Managed Care RICO Lawsuit Yield Gains

By Catherine I. Hanson

CMA Vice President and General Counsel


 

   

    “It would be unjust to allow corporations to engage in rampant and systematic wrongdoing, and then allow them to avoid a class action because the consequences of being held accountable for their misdeeds would be financially ruinous.”—11th Circuit, Court of Appeals, September 1, 2004.

  These are the words of the Court of Appeals in its unanimous decision upholding the certification as a nationwide class action of the physicians’ RICO lawsuit against the for-profit managed care industry. This ruling means that the physicians of America will finally have the opportunity for a fair hearing in federal court of their profound grievances against an industry that has arrogantly and unfairly exploited them for well more than a decade.

  How Did We Get Here?

The California Medical Association has been a key participant in this case virtually since its inception. On May 18, 2000, CMA’s Board of Trustees voted unanimously to become the first medical association in the country to participate in this historic case. Retaining a team of highly qualified and visionary attorneys, CMA became a plaintiff against the three largest for-profit managed care companies in California—WellPoint, PacifiCare, and Health Net. CMA’s complaint alleged that these plans had engaged in fraud and extortion in a common scheme to wrongfully deny payment to physicians and thereby had committed a civil violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO). The complaint sought only injunctive relief—a court-enforced assurance that these systematic abuses would end.

After CMA’s complaint was filed, it was consolidated with other cases from around the country, in what is known as “Multi-district Litigation.” These cases included cases filed by individual physicians for economic damages, including several courageous CMA members who agreed to be class-representatives and bear the burden of extensive requests for discovery and depositions. There were also cases filed by other state medical associations for injunctive relief, and cases against other for-profit health plans dominant in other parts of the country. Ultimately, 10 defendants were named, including WellPoint, PacifiCare, Health Net, Aetna, CIGNA, United, Humana, Prudential, Anthem, and Coventry.

These cases were all sent to the U.S. District Court in Miami, to be heard by Judge Federico Moreno. Judge Moreno has proven to be an extremely competent and fair judge, recently characterized by the Court of Appeals as “a veritable Leviathan.”

Equally important, CMA’s RICO attorneys—Archie Lamb, Joe Whatley, Nick Roth, and Dennis Pantazis—have more than fulfilled their commitment to CMA. Not only have they ably and steadfastly fought off a barrage of maneuvers by the managed care industry to keep this case from being heard, but they have taken the requests of the CMA Board of Trustees to heart. They have ensured that redress is sought for all physicians—whether practicing solo, in small groups, or large practices, and whether paid fee-for-service or capitation—and have further ensured that no defendant is allowed to settle until the Settlement Agreement is fully reviewed and approved by the CMA Board.

 

What Has Been Accomplished to Date?

So far, two of the 10 defendants, Aetna and CIGNA, have settled. Consistent with CMA’s goal, the greatest value of these Settlements is in the business practice changes these companies commit to going forward. Agreeing to a “sea change” in their relationship with physicians, Aetna and CIGNA have promised an unprecedented level of transparency and fairness in their payment practices. Specific commitments include

   Better Medical Necessity Definition - Patients will be entitled to receive medically necessary care as determined by a physician exercising clinically prudent judgment in accordance with generally accepted standards of medical practice, and cheaper alternatives are permissible only when they are “at least as likely to produce equivalent therapeutic or diagnostic results.” (Aetna and CIGNA Settlements §7.16)

   Payment of Vaccines and Vaccine Administration - Recommended vaccines and injectables and the administration of such vaccines and injectables, will be reimbursed. (Aetna and CIGNA Settlements §7.14)

   Reduced Downcoding - Evaluation and management codes will not be automatically downcoded. (Aetna and CIGNA Settlements §7.19)

   Fairer Payment Rules - CPT coding edits will comply with almost all of the guidelines contained in the AMA CPT Book. (Aetna and CIGNA Settlements §7.20)

   Fewer Contract Changes – No material adverse change to a contract may be made on less than ninety (90) days written notice. (Aetna and CIGNA Settlements §7.6)

     –Fee schedules can be changed once a year only. (Aetna and CIGNA Settlements §7.14)

   Disclosure of Payment Rules - Payment rules will be consistent across all company products. (Aetna and CIGNA Settlements §7.8(a))

      –Aetna will make a web-based pre-adjudication tool available on the Aetna Web site so physicians can determine what they will be paid. (Aetna Settlement §7.8(b))

      –Aetna will disclose on its Web site its payment rule or approach in each area in which CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) has promulgated a definitive rule or approach. By May 6, 2004, it will disclose a list of each Aetna-specific customization to its standard claims editing software product, as well as any circumstances where it concludes particular services relative to modifiers 25 and 59 are not appropriately reported together. (Aetna Settlement §7.8(c))

      –If one becomes available in commercially reasonable terms, a Web-based pre-adjudication tool will be available on the CIGNA Web site so that physicians can determine what they will be paid. (CIGNA Settlement §7.8(b))

      –CIGNA’s Computer claims processing software will be identified by name and version, and each claim coding and bundling edit that results in a substantial number of (at least 500) denials or reductions will be “described with particularity.” CIGNA will further identify any coding and bundling edits it applies to Category One claims, its policies for the reimbursement of supplies, and its policies for reducing payments for second and subsequent procedures performed on the same patient on the same date. (CIGNA Settlement §7.2(b)) (For a listing of “Category One Claims,” go the RICO Resource Center at www.cmanet.org)

