managingcorporatefraud

corporate fraud, insurance fraud and prevention strategies. What can be done to mitigate losses. Understanding the root cause associated with fraud will help deter fraud from taing place. Being reactive is too late - this blog is designed to look at alternative methods of dealing with fraud

Thursday, October 19, 2006

THE HIDDEN COST OF INSURANCE FRAUD

Disclaimer; This publication by Marwen Consulting Group Inc., has been provided as a service to our customers and is meant for informational purposes only. Although this information has been researched exhaustively, the author assumes no responsibility for its accuracy, errors or omissions herein. Readers should use their own judgement or consult a legal consultant for specific advice. The following represents materials compiled from various sources; public resource, Insurance Institutes, claims forums, international news forums as well as information from our own files and sources.

In about one fifth of all known cases of health care fraud, consumers are the perpetrators, according to the insurance association. All but a fraction of the rest involve providers. "I don't take consumer fraud lightly," says Greg Anderson, director of corporate finance investigations for Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Michigan. "We have 4.5 million customers and if each one is doing $1 in fraud, that's $4.5 million. That's worth paying attention to." But provider fraud is where the bigger dollars are by far.

That's not surprising, says the Anti-Fraud Coalition's Mahon. "A consumer has a health plan, car insurance, a vision plan, maybe dental, but a provider has the whole patient population, the whole range of tests and treatments and the ability to bill a very wide array of third-party payers. Even in a managed care setting, if I'm a provider, I'm participating in a dozen or two plans, plus all the fee-for-service plans," he points out.

In the indemnity world, provider fraud falls into one of two categories, whether it's the work of a single doctor, an organized gang or a hospital or clinic: billing for services not rendered - tests not given, surgery not done, care not provided - and upcoding. A physician may spend just a moment with an office patient but bill for a full evaluation, for instance, or bill for foot surgery when he did little more than trim the toenails of a nursing home patient. "These account for 100 percent of the provider fraud in fee-for-service plans," says Anderson.
But 85 percent of patients with employer-based coverage now are enrolled in some kind of managed care plan. Under plans that are not fully capitated, most of the same variations of provider fraud still apply. New methods also are emerging.
Kirk J. Nahra, general counsel for the National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association, noted in a 1997 article in Benefits Law Journal that fraud continues to flourish the old-fashioned way. That's because "fee-for-service transactions continue to figure significantly in virtually any managed care system," he wrote. With some HMOs diminishing the role of - or doing away with - gatekeepers, such transactions are not about to disappear.

When providers share the financial risk, however, they have an incentive to provide less care - and that can be a subtle problem to detect. This might range from simple inadequate treatment to the "automatic" referral of sicker - and thus more costly patients to specialists outside the capitated network, perhaps in exchange for kickbacks. It might also include such subtle acts as the establishment of inconvenient service locations or appointment hours for managed care patients, "designed to suppress patient traffic," Nahra wrote.

Initially, fraud squads will detect these kinds of abuses through statistical analysis, he predicts. But he cautions that legal proof won't be easy. In a case where a provider has systematically provided low levels of services to capitated patients, for instance, prosecutors will have to show that providing reduced care is a "scheme to defraud."

Insurers told the HIAA that they'd uncovered a wide range of managed care provider fraud. Ripoffs ranged from the embezzlement of capitation funds to falsifying new enrollee registrations, falsely elevating encounter rates in an effort to increase future capitated payments, illegally balance-billing patients and overcharging for copayments. Doctors also undercharge for copays in an attempt to lure more patients, either to collect more capitated payments or to use the insurance information to submit false claims.

In still another managed care scheme, the gatekeeper or PCP accepts kickbacks in exchange for referring almost exclusively - and more often than is genuinely necessary - to particular specialists, says Greg Anderson, director of investigations for Michigan Blue CrossBlue Shield. Although some plans reward doctors for keeping referrals to a minimum, physicians who accept kickbacks can more than make up for any incentives they might forfeit. And, says Anderson, "Kickbacks are really hard to prove."

Some investigators also suspect that private capitated plans are being charged for excessive lab services and testing by some hospital emergency departments, which can bill them separately. Another variation: routinely admitting patients at 11:55 p.m. instead of 12:05 a.m., to collect for an extra day's stay.

