DME | | Page 2

IRS Issues Ebola-Related Tax Relief

October 29, 2014

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has published the following tax rule relief under the Internal Revenue Code (Code)

Notice 2014-65 designates the Ebola virus outbreak occurring in the West African countries of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone as a qualified disaster for purposes of section 139 of the Code. As a result of the designation of the EVD outbreak as a qualified disaster for purposes of § 139, payments of qualified disaster relief to assist victims affected by the EVD outbreak in the three countries (Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone) are excludable from the recipients’ gross income.

Notice 2014-68 provides guidance on the treatment of leave-based donation programs to aid victims of the Ebola virus outbreak occurring in the West African countries of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone for income and employment tax purposes where an employer allows employees to elect to forgo vacation, sick, or personal leave in exchange for cash payments an employer makes to organizations described in § 170(c) of the Code for the relief of victims of the EVD outbreak in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. This notice provides guidance on the treatment of these payments for income and employment tax purposes.

Notice 2014-65 and Notice 2014-68 will be published in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2014-47 on Nov. 17.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years’ experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Her experience includes advising hospitals, nursing home, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to Board of Medicine, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns.

A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance responding to concerns about the matters discussed in this publication or other health care concerns, wish to obtain information about arranging for training or presentations by Ms. Stamer, wish to suggest a topic for a future program or update, or wish to request other information or materials, please contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer, see here.

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, compensation, data security and privacy, health care, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources including:

Parkview Hospital To Pay $800K To Settle HIPAA Charges After Retiring Physician Blows The Whistle

Whistleblower To Get $17M+ of Omnicare $124M False Claims Settlement

Health Care & Other HIPAA Covered Entities Should Review New Reports As Part of HIPAA Risk Management Efforts

CMS Proposes Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) Pre-Authorization Rule

Medicare Fraud Strike Force Nails 90 Individuals For Almost $260 Million In False Billing Including 16 Doctors

Encrypt Mobile Devices & Clean Up Management Documentation Key HIPAA Compliance Messages In New HIPAA Settlements

Small Smiles Dental Centers Excluded As Federal Health Program Provider For 5 Years

Latest OCR Resolution Agreement Hits Public Health Department, Shows Needs To Stay Up-To-Date

Euless Healthcare Corporation Owner, Associates Face Conspiracy And Health Care Fraud Charges For Alleged Submission Of $700,000+ In Fraudulent Health Care Claims

Former Manager 9th Employee Sentenced For Involvement In Maxim Medicare False Claims Action

THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

Leave a Comment » | DME, Doctor, E-Prescribing, FDA, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, OIG, Prescription Drugs, Substance Abuse | Tagged: controlled substance, DEA, DOJ, Drug Testing, drugs, false claims act, Grants, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, HEAT, licensure, Medicaid, Medical Board, Medicare, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, physical therapy, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Columbia to Pay $9 Million Plus To Settle DOJ/HHS False Claims Charges For Submitting Inaccurate Cost Reports and Mischarging Federal Grants

October 29, 2014

The US ex rel. v. Columbia U. and ICAP complaint-in-intervention civil False Claims Act lawsuit (lawsuit) and its resolution through the simultaneously filed US ex rel. v. Columbia U. and ICAP stipulation and order (“Settlement”) entered against the Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New York (“Columbia University”), and ICAP (formerly known as the International Center For Aids Care And Treatment Programs) (collectively, “Columbia”) that U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced October 28, 2014 reminds health care, education and other organizations receiving federal grant monies that their False Claims Act and other compliance programs must provide for appropriate management and recordkeeping of any federal grant programs participated in by their organizations. The lawsuit and settlement highlight the importance for health care, education and other organizations receiving or managing federal grants to establish appropriate controls to ensure that they can demonstrate the requisite compliance with grant requirements and other terms and conditions.

The settlement resolves a civil lawsuit jointly brought and simultaneously settled by DOJ and the Department of Health & Human Service against Colombia that charged Columbia with submitting false claims in connection with federal grants that Columbia University obtained to fund ICAP’s AIDS- and HIV-related work. The United States’ Complaint-in-Intervention (the “Complaint”) alleged that Columbia University, as the grant administrator on behalf of ICAP, received millions of dollars in federal grants and, pursuant to the rules applicable to such grants, was required for nearly 200 of ICAP’s employees located in New York City to use a suitable means of verifying that the employees had actually performed the work charged to a particular grant. The Complaint alleges that Columbia was well aware that this was not being done, yet continued wrongly to charge many federal grants for work that was not devoted to the projects they funded. The lawsuit seeks damages and penalties under the False Claims Act.

According to DOJ, the Colombia lawsuit and Settlement arose from Columbia’s participation in the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (“PEPFAR program”), a global HIV/AIDS program, targeting billions of dollars in new funding for prevention, treatment, and care services in the most affected countries of the world. Columbia received $125 million in PEPFAR funding through the Multi-Country Columbia Antiretroviral Program (“MCAP”) grant, and over the years obtained over 75 grants and many millions more from the federal government for HIV- and AIDs-related work performed by ICAP.

The grant rules among other things, required that grantees track the work performed by the recipient’s employees and, with limited exceptions, charge grants only for work actually performed as a part of that grant. Columbia claimed to accomplish this by producing effort reports for ICAP’s New York City-based employees purportedly detailing the employees’ distribution of work across federal, state, and private grants, as well as Columbia-sponsored projects. These reports were used to determine how much a given grant was charged for work performed by individual employees.

For nearly 200 individuals, however, DOJ and the Justice Department charged Colombia failed to ensure that these reports were created or verified by the individuals to whom they applied. Instead, Columbia’s Finance Department provided information for these reports even though the employees of that department had limited or no knowledge of which grants the individuals actually worked on. In addition, the lawsuit charged that the effort reports were certified as correct by the principal investigators on the grants without using suitable means to verify the accuracy of the reports. Instead of taking the appropriate steps to determine whether the reports were accurate, the principal investigators would certify large batches of the reports, without making any inquiry into whether the allocation of work among the grants was accurate. Moreover, ICAP’s management was well aware of the inaccuracies of the effort reporting system.

According to the complaint, these omissions resulted in Columbia charging grants for work that was not performed on the project being funded by that grant. For instance, an ICAP Finance Analyst stated that he spent approximately 15-20% of his time on MCAP in fiscal year 2010, but his effort report falsely listed his MCAP effort, and related salary charges, as 85%. Likewise, in fiscal year 2010, an ICAP Subcontracts Manager’s effort report listed her effort as 100% MCAP, but the Subcontracts Manager actually worked on three other grants, in addition to MCAP, that year. The time submitted for many other employees was similarly mischarged.

The complaint also charged that ICAP also charged federal grants for time spent on activities that are not chargeable to any federal grants, such as competitive grant proposal writing. For example, an ICAP Grants Manager spent a significant amount of her time writing competitive grant proposals, but her effort report showed that all of her time was charged to grants, with as much as 92% of her time charged to MCAP in some years.

In the Settlement, Columbia admitted failing to use a suitable means of verifying whether the salary and wage charges that ICAP applied to specific federal grants were based on an employee’s actual effort for that grant. Columbia also admitted that as a result, certain effort reports contained inaccurate information, and for a number of years ICAP mischarged certain federal grants for work that was not allocable to those agreements. Columbia also agreed to pay $9,020,073 to resolve the Government’s claims.

Health care, educational and other organizations receiving HHS or other federal grants should heed the lawsuit and settlement as a reminder to review and tighten as necessary their federal grant program compliance and documentation to ensure that it can withstand an audit or other scrutiny by federal officials.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Her experience includes advising hospitals, nursing home, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to Board of Medicine, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns.

A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance responding to concerns about the matters discussed in this publication or other health care concerns, wish to obtain information about arranging for training or presentations by Ms. Stamer, wish to suggest a topic for a future program or update, or wish to request other information or materials, please contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer, see here.

About Solutions Law Press

OIG Warns Pharma Manufacturers to Prevent Copayment Coupon Use for Part D Drug Purchases

September 19, 2014

Pharmaceutical manufacturers risk sanctions unless they take appropriate steps to ensure that their copayment coupons intended to reduce patient out-of-pocket costs for purchase for specific brand name drugs do not induce improperly the purchase drugs paid for by Medicare Part D or other Federal health care programs items or services.

The warning from the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) appears in OEI-05-12-00540 Study Results and accompanying Special Advisory Bulletin published warns pharmaceutical manufacturers they may be liable under the anti-kickback statute if they offer coupons to induce the purchase of drugs paid for by Federal health care programs, including Medicare Part D.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers often offer copayment coupons to reduce or eliminate the cost of patients’ out of pocket copayments for specific brand name drugs.

The anti-kickback statute prohibits the knowing and willful offer or payment of remuneration to a person to induce the purchase of any item or service for which payment may be made by a Federal health care program.

According to OIG, the use of coupons by Medicare beneficiaries could impose significant costs on the Part D program because many coupons encourage beneficiaries to choose more expensive brand name drugs over less expensive alternative drugs.

OIG’s warning comes in conjunction with its announcement of findings an OIG study about the safeguards pharmaceutical manufacturers employ to prevent their copayment coupons from being used for drugs paid for by Part D and to identify vulnerabilities in those safeguards which OIG reports revealed that pharmaceutical manufacturers’ current safeguards may not prevent all copayment coupons from being used for drugs paid for by Part D.

According to the OIG, all surveyed manufacturers provide notices directed to beneficiaries and pharmacists that coupons may not be used in Federal health care programs. Most surveyed manufacturers use pharmacy claims edits to prevent coupons from being processed for drugs covered by Part D. Despite these actions, OIG reports most of these edits may not prevent all coupons from being processed for Part D covered drugs. Finally, Part D plans and other entities cannot identify coupons within pharmacy claims.

In light of these findings, OIG’s Special Advisory Bulletin affirms that pharmaceutical manufacturers should act to ensure that their copayment coupons do not induce the purchase of Federal health care programs items or services, including drugs paid for by Medicare Part D. The guidance makes clear that OIG does not view the current practices of many manufacturers as sufficient controls.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Her experience includes advising hospitals, nursing home, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to Board of Medicine, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns.

