[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 56 (Monday, March 24, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14245-14255]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-6866]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of Inspector General


OIG Compliance Program Guidance for Ambulance Suppliers

AGENCY: Office of Inspector General (OIG), HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This Federal Register notice sets forth the recently issued 
Compliance Program Guidance for Ambulance Suppliers developed by the 
Office of Inspector General (OIG). The OIG has previously developed and 
published voluntary compliance program guidance focused on several 
different areas of the health care

[[Page 14246]]

industry. This voluntary compliance program guidance should assist 
ambulance suppliers and other health care providers in developing their 
own strategies for complying with federal health care program 
requirements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sonya Castro, (202) 619-2078, or Joel 
Schaer, (202) 619-1306, Office of Counsel to the Inspector General.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The creation of compliance program guidances (CPGs) is a major 
initiative of the OIG in its effort to engage the private health care 
community in preventing the submission of erroneous claims and in 
combating fraudulent and abusive conduct. In the past several years, 
the OIG has developed and issued CPGs directed at a variety of segments 
in the health care industry. The development of these CPGs is based on 
our belief that a health care provider can use internal controls to 
more efficiently monitor adherence to applicable statutes, regulations, 
and program requirements. Copies of these CPGs can be found on the OIG 
Web site at http://oig.hhs.gov.

Developing Compliance Program Guidance for Ambulance Suppliers

    Having experienced a number of instances of ambulance provider and 
supplier fraud and abuse, the ambulance industry has expressed interest 
in protecting against such conduct through increased guidance to the 
industry. To date, the OIG has issued several advisory opinions on a 
variety of ambulance-related issues (see endnote 13 in this compliance 
program guidance) and has published final rulemaking concerning a safe 
harbor for ambulance restocking arrangements (66 FR 62979; December 4, 
2001).
    To provide further guidance, the OIG published a Federal Register 
notice (65 FR 50204; August 17, 2000) that solicited general comments, 
recommendations, and other suggestions from concerned parties and 
organizations on how best to develop compliance guidance for ambulance 
suppliers to reduce the potential for fraud and abuse. On June 6, 2002, 
the OIG published a Draft Compliance Program Guidance to afford all 
interested parties a further opportunity to provide specific comments 
in the development of this final CPG (67 FR 39015; June 6, 2002). In 
response to that notice, the OIG received three public comments, 
collectively representing a variety of outside sources. We have 
carefully considered those comments, as well as previous OIG 
publications, and have consulted with the Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Department of Justice in developing 
final guidance for ambulance suppliers. This final guidance outlines 
some of the most common and prevalent fraud and abuse risk areas for 
the ambulance industry and provides direction on how to: (1) Address 
various risk areas; (2) prevent the occurrence of instances of fraud 
and abuse; and (3) develop corrective actions when those risks or 
instances of fraud and abuse are identified.
    This CPG is divided into the following five separate sections, with 
an appendix:
    [sbull] Section I is a brief introduction.
    [sbull] Section II provides information about the basic elements of 
a compliance program for ambulance suppliers.
    [sbull] Section III discusses various fraud and abuse and 
compliance risks associated with ambulance services covered under the 
Medicare program.
    [sbull] Section IV briefly summarizes compliance risks related to 
Medicaid coverage for transportation services.
    [sbull] Section V discusses various risks under the anti-kickback 
statute.
    [sbull] The appendix provides relevant statutory and regulatory 
citations, as well as brief discussions of additional potential risk 
areas to consider when developing a compliance program.
    Under the Social Security Act (the Act), ambulance ``providers'' 
are Medicare participating institutional providers that submit claims 
for Medicare ambulance services (e.g., hospitals, including critical 
access hospitals (CAHs) and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs); the term 
``supplier'' means an entity that is other than a provider. For 
purposes of this document, we will refer to both ambulance suppliers 
and providers as ambulance ``suppliers.''

Compliance Program Guidance for Ambulance Suppliers

I. Introduction

    The OIG recognizes that the ambulance industry is comprised of 
entities of enormous variation: some ambulance companies are large, 
many are small; some are for-profit, many are not-for-profit; some are 
affiliated with hospitals, many are independent; and some are operated 
by municipalities or counties, while others are commercially owned. 
Consequently, this guidance is not intended to be a one-size-fits-all 
guide. Rather, like the previous CPGs, this guidance is intended as a 
helpful tool for those entities that are considering establishing a 
voluntary compliance program and for those that have already done so 
and are seeking to analyze, improve or expand existing programs. As 
with the OIG's previous guidance, the guidelines discussed in this CPG 
are not mandatory, nor is the CPG an all-inclusive document containing 
all the components of a compliance program. Other OIG outreach efforts, 
as well as other federal agency efforts to promote compliance, can and 
should also be used in developing a compliance program tailored to an 
entity's particular structure and operations.
    This guidance focuses on compliance measures related to services 
furnished primarily under the Medicare program and, to a limited 
extent, other federal health care programs. (See, e.g., section IV for 
a brief discussion of Medicaid ambulance coverage.) Suppliers are free 
to address private payor claims and services in their compliance 
programs.
    As in other sectors of the health care industry, most ambulance 
suppliers are honest suppliers trying to deliver quality services. 
However, like other health care industry sectors, the ambulance 
industry has seen its share of fraudulent and abusive practices. The 
OIG has reported and pursued a number of different fraudulent and 
abusive practices in the ambulance transport field. Examples include:
    [sbull] Improper transport of individuals with other acceptable 
means of transportation;
    [sbull] Medically unnecessary trips;
    [sbull] Trips claimed but not rendered;
    [sbull] Misrepresentation of the transport destination to make it 
appear as if the transport was covered;
    [sbull] False documentation;
    [sbull] Billing for each patient transported in a group as if he/
she was transported separately;
    [sbull] Upcoding from basic life support to advanced life support 
services; and
    [sbull] Payment of kickbacks.
    To help reduce the incidence and prevalence of fraudulent or 
abusive conduct, an ambulance supplier should consider the 
recommendations in this guidance.
    This final CPG has been modified from the draft CPG to take into 
further consideration CMS's adoption of a new fee schedule for payment 
of ambulance services. The CMS's ambulance fee schedule is the product 
of a negotiated rulemaking process and will replace (over a five-year 
transition period) the retrospective, reasonable cost reimbursement 
system for providers, and the reasonable charge system for suppliers of 
ambulance services. As the government and the industry gain more 
experience under the new fee schedule,

[[Page 14247]]

the OIG may update or supplement this CPG to address newly identified 
risk areas, as appropriate.