Higher Insurance Rates
The Canadian Coalition Against Insurance Fraud defines insurance fraud as any act or omission with a view to illegally obtaining an insurance benefit -- in other words, any action where a claimant walks away with money that he or she is not entitled to.
Insurance fraud includes a full range of fraudulent acts. Examples include: completely fabricated claims, inflation or padding of genuine claims, false statements on insurance applications, and internal fraud.

Fraudulent claims represent approximately 10 to 15% of claims paid out. General insurance fraud amounts to approximately $1.3 billion per year in Canada. Honest policyholders through increased premiums pay this cost.

When the toll on other societal resources is factored in, insurance fraud costs an additional $1 billion per year. Police must investigate crimes in which the details have been altered, making the investigation more costly and time-consuming, or which, in fact, never occurred; firefighters risk their lives and expend valuable resources to extinguish arson fires; fire marshals investigate the cause of the fire; health service providers treat patients injured in arson fires or staged accidents, or who fake injury to make claims.

Higher Costs For Your Health Insurance
Americans pay about $ 1 trillion in health care costs per year. According to the United States General Accounting Office, 10 percent of what we spend on health care is fraudulently billed in services not rendered, overcharges, duplicate charges and other health fraud schemes. That means that $100 billion per year is fraudulently billed!

How much health care can be delivered for $100 billion?
$100 billion would give every man, woman and child in the United States and Canada a complete health examination and physical

$100 billion would pay for 20 million days in an intensive care unit at a hospital.

$100 billion would pay for 40 million CT scans.

Some common frauds of concern to insurers;
Employer Fraud
There are two types of employer fraud in workers compensation: that which is claims related and that which involves policy premiums. This is an area where others outside of the claims function, premium auditors, for example need to be vigilant for suspicious activity.
Employer claims fraud occurs when an employer knowingly misrepresents the truth in order to avoid, deny or obtain compensation on behalf of it’s employees; or knowingly lies about entitlement to benefits to discourage or encourage an employee from pursuing a claim. Employer premium fraud occurs knowingly lies in order to obtain a workers compensation insurance policy at less than the proper rate; e.g. :
Misrepresenting the risk of exposure for a given insured by; under-reporting payroll, mis-classifying payroll, reporting an injury under insured company “A” when in fact the injured employee was an employee of uninsured “B”, lying about the company ownership to avoid high experience modification.
Some Red Flags:
The injured worker is a new hire
The applicant took unexplained excessive time off prior to the claimed accident\injury
The alleged injury occurs prior to or just after a strike, layoff, plant closure, job termination, notice of company relocation etc....

Lawyer Fraud
Such fraud arises when lawyers knowingly participate int the misrepresentation of the truth in order to either secure or deny compensation for their clients and \ or themselves. E.g:
Knowingly assisting a client in pursuing a false claim
Soliciting a person to file a claim
Knowingly pursuing collection of a lien the lawyer knows to be fraudulent
Related criminal acts that feed fraud, such as accepting consideration from or paying consideration to doctors, vendors or others for referral of clients or settlement of cases.
Red Flags:
The majority of claims in which a law frm is involved are of a highly questionable nature
A letter of representation is received, but the applicant denies representation or meeting with the lawyer.
In what is referred to as solicitation fraud, several employees from the same employer have reported similar injuries and are represented by the same law firm.

Adjuster \ Examiner Fraud
This occurs when a claims person purposely misrepresents the truth in order to either deny or support a claim; or offers or accepts any form of consideration for the referral or settlement of a claim. When the fraud involves compensation in the form of “kick-backs” as a reward for being given a contract or business, these frauds are particularly difficult to detect since the compensation is paid directly to the employee and does not go through the company books. Sometime’s it happens that an employee has an undisclosed interest in a transaction that results in harm to the company because the price of the contract is not in the best interests of the company. E.g..:
Accepting a gift such as a television or a trip from a vendor in exchange for implied promise of referrals.
Knowingly referring cases to a vendor when the services of that vendor are not required in exchange for consideration.
Altering the evidence in a claim in order to support denial or approval.
Red Flags
Inconsistent application of cost containment measures or agreement to pay above the fee
schedule.
Sloppy observance of procedure for referrals to outside vendors or increase in the use of a specific vendor.
Personal relationships with an outside contractor

Marwen Consulting Group Inc., a global fraud investigation agency headquartered out of St.Albert, Alberta, Canada. For a list of our services, please feel free to visit our website; www.marwen.ca or contact one of our experienced consultants.