A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance responding to concerns about the matters discussed in this publication or other health care concerns, wish to obtain information about arranging for training or presentations by Ms. Stamer, wish to suggest a topic for a future program or update, or wish to request other information or materials, please contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer, see here.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | DME, Doctor, E-Prescribing, FDA, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, OIG, Prescription Drugs, Substance Abuse | Tagged: controlled substance, DEA, Drug Testing, drugs, false claims act, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, HEAT, licensure, Medicaid, Medical Board, Medicare, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, physical therapy, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Small Smiles Dental Centers Excluded As Federal Health Program Provider For 5 Years

April 4, 2014

Yesterday’s announcement of the exclusion of the operator and manager of the national dental chain, Small Smiles Dental Centers, from exclusion in Medicaid, Medicare and other federal health programs highlights the risks health care providers run by failing to comply with a Corporate Integrity Agreement.

Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, announced April 3, 2014 that the operator and manager of the Small Smiles Dental Centers, CSHM, LLC (formerly known as FORBA Holdings and Church Street Health Management (CSHM), has signed an Exclusion Agreement that bars CSHM from participating in Medicare, Medicaid, and all other Federal health care programs for 5 years. Small Smiles Dental Centers provides services primarily to children on Medicaid.

Mr. Levinson said that this exclusion “makes clear to the provider community that OIG closely monitors our CIAs, critically evaluates providers’ representations and certifications, and will pursue exclusion actions against providers that fail to abide by their integrity agreement obligations.”

According to the announcement, the exclusion is based on CSHM’s alleged material breaches of its Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

CSHM’s corporate predecessor entered into the CIA in 2010, as part of the resolution of a False Claims Act case involving allegations that the company had provided dental services to children on Medicaid that were medically unnecessary or failed to meet professionally recognized standards of care.

On March 7, 2014, OIG issued a Notice of Exclusion to CSHM based upon numerous material breaches of its obligations under the CIA. CSHM failed to report serious quality-of-care reportable events, take corrective action, or make appropriate notifications of those events to the State dental boards as required by the CIA, OIG found. CSHM also failed to implement and maintain key quality-related policies and procedures, comply with internal quality and compliance review requirements, properly maintain a log of compliance disclosures, and perform training as required by the CIA. Finally, CSHM submitted a false certification from its Compliance Officer regarding its compliance with CIA obligations.

This exclusion marks the culmination of a series of alleged failures by CSHM and its corporate predecessors to comply with its CIA. Under the CIA, an independent quality monitor conducted more than 90 site visits and reviews to monitor CSHM’s compliance. Since the 2010 settlement, OIG repeatedly cited CSHM and took actions to address those violations, promote improved compliance, and maintain access to care for an underserved population. These actions included imposing financial penalties and forcing the divestiture of one of the company’s clinics.

Despite these actions, CSHM remained in material breach of its CIA and OIG issued Notices of Intent to Exclude to the company in December 2013 and January 2014. In such cases, providers get the chance to show OIG that they have cured, or are in the process of curing, the material breaches. CSHM represented to OIG that it would cure the material breaches. However, through meetings with CSHM and its Board of Directors and review of its written submissions, OIG determined that CSHM had failed to cure the material breaches and proceeded with the exclusion.

CSHM disputed OIG’s determination that it was in material breach of the CIA. However, under the Exclusion Agreement, CSHM now has waived its objections to these findings.

To minimize immediate disruption of care to the hundreds of thousands of children treated at CSHM clinics and to enable an orderly, controlled shutdown of the company or divestiture of its assets, the exclusion takes effect September 30, 2014. CSHM waived its right to appeal this exclusion in any judicial forum.

Until the exclusion goes into effect on September 30, 2014, an independent monitor will continue to monitor the quality of care being provided to patients at CSHM clinics. CSHM is required to inform patients at least 30 days before closing a clinic. CSHM is also required to keep State Medicaid agencies abreast of developments and provide monthly status reports to OIG. Any divestiture of assets by CSHM must be through bona fide, arms-length transactions to an entity that is not related to or affiliated with CSHM.

Beyond the implications for Small Smiles Dental Centers, the announced exclusion carries important implications for other health care providers. First, of course, the exclusion means that Small Smiles Dental Centers and CSHM as excluded providers are ineligible for hiring by other providers participating in Medicare or other Federal Health Programs. Second, the exclusion also highlights the advisability for other providers covered by CIAs not only to see to comply with their CIA and in the event the OIG questions of the adequacy of that compliance to look for opportunities to work with OIG to rectify alleged concerns as cooperatively as possible unless a high degree of certainty that the provider can prove that OIG’s concerns are unfounded.

For More Information Or Assistance

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 23 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters.

Throughout her career, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies and to respond to health care, human resources, tax, privacy, safety, antitrust, civil rights, and other laws as well as with internal investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns including a number of programs and publications on OCR Civil Rights rules and enforcement actions. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to ask about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, false claims act, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Pharmacy, Physician, Reimbursement, Stark | Tagged: DOJ, Federal Health Program Exclusion, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Home Care, home health, Hospital, Medicare, Medicare Fraud, Minimum Wage, nurses, OIG, Overtime, Physician, Wage and Hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Hospital Will Pay $75K For Refusing To Hire Disabled Worker

March 10, 2014

Osceola Community Hospital Refused To Hire Child Care Worker With Cerebral Palsy Who Had Worked As Volunteer

Osceola Community Hospital in Sibley, Iowa will pay $75,000 and furnish other relief to settle an Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for its refusal to hire a child care worker with cerebral palsy. The case shows both the need for health care and other employers to have sufficient evidence to support decisions not to hire disabled workers for safety reasons as well as the potential risks that hospitals or other face when refusing to hire disabled individuals who have been allowed to work as volunteers in their organizations.

The EEOC charged a day care center operated by the hospital, Bright Beginnings of Osceola County, unlawfully failed to hire a volunteer employee into a paid position for which she was qualified because of her cerebral palsy. Although the woman who brought the charge of discrimination against the hospital already volunteered in the day care center and held a job driving a school bus, the EEOC’s investigation revealed the county refused to hire her into a paying job in the center out of an unfounded fear that her disability meant that she could not safely care for the children.

Judge Mark Bennett entered a consent decree on February, 28, 2014, resolving the brought by the EEOC in EEOC v. Osceola Community Hospital d/b/a Bright Beginnings of Osceola County, Civil Action No. 5:12-cv-4087 (N.D. Iowa, Sept. 26, 2012 that orders Osceola Community Hospital to pay $75,000 to the discrimination victim. The decree also requires the hospital to institute a policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability and to distribute the policy to all of its employees. The hospital also must train its employees and report regularly to the EEOC on its compliance with the ADA.

The lawsuit provides another example to health care and other employers of their growing exposure to disability discrimination claims under the ADA. The EEOC action and lawsuit highlights the importance of employers ensuring that decisions to refuse to hire disabled workers for safety reasons are based upon appropriate evidence of actual safety concerns that prevent the worker from safely performing the assigned duties with or without reasonable accommodation.

The fact that the worker in this case had in fact worked as a volunteer likely created additional challenges in defending the decision. The use of volunteer workers in health industry businesses is a common practice that may justify special care before those organizations deny employment to a former volunteer on the basis of safety concerns associated with the disabilities of the applicant or worker both to document the reasonable basis of the safety concern and that the concern could not be adequately resolved through reasonable accommodation.

Health Care Providers Must Strengthen Disability Compliance & Risk Management

Employment discrimination isn’t the only disability discrimination risk that hospitals and other health industry organizations need to worry about in today’s liability charged environment. Enforcing federal discrimination laws is a high priority of the Obama Administration. The Departments of Labor, Health & Human Services, Education, Justice, Housing & Urban Development, and others all have both increased enforcement, audits and public outreach, as well as have sought or are proposing tighter regulations.

The expanding applicability of nondiscrimination rules coupled with the wave of new policies and regulatory and enforcement actions should alert private businesses and state and local government agencies of the need to exercise special care to prepare to defend their actions against potential disability or other Civil Rights discrimination challenges under employment, Medicare, housing and a broad range of other laws.

The Obama Administration is targeting disability discrimination by health care organizations in a broad range of areas as part of its Barrier Free Health Care Initiative (Initiative). Launched on the 22^nd anniversary of the ADA in July 2012, the Initiative is a partnership of the Civil Rights Division and 40 U.S. Attorney’s offices across the nation, that targets ADA and other disability discrimination law enforcement efforts on a critical area for individuals with disabilities.

Part of a broader enforcement initiative of the Obama Administration to enforce and expand federal protections for individuals with disabilities, the Initiative seeks to protect patients with disabilities against illegal disability discrimination by prosecuting health care providers under the ADA and the Rehab Act.

Section 504 of the Rehab Act requires recipients of Medicare, Medicaid, HUD, Department of Education, welfare and most other federal assistance programs funds including health care, education, housing services providers, state and local governments to ensure that qualified individuals with disabilities have equal access to programs, services, or activities receiving federal financial assistance.

In many instances, these federal discrimination laws both prohibit discrimination and require health care and other regulated businesses to put in place reasonable accommodations needed to ensure that their services are accessible and available to persons with disabilities. The public accommodation provisions of the ADA, for instance, generally require those doctors’ offices, medical clinics, hospitals, and other health care providers, as well as other covered businesses to provide people with disabilities, including those with HIV, equal access to goods, services, and facilities. The ADA also may compel health care providers to adjust their practices for delivering care and/or providing access to facilities to accommodate special needs of disabled individuals under certain circumstances. Meanwhile the Civil Rights Act and other laws prohibit discrimination based on national origin, race, sex, age, religion and various other grounds. These federal rules impact almost all public and private health care providers as well as a broad range housing and related service providers.