II. Elements of a Compliance Program for Ambulance Suppliers

A. Basic Elements of a Compliance Program
    The following basic components have become accepted as the building 
blocks of an effective compliance program:
1. Development of Compliance Policies and Procedures
    The ambulance supplier should develop and distribute written 
standards of conduct, as well as written policies and procedures, that 
reflect the ambulance supplier's commitment to compliance and address 
specific areas of potential fraud or abuse. These written policies and 
procedures should be reviewed periodically (e.g., annually) and revised 
as appropriate to ensure they are current and relevant.
2. Designation of a Compliance Officer
    The ambulance supplier should designate a compliance officer and 
other appropriate bodies (e.g., a compliance committee) charged with 
the responsibility for operating and monitoring the organization's 
compliance program. The compliance officer should be a high-level 
individual in the organization who reports directly to the 
organization's upper management, such as the chief executive officer or 
board of directors. The OIG recognizes that an ambulance supplier may 
tailor the job functions of the compliance officer position by taking 
into account the size and structure of the organization, existing 
reporting lines, and other appropriate factors.
3. Education and Training Programs
    A key element of a compliance program should be regular training 
and education of employees and other appropriate individuals. Training 
content should be tailored appropriately and should be delivered in a 
way that will maximize the chances that the information will be 
understood by the target audience.
4. Internal Monitoring and Reviews
    Appropriate monitoring methods are essential to detect and identify 
problems and to help reduce the future likelihood of problems.
5. Responding Appropriately to Detected Misconduct
    Ambulance suppliers should develop policies and procedures directed 
at ensuring that the organization responds appropriately to detected 
offenses, including the initiation of appropriate corrective action. An 
organization's response to detected misconduct will vary based on the 
facts and circumstances of the offense. However, the response should 
always be appropriate to resolve and correct the situation in a timely 
manner. The organization's compliance officer, and legal counsel in 
some circumstances, should be involved in situations when serious 
misconduct is identified.
6. Developing Open Lines of Communication
    Ambulance suppliers should create and maintain a process, such as a 
hotline or other reporting system, to receive and process complaints 
and to ensure effective lines of communication between the compliance 
officer and all employees. Further, procedures should be adopted to 
protect the anonymity of complainants, where the complainants desire to 
remain anonymous, and to protect whistleblowers from retaliation.
7. Enforcing Disciplinary Standards Through Well-Publicized Guidelines
    Ambulance suppliers should develop policies and procedures to 
ensure that there are appropriate disciplinary mechanisms and standards 
that are applied in an appropriate and consistent manner. These 
policies and standards should address situations in which employees or 
contractors violate, whether intentionally or negligently, internal 
compliance policies, applicable statutes, regulations, or other federal 
health care program requirements.
    Developing and implementing a compliance program may require 
significant resources and time. An individual ambulance supplier is 
best situated to tailor compliance measures to its own organizational 
structure and financial capabilities. In addition, compliance programs 
should be reviewed periodically to account for changes in the health 
care industry, federal health care statutes and regulations, relevant 
payment policies and procedures, and identified risks.
B. Evaluation and Risk Analysis
    It is prudent for ambulance suppliers conducting a risk analysis to 
begin by performing an evaluation of internal and external factors that 
affect their operations. These may include internal systems and 
management issues, as well as the federal health care program 
requirements that govern their business operations. In many cases, such 
evaluation will result in the creation and adoption or revision of 
written policies and procedures. The evaluation process may be simple 
and straightforward or it may be fairly complex and involved. For 
example, an evaluation of whether an ambulance supplier's existing 
written policies and procedures accurately reflect current federal 
health care program requirements is straightforward. However, an 
evaluation of whether an ambulance supplier's actual practices conform 
to its policies and procedures may be more complex and require several 
analytical evaluations to determine whether system weaknesses are 
present. Even more complex is an evaluation of an ambulance supplier's 
practices in light of applicable statutes, regulations, and other 
program requirements, when there are no pre-existing written policies 
and procedures.
    The evaluation process should furnish ambulance suppliers with a 
snapshot of their strengths and weaknesses and assist providers in 
recognizing areas of potential risk. We suggest that ambulance 
suppliers evaluate a variety of practices and factors, including their 
policies and procedures, employee training and education, employee 
knowledge and understanding, claims submission process, coding and 
billing, accounts receivable management, documentation practices, 
management structure, employee turnover, contractual arrangements, 
changes in reimbursement policies, and payor expectations.
1. Policies and Procedures
    Because policies and procedures represent the written standard for 
daily operations, an ambulance supplier's policies and procedures 
should describe the normal operations of the ambulance supplier and the 
applicable rules and regulations. Further, written policies and 
procedures should go through a formal approval process within the 
organization and should be evaluated on a routine basis, and updated as 
needed, to reflect current ambulance practices (assuming these 
practices are appropriate and comport with the relevant statutes, 
regulations, and program requirements). In addition, ambulance 
suppliers should review policies and procedures to ensure that they are 
representative of actual practices. For example, an ambulance 
supplier's policy for reviewing ambulance call reports (ACRs) should 
not state that it will review 100 percent of its ACRs, unless the 
ambulance supplier is capable of performing and enforcing such 
comprehensive reviews.

[[Page 14248]]

2. Training and Education
    Ensuring that a supplier's employees and agents receive adequate 
education and training is essential to minimizing risk. Employees 
should clearly understand what is expected of them and for what they 
will be held accountable. Suppliers should also document and track the 
training they provide to employees and others.
    An ambulance supplier should consider offering two types of 
compliance training: compliance program training and job-specific 
training. If an ambulance supplier is implementing a formal compliance 
program, employees should be trained on the elements of the program, 
the importance of the program to the organization, the purpose and 
goals of the program, what the program means for each individual, and 
the key individuals responsible for ensuring that the program is 
operating successfully. Compliance program education should be 
available to all employees, even those whose job functions are not 
directly related to billing or patient care.
    Ambulance suppliers should also train employees on specific areas 
with regard to their particular job positions and responsibilities, 
whether or not as part of a formal compliance plan. The intensity and 
the nature of the specific training will vary by employee type. 
Training employees on the job functions of other people in the 
organization may also be an effective training tool. Appropriate cross-
training can improve employees' overall awareness of compliance and job 
functions, thereby increasing the likelihood that an individual 
employee will recognize non-compliance. Training should be provided on 
a periodic basis to keep employees current on ambulance supplier 
requirements, including, for example, the latest payor requirements. 
Ambulance suppliers should conduct or make available training for 
employees at least yearly, and more often if needed.
    Generally, employees who attend interactive training better 
comprehend the material presented. Interactive training offers 
employees the chance to ask questions and receive feedback. When 
possible, ambulance suppliers should use ``real'' examples of 
compliance pitfalls provided by personnel with ``real life'' 
experience, such as emergency medical technicians and paramedics.
    The OIG is cognizant that offering interactive, live training often 
requires significant personnel and time commitments. As appropriate, 
ambulance suppliers may wish to consider seeking, developing, or using 
other innovative training methods. Computer or internet modules may be 
an effective means of training if employees have access to such 
technology and if a system is developed to allow employees to ask 
questions. The OIG cannot endorse any commercial training product; it 
is up to each ambulance supplier to determine if the training methods 
and products are effective and appropriate.
    Whatever form of training ambulance suppliers provide, the OIG also 
recommends that employees complete a post-compliance training test or 
questionnaire to verify comprehension of the material presented. This 
will allow a supplier to assess the effectiveness and quality of its 
training materials and techniques. Additionally, training materials 
should be updated as appropriate and presented in a manner that is 
understandable by the average trainee. Finally, the OIG suggests that 
the employees' attendance at, and completion of, training be tracked 
and appropriate documentation maintained.
3. Assessment of Claims Submission Process
    Ambulance suppliers should conduct periodic claims reviews to 
verify that a claim ready for submission, or one that has been 
submitted and paid, contains the required, accurate, and truthful 
information required by the payor. An ambulance claims review should 
focus, at a minimum, on the information and documentation present in 
the ACR, the medical necessity of the transport as determined by payor 
requirements, the coding of the claim, the co-payment collection 
process, and the subsequent payor reimbursement. The claims reviews 
should be conducted by individuals with experience in coding and 
billing and familiar with the different payors' coverage and 
reimbursement requirements for ambulance services. The reviewers should 
be independent and objective in their approach. Claims reviewers who 
analyze claims that they themselves prepared or supervised often lack 
sufficient independence to accurately evaluate the claims submissions 
process and the accuracy of individual claims. The appearance of a lack 
of independence may hinder the effectiveness of a claims review.
    Depending on the purpose and scope of a claims review, there are a 
variety of ways to conduct the review. The claims review may focus on 
particular areas of interest (e.g., coding accuracy), or it may include 
all aspects of the claims submission and payment process. The universe 
from which the claims are selected will comprise the area of focus for 
the review. Once the universe of claims has been identified, an 
acceptable number of claims should be randomly selected. Because the 
universe of claims and the variability of items in the universe will 
vary, the OIG cannot specify a generally acceptable number of claims 
for purposes of a claims review. However, the number of claims sampled 
and reviewed should be sufficient to ensure that the results are 
representative of the universe of claims from which the sample was 
pulled.
    Ambulance suppliers should not only monitor identified errors, but 
also evaluate the source or cause of the errors. For example, an 
ambulance supplier may identify through a review a certain claims error 
rate. Upon further evaluation, the ambulance supplier may determine 
that the errors were a result of inadequate documentation. Further 
evaluation may reveal that the documentation deficiencies involve a 
limited number of individuals who work on a specific shift. It is the 
ambulance supplier's responsibility to identify such weaknesses and to 
correct them promptly. In this example, at a minimum, additional 
employee training should be required and any identified overpayment 
repaid. A detailed and logical analysis will make claims reviews useful 
tools for identifying risks, correcting weaknesses, and preventing 
future errors.
    Ambulance suppliers should consider using a baseline audit to 
develop a benchmark against which to measure performance. This audit 
will establish a consistent methodology for selecting and examining 
records in future audits. Comparing audit results from different audits 
will generally yield useful results only when the audits analyze the 
same or similar information and when matching methodologies are used.
    As part of its compliance efforts, an ambulance supplier should 
document how often audits or reviews are conducted and the information 
reviewed for each audit. The ambulance supplier should not only use 
internal benchmarks, but should utilize external information, if 
available, to establish benchmarks (e.g., data from other ambulance 
suppliers, associations, or from payors). Additionally, risk areas may 
be identified from the results of the audits.
    If a material deficiency is identified that could be a potential 
criminal, civil, or administrative violation, the ambulance supplier 
may disclose the matter to the OIG via the Provider Self-Disclosure 
Protocol. The Provider Self-Disclosure Protocol was designed to allow 
providers/suppliers to disclose

