The 60-day Refund Rule, created by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), requires providers to report and return Medicare and Medicaid overpayments within 60 days of identifying them. Failure to comply with the 60-day Refund Rule can result in the imposition of a civil monetary penalty under 42 C.F.R. §1003.210(a)(8), with a maximum penalty of $24,164 for 2023 (2024 updates are not yet available).
In addition, improper retention of an identified overpayment may provide grounds for allegation of a violation of the federal False Claims Act (FCA), which includes potential recoveries for whistleblowers, treble damages, per-claim penalties, and in some cases, a corporate integrity agreement as part of a settlement.
Regulations implementing the application of the 60-day Refund Rule for overpayments under Medicare Parts A and B became effective in March 2016, and can be found in 42 C.F.R. Parts 401 and 405 (the 2016 regulations). In 2022, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued proposed revisions to the 2016 regulations, which have not yet been finalized. As discussed below, the 2022 revisions proposed a notable change as to what it meant to “identify” an overpayment.
What’s new?
In Section III.O of the recently released advance copy of the 2025 Proposed Rule for the Physician Fee Schedule (PFS), scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on July 31, CMS added an additional provision to the still-pending 2022 revisions. Specifically, in the 2025 PFS Proposed Rule, CMS proposed an additional regulatory subsection formalizing the six-month period for investigation of an overpayment, during which the 60-day overpayment refund deadline would be temporarily suspended.
The newly proposed §401.305(b)(3) would specify the circumstances under which the deadline for reporting and returning overpayments would be suspended to allow time for providers to investigate and calculate overpayments.
Proposed §401.305(b)(3)(i) provides that the deadline to report and return an overpayment would be suspended if: a) a person has identified an overpayment, but has not yet completed a good-faith investigation to determine the existence of related overpayments that may arise from the same or similar cause or reason as the initially identified overpayment; and b) the person conducts a timely, good-faith investigation to determine whether related overpayments exist. Proposed §401.305(b)(3)(ii) provides that, if the conditions for proposed §401.305(b)(3)(i) are met, the deadline for reporting and returning the initially identified overpayment and related overpayments that arise from the same or similar cause or reason as the initially identified overpayment will remain suspended until the earlier of the date that the investigation of related overpayments has concluded and the aggregate amount of the initially identified overpayments and related overpayments is calculated, or 180 days after the date on which the initial identified overpayment was identified.
Currently, the six-month period contemplated for completion of a good-faith investigation before the 60-day deadline is triggered appears in the preamble discussion to the 2016 regulations, not in any actual regulation. There had been concern in the provider community that CMS might not continue that six-month investigation period upon finalization of the 2022 revisions. Adding the provision as a regulation required notice and a public comment period, which is satisfied by the 2025 PFS Proposed Rule.
What does it mean to “identify” an overpayment?
Not yet finalized from the 2022 revisions is the critical delineation of when an overpayment has been “identified,” such that the 60-day refund rule is triggered. The statute itself does not define what it means to be “identified.”
The existing regulation (at 42 C.F.R. §401.305(a)(2)) explains that: “(a) person has identified an overpayment when the person has, or should have through the exercise of reasonable diligence, determined that the person has received an overpayment and quantified the amount of the overpayment.” A person should have determined that they received an overpayment and quantified the amount of the overpayment – if the person fails to exercise reasonable diligence and in fact received an overpayment.
——————————————————
Originally Published On: RAC Monitor
Photo courtesy of: RAC Monitor
Follow Medical Coding Pro on Twitter: www.Twitter.com/CodingPro1
Like Us On Facebook: www.Facebook.com/MedicalCodingPro