The Justice Departments campaign against disability discrimination by health care providers is supported and enhanced by the concurrent efforts of OCR. Along side the Justice Department’s efforts, OCR recently has announced several settlement agreements and issued letters of findings as part of its ongoing efforts to ensure compliance with the Rehab Act and the ADA well as various other federal nondiscrimination and civil rights laws. Through its own antidiscrimination campaign, OCR is racking up an impressive list of settlements with health care providers, housing and other businesses for violating the ADA, Section 504 or other related civil rights rules enforced by OCR. See, e.g. Genesis Healthcare Disability HHS OCR Discrimination Settlement Reminder To Use Interpreters, Other Needed Accommodations For Disabled. Meanwhile, both the Justice Department and OCR also are encouraging victims of discrimination to enforce their rights through private action through educational outreach to disabled and other individuals protected by federal disabilities and other civil rights laws to make them aware of and to encourage them to act to enforce these rights.

Health Care Organizations & Providers Should Act To Manage Patient-Related Disability Discrimination Risks

Prosecutions and settlements by these and other federal agencies show the need for health care providers and other public and private organizations to strengthen their disability discrimination compliance and management practices to defend against rising exposures to actions by the Justice Department, OCR, the EEOC and other agencies as well as private law suits. Hospitals, health care clinics, physicians and other health care providers should take steps to guard against joining the growing list of health care providers caught in the enforcement sights of the Initiative by reviewing and updating practices, policies, training and oversight to ensure that their organizations can prevent and defend against charges of disability discrimination.

Defending or paying to settle a disability discrimination charge brought by a private plaintiff, OCR or another agency, or others tends to be financially, operationally and politically costly for a health care organization or public housing provider. In addition to the expanding readiness of OCR and other agencies to pursue investigations and enforcement of disability discrimination and other laws, the failure of health care organizations to effectively keep up processes to appropriately include and care for disabled other patients or constituents with special needs also can increase negligence exposure, undermine Joint Commission and other quality ratings, undermine efforts to qualify for public or private grant, partnerships or other similar arrangements, and create negative perceptions in the community.

In light of the expanding readiness of the Justice Department, OCR, HUD, EEOC and other agencies to investigate and take action against health care providers for potential violations of the ADA, Section 504 and other federal discrimination and civil rights laws, health care organizations and their leaders should review and tighten their policies, practices, training, documentation, investigation, redress, discipline and other nondiscrimination policies and procedures. In carrying out these activities, organizations and their leaders should keep in mind the critical role of training and oversight of staff and contractors plays in promoting and maintaining required operational compliance with these requirements. Reported settlements reflect that the liability trigger often is discriminatory conduct by staff, contractors, or landlords in violation of both the law and the organization’s own policies.

To achieve and maintain the necessary operational compliance with these requirements, organizations should both adopt and policies against prohibited discrimination and take the necessary steps to institutionalize compliance with these policies by providing ongoing staff and vendor training and oversight, contracting for and monitoring vendor compliance and other actions. Organizations also should take advantage of opportunities to identify and resolve potential compliance concerns by revising patient and other processes and procedures to enhance the ability of the organization to learn about and redress potential charges without government intervention.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance reviewing or tightening your policies and procedures, conducting training or audits, responding to or defending an investigation or other enforcement action or with other health care related risk management, compliance, training, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Her experience includes advising hospitals, nursing home, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to Board of Medicine, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns.

Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance responding to concerns about the matters discussed in this publication or other health care concerns, wish to obtain information about arranging for training or presentations by Ms. Stamer, wish to suggest a topic for a future program or update, or wish to request other information or materials, please contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides business and management information, tools and solutions, training and education, services and support to help organizations and their leaders promote effective management of legal and operational performance, regulatory compliance and risk management, data and information protection and risk management and other key management objectives. Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ also conducts and help businesses and associations to design, present and conduct customized programs and training targeted to their specific audiences and needs. For additional information about upcoming programs, to explore becoming a presenting sponsor for an upcoming event, e-mail your request to info@Solutionslawpress.com These programs, publications and other resources are provided only for general informational and educational purposes. Neither the distribution or presentation of these programs and materials to any party nor any statement or information provided in or in connection with this communication, the program or associated materials are intended to or shall be construed as establishing an attorney-client relationship, to constitute legal advice or provide any assurance or expectation from Solutions Law Press, Inc., the presenter or any related parties. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future Alerts or other information about developments, publications or programs or other updates, send your request to info@solutionslawpress.com. CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: The following disclaimer is included to comply with and in response to U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230 Regulations. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN. ©2013 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. All rights reserved.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ADA, DME, Doctor, Electronic Health Records, Employer, Employment, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, OCR, Physician | Tagged: ADA, Disability Discrimination, EEOC, Health Care, Hospital, OCR | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

APDerm To Pay $150k To Settle 1st HIPAA Breach Rule Charges

December 27, 2013

A new settlement agreement announced by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) shows health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses and their business associates the perils of failing to properly implement the necessary policies and procedures to comply with the breach notification requirements added to the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) added by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, passed as part of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

APDerm Settlement Overview

Private dermatology practice, Adult & Pediatric Dermatology, P.C., (APDerm) has agreed to pay $150,000 and implement a corrective action plan to settle potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification Rules. The APDerm Settlement marks the first settlement with a covered entity for not having policies and procedures in place to address the breach notification provisions of the HITECH Act.

According to its December 26, 2013 announcement of the settlement, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened an investigation of APDerm upon receiving a report that an unencrypted thumb drive containing the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of approximately 2,200 individuals was stolen from a vehicle of one its staff members. The thumb drive was never recovered. The investigation revealed that APDerm had not conducted an accurate and thorough analysis of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality of ePHI as part of its security management process. Further, APDerm did not fully comply with requirements of the Breach Notification Rule to have in place written policies and procedures and train workforce members.

Enforcement Actions Highlight Growing HIPAA Exposures For Covered Entities

The APDerm settlement provides more evidence of the growing exposures that health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates need to carefully and appropriately manage their HIPAA responsibilities. See HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website. It joins the growing list of settlement or resolution agreements under HIPAA announced by OCR.

The APDerm also is notable both as it settles the first ever charges against a covered entity for failing to adopt required Breach Notification policies and procedures and the relatively most settlement payment required in comparison to other announced settlement. Other settlements have been significantly higher. For instance, OCR required that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee (BCBST) to pay $1.5 million to resolve HIPAA violations charges.

In response to these expanding exposures, all covered entities and their business associates should review critically and carefully the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration OCR’s audit, investigation and enforcement actions, emerging litigation and other enforcement data, their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses, evolving rules and technology, and other developments to determine if additional steps are necessary or advisable. For tips, see here.

For Representation, Training & Other Resources

If you need assistance monitoring HIPAA and other health and health plan related regulatory policy or enforcement developments, or to review or respond to these or other health care or health IT related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help.

For More Information Or Assistance

Throughout her career, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies and to respond to health care, human resources, tax, privacy, safety, antitrust, civil rights, and other laws as well as with internal investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns including a number of programs and publications on OCR Civil Rights rules and enforcement actions. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

About Solutions Law Press

[1] WHD’s announcement of the planned rule notes that this draft shared December 15 remains subject to change before formally published in the Federal Register

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, false claims act, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Pharmacy, Physician, Reimbursement, Stark | Tagged: Breach Notification, DOJ, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, HIPAA, Home Care, home health, Hospital, Medicare Fraud, Minimum Wage, nurses, OIG, Overtime, Physician, Wage and Hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Reminder To Follow Confidentiality, Due Process When Conducting Peer Revew & Credentialing

December 16, 2013

Hospitals, physicians, health plans and others participating in credentialing and peer review activities need to use care to ensure that they and others involved in these matters understand and comply with the confidentiality requirements of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act and similar state laws.

Hospitals and their medical staffs, physician and other practice groups and other health care organizations commonly require or query the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) established under HCQIA and other sensitive professional and personal when checking the backgrounds and credentials of physicians seeking admission to the medical staff, employment, staff privileges, participation in provider panels or other positions. These health care organizations and providers also frequently may receive inquiries from other health care providers or organizations seeking information about a provider who is applying for admission, employment or other status. Finally, medical staffs, practices and other health care organizations from time to time may conduct credentialing, peer review or other disciplinary activities, or quality assurance reviews that may involve the discussion of information about the conduct, quality, discipline or other credentials and qualifications of current or former physicians at their own or another health care organization.

The investigation or discipline of a physician and certain other information regarding potential performance or credentialing concerns about a physician or other health care worker often by necessity involves the receipt, sharing, or use of sensitive professional or personal information with credentialing, management, medical staff leadership or others involved in the investigation, review or process. When participating in any of these activities, all parties involved in the activities or providing input or participation in their conduct need to understand and be required to comply fully with all applicable confidentiality and privacy requirements. While participants in these processes often may feel great temptation to circumvent formal processes in the name of expediency, to share sensitive insight with special relationships or other inducements to cut corners on confidentiality, the participants in these activities and the organizations conducting the activities should take all necessary steps to ensure that the participants carefully comply with the confidentiality and privacy requirements and only obtain and share information as allowed by and in accordance with the procedures established by these rules.

The background check rules of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) generally require that health care organizations, as well as other businesses, conducting background check or other investigations using third party data or investigators comply with the notice, consent and disclosures of the FCRA. Parties requesting or providing information as part of a credentialing, peer review or other investigation should ensure that the necessary disclosures, notices and consents have been obtained before requesting or sharing information. The fulfillment of these requirements should not be assumed as experience demonstrates that these requirements are commonly overlooked by many health care and other organizations engaged in these activities.

In addition to meeting the FCRA, HCQIA, most state peer review, and medical staff bylaws generally require that credentialing, peer review, quality assurance, and other performance and discipline activities be conducted in accordance with carefully prescribed rules, including specific requirements concerning the protection of the confidentiality of information about a provider. While relatively rare, violation of HCQIA’s confidentiality rules can create significant liability. For instance, after it self-disclosed conduct to the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG), The Queen’s Medical Center (QMC), Hawaii, agreed to pay $150,500 in civil money penalties for allegedly violating the NPDB in 2009.

Beyond the rare sanctions under HCQIA, failing to following the rules of HCQIA and state laws can undermine the defensibility of peer review and credentialing decisions by undermining the ability of participants in the process to rely upon the peer review privilege to protect deliberations and discussions conducted in connection with the peer review and credentialing process from discovery, as well as by providing evidence of bad faith, malice or other bad motivation or acts corrupted the process and determination. Beyond hurting the defensibility of the credentialing and peer review process, violations of confidentiality or other procedures often also give rise to antitrust, defamation, invasion of privacy, tortious interferences, and other damage claims by physicians who feel their ability to practice and reputations have been injured by alleged improper conduct in connection with a peer review, credentialing or quality assurance process.