[[Page 14249]]

voluntarily potential violations in their dealings with the federal 
health care programs. In all cases, identified overpayments should be 
reported to the appropriate payor.
a. Pre-Billing Review of Claims
    As a general matter, ambulance suppliers should review claims on a 
pre-billing basis to identify errors before claims are submitted. If 
there is insufficient documentation to support the claim, the claim 
should not be submitted. Pre-billing reviews also allow suppliers to 
review the medical necessity of their claims. If, as a result of the 
pre-billing claims review process, a pattern of claim submission or 
coding errors is identified, the ambulance supplier should develop a 
responsive action plan to ensure that overpayments are identified and 
repaid.
b. Paid Claims
    In addition to a pre-billing review, a review of paid claims may be 
necessary to determine error rates and quantify overpayments and/or 
underpayments. The post-payment review may help ambulance suppliers in 
identifying billing or coding software system problems. Any 
overpayments identified from the review should be promptly returned to 
the appropriate payor in accordance with payor policies.
c. Claims Denials
    Ambulance suppliers should review their claims denials periodically 
to determine if denial patterns exist. If a pattern of claims denials 
is detected, the pattern should be evaluated to determine the cause and 
appropriate course of action. Employee education regarding proper 
documentation, coding, or medical necessity may be appropriate. If an 
ambulance supplier believes its payor is not adequately explaining the 
basis for its denials, the ambulance supplier should seek clarification 
in writing.
4. System Reviews and Safeguards
    Periodic review and testing of a supplier's coding and billing 
systems are also essential to detect system weaknesses. One reliable 
systems review method is to analyze in detail the entire process by 
which a claim is generated, including how a transport is documented and 
by whom; how that information is entered into the supplier's automated 
system (if any); coding and medical necessity determination protocols; 
billing system processes and controls, including any edits or data 
entry limitations; and finally the claims generation, submission, and 
subsequent payment tracking processes. A weakness or deficiency in any 
part of the supplier's system can lead to improper claims, undetected 
overpayments, or failure to detect system defects.
    Each ambulance supplier should have computer or other system edits 
to ensure that minimum data requirements are met. For example, under 
CMS's new fee schedule, each transport claim that does not have an 
originating zip code listed should be ``flagged'' by the system. Other 
edits should be established to detect potentially improper claims 
submissions. A systems review is especially important when 
documentation or billing requirements are modified or when an ambulance 
supplier changes its billing software or claims vendors. As 
appropriate, ambulance suppliers should communicate with their payor 
when they are implementing significant changes to their system to alert 
the payor to any unexpected delays, or increases or decreases in claims 
submissions.
    Ambulance suppliers should ensure that their electronic or computer 
billing systems do not automatically insert information that is not 
supported by the documentation of the medical or trip sheets. For 
example, billing systems targeting optimum efficiency may be set with 
defaults to indicate that a physician's signature was obtained 
following an emergency room transport. If information is automatically 
inserted onto a claim submitted for reimbursement, and that information 
is false, the ambulance supplier's claims will be false. If a required 
field on a claim form is missing information, the system should flag 
the claim prior to its submission.
5. Sanctioned Suppliers
    Federal law prohibits Medicare payment for services furnished by an 
excluded individual, such as an excluded ambulance crew member. 
Accordingly, ambulance suppliers should query the OIG and General 
Services Administration (GSA) exclusion and debarments lists before 
they employ or contract with new employees or new contractors. 
Additionally, ambulance suppliers should periodically (at least yearly) 
check the OIG and GSA web sites to ensure that they are not employing 
or contracting with individuals or entities that have been recently 
convicted of a criminal offense related to health care or who are 
listed as debarred, suspended, excluded, or otherwise ineligible for 
participation in federal health care programs. The OIG and GSA Web 
sites are listed at http://oig.hhs.gov and http://www.arnet.gov/epls, 
respectively, and contain specific instructions for searching the 
exclusion and debarment databases.
C. Identification of Risks
    This ambulance CPG discusses many of the areas that the ambulance 
industry, the OIG, or CMS have identified as common risks for many 
ambulance suppliers. However, this CPG does not identify or discuss all 
risks that an ambulance supplier may itself identify. Moreover, the CPG 
may ascribe more or less risk to a particular practice area than an 
ambulance supplier would encounter based on its own internal findings 
and circumstances. Because there are many different types of risk 
areas, ambulance suppliers should prioritize their identified risks to 
ensure that the various areas are addressed appropriately. Apart from 
the risks identified in this CPG, ambulance suppliers of all types 
(e.g., small, large, rural, emergency, non-emergency) should evaluate 
whether they have any unique risks attendant to their business 
relationships or processes. For example, a small, rural not-for-profit 
ambulance supplier may identify risk areas different from those of a 
large, for-profit ambulance chain that serves a primarily urban area. 
To stay abreast of risks affecting the ambulance and other health care 
industries, the OIG recommends that ambulance suppliers review OIG 
publications regarding ambulance services, including OIG advisory 
opinions, OIG fraud alerts and bulletins, Office of Evaluation and 
Inspections (OEI) reports, and Office of Audit Services reports, all 
located on the OIG's Web site at http://oig.hhs.gov. A review of 
industry-specific trade publications will also help ambulance suppliers 
remain current on industry changes.
D. Response to Identified Risks
    An ambulance supplier should develop a reasonable response to 
address identified risk areas, including written protocols and 
reasonable time frames for specific situations. Developing timely and 
appropriate responsive actions demonstrates the supplier's commitment 
to address problems and concerns. Determining whether identified 
problems respond to corrective actions may require continual oversight.

