2-Midnight Rule

Medicare promulgated guidance for Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) to facilitate review of hospital in-patient services. The guidance, known as “The 2-Midnight Benchmark and Presumption”, was clarified in a Fact Sheet (July 1, 2015) which instructed claims reviewers to generally approve in-patient stays of two or more midnights as payable in-patient stays. However, the Fact Sheet included the following admonition to hospitals

This policy applies to inpatient hospital admissions where the patient is reasonably expected to stay at least two midnights, and where (in addition) the medical record supports the expectation that the patient would stay at least two midnights.

In other words, the hospital record must substantiate the basis for the 2-midnight expectation, inclusive of objective medical findings supporting the need for services of at least this duration.  If a patient is admitted as an inpatient but ultimately stays less than 2 midnights, the admission is likely targeted for review, and hospital payment at the inpatient level will depend on whether the physician adequately documented the expectation that care would span at least 2 midnights, at the time of the patient initial presentation to the facility.

The opportunity to engage in Medicare fraud as a result of this recent presumption is clear. In a 2014 update addressing 2-midnight audits, CMS issued the following clarification and notice to hospitals:

CMS will instruct medical review contractors to monitor inpatient hospital claims spanning 2 or more midnights after admission for evidence of systematic gaming, abuse, or delays in the provision of care in an attempt to qualify for the 2-midnight presumption. CMS will instruct Medicare review contractors to identify such trends through probe reviews and through its data sources…

Thus, by initiating a time-based threshold for the presumption of an appropriate Part A inpatient admission, and by removing the medical necessity documentation requirement for claims processing contractors, CMS recognized that gaming was a risk. However, if further audits are undertaken on an in-patient episode of care, given a suspicion of abuse, then the record must clearly establish that the services provided meet the reasonable and necessary standard.  As recently clarified, even though the two-midnight rule will not be used to make medical necessity determinations regarding the inpatient admission during this period, CMS instructed physicians to continue to apply the standard when implementing their admission decisions.  CMS anticipated that the information necessary to support such determinations should be easily inferred from the patient’s plan of care, treatment orders, and physician notes, in the event a contractor decides that an audit is appropriate.

Finally, to establish the threshold for in-patient services, Part A facilities must abide by the Medicare definition of a hospital in-patient.  Accordingly, the medical record must satisfy the documentation requirements for in-patient services as set forth in Chapter 1 of the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual:

The decision to admit a patient is a complex medical judgment which can be made only after the physician has considered a number of factors, including the patient’s medical history and current medical needs, the types of facilities available to inpatients and to outpatients, the hospital’s bylaws and admissions policies, and the relative appropriateness of treatment in each setting.  Factors to be considered when making the decision to admit include:

  • The severity of the signs and symptoms exhibited by the patient;

  • The medical predictability of something adverse happening to the patient (absent in-patient level of care);

  • The need for diagnostic studies, that appropriately are outpatient services, to assist in assessing whether the patient should be admitted;

  • The availability of diagnostic services at the time when and at the location where the patient presents.

REAL PEOPLE making real change Hospital Fraud Wins

Kathleen Hawkins

Dignity Health
$37 million

Kathleen Hawkins, RN MSN, had been employed by Defendant, Catholic Healthcare West (CHW) for approximately 6 years when she decided she had had enough of trying to change the hospital system from within.

CHW, a California not-for-profit corporation that operated hospitals in California, Arizona, and Nevada, was at the time the eighth largest hospital system in the nation and the largest not-for-profit hospital provider in California.

READ MORE

Joe Strom

Johnson & Johnson
$184 Million

Joe Strom contacted us in 2005. We were very grateful that he did. We immediately formed an all-star legal team and a process to stop a very harmful pharmaceutical marketing strategy. It was this process we set into motion that ultimately returned hundreds of millions of dollars to the U.S. Treasury, and a portion of that, very well-deserved, into Joe’s bank account.

Joe told us a very troubling story about the off-label promotion of a pharmaceutical drug for patients who already suffered from chronic heart failure.

READ MORE

Description
Description

“I collaborated with Nolan, Auerbach and White on a broad variety of cases where whistleblowers stepped forward to disclose tactics employed by large companies to influence physicians' medical decision-making in patient care. They and their medical consultants, have consistently leveraged biomedical research and best medical evidence to advance patient safety, optimize clinical outcomes, and control precious resource utilization.”

— Fred Polsky M.D.,, Former Medical Director, CMS Zone 7 Integrity Contractor

Any Questions?

Am I potential whistleblower that matches up well with our firm?

We only want to represent amazing people.

How much will I make?

We cannot guarantee anything, but we will deliver on this promise: we will give you feedback and a prognosis within 48 hours of your submission of all details to us. We are the first healthcare fraud qui tam law firm, and have been doing only healthcare fraud whistleblower lawsuits for decades-so you can expect as accurate a picture as is possible.

Are my communications with you confidential?

They are 100% confidential. If we do not take your case, your information becomes inaccessible. We have no interest in it. Besides, it is protected by the attorney-client privilege under our lawyer regulations, and we would lose our license if we were to disclose one iota of information about you or your potential case.

    Contact Us

    Contact Us

    The more detailed the response, the more likely it is that we will be able to evaluate and determine if your potential False Claims Act case falls within our case requirements. IF IT DOES, WE WILL RESPOND TO YOU WITHIN 24 HOURS. (Names of potential defendants are not necessary at this point, should you feel more comfortable omitting them.) By law, all communications to us are 100% confidential.

    No. of Employees at the Company?
    Please read the following statement and then click "Send Form":

    Any response to your e-mail will be solely to communicate about our possible representation of you under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act. All e-mails submitted to us, whether we take your case or not, are 100% confidential. If we do not respond to your e-mail, then you have communicated information which we cannot address because it appears to fall outside of the False Claims Act or our case requirements.