Beyond avoiding giving rise to claims by the targeted physician or other health care provider, all participants in these processes also need to use care to properly protect any individually identifiable patient information. Records and information about a patient, his medical condition, payment history and other related patient data and information often involved in these activities typically qualifies as personal health information, the use, access, and disclosure of which is restricted by the Privacy Rules of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and state common law, HIPAA and other medical records privacy and confidentiality laws. In addition to the specific requirements of HIPAA and other medical information privacy laws, patient financial information and certain other sensitive information also may be protected by a broad range of federal and state laws protecting personal financial and other sensitive personal information, contractual rights created by privacy policies of the organizations involved or other laws.

Conducting proper credentialing, peer review and quality assurance activities is a critical aspect of the hiring and oversight of physicians and others providing care. As important as these requirements are, health care providers and organizations participating in these activities need to remember that the physicians who are subjected to these requirements also enjoy confidentiality, due process and other legal protections, which can create significant liability when violated. Consequently, health care organizations, physicians and members of management, and other staff and participants should use care to follow the proper procedures to ensure that physician rights to confidentiality, due process and other protections are honored as these activities are conducted.

Using care when discussing these concerns is equally important for a physician or other health care provider who is the subject of an investigation, credentialing, peer review, quality assurance or other activity. While a physician whose personal or professional conduct or credentials are questioned understandably feels a strong urge to defend him or herself through a campaign of communication or other actions, physicians on the receiving end also need to follow the process and restrict their discussions.

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, for additional information or representation.

For More Information Or Assistance

Throughout her career, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies and to respond to health care, human resources, tax, privacy, safety, antitrust, civil rights, and other laws as well as with internal investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns including a number of programs and publications on OCR Civil Rights rules and enforcement actions. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

About Solutions Law Press

[1] WHD’s announcement of the planned rule notes that this draft shared December 15 remains subject to change before formally published in the Federal Register

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, false claims act, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Pharmacy, Physician, Reimbursement, Stark | Tagged: CMS, compensation, DOJ, E-Prescribing, Fee Schedule, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Home Care, home health, medical expense, Medicare, Medicare Fraud, mileage reimbursement, Minimum Wage, nurses, OIG, Overtime, Physician, physician compensation, Physician Fee Schedule, Provider, Wage and Hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CMS Gives Providers Facing Fee Schedule Reduction For Unsuccessful EPrescribing Can Request Review Until 2/28

December 16, 2013

Physicians and other eligible professionals and group practices (who self-nominated for the 2012 and/or 2013 Electronic Prescribing (eRx) group practice reporting option) who were unsuccessful electronic prescribers under the 2012 or 2013 eRx Incentive Program can expect to receive notification from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) plans that CMS will have their 2014 eRx payment adjusted to 98.0% of his or her otherwise applicable Medicare Part B physician fee schedule (PFS) allowed charges amount for the specified services for all charges with dates of service from January 1–December 31, 2014.

Providers receiving these notices may wish to request a review of this planned adjustment under an informal review process for the 2014 eRx payment adjustment implemented by CMS. An informal review may be requested if the eligible professional or group practice receives notification from CMS confirming they will be subject to the 2014 eRx payment adjustment or they did not meet the requirements to avoid the 2014 eRx payment adjustment. CMS will accept nformal review requests through February 28, 2014.

Eligible professionals and group practices should submit their eRx informal review request via email to the informal review mailbox at eRxInformalReview@cms.hhs.gov.

Complete instructions on how to request an informal review are available in the 2014 eRx Payment Adjustment Informal Review Made Simple educational document.

Physicians or other health care providers who have questions about these or other e-prescribing or reimbursement concerns may contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, for additional information or representation.

For More Information Or Assistance

Throughout her career, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies and to respond to health care, human resources, tax, privacy, safety, antitrust, civil rights, and other laws as well as with internal investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns including a number of programs and publications on OCR Civil Rights rules and enforcement actions. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

About Solutions Law Press

[1] WHD’s announcement of the planned rule notes that this draft shared December 15 remains subject to change before formally published in the Federal Register

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, false claims act, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Pharmacy, Physician, Reimbursement, Stark | Tagged: CMS, compensation, DOJ, E-Prescribing, Fee Schedule, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Home Care, home health, medical expense, Medicare, Medicare Fraud, mileage reimbursement, Minimum Wage, nurses, OIG, Overtime, Physician, physician compensation, Physician Fee Schedule, Provider, Wage and Hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Update Mileage Reimbursement Policies, Communications For IRS 2014 Mileage Rates

December 10, 2013

Health care organizations should review the updated optional standard mileage rates and maximum standard automobile costs for purposes of claiming certain automobile allowances during 2014 recently released by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to determine and make the necessary arrangements to communicate and implement any changes in the rates that their business plans to use to reimburse employees and others for mileage. In addition, health care organizations also may want to consider sharing information about the updates to medical expense mileage reimbursement rates and other aspects of those rules in newsletters or other marketing communications to help empower those patients and their families to understand and use the new rates and rules to properly claim deductions that their families qualify for on their 2014 tax return for mileage incurred traveling for medical care.

Notice 2013-80, which is scheduled for official publication in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2013-52 on December 23, 2013, provides the optional 2014 standard mileage rates for taxpayers to use in computing the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business, charitable, medical or moving expense purposes. This notice also provides the amount taxpayers must use in calculating reductions to basis for depreciation taken under the business standard mileage rate, and the maximum standard automobile cost that may be used in computing the allowance under a fixed and variable rate (FAVR) plan. The IRS released an advanced copy of the Notice on December 6, 2013.

Many health care organizations reimburse doctors, management, home health, sales and marketing or other employees and other service providers for mileage and other automobile expenses under policies that use these IRS standard rates to calculate the reimbursement amounts. Reimbursement of employees based on these rate is not required. Because reimbursements in excess of the standard rates can create income tax recordkeeping and reporting challenges for the employer, the employee or both, however, most businesses use standard mileage reimbursement rates set at or below the IRS optional standard rates. Businesses facing financial or other challenges may want to reevaluate whether to continue to reimburse mileage and if so, the rate of reimbursement to use to do so.

When communicating with employees about the businesses’ policies for reimbursing business and moving expense mileage, businesses should take care to ensure that employees understand differences in the mileage reimbursement rates that apply to different categories of expenses. As an added service to employees, many human resources departments also may want to consider alerting employees to consult their tax advisor or take other steps to properly understand and retain documentation of mileage not only for business expense reimbursement, but also medical and moving purposes. The availability of this information can be helpful to empower workers and their families to understand and take proper advantage of rules for deducting these expenses even when the employer or its health plan does not reimburse the employee for the expenses.

In addition to reimbursements for workers, businesses also should consider the potential effects of the adjustments in the IRS optional standard mileage rates on the amounts they may bill their customers for mileage expenses as well as the amount that they should expect that their vendors and service providers may bill the business for mileage expenses under contracts that provide for reimbursement of those expenses. Businesses whose contracts with vendors or customers provide for reimbursement of mileage expenses using rates based on the IRS’ optional standard mileage rates should evaluate the effect of the announced adjustments on those mileage obligations to ensure that mileage expenses are properly anticipated, billed and paid.

Beyond dealing with their own policies for reimbursement and billing for mileage, many health care organizations may want to consider sharing information about the 2014 medical mileage reimbursement rates announced by the IRS with patients and their families. Many patients and their families may qualify to claim deductions for mileage for medical travel under IRS rules, but may not be aware of the adjusted rates or the proper procedures for identifying and documenting their medical mileage. While often negligible for families who are not suffering major illness requiring extensive commuting or travel, patients with chronic or serious medical conditions often can benefit from claiming these deductions properly. Communicating the new rates and other tips for keeping records and claiming the mileage deduction could be a significant and valued service to aid these families.

For More Information Or Assistance

Throughout her career, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies and to respond to health care, human resources, tax, privacy, safety, antitrust, civil rights, and other laws as well as with internal investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns including a number of programs and publications on OCR Civil Rights rules and enforcement actions. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

About Solutions Law Press

[1] WHD’s announcement of the planned rule notes that this draft shared December 15 remains subject to change before formally published in the Federal Register

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, false claims act, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Pharmacy, Physician, Reimbursement, Stark | Tagged: compensation, DOJ, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Home Care, home health, Hospital, medical expense, Medicare Fraud, mileage reimbursement, Minimum Wage, nurses, OIG, Overtime, Physician, physician compensation, Provider, Wage and Hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Doc Sentenced to 15 Years for Health Care Fraud

November 16, 2013

Dr. Anthony Stevens Chase faces a 15 month sentence and must pay $360,293 in restitution after pleading guilty to two health care fraud counts.

On October 21, 2011, Jase pled guilty to two counts of health care fraud before Judge James J. Brady, for involvement in two nearly identical schemes to defraud Medicare.

The first conviction arose from Jase’s association Baton Rouge-based company Lobdale Medical Services, which was owned by Beatrice and Young Anyanwu. As part of the scheme to defraud, Sandra Parkman Thompson and others procured the names and personal information of Medicare beneficiaries in and around the New Orleans area and delivered these names to Jase, who then signed false and fraudulent prescriptions for power wheelchairs and other durable medical equipment for which the Medicare beneficiaries had no medical need. Thompson later delivered the fraudulent prescriptions to the Anyanwus, who submitted claims to Medicare through Lobdale Medical Services for the medically unnecessary equipment. The total billings to Medicare by Lobdale Medicare Services exceeded $1,000,000.

The second conviction arose from JASE’s involvement with a New Orleans-based durable medical equipment company known as Psalms 23-DME, which also paid Thompson to deliver prescriptions for wheelchairs and other durable medical equipment. Jase wrote prescriptions for beneficiaries whom he had never seen and who had no need for the equipment prescribed them. As a result, Psalms 23-DME billed Medicare for claims totaling $230,963 using JASE’s provider number.