[[Page 14250]]

III. Specific Fraud and Abuse Risks Associated With Medicare Ambulance 
Coverage and Reimbursement Requirements

    Ambulance suppliers should review and understand applicable 
ambulance coverage requirements. Ambulance suppliers that are not 
complying with applicable requirements should take appropriate, prompt 
corrective action to follow the relevant requirements. The new fee 
schedule covers seven levels of service, including Basic Life Support 
(BLS), Advanced Life Support, Level 1 (ALS1), Advanced Life Support, 
Level 2 (ALS2), Specialty Care Transport, Paramedic ALS Intercept, 
Fixed Wing Air Ambulance, and Rotary Wing Air Ambulance. Generally, 
Medicare Part B covers ambulance transports if applicable vehicle and 
staff requirements, medical necessity requirements, billing and 
reporting requirements, and origin and destination requirements are 
met. Medicare Part B will not pay for ambulance services if Part A has 
paid directly or indirectly for the same services.
A. Medical Necessity
    Medically unnecessary transports have formed the basis for a number 
of Medicare and Medicaid fraud cases. Consequently, medical necessity 
is a risk area that should be addressed in an ambulance supplier's 
compliance program. Medicare Part B covers ambulance services only if 
the beneficiary's medical condition contraindicates another means of 
transportation. The medical necessity requirements vary depending on 
the status of the ambulance transport (i.e., emergency transport vs. 
non-emergency transport). If the medical necessity requirement is met, 
Medicare Part B covers ambulance services when a beneficiary is 
transported:
    [sbull] To a hospital, a critical access hospital (CAH), or a 
skilled nursing facility (SNF), from anywhere, including another acute 
care facility, or SNF;
    [sbull] To his or her home from a hospital, CAH, or SNF;
    [sbull] Round trip from a hospital, CAH, or SNF to an outside 
supplier to receive medically necessary therapeutic or diagnostic 
services; or
    [sbull] To the nearest appropriate renal dialysis facility from his 
or her home.
1. Upcoding
    Ambulance suppliers should be careful to bill at the appropriate 
level for services actually provided. The federal government has 
prosecuted a number of ambulance cases involving upcoding from BLS to 
ALS related to both emergency and non-emergency transports. In 1999, 
for example, an OIG investigation determined that an ambulance supplier 
was not only billing for ALS services when BLS services were provided, 
but the ambulance supplier did not employ an ALS-certified individual 
to perform the necessary ALS services. This supplier paid civil 
penalties and signed a five-year corporate integrity agreement (CIA).
2. Non-Emergency Transports
    There have also been a number of Medicare fraud cases involving 
non-emergency transports (i) to non-covered destinations and (ii) that 
were not medically necessary. An OIG OEI report, issued in December 
1998, found that a high number of non-emergency transports for which 
Medicare claims were submitted were medically unnecessary as defined by 
Medicare's criteria. Medicare's ambulance fee schedule identifies non-
emergency transport as appropriate if (i) the beneficiary is bed-
confined and his or her medical condition is such that other methods of 
transportation are contraindicated, or (ii) the beneficiary's medical 
condition, regardless of bed-confinement, is such that transportation 
by ambulance is medically required. The beneficiary's medical condition 
and the necessity for ambulance transportation must be documented. In 
determining whether a beneficiary is bed-confined, the following 
criteria must be met: (i) The beneficiary must be unable to get up from 
bed without assistance; (ii) the beneficiary must be unable to 
ambulate; and (iii) the beneficiary must be unable to sit in a chair or 
wheelchair (42 CFR 410.40 (d)). The fact that other modes of 
transportation may not be as readily available or as convenient does 
not justify coverage for ambulance transport for a beneficiary who does 
not meet Medicare's medical necessity requirements.
    Under no circumstances should ambulance suppliers mischaracterize 
the condition of the patient at the time of transport in an effort to 
claim that the transport was medically necessary under Medicare 
coverage requirements. If it is unclear whether the service will be 
covered by Medicare, the ambulance supplier should nonetheless 
appropriately document the condition of the patient and maintain 
records of the transport.
3. Scheduled and Unscheduled Transports
    Because of the potential for abuse in the area of non-emergency 
transports, Medicare has criteria for the coverage of non-emergency 
scheduled and unscheduled ambulance transports. For example, physician 
certification statements (PCS) should be obtained by an ambulance 
supplier to verify that the transport was medically necessary. The PCSs 
should provide adequate information on the transport provided for each 
individual beneficiary, and each PCS must be signed by an appropriate 
physician or other appropriate health care professional. Except for 
pre-signed PCSs for scheduled, repetitive ambulance transports, which 
can be valid for up to 60 days of transport service, pre-signed and/or 
mass produced PCSs are not acceptable because they increase the 
opportunity for abuse.
    Medicare does not cover transports for routine doctor and dialysis 
appointments when beneficiaries do not meet the Medicare medical 
necessity requirements. Similarly, ambulance services that are rendered 
for convenience or because other methods of more appropriate 
transportation are not available do not meet Medicare's medical 
necessity requirements and claims for such services should not be 
submitted to Medicare for payment. For example, an ambulance supplier 
was required to pay over $1 million to the federal government and enter 
into a CIA with the OIG for billing for medically unnecessary ambulance 
trips and for non-covered ambulance trips to doctors' offices.
B. Documentation, Billing, and Reporting Risks
    Currently, the HCFA 1491 or 1500 forms are the approved forms for 
requesting Medicare payment for ambulance services. Inadequate or 
faulty documentation is a key risk area for ambulance suppliers. The 
compilation of correct and accurate documentation (whether electronic 
or hard copy) is generally the responsibility of all the ambulance 
personnel, including the dispatcher who receives a request for 
transportation, the personnel transporting the patient, and the coders 
and billers submitting claims for reimbursement. When documenting a 
service, ambulance personnel should not make assumptions or inferences 
to compensate for a lack of information or contradictory information on 
a trip sheet, ACR, or other medical source documents.

[[Page 14251]]