For information on any of the literature completed by Mr Martin Maylor ; “The Effective Management Of Surveillance Services” or to inquire about educational seminars please contact Martin directly at m.maylor@marwen.ca

Sunday, October 15, 2006

managingcorporatefraud

"http://www.marwen.ca/files/Bridging the GAP in Escalating Insurance Claims.pdf"

17 Busted For No-Fault Insurance Fraud Scheme

NEW YORK---Seventeen people and three corporations have been indicted on charges that they engaged in an elaborate scheme to defraud no-fault insurance carriers.

Attorney General Eliot Spitzer also released a comprehensive report detailing the office's accomplishments as the state's special prosecutor for auto insurance fraud. "Auto insurance fraud hits consumers and businesses hard. Targeting those who cheat the system is beginning to bring premiums down for the law-abiding public," Spitzer said. "Over the last five years, the auto-insurance fraud unit has cracked down on lawyers, health professionals, and phony accident victims who have cheated us through lucrative and complex no-fault schemes."

The defendants are charged in three separate indictments unsealed last week by Justice Joseph Kevin McKay in New York State Supreme Court, Kings County.

In the first indictment, three defendants, including a doctor and a medical clinic owner, are charged with enterprise corruption, a class B felony. The defendants allegedly earned millions of dollars through their operation and control of AR Medical Art, P.C. (AR Medical), a medical clinic in the Midwood section of Brooklyn that "treated" persons purportedly injured in car accidents.

Other charges in the indictment include scheme to defraud, money laundering, grand larceny, insurance fraud, falsifying business records, and offering a false instrument for filing.

The Attorney General has also brought a civil case against the defendants seeking the forfeiture of over $3.9 million in illegally obtained proceeds. As part of that case, the Attorney General has obtained a court order freezing assets--including bank account proceeds and real property- of Inna Polack, 36, of Staten Island; and Dr. Alexander Rozenberg, 52, of Brooklyn; and three corporate defendants. The order was issued by Justice Ira B. Harkavy of Kings County Supreme Court, civil term.

In the two other indictments unsealed Monday, 14 people were charged with staging car accidents throughout New York City and attending clinics, including AR Medical, for treatment of their feigned injuries. These two staged accident ring indictments charged the defendants with scheme to defraud, insurance fraud, larceny, falsifying business records, and offering a false instrument for filing.

All three indictments allege that the defendants submitted fraudulent no-fault claims to insurance carriers. The no-fault law governs the provision of medical care to people injured in car accidents.

The enterprise corruption indictment alleges that although the owner of record of AR Medical was Dr. Alexander Rozenberg, a physician specializing in physical rehabilitation, he did not control the operations or the financial affairs of the clinic. Instead, Inna Polack, who lacks a health provider license, secretly owned the clinic and decided what medical and health services were to be provided to patients. The defendants acquired patients through a network of "steerers," who were paid to refer patients to AR Medical. Steerers solicited patients by staging motor vehicle accidents and by offering the clinic's "services" to real car accident victims. Shaun "Prince" Robinson, 36, of Brooklyn, is charged as a steerer in one of the staged accident ring indictments. Glen "AZ" Elfe, 37, of Fresh Meadows, is charged as a steerer in the other. Robinson and Elfe allegedly staged accidents by recruiting individuals to pose as injured pedestrians or bicyclists, and also recruited individuals to pose as witnesses.

The indictment further alleges that, following referrals of patients to AR Medical, Rozenberg conducted cursory medical evaluations, fabricated patients' symptoms, falsely diagnosed extensive soft tissue injuries, and referred patients for prolonged, unnecessary treatment and testing. This treatment included months of physical therapy, chiropractic care, acupuncture, and psychological counseling, as well as MRIs, x-rays, and nerve testing. Natalya Shvartsman, 47, of Brooklyn, a manager of AR Medical, is charged with furthering the clinic's corrupt activities by ensuring that patients received such treatment and testing and by submitting fraudulent claims to no-fault insurance carriers.

Additional defendants named in the enterprise indictment are: Mighty Management L.L.C., and Mighty Management Group, Inc., two Brooklyn-based management companies, both owned by Polack, allegedly used to launder funds of the enterprise.

The additional defendants charged as members of the staged accident ring headed by Shaun Robinson are: Todd Brown, 39, Kevin Plummer, 39, Timothy Britt, 36, Tony Dubose, 28, Alan Washington, 28, Eric Cummings, 35, James Foster, 46, Marvin Shine, 40, and Jason Robinson, 26, all of Brooklyn.

