Critical Risk Management for Physicians Today

More Difficult than Ever Before

By Brian J. Knabe MD, Certified Medical Planner

www.SavantCapital.com

Historically, the term “risk management” has brought to mind one subject for the practicing physician – medical malpractice.  Unfortunately, physicians today face a multitude of other risks which may be more insidious and daunting than malpractice.  It is important to recognize these risks, and to have the appropriate procedures and policies in place to mitigate the risks.  These risks come from the federal government, state government, insurance companies, patients, employees, and even prospective employees.  Some risks, many unique to small businesses and medical practices, include the following:

  • Medicare recoupment risk – challenges to coding and subsequent billing by the physician.
  • Medicare fraud.  Numerous laws can be used by the federal government to go after the physician, including the Medicare and Medicaid Anti-Fraud and Abuse Statute, the RICO statute, and the Federal False Claims Act.  The recently enacted Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act aims to save money by increasing funding for anti-fraud efforts.
  • Insurance fraud.  An inquiry from Medicare to look for fraud in a physician’s practice is often followed by similar efforts by insurance companies.
  • The HIPPA Act of 1996 creates new definitions and penalties to use against the physician.
  • Self referral risks.  Federal regulations in this area include the Medicare Anti-Fraud and Abuse Statute, the Medicare Safe Harbor Regulations, and the Stark Amendment.
  • Federal agency risks.  These include regulations from the Occupational Health and Safety Agency (OSHA), Health and Human Services (HHS), the Drug Enforcement agency (DEA), and even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
  • Anti-trust risks.  The Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) formulate regulations in this arena.
  • Managed care contractual risks.  Most managed care contracts require the individual physician rather than the professional corporation to sign the contract, thus placing the physician’s personal assets at risk.
  • Medical malpractice risks.  Although the vast majority of claims are paid by the insurance carrier, there can be other adverse consequences for the physician.  These include the risk of increased premiums, non-renewal of policies, and difficulty in getting replacement insurance.
  • Loss of income due to death or disability.  Most physicians recognize the importance of life insurance, but the medical professional is actually much more likely to lose income due to disability at some point in his or her career.

http://www.amazon.com/Insurance-Management-Strategies-Physicians-Advisors/dp/0763733423/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1375149801&sr=8-6&keywords=marcinko+david

The practicing physician should seek the advice of professionals with expertise in these areas.  Every practice should have an experienced attorney on retainer.  It is very important to seek advice from fiduciaries – experts who have no conflicts of interest and who can therefore act in the best interest of the client.  A Certified Medical Planner is such a fiduciary with training and expertise in these areas.

http://www.CertifiedMedicalPlanner.org

It can be particularly challenging to find an insurance advisor with no conflicts of interest, as this industry is built upon product sales and commissions.  One such insurance advisor is Scott Witt, a fee-only insurance advisor with Witt Actuarial Services (www.wittactuarialservices.com).

Others can be found with an internet search for “fee only insurance advisor”.

Conclusion

Your comments on this ME-P are appreciated. How do you select an advisor? Feel free to review our top-left column, and top-right sidebar materials, links, URLs and related websites, too. Then, be sure to subscribe. It is fast, free and secure.

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Medical Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com

Subscribe Now: Did you like this Medical Executive-Post, or find it helpful, interesting and informative? Want to get the latest ME-Ps delivered to your email box each morning? Just subscribe using the link below. You can unsubscribe at any time. Security is assured.

Sponsors Welcomed: And, credible sponsors and like-minded advertisers are always welcomed.

Link: https://healthcarefinancials.wordpress.com/2007/11/11/advertise

Product Details

Product DetailsProduct Details

***

Beware Medical and Money Management ‘Groupthink’

Join Our Mailing List

Helping Doctors Understand Peer Comparisons

By J. Wayne Firebaugh CPA, CFP® CMP™

By Dr. David E. Marcinko MBA, CMP™

Source: http://www.CertifiedMedicalPlanner.org

More than a few mutual, hedge and endowment fund managers have noted that they commonly compare their endowment and portfolio allocations to those of peer institutions and that as a result, allocations are often similar to the “average” as reported by one or more surveys/consulting firms.

