with providers identified as having questionable
billing. The State said that this process includes (1) targeted auditing and onsite
reviews; (2) recovery of funds provided in error; (3) prepayment review;
(4) provider suspension and termination; and (5) referral to the dental licensing
board and/or referral to prosecutors or the State Attorney General for investigation
and criminal action. The Administration noted that it will validate the
questionable billing we identified and that it will take appropriate action with the
providers with substantiated erroneous billing.
OIG supports the Administration’s efforts to protect the program integrity of
pediatric dental services in Indiana. The full text of the Administration’s
comments is provided in the Appendix.
Questionable Billing for Medicaid Pediatric Dental Services in Indiana (OEI-02-14-00250)
16
APPENDIX
Agency Comments
Questionable Billing for Medicaid Pediatric Dental Services in Indiana (OEI-02-14-00250)
17
APPENDIX
Agency Comments (continued)
Questionable Billing for Medicaid Pediatric Dental Services in Indiana (OEI-02-14-00250)
18
APPENDIX
Agency Comments (continued)
Questionable Billing for Medicaid Pediatric Dental Services in Indiana (OEI-02-14-00250)
19
APPENDIX
Agency Comments (continued)
Additionally, a second data query lws been developed to review all claims paid by Indiana Medicaid
lor Behavior Management to identify those dental providers who are outliers amongst their peers in
the use of code 09920. Additional investigation into the billing patterns of these outliers will
determine any other areas of concern associated with these select providers. Based upon the results
of this query, remediation may take place through additional provider education or medical record
audits of the potentially problematic providers to recover any related overpayments and improve the
integrity of the Indiana Medicaid program.
Recomme/1(/alion:
Take appropriate action on the dental providers identified as having questionable billing.
State Response: Indiana concurs with this recommendation
Indiana has an established process to investigate and take action on providers identified as having
questionable billing, including targeted auditing and onsite reviews, recovery of funds provided in
error, probationary prepayment review, provider suspension and termination, referral to the dental
licensing board and/or referral to prosecutors or the State Attorney General for investigation and
criminal action. Upon receipt of the provider-specific audit findings fi·01n HHS-OIG, Indiana will
validate the identified questionable billings to eliminate any potential false-positive findings. Indiana
will then determine .and take the appropriate action on the providers with substantiated erroneous
billing.. Indiana will provide a report to the HHS-OIG on the results of the review of these providers
upon completion.
The State appreciates your consideration of the information provided in this letter. If you have any
questions or require additional inlormation, please contact James Waddick at 317-234-7484 or
.hui.I<.:s. W ;tdd ick([!)fs~