Beatrice and Young Anyanwu pled guilty to the health care fraud scheme to defraud Medicare as well as the illegal remuneration conspiracy on August 14, 2012. Theywere sentenced February 1, 2013. Sandra Parkman Thompson was convicted after a jury trial on August 20, 2012. She was sentenced on March 14, 2013.

The investigation of Jase was conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Louisiana Department of Justice. Announcing the sentence, acting U.S. Attorney Walt Green stated, “This case is a great example of how federal and state law enforcement work together on a daily basis to stamp out health care fraud by doctors and others who abuse our health care system in our state.”

For More Information Or Assistance

Throughout her career, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies and to respond to health care, human resources, tax, privacy, safety, antitrust, civil rights, and other laws as well as with internal investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns including a number of programs and publications on OCR Civil Rights rules and enforcement actions. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

About Solutions Law Press

[1] WHD’s announcement of the planned rule notes that this draft shared December 15 remains subject to change before formally published in the Federal Register

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, false claims act, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Pharmacy, Physician, Reimbursement, Stark | Tagged: DOJ, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Home Care, home health, Hospital, Medicare Fraud, Minimum Wage, nurses, OIG, Overtime, Physician, Wage and Hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DOL Extends Minimum Wage, Overtime Protections To Home Care Workers

September 18, 2013

Health care and other parties employing or otherwise engaging the services of home care workers should review and update their policies and practices for scheduling, tracking hours worked and paying these workers to ensure that they comply by January 1, 2015 with a new final rule announced by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division today (September 18, 2013). Today’s announcement of the regulatory changes means employers of home care workers can expect to see costs rise and also will join most other U.S. businesses that must worry about getting caught in minimum wage and overtime enforcement traps.

Under the new final rule, the Labor Department extends the Fair Labor Standards Act’s minimum wage and overtime protections to most of the nation’s direct care workers who provide essential home care assistance to elderly people and people with illnesses, injuries, or disabilities beginning January 1, 2015.

The new final rule generally will require that the approximately two million home care workers such as home health aides, personal care aides, and certified nursing assistants will qualify for minimum wage and overtime. Employers engaging these services also generally will need to keep records and comply with other FLSA requirements with respect to these workers as well.

In anticipation of the rollout of these new protections, the Labor Department is kicking off a public outreach campaign to educate home care workers and their employers about the rule change. The Department will be hosting five public webinars during the month of October and has created a new, dedicated web portal here with fact sheets, FAQs, interactive web tools, and other materials.

The Labor Department’s focus on home workers is an extension of its expanded regulation and enforcement efforts targeting a broad range of health care industry employers. Home care and other health industry employers should act to manage their rising exposures to minimum wage, overtime and other federal and state wage and hour law risks.

New Home Care Worker Rules Effective January 2015

The impending change in the treatment of home care workers is part of a larger commitment by the Obama Administration to both expansion and enforcement of the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime provisions, and a specific program targeting employers in health care and related services industries.

The Obama Administration since taking office has conducted an aggressive campaign seeking to significantly increase the minimum wage under the FLSA and expand other protections. Along with this proactive regulatory agenda, the Obama Administration also specifically is aggressively targeting health care and other caregiver businesses in its enforcement and audit activities. See, e.g. Home health care company in Dallas agrees to pay 80 nurses more than $92,000 in back wages following US Labor Department investigation; US Department of Labor secures nearly $62,000 in back overtime wages for 21 health care employees in Pine Bluff, Ark.; US Department of Labor initiative targeted toward increasing FLSA compliance in New York’s health care industry; US Department of Labor initiative targeted toward residential health care industry in Connecticut and Rhode Island to increase FLSA compliance; Partners HealthCare Systems agrees to pay 700 employees more than $2.7 million in overtime back wages to resolve U.S. Labor Department lawsuit; US Labor Department sues Kentucky home health care provider to obtain more than $512,000 in back wages and damages for 22 employees; and Buffalo, Minn.-based home health care provider agrees to pay more than $150,000 in back wages following US Labor Department investigation.

Violation of wage and hour laws exposes health care and other employers to significant back pay awards, substantial civil penalties and, if the violation is found to be willful, even potential criminal liability. Because states all have their own wage and hour laws, employers may face liability under either or both laws. Coupled with these and other enforcement efforts against health and other caregiver businesses, today’s announcement reflects enforcement risks will continue to rise for employers of home care workers.

In light of the proposed regulatory changes and demonstrated willingness of the Labor Department and private plaintiffs to bring actions against employers violating these rules, health care and others employing home care workers should take well-documented steps to manage their risks. These employers should both confirm the adequacy of their practices under existing rules, as well as evaluate and begin preparing to respond to the proposed changes to these rules. In both cases, employers of home care or other health care workers are encouraged to critically evaluate their classification or workers, both with respect to their status as employees versus contractor or leased employees, as well as their characterization as exempt versus non-exempt for wage and hour law purposes. In addition, given the nature of the scheduled often worked by home care givers, their employers also generally should pay particular attention to the adequacy of practices for recordkeeping.

Enforcement Against Other Industries Shows Risks

Of course, the home care and health care industry are not the only industries that need to worry about FLSA enforcement. The Obama Administration is very aggressive in its enforcement of wage and hour and overtime laws generally. For instance, First Republic Bank recently paid $1,009,643.93 in overtime back wages for 392 First Republic Bank employees in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon after the Labor Department found the San Francisco-based bank wrongly classified the employees as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime and recordkeeping requirements, resulting in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime and record-keeping provisions. The Labor Department announced the settlement resulting in the payment on November 27, 2012. The settlement resulted from an investigation by the Labor Department that found the San Francisco-based bank wrongly classified the employees as exempt from overtime, resulting in violations of the FLSA’s overtime and record-keeping provisions.

The FLSA requires that covered, nonexempt employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 for all hours worked, plus time and one-half their regular rates, including commissions, bonuses and incentive pay, for hours worked beyond 40 per week. Employers also are required to maintain accurate time and payroll records.

While the FLSA provides an exemption from both minimum wage and overtime pay requirements for individuals employed in bona fide executive, administrative, professional and outside sales positions, as well as certain computer employees, job titles do not determine the applicability of this or other FLSA exemptions. In order for an exemption to apply, an employee’s specific job duties and salary must meet all the requirements of the department’s regulations. To qualify for exemption, employees generally must meet certain tests regarding their job duties and be paid on a salary basis at not less than $455 per week.

Investigators found that First Republic Bank failed to consider the FLSA’s criteria that allow certain administrative and professional employees to be exempt from receiving overtime pay. In fact, the employees were entitled to overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rates for hours worked over 40 in a week. Additionally, the bank failed to include bonus payments in nonexempt employees’ regular rates of pay when computing overtime compensation, in violation of the act. Record-keeping violations resulted from the employer’s failure to record the number of hours worked by the misclassified employees.

“It is essential that employers take the time to carefully assess the FLSA classification of their workforce,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis in the Labor Department’s announcement of the settlement. “As this investigation demonstrates, improper classification results in improper wages and causes workers real economic harm.”

FLSA Violations Generally Costly; Enforcement Rising

The enforcement record of the Labor Department confirms that employers that improperly treat workers as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime, minimum wage and recordkeeping requirements run a big risk. The Labor Department and private plaintiffs alike regularly target employers that use aggressive worker classification or other pay practices to avoid paying minimum wage or overtime to workers. Under the Obama Administration, DOL officials have made it a priority to enforce overtime, record keeping, worker classification and other wage and hour law requirements. See e.g., Boston Furs Sued For $1M For Violations Of Fair Labor Standards Act; Record $2.3 Million+ Backpay Order; Minimum Wage, Overtime Risks Highlighted By Labor Department Strike Force Targeting Residential Care & Group Homes; Review & Strengthen Defensibility of Existing Worker Classification Practices In Light of Rising Congressional & Regulatory Scrutiny; 250 New Investigators, Renewed DOL Enforcement Emphasis Signal Rising Wage & Hour Risks For Employers; Quest Diagnostics, Inc. To Pay $688,000 In Overtime Backpay. In an effort to further promote compliance and enforcement of these rules, the Labor Department is using smart phone applications, social media and a host of other new tools to educate and recruit workers in its effort to find and prosecute violators. See, e.g. New Employee Smart Phone App New Tool In Labor Department’s Aggressive Wage & Hour Law Enforcement Campaign Against Restaurant & Other Employers. As a result of these effort, employers violating the FLSA now face heightened risk of enforcement from both the Labor Department and private litigation.

Employers Should Strengthen Practices For Defensibility

To minimize exposure under the FLSA, employers should review and document the defensibility of their existing practices for classifying and compensating workers under existing Federal and state wage and hour laws and take other actions to minimize their potential liability under applicable wages and hour laws. Steps advisable as part of this process include, but are not necessarily limited to:

Audit of each position current classified as exempt to assess its continued sustainability and to develop documentation justifying that characterization;
Audit characterization of workers obtained from staffing, employee leasing, independent contractor and other arrangements and implement contractual and other oversight arrangements to minimize risks that these relationships could create if workers are recharacterized as employed by the employer receiving these services;
Review the characterization of on-call and other time demands placed on employees to confirm that all compensable time is properly identified, tracked, documented, compensated and reported;
Review of existing practices for tracking compensable hours and paying non-exempt employees for compliance with applicable regulations and to identify opportunities to minimize costs and liabilities arising out of the regulatory mandates;
If the audit raises questions about the appropriateness of the classification of an employee as exempt, self-initiation of proper corrective action after consultation with qualified legal counsel;
Review of existing documentation and record keeping practices for hourly employees;
Exploration of available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees; and
Re-engineering of work rules and other practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations and enforcement exposures.

Because of the potentially significant liability exposure, employers generally will want to consult with qualified legal counsel before starting their risk assessment and assess risks and claims within the scope of attorney-client privilege to help protect the ability to claim attorney-client privilege or other evidentiary protections to help shelter conversations or certain other sensitive risk activities from discovery under the rules of evidence.

