For instance, if were are nine opinions on the same case, that specific conduct in question would have been represented nine times in the data, even though those nine entries all pertained to the same provider’s conduct. As a result, it was necessary to have data at both the opinion level and the case level. The coding for every variable was entered into an Excel file, and later converted to SPSS for data manipulation and analysis. In some occasional instances, information that had been coded for certain variables was not used in the final data analysis, because it was not deemed to be particularly informative.

As one example, the date a case was argued before the court had been entered in the data set, but this was ultimately not used in the final data analysis. The coding of the variables discussed above allowed for a variety of different data analyses which addressed the four sub-questions. Below, each of the four sub-questions is re-visited, and a summary of the specific data analysis that was performed for each is given. It again merits mention that this study assessed a population, rather than a sample.

This sub-question is answered by analyzing the variable that pertains to the conduct in question. This variable tracks the specific billing and/or coding practice for which the FCA complaint has been filed against the provider, and the variable was analyzed at the case level. The analysis for this question assesses each of the main categories of conduct over time. It also assesses the plaintiff types and the defendant types for each case. In some instances, illustrative case studies are presented.

These case studies were selected to illustrate some aspect of the policy issues pertaining to the use of the FCA against Medicare providers. The case study examples are included to bring policy flavor to this overall topic, rather than to serve as representative examples of the complete body of cases.

Source: http://lawaspect.com