    To ensure that adequate and appropriate information is documented, 
an ambulance supplier should gather and record, at a minimum, the 
following:
    [sbull] Dispatch instructions, if any;
    [sbull] Reasons why transportation by other means was 
contraindicated;
    [sbull] Reasons for selecting the level of service;
    [sbull] Information on the status of the individual;
    [sbull] Who ordered the trip;
    [sbull] Time spent on the trip;
    [sbull] Dispatch, arrival at scene, and destination times;
    [sbull] Mileage traveled;
    [sbull] Pickup and destination codes;
    [sbull] Appropriate zip codes; and
    [sbull] Services provided, including drugs or supplies.
1. Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS)
    The appropriate HCPCS codes should be used when submitting claims 
for reimbursement. The HCPCS codes reported on the ambulance trip 
sheets or claim forms should be selected to describe most accurately 
the type of transport provided based on the patient's illness, injury, 
signs, or symptoms at the time of the ambulance transport. HCPCS codes 
should not be selected based on information relating to the patient's 
past medical history or prior conditions, unless such information also 
specifically relates to the patient's condition at the time of 
transport. Ambulance suppliers should use caution not to submit 
incorrect HCPCS codes on trip sheets or claims to justify 
reimbursement.
2. Origin/Destination Requirements--Loaded Miles
    Medicare only covers transports for the time that the patient is 
physically in the ambulance. Effective January 1, 2001, ambulance 
suppliers must furnish the ``point of pickup'' zip code on each 
ambulance claim form. Under the new Medicare ambulance fee schedule, 
the point of pickup will determine the mileage payment rate. The 
ambulance supplier should document the address of the point of pickup 
to verify that the zip code is accurate.
    The ambulance crew should accurately report the mileage traveled 
from the point of pickup to the destination. Medicare covers ambulance 
transports to the nearest available treatment facility. If the nearest 
facility is not appropriate (e.g., because of traffic patterns or an 
inability to address the patient's condition), the beneficiary should 
be taken to the next closest appropriate facility. If a beneficiary 
requests a transport to a facility other than the nearest appropriate 
facility, the ambulance supplier should inform the patient that he or 
she may be responsible for payment of the additional mileage incurred.
3. Multiple Payors--Coordination of Benefits
    Ambulance suppliers should make every attempt to determine whether 
Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal health care programs should be 
billed as the primary or as the secondary insurer. Claims for payment 
should not be submitted to more than one payor, except for purposes of 
coordinating benefits (e.g., Medicare as secondary payor). Section 
1862(b)(6) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(6)) states that an entity 
that knowingly, willfully, and repeatedly fails to provide accurate 
information relating to the availability of other health benefit plans 
shall be subject to a civil money penalty (CMP).
    The OIG recognizes that there are instances when the secondary 
payor is not known or cannot be determined before the ambulance 
transportation claim is submitted. This may be particularly true for 
ambulance suppliers that have incomplete insurance information from a 
transported patient. In such situations, if an ambulance supplier 
receives an inappropriate or duplicate payment, the payment should be 
refunded to the appropriate payor in a timely manner. Accordingly, 
ambulance suppliers should develop a system to track and quantify 
credit balances to return overpayments when they occur.
C. Medicare Part A Payment for ``Under Arrangements'' Services
    In certain instances, SNFs, hospitals, or CAHs, may provide 
ambulance services ``under arrangements'' with an ambulance supplier. 
In such cases, the SNF, hospital, or CAH is the entity furnishing the 
transport. Accordingly, Medicare pays the SNF, hospital, or CAH for the 
service. The SNF, hospital, or CAH pays the ambulance supplier a 
contractually agreed amount. Ambulance suppliers that provide such 
transports ``under arrangements'' with a SNF, hospital, or CAH should 
not bill Medicare for these transports. All such arrangements should be 
carefully reviewed to ensure that there is no violation of the anti-
kickback statute, as more fully described in section V.

IV. Medicaid Ambulance Coverage

    The Medicaid program, a joint federal and state health insurance 
program, provides funds for health care providers and suppliers that 
perform or deliver medically necessary services for eligible Medicaid 
recipients. Each state establishes its own Medicaid regulations, which 
vary depending on the state plan. However, two federal regulations form 
the basis for all Medicaid reimbursement for transportation services 
and ensure a minimum level of coverage for transportation services. 
First, all states that receive federal Medicaid funds are required to 
assure transportation for Medicaid recipients to and from medical 
appointments (42 CFR 431.53). Second, federal regulations further 
define medical transportation and describe costs that can be reimbursed 
with Medicaid funds (42 CFR 440.170(a)).
    In short, Medicaid often covers transports that are not typically 
covered by Medicare, such as transports in wheelchair vans, cabs, and 
ambulettes. However, the transports are subject to strict coverage and 
payment rules. The state Medicaid Fraud Control Units and federal law 
enforcement have pursued many fraud cases related to transportation 
services billed to Medicaid programs. Ambulance suppliers should review 
the Medicaid regulations governing their state or service territories 
to ensure that any billed services meet applicable Medicaid 
requirements.

V. Kickbacks and Inducements

A. What Is the Anti-Kickback Statute?
    The anti-kickback statute prohibits the purposeful payment of 
anything of value (i.e., remuneration) in order to induce or reward 
referrals of federal health care program business, including Medicare 
and Medicaid business.\12\ (See section 1128B(b) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 
1320a-7b).) It is a criminal prohibition that subjects violators to 
possible imprisonment and criminal fines. In addition, violations of 
the anti-kickback statute may give rise to CMPs and exclusion from the 
federal health care programs. Both parties to an impermissible kickback 
transaction may be liable: the party offering or paying the kickback, 
as well as the party soliciting or receiving it. The key inquiry under 
the statute is whether the parties intend to pay, or be paid, for 
referrals. Paying for referrals need not be the only or primary purpose 
of a payment; as courts have found, if any one purpose of the payment 
is to induce or reward referrals, the statute is violated. (See, e.g., 
United States v. Kats, 871 F.2d 105 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. 
Greber, 760 F.2d 68 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 988 (1985).) In 
short, an ambulance supplier should

[[Page 14252]]