The additional defendants charged as members of the staged accident ring headed by Glen Elfe are: Shawn "Mel" Thomas, 39, Bruce James, 33, and Joseph Tabois, 25, all of Brooklyn.

The prosecutions stem from a joint 20-month investigation conducted by Attorney General Spitzer's Auto Insurance Fraud Unit and the New York State Insurance Department's Fraud Bureau, and the New York City Police Department's Fraud Accident Investigation Squad. The investigation included the use of court-authorized wiretaps.

Since January 2002, when it made its first series of arrests, the Auto Insurance Fraud Unit has brought felony insurance fraud and related charges against 300 defendants.
Posted in North County Gazette, July 31, 2006

Response to article - October 15, 2006

www.insurium.com is an integrity company who advises companies how they can protect themselves against fraud. They do this by helping companies understand the root cause asociated with fraud.

Insurance fraud has been around for centuries and insurers have failed to protect honest policy holders against it. Insurers have taken the easy way out, by spending a little money on evaluating the cost, then directed that cost back to the consumer - because of this tactic, there is little incentive for them to change their ways or views. It's not just individuals who commit fraud, corporations, institutions and governments have all been caught comitting fraud. If insurers want to raise the bar, then firstly, they will need to take a good hard look at themselves to see if they are vulnerable.

Insrers have many tools at their disposal to help them fight fraud, but how do they evaluate which tool to use and who decides which one to use, what criteria do they use and in the selection process, is there somewhere that evaluates the reasoning behind their decision. In a case listed below, I would like to take a look at why The City of Edmonton managed to secure a landslide decision in their case and yet, Gerhardt's partner who was simultaeneously investigated ended up securing a "golden handshake" for his part in the fraud. The partners claim was being adjudicated by the insurer, who hired their own investigator to gather evidence concerning the claim. This investigator gathered no evidence whatso ever. While the City of Edmonton instructed their own people on Gerhardt. Why was the insurers investigator unable to obtain evidence when City gathered so much?. The investigations were performed simultaneously. All things are not equal.

http://www.marwen.ca/files/LBJun2004-1.pdf

To find out how insurium can assist your company fight fraud visit them at www.insurium.com

Friday, October 13, 2006

managingcorporatefraud









Google





 











Web


scams18.spaces.live.com


fraudpreventionanddetection.blogspot.com











It doesn't need to be a bridge too far - Insurium

Bridging the Management GAP in Escalating Insurance Claims

While insurance fraud schemes have evolved over time to fit within the circumstances of modern society, the foundation of them has been in place for centuries….

Insurance fraud is one of the real threats facing the industry. The growth of the claims culture, together with research shows consumers believe insurers are ‘fair-game’, making for a dangerous combination. The costs to manage these claims come with a risk factor; bad faith suits, medical expense, investigation expense to name but a few. The utilization of third party providers to assist in managing these claims has opened the door to the added risk of provider fraud. The cost to the industry is enormous and affects the way the public view insurance companies and their service offerings.

MetLife director of special investigations, John Sargent stated in an article "that eliminating fraud is an unachievable goal". But that hasn't stopped his company or other industry leaders from trying. "Our goal is to pay what we owe, and not a penny more or a penny less," Sargent says. "The more efficient we are at identifying and preventing fraud, the better we can be at writing business at a more competitive rate."

Insurance fraud costs Canadian policyholders over $1 billion each year. To the average Canadian citizen, that means at least 10 percent of their total insurance premiums are used to cover the cost of fraud.
http//:www.insurance-canada.ca/claims/canada/CCA1F200212
To view the full article go to

Gerhardt versus The City of Edmonton saw a landslide victory for the city. Backfground; a long term employee who had a history of taking unwarranted time off work sued the city for wrongful dismissal after being videotaped working for self while collecting benefits. The investigators testimony enabled the city to secure it's result. The twist; Gerhardt, had a partner - also an employee of the City and also collecting benefits on Long Term Disability. The insurer contracted a private investigator to follow the partner at the same time the Gerhardt investgation was being performed. This investigator gathered no evidence and the partner secured a "golden handshake" - all things are not equal say Marwen, the company who investigated Gerhardt. Read an article submitted by an unbiased lawyer:
To view the article go to
The interesting thing about this article is that it was all preventable. The first article written by Insurium briefly talks about prevention and root cause.
Look for our next post on fraud and how to prevent it