HHS Agency Recommends Savannah Hospital Repay $1.3M to Medicare
Memorial Health University Medical Center in Savannah did not comply with Medicare billing requirements for 39 out of 131 inpatient and outpatient claims reviewed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General, according to an OIG report.
March 07, 2018 at 10:27 AM
2 minute read
Memorial Health University Medical Center in Savannah did not comply with Medicare billing requirements for 39 out of 131 inpatient and outpatient claims reviewed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General, according to an OIG report.
This noncompliance resulted in a combined overpayment to the hospital of nearly $600,000 in 2015 and 2016, the February report released last month stated. The inspector general looked at claims from Memorial as part of a series of reviews nationwide undertaken after data analytics identified certain claims risked not complying with Medicare billing requirements.
On the basis of the sample results, the inspector general estimated that the hospital received overpayments of at least $1.4 million for the audit period.
The agency recommended that the hospital refund Medicare a little more than $1.3 million—a figure that took into account the $155,072 that the hospital had already repaid. It also recommended that Memorial “exercise reasonable diligence to identify and return any additional similar overpayments received outside of our audit period” and “strengthen controls to ensure full compliance with Medicare requirements,” according to the 17-page report.
Memorial, in written comments on the draft report, did not agree with 17 of the 39 claims errors that the inspector general identified. Those claims were specific to inpatient rehabilitation services, according to the hospital.
In those cases, the hospital said, the records were audited not by the inspector general but by a contractor that did not allow Memorial to submit additional documentation during the audit process.
“Memorial believes the additional documentation for these 17 claims … clearly supports the patients' eligibility for and the medical necessity of the services provided,” according to the hospital's comments. “As a result, Memorial will appeal the findings … and is confident that, with the additional documentation, the services will be found to have been medically necessary.”
After reviewing these comments, the OIG maintained the accuracy of its findings and recommendations.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllA Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Big Law Begins 2025 With Boston Laterals and Deals
- 2Vinson & Elkins Expands Environmental Team with Chair of Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
- 3From Courtrooms to Conversations: The Unexpected Joys of Podcasting as a Lawyer
- 4'A More Nuanced Issue': NJ Supreme Court Considers Appellate Rules for Personal Injury Judgments
- 5Drake Sues UMG for Defamation Over Promotion of False Claims of Pedophilia
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250