neither make nor accept payments intended, in whole or in part, to 
generate federal health care program business.
B. What Are ``Safe Harbors'?
    The department has promulgated ``safe harbor'' regulations that 
describe payment practices that do not violate the anti-kickback 
statute, provided the payment practice fits squarely within a safe 
harbor. The safe harbor regulations can be found at 42 CFR 1001.952 and 
on the OIG Web page at http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/safeharborregulations.html#1. Compliance with the safe harbor 
regulations is voluntary. Thus, failure to comply with a safe harbor 
does not mean that an arrangement is illegal. Rather, arrangements that 
do not fit in a safe harbor must be analyzed under the anti-kickback 
statute on a case-by-case basis to determine if there is a violation. 
To minimize the risk under the anti-kickback statute, ambulance 
suppliers should structure arrangements to take advantage of the 
protection offered by the safe harbors whenever possible. Safe harbors 
that may be useful for ambulance suppliers include those for space 
rentals, equipment rentals, personal services and management contracts, 
discounts, employees, price reductions offered to health plans, shared 
risk arrangements, and ambulance restocking arrangements. (42 CFR 
1001.952(b), (c), (d), (h), (i), (t), (u), and (v), respectively.)
C. What Is ``Remuneration'' for Purposes of the Statute?
    Under the anti-kickback statute, ``remuneration'' means virtually 
anything of value. A prohibited kickback payment may be paid in cash or 
in kind, directly or indirectly, covertly or overtly. Almost anything 
of value can be a kickback, including, but not limited to, money, 
goods, services, free or reduced rent, meals, travel, gifts, and 
investment interests.
D. Who Are Referral Sources for Ambulance Suppliers?
    Any person or entity in a position to generate federal health care 
program business for an ambulance supplier, directly or indirectly, is 
a potential referral source. Potential referral sources include, but 
are not limited to, governmental ``9-1-1'' or comparable emergency 
medical dispatch systems, private dispatch systems, first responders, 
hospitals, nursing facilities, assisted living facilities, home health 
agencies, physician offices, staff of any of the foregoing entities, 
and patients.
E. For Whom Are Ambulance Suppliers Sources of Referrals?
    In some circumstances, ambulance suppliers furnishing ambulance 
services may be sources of referrals (i.e., patients) for hospitals, 
other receiving facilities, and second responders. Ambulance suppliers 
that furnish other types of transportation, such as ambulette or van 
transportation, also may be sources of referrals for other providers of 
federal heath care program services, such as physician offices, 
diagnostic facilities, and certain senior centers. In general, 
ambulance suppliers--particularly those furnishing emergency services--
have relatively limited abilities to generate business for other 
providers or to inappropriately steer patients to particular emergency 
providers.
F. How Can Ambulance Suppliers Avoid Risk Under the Anti-Kickback 
Statute?
    Because of the gravity of the penalties under the anti-kickback 
statute, ambulance suppliers are strongly encouraged to consult with 
experienced legal counsel about any financial relationships involving 
potential referral sources. In addition, ambulance suppliers should 
review OIG guidance related to the anti-kickback statute, including 
advisory opinions, fraud alerts, and special advisory bulletins. 
Ambulance suppliers concerned about their existing or proposed 
arrangements may obtain binding advisory opinions from the OIG.
    Ambulance suppliers should exercise common sense when evaluating 
existing or prospective arrangements under the anti-kickback statute. 
One good rule of thumb is that all arrangements for items or services 
should be at fair market value in an arms-length transaction not taking 
into account the volume or value of existing or potential referrals. 
For each arrangement, an ambulance supplier should carefully and 
accurately document how it has determined fair market value. As 
discussed further in appendix A.4, an ambulance supplier may not charge 
Medicare or Medicaid substantially more than its usual charge to other 
payors.
    Ambulance suppliers should consult the safe harbor for discounts 
(42 CFR 1001.952(h)) when entering into arrangements involving 
discounted pricing. In most circumstances, ambulance suppliers who 
offer discounts to purchasers who bill federal programs must fully and 
accurately disclose the discounts on the invoice, coupon, or statement 
sent to purchasers and inform purchasers of the purchasers' obligations 
to report the discounts to the federal programs. Accurate and complete 
records should be kept of all discount arrangements.
    Ambulance suppliers should exercise caution when selling services 
to purchasers who are also in a position to generate federal health 
care program business for ambulance suppliers (e.g., SNFs or hospitals 
that purchase ambulance services for private pay and Part A patients, 
but refer Part B and Medicaid patients to ambulance suppliers). Any 
link or connection, whether explicit or implicit, between the price 
offered for business paid out of the purchaser's pocket and referrals 
of federal program business billable by the ambulance supplier will 
implicate the anti-kickback statute.
    An ambulance supplier should not offer or provide gifts, free items 
or services, or other incentives of greater than nominal value to 
referral sources, including patients, and should not accept such gifts 
and benefits from parties soliciting referrals from the ambulance 
supplier. In general, token gifts used on an occasional basis to 
demonstrate good will or appreciation (e.g., logo key chains, mugs, or 
pens) will be considered to be nominal in value.
G. Are There Particular Arrangements to Which Ambulance Suppliers 
Should Be Alert?
    Ambulance suppliers should review the following arrangements with 
particular care. (This section is intended to be illustrative, not 
exhaustive, of potential areas of risk under the anti-kickback and 
beneficiary inducement statutes.)
1. Arrangements for Emergency Medical Services (EMS)

a. Municipal Contracts

    Contracts with cities or other EMS sponsors for the provision of 
emergency medical services may raise anti-kickback concerns. Ambulance 
suppliers should not offer anything of value to cities or other EMS 
sponsors in order to secure an EMS contract. (In general, ambulance 
suppliers may provide cities or other municipal entities with free or 
reduced cost EMS for uninsured, indigent patients.) In addition, 
arrangements that cover both EMS and non-EMS ambulance business should 
be carefully scrutinized; conditioning EMS services on obtaining non-
EMS business potentially implicates the anti-kickback statute. Absent a 
state or local law requiring a tie between EMS and non-EMS business, 
ambulance suppliers

[[Page 14253]]

contemplating such arrangements should consider obtaining an OIG 
advisory opinion. While cities and other EMS sponsors may charge 
ambulance suppliers amounts to cover the costs of services provided to 
the suppliers, they should not solicit inflated payments in exchange 
for access to EMS patients, including access to dispatch services under 
``9-1-1'' or comparable systems.
    A city or other political subdivision of a state (e.g., fire 
district, county, or parish) may not require a contracting ambulance 
supplier to waive copayments for its residents, but it may pay 
uncollected, out-of-pocket copayments on behalf of its residents. Such 
payments may be made through lump sum or periodic payments, if the 
aggregate payments reasonably approximate the otherwise uncollected 
cost-sharing amounts. However, a city or other political subdivision 
that owns and operates its own ambulance service is permitted to waive 
cost-sharing amounts for its residents under a special CMS rule. (See 
CMS Carrier Manual, section 2309.4; CMS Intermediary Manual, section 
3153.3A; see also, e.g., OIG Advisory Opinion No. 01-10 and 01-11.)

b. Ambulance Restocking

    Another common EMS arrangement involves the restocking of supplies 
and drugs used in connection with patients transported to hospitals or 
other emergency receiving facilities. These arrangements typically do 
not raise anti-kickback concerns. However, ambulance suppliers 
participating in such arrangements can eliminate risk altogether by 
complying with the ambulance restocking safe harbor at 42 CFR 
1001.952(v). In general, the safe harbor requires that EMS restocking 
arrangements involving free or reduced price supplies or drugs be 
conducted in an open, public, and uniform manner, although hospitals 
may elect to restock only certain categories of ambulance suppliers 
(e.g., nonprofits or volunteers). Restocking must be accurately 
documented using trip sheets, patient care reports, patient encounter 
reports, or other documentation that records the specific type and 
amount of supplies or drugs used on the transported EMS patient and 
subsequently restocked. The documentation must be maintained for 5 
years. The safe harbor also covers fair market value restocking 
arrangements and government-mandated restocking arrangements. The safe 
harbor conditions are set forth with specificity in the regulations.
    Wholly apart from anti-kickback concerns, ambulance stocking 
arrangements raise issues with respect to proper billing for restocked 
supplies and drugs. Payment and coverage rules are set by the health 
care program that covers the patient (e.g., Medicare or Medicaid). To 
determine proper billing for restocked supplies or drugs, ambulance 
suppliers should consult the relevant program payment rules or contact 
the relevant payment entity. Under the Medicare program, in almost all 
circumstances the ambulance supplier--not the hospital--will be the 
party entitled to bill for the restocked supplies or drugs used in 
connection with an ambulance transport, even if they are obtained 
through a restocking program. However, under the ambulance fee 
schedule, supplies and drugs are included in the bill for the base rate 
and are not separately billable. Ambulance suppliers should consult 
with their payor to confirm appropriate billing during the new 
ambulance fee schedule transition period.
2. Arrangements With Other Responders
    In many situations, it is common practice for a paramedic intercept 
or other first responder to treat a patient in the field, with a second 
responder transporting the patient to the hospital. In some cases, the 
first responder is in a position to influence the selection of the 
transporting entity. While fair market value payments for services 
actually provided by the first responder are appropriate, inflated 
payments by ambulance suppliers to generate business are prohibited, 
and the government will scrutinize such payments to ensure that they 
are not disguised payments to generate calls to the transporting 
entity.
3. Arrangements With Hospitals and Nursing Facilities
    Because hospitals and nursing facilities are key sources of non-
emergency ambulance business, ambulance suppliers need to take 
particular care when entering into arrangements with such institutions. 
(See section F above.)
4. Arrangements With Patients
    Arrangements that offer patients incentives to select particular 
ambulance suppliers may violate the anti-kickback statute, as well as 
the CMP law that prohibits giving inducements to Medicare and Medicaid 
beneficiaries that the giver knows, or should know, are likely to 
influence the beneficiary to choose a particular practitioner, 
provider, or supplier of items or services payable by Medicare or 
Medicaid. (See section 1128A(a)(5) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-
7a(a)(5).) Prohibited incentives include, without limitation, free 
goods and services and copayment waivers. The statute contains several 
narrow exceptions, including financial hardship copayment waivers and 
incentives to promote the delivery of preventive care services as 
defined in regulations. In addition, items or services of nominal value 
(less than $10 per item or service or $50 in the aggregate annually) 
and any payment that fits into an anti-kickback safe harbor are 
permitted.
    An ambulance supplier should not routinely waive federal health 
care program copayments (e.g., no ``insurance only'' billing), although 
the supplier may waive a patient's copayment if it makes a good faith, 
individualized assessment of the patient's financial need.(16) 
Financial hardship waivers may not be routine or advertised. As 
discussed in section G above, cities and other political subdivisions 
are permitted to waive copayments for services provided directly to 
their residents.
    Subscription or membership programs that offer patients purported 
coverage only for the ambulance supplier's services are also 
problematic because such programs can be used to disguise the routine 
waiver of cost-sharing amounts. To reduce their risk under the anti-
kickback statute, ambulance suppliers offering subscription programs 
should carefully review them to ensure that the subscription or 
membership fees collected from subscribers or members, in the 
aggregate, reasonably approximate--from an actuarial or historical 
perspective--the amounts that the subscribers or members would expect 
to spend for cost-sharing amounts over the period covered by the 
subscription or membership agreement.