For More Information Or Assistance

Throughout her career, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies and to respond to health care, human resources, tax, privacy, safety, antitrust, civil rights, and other laws as well as with internal investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns including a number of programs and publications on OCR Civil Rights rules and enforcement actions. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

About Solutions Law Press

[1] WHD’s announcement of the planned rule notes that this draft shared December 15 remains subject to change before formally published in the Federal Register

1 Comment | Academic medicine, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, false claims act, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Pharmacy, Physician, Reimbursement, Stark | Tagged: DOJ, Employer, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Home Care, home health, Hospital, Medicare Fraud, Minimum Wage, nurses, OIG, Overtime, Physician, Wage and Hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CMS To Host Provider Webinar To Celebrate National Health IT Week

September 13, 2013

In celebration of the third annual National Health IT Week is September 16-20, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will host several webinars and launching new eHealth tools and resources that it intends to help providers participate in eHealth programs. These programs may be of interest to providers as well as payers who are interested in what providers are doing to use eHealth tools.

Details of Webinar

The eHealth Provider Webinar will be held on Thursday, September 19^th from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. ET. CMS plans to present an overview of the eHealth programs and its eHealth initiative—an initiative that aligns health IT and electronic standards programs on:

Administrative Simplification
eRx Incentive Program
ICD-10
Quality Measurement

A portion of the webinar will also be dedicated to Q&A.

Registration Information

Space is limited. Register now to secure your spot for the eHealth Provider Webinar. Once registration is complete, you will receive a follow-up email with step-by-step instructions on how to log-in to the webinar. Listserv messages are sent prior to each webinar session with registration information.

If you’d like to view past webinars, the PowerPoint presentations and recordings can now be accessed on the Resources page of the eHealth website. For more information about CMS’ eHealth Initiatives, visit the CMS eHealth website for the latest news and updates on CMS’ eHealth initiatives.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance responding to this invitation or with other health industry regulatory, enforcement or other developments, reviewing or tightening your policies and procedures, conducting training or audits, responding to or defending an investigation or other enforcement action or with other health care related risk management, compliance, training, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 25 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Her experience includes extensive work advising, representing and training health industry and other clients on HIPAA and other privacy, data protection and breach and other related matters. She also advises hospitals, nursing home, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to Board of Medicine, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Scribe for the ABA JCEB annual Technical Sessions meeting with OCR for the past three years, Ms. Stamer also is recognized for her extensive publications and programs including numerous highly regarding publications and programs on HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns as well as a wide range of other workshops, programs and publications on other compliance, operational and risk management, and other health industry matters. Ms. Stamer also has extensive other public policy and regulatory experience with HHS and other U.S. federal and state agencies as well as internationally. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance responding to concerns about the matters discussed in this publication or other health care concerns, wish to obtain information about arranging for training or presentations by Ms. Stamer, wish to suggest a topic for a future program or update, or wish to request other information or materials, please contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer, see here.

About Solutions Law Press

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here. For important information about this communication click here. THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Affordable Care Act, Ambulatory care, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Conditions of Participation, Consumer Driven Health Care, Controlled Substances, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Employee Benefits, Employment, Evidence Based Medicine, Federal Health Center, Genetic Information, Grants, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Qulity, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance Exchange, Health Plan, Health Plans, Health Policy, HIPAA, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Licensing, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OCR, OIG, Outcomes Data, Outpatient, Pandemic, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Peer Review, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Prospective Payment, Public Policy, Real Estate, Rehabilitation Act, Reimbursement, Reproductive Rights, Rural Health Care, Stark, Substance Abuse, Swine Flu, Technology, Telemedicine, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Care | Tagged: Breach Notification, CMS, eHealth, Health IT, HHS, HIPAA Privacy, Hospital, Physicians, Providers, Security | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Tell HHS What You Think-Comment On HHS Strategic Plan Now!

September 9, 2013

Health care providers, health plans, employers and others concerned about the regulatory and enforcement activities of the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) can make their concerns known by speaking up now. Share your input on the draft HHS strategic plan that will guide HHS’ regulatory and enforcement agenda for the next 4 years.

Every 4 years, HHS updates its strategic plan, which describes its work to address complex, multifaceted, and ever-evolving health and human service issues, including:

Health Care
Research and Innovation
Prevention and Wellness

HHS is inviting public input on the draft HHS Strategic Plan for FY 2014-2018. The comment period is open until October 15, 2013. Individuals or organizations wishing to respond to this invitation can read the HHS Strategic Plan FY 2014-2018 (Draft) and submit your comments several ways including:

Submit your comments online here
Via Email to: strategicplanning@hhs.gov
Via Fax: (202) 690-8252
U.S. Mail (not recommended as security screening results in significant delay.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance responding to this invitation for comment or other health industry regulatory, enforcement or other developments, reviewing or tightening your policies and procedures, conducting training or audits, responding to or defending an investigation or other enforcement action or with other health care related risk management, compliance, training, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 25 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Her experience includes extensive work advising, representing and training health industry and other clients on HIPAA and other privacy, data protection and breach and other related matters. She also advises hospitals, nursing home, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to Board of Medicine, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Scribe for the ABA JCEB annual Technical Sessions meeting with OCR for the past three years, Ms. Stamer also is recognized for her extensive publications and programs including numerous highly regarding publications and programs on HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns as well as a wide range of other workshops, programs and publications on other compliance, operational and risk management, and other health industry matters. Ms. Stamer also has extensive other public policy and regulatory experience with HHS and other U.S. federal and state agencies as well as internationally. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance responding to concerns about the matters discussed in this publication or other health care concerns, wish to obtain information about arranging for training or presentations by Ms. Stamer, wish to suggest a topic for a future program or update, or wish to request other information or materials, please contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer, see here.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Affordable Care Act, Ambulatory care, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Conditions of Participation, Consumer Driven Health Care, Controlled Substances, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Employee Benefits, Employment, Evidence Based Medicine, Federal Health Center, Genetic Information, Grants, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Qulity, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance Exchange, Health Plan, Health Plans, Health Policy, HIPAA, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Licensing, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OCR, OIG, Outcomes Data, Outpatient, Pandemic, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Peer Review, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Prospective Payment, Public Policy, Real Estate, Rehabilitation Act, Reimbursement, Reproductive Rights, Rural Health Care, Stark, Substance Abuse, Swine Flu, Technology, Telemedicine, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Care | Tagged: Breach Notification, HHS, HIPAA Privacy, Hospital, Security | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer Speaks On Managing Physician Conduct At 9/17 NTHCPA Meeting

August 21, 2013

The North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association (NTHCPA) invites members and other interested health care compliance professionals faced with these and other challenges to join us on Tuesday, September 17, 2013 from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. for our Study Group Luncheon featuring attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer speaking on “Sex Drugs & Rock ‘N Role: Managing Physician Conduct in Health Care.”Interested persons can RSVP here by Noon on September 16, 2013 to attend this meeting free of charge.

About the Program

Whether false claims and other aggressive billing, referral or treatment practices, chemical dependency or other impairment, medical staff or other rule breaking, harassing or other disruptive conduct or a host of other personal behavioral or performance concerns, preventing and addressing personal misconduct and other risky behaviors by physicians on the staff or team of a hospital, medical practice personal misconduct often present major legal, quality, financial, political and operational challenges and risks for health care compliance, medical staff, risk management and other leaders. Alternatively, properly directed physicians can significantly help the operation and performance of health care organizations in many critical ways.

While physician involvement remains an operational necessity for most hospitals, group practices and other health care organizations, these and other health care organizations and other members of their team often face significant legal, financial, reputational and operational risks when a physician becomes impaired by chemical dependency, mental illness, stress, personal tragedy or other personal impairment; is disruptive; or engages in sexual or other harassment of staff or patients, billing, treatment, referral, anticompetitive or other illegal conduct, medical board or facility rule violations, or other acts of personal or professional misconduct. While these behaviors often create major risks for health care organizations and others, successful redress of these or other physician performance or misconduct concerns often depends upon the ability to successfully negotiate a complex minefield of due process and other procedural, legal, political, operational and other challenges.

Ms. Stamer will use lead participants in a workshop examining these challenges and discussion of strategies to help health care organizations and their compliance officers can use to help their organization prevent, investigate and redress these and other physician performance and misconduct concerns while managing HCQIA and other peer review, licensing board, contractual, defamation and other legal, professional and operational traps that often arise out of physician discipline or other corrective actions. On the other hand, well-motivated and properly focused physicians play a key role in leading quality, financial, compliance and other improvements in health care organizations and practices.

Registration & Meeting Details

The meeting scheduled from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on September 17, 2013 at the offices of the Dallas Ft Worth Hospital Council, 250 Decker Drive, Irving, TX 75062-2706 will feature a complimentary luncheon for those who timely R.S.V.P. Networking and lunch service will begin at 11:30 a.m.. Our program will begin at Noon. There is no charge to participate in the meeting. However space is limited and available only on a first come, first serve basis. To ensure your spot and help us to arrange for adequate space and refreshments for this meeting, R.S.V.P. here as soon as possible and no later than Noon on September 16, 2013. Walk in guests will be accommodated on a space-available basis only.

About The Speaker, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, J.D.

Attorney, author and health care change leader Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, J.D. is nationally and internationally recognized for her more than 25 years of health policy and legal work, process improvement and reengineering, publications and programs, and advocacy. Ms. Stamer works extensively with public and private health care organizations, managed care and health insurance organizations, governments and community leaders and others health industry compliance, risk management, quality, staffing, workforce, patient, quality and performance management, operations, governance, compensation, reimbursement and financing, regulatory and public policy, process improvement and reengineering and other health industry legal and operational concerns.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Vice-President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Past President of Former Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, combines her health industry operations compliance, and risk management experience with an in-depth knowledge of federal and state healthcare, workforce, governance, internal controls, enforcement and other operational issues to help health industry clients to support legal and operational risk and performance management. Her experience includes advising public and private health care systems, hospitals, managed care organizations and physician management organizations, physicians and physician practice groups, skilled nursing, home health, rehabilitation, pharmacy, and other health industry clients domestically and internationally on a wide range of matters including physician and other staffing, credentialing and peer review, gainsharing and other performance management, compliance, enforcement, and a wide range of other matters. Her experience includes extensive work with health care systems, hospitals, physicians and physician organizations, medical staffs, peer review, credentialing and quality committees, ACOs, managed care organizations, and others on physician credentialing, peer review and discipline, quality improvement, performance management, compensation, leadership development, and other matters.