   Capitation from Date of Enrollment - Capitation fees will be paid when the patient chooses a PCP or is assigned to a PCP, retroactive to date of enrollment. (Aetna and CIGNA Settlements §7.28)

   Participation in Pharmacy Risk Pools Optional – Neither Aetna’s nor CIGNA’s contracting policies will require the use of pharmacy risk pools. (Aetna and CIGNA Settlements §7.29)

   Stop-loss Insurance May Be Purchased Elsewhere – Neither Aetna nor CIGNA will restrict physicians from purchasing stop-loss coverage from other insurers. (Aetna and CIGNA Settlements §7.29)

   Faster Credentialing – Aetna has agreed to make commercially reasonable efforts to complete primary source verification within ninety (90) days of receiving a completed application for a new participating physician group member, and that the credentials committee will meet at least once every forty-five (45) days to consider these applications. CIGNA has agreed that new physician group members will be credentialed within 90 days of application, which physician groups can submit prior to their employment, and little or no additional credentialing will be required when already credentialed physicians change employment or location. (Aetna and CIGNA Settlements §7.13)

   Arbitration Fees Capped - Arbitration fees for solo and small group physicians (less than five for Aetna, through six for CIGNA) will be capped at $1000. (Aetna and CIGNA Settlements §7.29)

   Nonparticipating Physicians Protected - Disparaging language will be removed from EOBs, and the Agreement will not change or alter the rights of nonparticipating physicians to balance bill patients or to avoid dealing with Aetna or CIGNA. (Aetna and CIGNA Settlements §§7.21 and 7.29) Moreover, CIGNA will identify any databases it licenses from other parties to determine “reasonable and customary billed charges,” and will disclose the data it used to make any specific determination that is challenged. (CIGNA Settlement §7.14(c))

   No HIPAA Mandate - Nonparticipating physicians will not be forced to use electronic transactions or otherwise become HIPAA compliant, and both companies agree to continue to accept paper claims. (Aetna and CIGNA Settlements §§7.17 and 7.29)

   Restrictive Endorsements Limited – CIGNA has agreed that when the check is a partial payment of allowable charges, physicians may cash a check with “Payment in Full” on it without waiving the right to pursue a remedy under the Settlement. (CIGNA Settlement §7.29)

   Better Mental Health Coverage - CIGNA will generally apply the §7.16 definition of medical necessity described above to mental health care, including treatment for psychiatric illness and substance abuse, it will treat its participating psychiatrists like its other participating physicians with respect to its provider directories and referrals, and it will adhere to the “prudent lay person standard” for emergency services, including admission, or physical or chemical restraints. (CIGNA Settlement §7.33)

These companies also agreed to a fast and fair system for resolving physician payment disputes or disputes over medical necessity, where the ultimate decisions are made by an independent company that relies on certified coders and clinical specialists to adjudicate claims. For disputes over the Settlement terms and compliance responsibilities, including any systemic failure to comply with the new payment rules, the companies agreed to a separate process. In the “Compliance Dispute Process,” physicians’ claims will be prosecuted without charge by Julia Stewart, an attorney who has worked on this case for years, and the ultimate decision will be made by Judge Moreno, the federal circuit judge who has so ably handled this case to date.

Additionally, these companies agreed to some payment for the past damages physicians have suffered. Aetna committed $100 million to class-members and an additional $20 million to a new foundation devoted to assisting practicing physicians enhance their ability to provide quality medical care. This money will be paid as soon as the pending appeals are resolved. CIGNA has committed $15 million to a similar foundation and a minimum of $70 million to class-members and has additionally agreed to pay whatever amount is required to member physicians who can document improper downcoding or bundling or refusals to pay for covered medically necessary services as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The CIGNA claim filing period is currently under way. While these payments will not remotely make physicians whole for the harms they have suffered, they are not insignificant, particularly when coupled with the value of the business changes discussed above, changes that have been estimated conservatively to be worth more than a billion dollars.

 

What Happens Next?

With the 11th Circuit’s recent ruling upholding its class-action status, the last major hurdle to the trial should be removed. Our attorneys are working feverishly to prepare for that trial against the remaining defendants, which is currently scheduled to start March 14, 2005. At the same time, Court ordered mediation continues, and it is anticipated that one or more of the remaining defendants will decide to settle rather than bet their company’s future on the outcome of a trial.

 

Why Your SMCMA/CMA Membership Matters?

There is no way an individual physician, or even a large physician group, can effectively take on the for-profit managed care industry, or any of the other problems currently plaguing the profession. It is only through the profession’s organized advocacy—in the legislature, before the regulators, with the press, and ultimately when those alternatives fail, in the courts—that physicians’ voices can be heard. For example, this case has already consumed more than $10 million in out-of-pocket costs and hundreds of thousands of hours of attorneys’ time, and that is after the years of effort CMA and its leaders had spent documenting the problems and trying to resolve them. The only way the profession will be able to maximize its ability to improve the quality of care and the health care system is through effective advocacy in all these arenas—and effective advocacy requires the power of the profession’s collective effort.

 

For More Information

For more information on CMA’s RICO lawsuit, including information on how to maximize the amount of CIGNA damages you can recover, go to the CMA’s RICO Resource Center at www.cmanet.org or www.smcma.org. For more information specific to the business changes Aetna and CIGNA have agreed to, and how to help ensure they keep their promises, see CMA ON-CALL document #0108, “Aetna/CIGNA RICO Settlements.”