VI. Conclusion

    This ambulance compliance program guidance is intended as a 
resource for ambulance suppliers to decrease the incidence of fraud and 
abuse as well as errors that might occur due to inadequate training or 
inadvertent noncompliance. We encourage ambulance suppliers to 
scrutinize their internal practices to ensure the development of a 
comprehensive compliance program.
    Compliance programs should reflect each ambulance supplier's 
individual and unique circumstances. It has been the OIG's experience 
that those health care providers and suppliers that have developed 
compliance programs not only better understand applicable federal 
health care program requirements, but also their own internal 
operations. We are hopeful that

[[Page 14254]]

this guidance will be a valuable tool in the development and 
continuation of ambulance suppliers' compliance programs.

Appendix A--Additional Risk Areas

1. ``No Transport'' Calls and Pronouncement of Death

    If an ambulance supplier responds to an emergency call, but a 
patient is not transported due to death, three Medicare rules apply. 
If an individual is pronounced dead prior to the time the ambulance 
was requested, there is no payment. If the individual is pronounced 
dead after the ambulance has been requested, but before any services 
are rendered, a BLS payment will be made and no mileage will be 
paid. If the individual is pronounced dead after being loaded into 
the ambulance, the same payment rules apply as if the beneficiary 
were alive. Ambulance suppliers should accurately represent the time 
of death and request payment based on the aforementioned criteria.

2. Multiple Patient Transports

    On occasion, it may be necessary for an ambulance to transport 
multiple patients concurrently. If more than one patient is 
transported concurrently in one ambulance, the amount billed should 
be consistent with the multiple transport guidelines established by 
the payor in that region. Under CMS's new fee schedule rules for 
multiple transports, Medicare will pay a percentage of the payment 
allowance for the base rate applicable to the level of care 
furnished to the Medicare beneficiary (e.g., if two patients are 
transported simultaneously, 75 percent of the applicable base rate 
will be reimbursed for each of the Medicare beneficiaries). 
Coinsurance and deductible amounts will apply to the prorated 
amounts.

3. Multiple Ambulances Called to Respond to Emergency Call

    On occasion, more than one ambulance supplier responds to an 
emergency call and is present to transport a beneficiary. These are 
often referred to as ``dual transports.'' In such cases, only the 
transporting ambulance supplier may bill Medicare for the service 
provided. If payment is desired for services provided to a patient, 
the non-transporting ambulance company should receive it directly 
from the transporting supplier based on a negotiated arrangement. 
These payments should be fair market value for services actually 
rendered by the non-transporting supplier, and the parties should 
review these payment arrangements for compliance with the anti-
kickback statute. On occasion, when multiple ambulance crews respond 
to a call, a BLS ambulance may provide the transport, but the level 
of services provided may be at the ALS level. If a BLS supplier is 
billing at the ALS level because of services furnished by an 
additional ALS crew member, appropriate documentation should 
accompany the claim to indicate to the payor that dual 
transportation was provided. In any event, only one supplier may 
submit the claim for payment.

4. Billing Medicare ``Substantially in Excess'' of Usual Charges

    Ambulance suppliers generally may not charge Medicare or 
Medicaid patients substantially more than they usually charge 
everyone else. If they do, they are subject to exclusion by the OIG. 
This exclusion authority is not implicated unless the supplier's 
charge for Medicare or Medicaid patients is substantially more than 
its median non-Medicare/Medicaid charge. In other words, the 
supplier need not worry unless it is discounting close to half of 
its non-Medicare/Medicaid business. Ambulance suppliers should 
review charging practices with respect to Medicare and Medicaid 
billing to ensure that they are not charging Medicare or Medicaid 
substantially more than they usually charge other customers for 
comparable services. It is appropriate for an ambulance supplier to 
determine its usual charge with reference to its total charges to 
non-Medicare/Medicaid customers for an ambulance transport (whether 
or not the charges are structured as base rate plus mileage or 
otherwise) and then to compare the resulting ``usual charge'' to its 
total charge to Medicare (i.e., base rate plus mileage) or Medicaid 
for comparable transport.

Appendix B--OIG/HHS Information

    The OIG's web site (http://oig.hhs.gov) contains various links 
describing the following: (1) Authorities and Federal Register 
Notices, (2) Publications, (3) Reports, (4) Hearing Testimony, (5) 
Fraud Prevention and Detection, (6) Reading Room, (7) OIG 
Organization and (8) Employment Opportunities. Such information is 
frequently updated and is a useful tool for ambulance providers 
seeking additional OIG resources.
    Also listed on the OIG's web site is the OIG Hotline Number. One 
method for providers to report potential fraud, waste and abuse is 
to contact the OIG Hotline number. All HHS and contractor employees 
have a responsibility to assist in combating fraud, waste, and abuse 
in all departmental programs. As such, providers are encouraged to 
report matters involving fraud, waste and mismanagement in any 
departmental program to the OIG. The OIG maintains a hotline that 
offers a confidential means for reporting these matters.

Contacting the OIG Hotline

    By Phone: 1-800-HHS-TIPS (1-800-447-8477).
    By Fax: 1-800-223-8164.
    By E-Mail: [email protected].
    By TTY: 1-800-377-4950.
    By Mail: Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and 
Human Services, Attn: HOTLINE, 330 Independence Ave., SW., 
Washington, DC 20201.
    When contacting the hotline, please provide the following 
information to the best of your ability:

--Type of Complaint: Medicare Part A
    Medicare Part B
    Indian Health Service
    TRICARE
    Other (please specify)
--HHS department or program being affected by your allegation of 
fraud, waste, abuse/mismanagement: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services (formerly Health Care Financing Administration) Indian 
Health Service Other (please specify)
--Please provide the following information (however, if you would 
like your referral to be submitted anonymously, please indicate such 
in your correspondence or phone call): Your Name
    Your Street Address
    Your City/County
    Your State
    Your Zip Code
    Your E-mail Address
--Subject/Person/Business/Department that allegation is against: 
Name of Subject
    Title of Subject
    Subject's Street Address
    Subject's City/County
    Subject's State
    Subject's Zip Code
--Please provide a brief summary of your allegation and the relevant 
facts.