A widely recognized health industry thought leader, advocate, author and speaker, Ms. Stamer’s insights are sought out by health care and other business, government and community leaders, and quoted in HealthLeaders, Managed Care Executive, the Wall Street Journal and many other national popular, business and industry publications. She also conducts continuing board, medical education, workforce and other health industry compliance and risk management training for many organizations on a wide range of topics. She also regularly represents health care organizations and other health industry clients before peer review and other disciplinary bodies, federal and state regulators, investigators, Congress and state legislatures, licensing and credentialing and other governmental and regulatory authorities. To learn more or contact Ms. Stamer, see www.CynthiaStamer.com.

About the NTHCPA

NTHCPA exists to champion ethical practice and compliance standards and to provide the necessary resources for ethics and compliance Professionals and others in North Texas who share these principles. The vision of NTHCPA is to be a pre-eminent compliance and ethics group promoting lasting success and integrity of organizations within North Texas.

Would you or someone you know like to join the NTHCPA, get notice of upcoming meetings or events and network on relevant professional developments with other health care professionals? Stay on top of information about upcoming meetings and share and dialogue with other NTHCPA members about health care compliance challenges and developments by participating in our meetings and events, joining our North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association LinkedIn Group and checking out the NTHCPA News here. To be added to our invitation list, we also encourage interested persons to make sure we have your current contact information by registering to receive health care updates here or sending your current contact information including name, title, company, preferred mailing address, e-mail, and telephone number to Vice-President Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here.

Thanks To Solutions Law Press, Inc. ™

The NTHCPA thanks Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ and its Coalition for Responsible Health Policy and Project COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment, for its generous underwriting support of the September 17, 2013 luncheon. Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ publishes the Solutions Law Press Health Care Update and other resources, as well as provides health care risk management, compliance and risk management and other operational consulting, briefings, training, policy, event management, recruiting and other resources and services on health care, human resources, employee benefits, compensation, data security and privacy, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns.

About Project COPE: The Coalition On Patient Empowerment & Its Coalition on Responsible Health Policy

Sharing and promoting the use of practical practices, tools, information and ideas that patients and their families, health care providers, employers, health plans, communities and policymakers can share and offer to help patients, their families and others in their care communities to understand and work together to better help the patients, their family and their professional and private care community plan for and manage these needs is the purpose of Project COPE, The Coalition on Patient Empowerment & It’s Affiliate, the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy.

The best opportunity to improve access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans is for every American, and every employer, insurer, and community organization to seize the opportunity to be good Samaritans. The government, health care providers, insurers and community organizations can help by providing education and resources to make understanding and dealing with the realities of illness, disability or aging easier for a patient and their family, the affected employers and others. At the end of the day, however, caring for people requires the human touch. Americans can best improve health care by not waiting for someone else to step up: Step up and help bridge the gap when you or your organization can. Speak up to help communicate and facilitate when you can. Building health care neighborhoods filled with good neighbors throughout the community is the key. Project COPE: The Coalition On Patient Empowerment brings together people, organizations, and resources to promote awareness and collaboration, share ideas, tools and other solutions and other resources to help promote patient empowerment, heath care access, health care quality and health and health coverage operations in meaningful, tangible ways. Its focus is little and big actions that help patients, providers, communities and others deal with or work within the health care system in the real world. The Coalition For Responsible Health Care Policy provides a resource that concerned Americans can use to share, monitor and discuss the Health Care Reform law and other health care, insurance and related laws, regulations, policies and practices and options for promoting access to quality, affordable healthcare through the design, administration and enforcement of these regulations.

To review or receive the Health Care Update, learn or get involved with the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy or its PROJECT COPE: The Coalition on Patient Empowerment, or participate in discussions in a Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ LinkedIn Group or for other information about Solutions Law Press, Inc™ resources and services, see www.SolutionsLawPress.com.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, ASC, Controlled Substances, DEA, DME, Doctor, Employer, Employment, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Physician, Physician Licensing, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Union | Tagged: discipline, Employer, Health Care, health care systems, Hospital, human resources, Labor, licensing, management, management services organizations, medical, Peer Review, performance management, physician practice, Physicians, privileges | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Tighten Disability Compliance To Avoid ADA Suits, Program Disqualification & Other Risks

July 30, 2013

The Department of Justice’s July 29, 2013 announcement that it is suing Dr. Hal Brown and Primary Care of the Treasure Coast of Vero Beach, Florida (PCTC) for violating the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by discriminating and retaliating against two deaf patients reminds physicians, clinics, hospitals and other health industry providers, their landlords, and other vendors to tighten their understanding, practices of federal and state disability discrimination laws to avoid getting nailed for improper discrimination. Following on the Department of Health & Human Service’s recently announced exclusion of a physician that illegally discriminated against a HIV-positive patient, health care providers are on notice that Federal officials are gunning for health care providers who illegally discriminate against patients and others with disabilities.

With the Justice Department, HHS and others targeting discrimination in the health care industry, physicians and their practices, clinics, hospitals and other private and public health care providers, and their landlords and other vendors should update their understanding of disability discrimination responsibilities and exposures, and then review and tighten policies, practices, workforce training and oversight, and other risk management and compliance practice to help prevent and mitigate exposures to disability and other discrimination claims.

Health Care Providers & Industry Under Fire For Disability Discrimination

While the heavy emphasis generally placed upon the enforcement of disability laws by the Obama Administration has heightened the risks of all U.S. businesses, health care providers are particularly at risk to disability discrimination liability as a result of the Barrier-Free Health Care Initiative of the Justice Department and related health industry disability enforcement initiatives of HHS and other federal agencies.

Health care provider, like other U.S. businesses, face sweeping responsibilities under the various federal laws such as the public accommodation and other disability discrimination prohibitions of the ADA, Section 504, the Civil Rights Act and various other laws. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act generally requires recipients of Medicare, Medicaid, HUD, Department of Education, welfare and most other federal assistance programs funds including health care, education, housing services providers, state and local governments to ensure that qualified individuals with disabilities have equal access to programs, services, or activities receiving federal financial assistance.

The ADA extends the prohibition against disability discrimination to private providers and other businesses as well as state and local governments including but not limited to health care providers reimbursed by Medicare, Medicaid or various other federal programs. Rather, the ADA requirements and disability discrimination prohibitions generally apply to all U.S. health care and other businesses even if they do not receive federal financial assistance. Under the ADA, health care providers and other covered businesses generally have a duty other to ensure that qualified individuals with disabilities have equal access to their programs, services or activities. In many instances, these federal discrimination laws both prohibit discrimination and require health care and other regulated businesses to put in place reasonable accommodations needed to ensure that their services are accessible and available to persons with disabilities.

Specifically under the ADA:

The public accommodation provisions generally both prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities when delivering health care or other services, as well as require health industry and other businesses to provide reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities unless the health care provider proves its actions are defensible under an exception to these general rules.
The employment discrimination provisions generally prohibit health care industry and other employers from discriminating against qualified individuals with a disability and require employers to provide reasonable accommodations for disabled workers unless the health care provider can prove that its conduct qualifies under one of the allowable exceptions to the general prohibition against discrimination.
The anti-retaliation rules prohibit retaliation against an individual because he opposes an act that is unlawful under the ADA or because he made a charge, testified, assisted or participated in any way in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under the ADA. These provisions also make it unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten or interfere with any individual exercising their rights protected by the ADA.

Meanwhile the Civil Rights Act and other laws prohibit discrimination based on national origin, race, sex, age, religion and various other grounds. These federal rules impact almost all public and private health care providers as well as a broad range housing and related service providers.

Justice Department ADA Suit Against Brown & PCTC

The ADA lawsuit against Dr. Brown and PCTC comes on the heels of the Justice Department’s Celebration of the 23rd Anniversary of the ADA last week and is an example of one of a growing number of lawsuits and other actions against health care providers resulting from the Justice Department “Barrier-Free Health Care Initiative” and related Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) enforcement efforts focusing on ensuring access to health care for individuals with disabilities.

The Department of Justice suit charges Dr. Brown and PCTC with violating the public accommodation and anti-retaliation provisions of ADA by discriminating against a deaf couple, Susan and James Liese by discriminating against a deaf couple, Susan and James Liese and then retaliating against the couple for engaging in activities protected under the ADA.

According to the Justice Department’s complaint, Dr. Brown and PCTC terminated Mr. and Mrs. Liese as patients because the couple pursued ADA claims against a hospital located next door to and affiliated with PCTC for not providing effective communication during an emergency surgery. The complaint alleges that after learning that the Lieses threatened the hospital with an ADA suit based on failure to provide sign language interpreter services, PCTC and Dr. Brown, who was the Liese’s primary doctor at PCTC, immediately terminated the Lieses as patients.

The Justice Department says this termination of the Lieses as patients violated the ADA. According to Jocelyn Samuels, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, “A person cannot be terminated as a patient because he or she asserts the right to effective communication at a hospital.”

While it remains to be seen if the Justice Department will be successful in its suit against Dr. Brown and PCTC, it has experienced significant success in disability discrimination actions against other health care providers.

Justice Department Barrier-Free Health Care Initiative Successes Growing

Justice Department suits like the ADA suit against Dr. Brown and PCTC are increasingly common and successful.

While the Justice Department across the years has prosecuted various health care providers for illegal discrimination under the ADA, it has turned up the heat with its nationwide Barrier-Free Health Care Initiative. According to the Justice Department, it intends that the prosecutions under the Barrier-Free Health Care Initiative to focus and leverage the Justice Department’s resources together and send a clear message that disability discrimination in health care is illegal and unacceptable.

Since the Justice Department announced its Barrier-Free Health Care Initiative last year, for instance, the Justice Department has entered into 18 settlements under the Barrier-Free Health Care Initiative. These include three agreements requiring health care providers to provide auxiliary aids and services, including sign language interpreters, to individuals who are deaf to ensure effective communication in health care settings including two settlements in the last month.