One interviewed endowment fund manager expanded this thought by presciently noting that expecting materially different performance with substantially the same allocation is unreasonable. It is anecdotally interesting to wonder whether any “seminal” study “proving” the importance of asset allocation could have even had a substantially different conclusion. It seems likely that the pensions and funds surveyed in these types of studies have very similar allocations given the human tendency to measure one-self against peers and to use peers for guidance.

This is a truism in medicine as well as the financial services sector.

Understanding Peer Comparisons

Although peer comparisons can be useful in evaluating your portfolio, or your hospital or medical practice’s own processes, groupthink can be highly contagious and dangerous.

For historical example, in the first quarter of 2000, net flows into equity mutual funds were $140.4 billion as compared to net inflows of $187.7 billion for all of 1999. February’s equity fund inflows were a staggering $55.6 billion, the record for single month investments. For all of 1999, total net mutual fund investments were $169.8 billion[1] meaning that investors “rebalanced” out of asset classes such as bonds just in time for the market’s March 24, 2000 peak (as measured by the S&P 500).

Of course, physicians and investors are not immune to poor decision making in upward trending markets. In 2001, investors withdrew a then-record amount of $30 billion[2] in September, presumably in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks. These investors managed to skillfully “rebalance” their ways out of markets that declined approximately 11.5% during the first several trading sessions after the market reopened, only to reach September 10th levels again after only 19 trading days. In 2002, investors revealed their relentless pursuit of self-destruction when they withdrew a net $27.7 billion from equity funds[3] just before the S&P 500’s 29.9% 2003 growth.

Amateurs versus Professionals [is there such a thing?]

Although it is easy to dismiss the travails of mutual fund investors as representing only the performance of amateurs, it is important to remember that institutions are not automatically immune by virtue of being managed by investment professionals.

For example, in the 1960s and early 1970s, common wisdom stipulated that portfolios include the Nifty Fifty stocks that were viewed to be complete companies.  These stocks were considered “one-decision” stocks for which the only decision was how much to buy. Even institutions got caught up in purchasing such current corporate stalwarts as Joe Schlitz Brewing, Simplicity Patterns, and Louisiana Home & Exploration.  Collective market groupthink pushed these stocks to such prices that Price Earnings ratios routinely exceeded 50 [nothing in the internet age]. Subsequent disappointing performance of this strategy only revealed that common wisdom is often neither common nor wisdom.

The Bear Sterns Example

Recall that The New York Times reported on June 21, 2007, that Bear Stearns had managed to forestall the demise of the Bear Stearns High Grade Structured Credit Strategies and the related Enhanced Leveraged Fund.  The two funds held mortgage-backed debt securities of almost $2 billion many of which were in the sub-prime market.  To compound the problem, the funds borrowed much of the money used to purchase these securities.  The firms who had provided the loans to make these purchases represented some of the smartest names on Wall Street, including JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, and Deutsche Bank.[4]  Despite its efforts Bear Stearns had to inform investors less than a week later on June 27 that these two funds had collapsed. The subsequent fate of these firms, and the history of the past two years, need not be repeated to appreciate that the king surely had no clothes.

Assessment

What broader message lies in this post relative to such medical initiatives as P4P, various clinical quality improvement endeavors and benchmarks, hospital peer-review, PROs, Medicare compliance, etc?  

Conclusion

Your thoughts and comments on this ME-P are appreciated. Feel free to review our top-left column, and top-right sidebar materials, links, URLs and related websites, too. Then, subscribe to the ME-P. It is fast, free and secure.

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Medical Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com

OUR OTHER PRINT BOOKS AND RELATED INFORMATION SOURCES:

References


[1]   2001 Fact Book, Investment Company Institute.

[2]   Id.

[3]   2003 Fact Book, Investment Company Institute.

[4]    Bajaj, Vikas and Creswell, Julie. “Bear Stearns Staves off Collapse of 2 Hedge Funds.” New York Times, June 21, 2007.