Appendix C--Carrier Contact Information

1. Medicare

    A complete list of contact information (address, phone number, 
e-mail address) for Medicare Part A Fiscal Intermediaries, Medicare 
Part B Carriers, Regional Home Health Intermediaries, and Durable 
Medical Equipment Regional Carriers can be found on the CMS Web site 
at http://cms.hhs.gov/contacts/incardir.asp.

2. Medicaid

    Contact information (address, phone number, e-mail address) for 
each state Medicaid director can be found on the CMS Web site at 
http://cms.hhs.gov/medicaid/mcontact.asp. In addition to a list of 
state Medicaid directors, the Web site includes contact information 
for each state survey agency and the CMS Regional Offices.

3. Ambulance Fee Schedule

    Information related to the development of the ambulance fee 
schedule is located at http://cms.hhs.gov/suppliers/afs/default.asp.

Appendix D--Internet Resources

1. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

    The CMS Web site (http://cms.hhs.gov/) includes information on a 
wide array of topics, including Medicare's National Coverage 
Database, National Coverage Policies, Laws and Regulations and State 
Waiver and Demonstration Programs. In addition, this Web site 
contains information related to Medicaid including a General 
Medicaid Overview, State and Federal Health Program Contacts, State 
Medicaid Manual, State Medicaid Plans, State Waivers and 
Demonstration Programs, Letters to State Officials, and CMS 
Publications.

2. CMS Medicare Training

    This CMS Web site (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/medlearn/cbts.asp) 
provides computer-based training related to CMS's purpose and 
history, the three types

[[Page 14255]]

of Medicare coverage, the roles agencies and contractors play, and 
the claims handling process.

3. Government Printing Office (GPO)

    The GPO Web site (http://www.access.gpo.gov) provides access to 
federal statutes and regulations pertaining to federal health care 
programs.

4. The U.S. House of Representatives Internet Library

    The U.S. House of Representatives Internet Library Web site 
(http://.uscode.house.gov/usc.htm) provides access to the United 
States Code, which contains laws pertaining to federal health care 
programs.

Endnotes:

    1. To date, the OIG has issued compliance program guidance for 
the following nine industry sectors: (1) Hospitals; (2) clinical 
laboratories; (3) home health agencies; (4) durable medical 
equipment suppliers; (5) third-party medical billing companies; (6) 
hospices; (7) Medicare+Choice organizations offering coordinated 
care plans; (8) nursing facilities; and (9) individual and small 
group physician practices. The guidances listed here and referenced 
in this document are available on the OIG Web site at http://oig.hhs.gov in the Fraud Prevention and Detection section.
    2. The CMS's final ambulance fee schedule rule was published in 
the Federal Register on February 27, 2002 (67 FR 9100) and went into 
effect on April 1, 2002.
    3. The term ``universe'' is used in this CPG to mean the 
generally accepted definition of the term for purposes of performing 
a statistical analysis. Specifically, the term ``universe'' means 
the total number of sampling units from which the sample was 
selected.
    4. The OIG encourages that providers/suppliers police 
themselves, correct underlying problems, and work with the 
government to resolve any problematic practices. The OIG's Provider 
Self-Disclosure Protocol, published in the Federal Register on 
October 30, 1998 (63 FR 58399), sets forth the steps, including a 
detailed audit methodology, that may be undertaken if suppliers wish 
to work openly and cooperatively with the OIG. The Provider Self-
Disclosure Protocol is open to all health care providers and other 
entities and is intended to facilitate the resolution of matters 
that, in the provider's reasonable assessment, may potentially 
violate federal criminal, civil, or administrative laws. The 
Provider Self-Disclosure Protocol is not intended to resolve simple 
mistakes or overpayment problems. The OIG's Self-Disclosure Protocol 
can be found on the OIG Web site at http://oig.hhs.gov.
    5. Ambulance suppliers should read the OIG's September 1999 
Special Advisory Bulletin, entitled ``The Effect of Exclusion From 
Participation in the Federal Health Care Programs,'' published in 
the Federal Register on October 7, 1999 (64 FR 58851), which is 
located at http://oig.hhs.gov/frdalrt, for more information 
regarding excluded individuals and entities and the effect of 
employing or contracting with such individuals or entities.
    6. OEI-09-95-00412, available on the OIG's Web site at http://oig.hhs.gov/oei.
    7. CMS Program Memorandum B-00-09 describes different options 
for ambulance suppliers having difficulty obtaining PCSs. (See 42 
CFR 410.40(d)(3)(iii) and (iv).) A PCS is not required, for 
beneficiaries who are not under the direct care of a physician, 
whether the beneficiary resides at home or in a facility. Id. 
Section 410.40(d)(3)(ii).
    8. 42 CFR 410.42(d).
    9. On December 28, 2000, the Department of Health and Human 
Services (HHS) released its final rule implementing the privacy 
provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 
Act of 1996. The rule became effective in April 2001, and regulates 
access, use, and disclosure of personally identifiable health 
information by covered entities (health providers, plans, and 
clearinghouses). Guidance on an ambulance supplier's compliance with 
the HHS Privacy Regulations is beyond the scope of this CPG; 
however, it will be the responsibility of ambulance suppliers to 
comply. Most health plans and providers must comply with the rule by 
April 14, 2003. In the meantime, many organizations are considering 
and analyzing the privacy issues.
    10. Loaded miles refers to the number of miles that the patient 
is physically on board the ambulance.
    11. HCFA Program Memorandum Transmittal AB-00-118, issued on 
November 30, 2000.
    12. In addition to Medicare and Medicaid, the federal health 
care programs include, but are not limited to, TRICARE, Veterans 
Health Care, Public Health Service programs, and the Indian Health 
Services.
    13. The procedures for applying for an advisory opinion are set 
forth at 42 CFR part 1008. and on the OIG Web page at http://www.oig.hhs.gov/fraud/advisoryopinions.html#3. All OIG advisory 
opinions are published on the OIG web page. A number of published 
opinions involving ambulance arrangements provide useful guidance 
for ambulance suppliers. These include OIG Advisory Opinions Nos. 
97-6, 98-3, 98-7, 98-13, 99-1, 99-2, 99-5, 00-7, 00-9, 00-11, 01-10, 
01-11, 01-12, 01-18, 02-2, 02-3, 02-8, and 02-15. Other advisory 
opinions not specifically involving ambulance arrangements may also 
provide useful guidance.
    14. See 65 FR 24400; April 26, 2000.
    15. See Special Advisory Bulletin: Offering Gifts and Other 
Inducement to Beneficiaries, located on the OIG Web page at http://www.oig.hhs.gov/fraud/fraudalerts.html#2.
    16. See Special Fraud Alert: Routine Waiver of Copayments or 
Deductibles Under Medicare Part B (59 FR 65372, 65374 (1994)), 
located on the OIG Web page at http://www.oig.hhs.gov/fraud/fraudalerts.html#1.
    17. The OIG may exclude from participation in the federal health 
care programs any provider that submits or causes to be submitted 
bills or requests for payment (based on charges or costs) under 
Medicare or Medicaid that are substantially in excess of such 
providers' usual charges or costs, unless the Secretary finds good 
cause for such bills or requests. (See section 1128(b)(6) of the Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1320a-7(b)(6)).)

    Dated: February 14, 2003.
Janet Rehnquist,
Inspector General.

[FR Doc. 03-6866 Filed 3-21-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4152-01-P