Comprehensive Financial Planning Strategies for Doctors and Advisors: Best Practices from Leading Consultants and Certified Medical Planners(TM)

Understanding Deviations in Medical Billing

Join Our Mailing List

Appreciating Normative Comparisons

[By Patricia A. Trites; MPA, CHBC, CPC, CHCC, CHCO ]

tritesDeviation in medical billing can be detected through utilization data that insurance companies produce on all providers that submit a claim for payment of services.

Insurance companies track utilization through a variety of parameters, including CPT codes, ICD-9-CM, or number of referrals. Different programs utilize certain benchmarks to trigger a review.

Example

For example, a physician who sees patients in the office from 8:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m., seven days a week and has the highest billing amounts in the region can be subjected to a review. This doctor’s activities would be scrutinized. The utilization review department would probably flag this doctor’s provider number and request more information on a sampling of his or her claims, based on the volume.

Utilization Review

Some utilization review activities may occur due to the type of services that a doctor may offer. For example, if a cardiologist should suddenly start billing for a large number of incision and drainages of abscesses, this might trigger a review, since that might not be a typical scope of service for this doctor in this locality. The same could be said for a pathologist, triggering a review due to the high volume of wound care or ulcer debridement.

Audit Trigger Thresholds Vary

Thresholds vary from locale to locale regarding what triggers an audit. There are consultants who have suggested querying the local carrier for provider specific information regarding utilization activity to compare against community performance. Some Carrier Advisory Committee (CAC) representatives have indicated that this may bring undesirable attention from the Medicare program and trigger an audit. Consult professional associations. and, if possible; local CAC representatives to obtain most current information in your area.

Conclusion

Your thoughts and comments on this ME-P are appreciated. Feel free to review our top-left column, and top-right sidebar materials, links, URLs and related websites, too. Then, subscribe to the ME-P. It is fast, free and secure.

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Medical Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com

OUR OTHER PRINT BOOKS AND RELATED INFORMATION SOURCES:

Product DetailsProduct Details

On Baseline Medical Practice Compliance Audits

Establishing a Reference Point is Key to Success

Submitted by Pati Trites; MPA, CHBC with Staff Reporters 

www.HealthcareFinancials.comho-journal11

There are several types of compliance audits that a medical practice, clinic or healthcare organization might need to perform. The starting point is to obtain a baseline audit. The next step, discussed elsewhere on this ME-P, is periodic audits or reviews that are performed after information is obtained from the baseline audit.

Baseline Audits

Baseline audits are preliminary assessments to develop a reference point. Until a medical practice or healthcare organization establishes a track record with items such as coding accuracy or documentation to support medical necessity, it is difficult to determine any performance issues. In the spirit of Total Quality Management [TQM], the information that is shared should be done in a non-punitive manner to demonstrate that the intent of the process is to create a positive environment geared towards fixing the problems. A baseline audit can help any organization understand where the program is and establish a reference for future activities.

Assessment

Additional audits can also be performed whenever new employees are added, or if there are complaints, or issues that arise in the course of business.

Conclusion

And so, your thoughts and comments on this Medical Executive-Post are appreciated? Have you ever discovered an untoward past event, or interesting prior fact, with your baseline audit?

Subscribe: Link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HealthcareFinancialsthePostForcxos

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com  or Bio: www.stpub.com/pubs/authors/MARCINKO.htm

Get our Widget: Get this widget!

Our Other Print Books and Related Information Sources:

Practice Management: http://www.springerpub.com/prod.aspx?prod_id=23759

Physician Financial Planning: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/0763745790

Medical Risk Management: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763733421

Healthcare Organizations: www.HealthcareFinancials.com

Health Administration Terms: www.HealthDictionarySeries.com

Physician Advisors: www.CertifiedMedicalPlanner.com

Subscribe Now: Did you like this Medical Executive-Post, or find it helpful, interesting and informative? Want to get the latest ME-Ps delivered to your email box each morning? Just subscribe using the link below. You can unsubscribe at any time. Security is assured.

Link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HealthcareFinancialsthePostForcxos