On June 27, 2013, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Tennessee announced that Heart Center of Memphis has agreed to provide qualified sign language and oral interpreters as well as other auxiliary aids and services to patients who are deaf, have hearing loss or have speech disabilities to resolve a Justice Department complaint charging the Heart Center violated the ADA by telling a deaf patient that it was his responsibility to arrange a sign language interpreter for his appointment. After several unsuccessful attempts to get the Heart Center to provide a qualified sign language interpreter as required by law, the patient cancelled his appointment.

On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia announced it had reached a disability discrimination settlement agreement with Midtown Neurology P.C. The settlement resolved a complaint alleging that Midtown Neurology P.C. failed to provide, over multiple appointments, a qualified sign language interpreter for a patient who is deaf. At one appointment, the patient underwent a painful neurological test. Because there was no interpreter, the patient could not communicate that she was frightened and in pain, and that she wanted the doctor to stop the procedure. Under the agreement, Midtown Neurology P.C. will provide auxiliary aids and services, including qualified interpreters, to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing where necessary to ensure effective communication.

In previous months, the Justice Department also has reached settlement agreements resolving charges health care providers violated the ADA by failing to provide interpreters or other accommodations for deaf or other communication impaired patients with Burke Health and Rehabilitation Center (May 3, 2013); Monadnock Community Hospital (April 5, 2013); Manassas Health and Rehab Center (April 5, 2013); Gainesville Health and Rehab Center (April 5, 2013); the Center for Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine, Inc. (April 5, 2013); Northern Ohio Medical Specialists (April 5, 2013); Northshore University Healthsystems (June 28, 2012); Steven Senica, M.D., and Senica Bruneau, Ltd. (June 11, 2012); Trinity Regional Medical Center and Trinity Health Systems (March 29, 2012); Henry Ford Health System (February 1, 2012); and Cheshire Medical Center, Keene Health Alliance, and Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic D/B/A Dartmouth-Hitchcock Keene (October 31, 2011)

In addition, the Justice Department also particularly is aggressive in prosecuting health care providers that discriminate against individuals with HIV. In the past six months, the Department reports it has reached five settlement agreements with medical providers to address HIV discrimination.

For instance, the Justice Department on July 26, 2013 announced that Barix Clinics, an organization that operates bariatric treatment facilities in Michigan and Pennsylvania, will pay $35,000 to victim-complainants and a $10,000 civil penalty, train its staff on the ADA and implement an anti-discrimination policy to settle Justice Department charges that Barix Clinics unlawfully refused to perform bariatric surgery on a man at its Langhorne, Pa., facility because he has HIV. The Department also determined that Barix Clinics cancelled bariatric surgery for another individual at its Ypsilanti, Michigan facility because he has HIV.

The Barix Clinic settlement added to a long list of earlier settlements of ADA charges stemming from discrimination against HIV patients including Glenbeigh (settlement regarding exclusion of an individual from an alcohol treatment program because of the side effects of his HIV medication, March 13, 2013); Woodlawn Family Dentistry (dentist office’s unequal treatment of people with HIV in the scheduling of future dental appointments, February 12, 2013); Castlewood Treatment Center (eating disorder clinic’s refusal to treat a woman for a serious eating disorder because she has HIV, February 6, 2013); and Fayetteville Pain Center (unlawful exclusion of a person with HIV from treatment, January 31, 2013).

While most announced Justice Department settlements involve the denial of interpreters to deaf or other communication impaired patients and discrimination in the treatment of HIV patients, the Justice Department also has shown a willingness to prosecute health care providers who engage in other types of disability discrimination. For instance, on April 3, 2012, the Justice Department reached a settlement with Richard Noren, M.D., Henry Kurzydlowski, M.D., and Pain Care Consultant, Inc., which resolved charges that they violated the ADA by failing to make reasonable changes to policies, practices, and procedures to enable a child with diabetes to participate in summer camp. Furthermore, although not necessarily reflected in the currently published, officially announced settlements of the Justice Department, health care providers have reported that the Justice Department and HHS also have become increasingly aggressive in investigating disability claims of visually or other physically, cognitively, or emotionally disabled patients arising from the failure of health care providers to accommodate their need for support or comfort animals.

Justice Department Plans To Keep Heat On Health Care Providers

All signs are that the Justice Department intends to continue, if not expand its Barrier-Free Health Care Initiatives. In fact, the suit against Dr. Brown and PCTC comes on the heels of the Justice Department’s filing of an ADA disabilities discrimination lawsuit against the State of Florida alleging the state is in violation of the ADA in its administration of its service system for children with significant medical needs.

The Justice Department lawsuit against the State of Florida charges that Florida’s programs have resulted in nearly 200 children with disabilities being unnecessarily segregated in nursing facilities which should be served in their family homes or other community-based settings. The Justice Department further alleges that the state’s policies and practices place other children with significant medical needs in the community at serious risk of institutionalization in nursing facilities. The department’s complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory damages for affected children.

“Florida must ensure that children with significant medical needs are not isolated in nursing facilities, away from their families and communities,” said Eve Hill, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “Children have a right to grow up with their families, among their friends and in their own communities. This is the promise of the ADA’s integration mandate as articulated by the Supreme Court in Olmstead. The violations the department has identified are serious, systemic and ongoing and require comprehensive relief for these children and their families.”

Health Industry Disability Discrimination Risks: Beyond The Justice Department

While private plaintiffs as well as the Justice Department and other agencies increasingly successfully sue health care providers for violating the ADA and other disability discrimination laws, the often significant damages and defense costs that often arise from these suits are only part of the exposure that health care providers should consider and manage. Among other things, health care providers accused or found to engage in disability discrimination also generally also risk significant adverse publicity, loss or curtailment of federal or state program participation, reimbursement or other contractual or administrative penalties, licensing board and accreditation sanctions, burdensome corrective action and ongoing reporting and oversight and other consequences.

Perhaps most notably, HHS also is stepping up enforcement against health care providers that discriminate against the disabled. Like the actions of the Justice Department, many of these enforcement actions focus heavily on discrimination against HIV patients as well as deaf or other individuals whose disabilities impairs their ability to communicate effectively with health care providers.

For instance, on July 18, 2013, HHS announced the termination of Medicaid funding to a California surgeon who intentionally discriminated against an HIV-positive patient by refusing to perform much-needed back surgery. The HHS Departmental Appeals Board concluded that the surgeon violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits disability discrimination by health care providers who receive federal funds. The order follows an Office for Civil Rights (OCR) investigation of a complaint filed by a patient who alleged that the surgeon refused to perform back surgery after learning that the patient was HIV-positive. OCR found that the surgeon discriminated against the patient on the basis of his HIV status in violation of federal civil rights laws. See HHS Press Release; HHS Departmental Appeals Board Decision; OCR Violation Letter of Findings.

HHS’s exclusion of the surgeon from federal program participation is part of a long-standing policy of OCR of pursuing disability discrimination actions against providers that discriminate against patients with HIV. For instance OCR previously has announced that an Austin, Texas orthopedic surgeon had agreed to ensure that individuals living with HIV/AIDS have equal access to appropriate medical treatment in order to resolve charges brought in an OCR Violation Letter of Finding charging the surgeon with violating the Rehabilitation Act by refusing to perform knee surgery on an HIV-positive patient. See Settlement Agreement.

OCR, like the Justice Department, also is aggressive in pursuing Rehabilitation Act claims against health care providers for failing to provide interpreters or other appropriate accommodations for deaf or other patients with disabilities that impair their ability to communicate. In March, for instance, OCR announced a settlement agreement with national senior care provider, Genesis HealthCare (Genesis) which resolved an OCR complaint that Genesis violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide a qualified interpreter to a resident at its skilled nursing facility in Randallstown, Maryland. See, Genesis Settlement.

OCR construes Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as among other things requiring that facilities take appropriate steps to ensure effective communications with individuals. According to OCR, throughout the patient’s stay at the facility, an OCR investigation showed center staff relied on written notes and gestures to communicate with the resident, even while conducting a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation with him. Moreover, by not being provided a qualified interpreter, evaluations of his care and discussions on the effects of his numerous medications and the risks caused by not following recommended treatments and prescription protocols had harmful effects on the patient’s overall health status. According to OCR Director Leon Rodriguez, “This patient’s care was unnecessarily and significantly compromised by the stark absence of interpreter services.” OCR concluded that in order for the patient and staff to be able to communicate effectively with each other regarding treatment, a qualified sign language interpreter would have been necessary.

Under the terms of the agreement, Genesis must require all facilities to provide interpreters and other suitable communications accommodations to language disabled patients, form an auxiliary aids and services hotline; create an advisory committee to provide guidance and direction on how to best communicate with the deaf and hard of hearing community; designate a monitor to conduct a self-assessment and obtain feedback from deaf and hard of hearing individuals and advocates and conduct outreach to promote awareness of hearing impairments and services that are available for deaf and hard of hearing individuals. In addition Genesis will be required to pay monetary penalties for noncompliance with any terms of the agreement.

In announcing the Genesis settlement, Director Rodriguez warned, “My office continues its enforcement activities and work with providers, particularly large health care systems like Genesis, to make certain that compliance with nondiscrimination laws is a system wide obligation.

The Genesis Agreement is typical of a multitude of settlements resulting from OCR enforcement against health care providers for failing to accommodate deaf, speech or other communication impaired patients. See, e.g. Cattaraugus County Department of Aging Settlement Agreement; District of Columbia Children and Family Services Agency Settlement Agreement (February 8, 2013); Memorial Health System Colorado Springs Voluntary Resolution Agreement (November 7, 2012); Advanced Dialysis Centers Settlement Agreement (February 17, 2012).

When evaluating the need to provide interpreters, health care providers also should consider the advisability of offering interpreters for patients whose primary language is not English. OCR’s discrimination enforcement efforts often extend to other language impaired persons such as English as a Second Language patients. In addition to its efforts on behalf of individuals with disabilities impacting their ability to communicate, OCR recently announced a national initiative under which it will conduct compliance reviews of critical access hospitals as part of its efforts to strengthen language access for individuals whose primary language is not English. See OCR Launches Nationwide Compliance Review Initiative To Strengthen Language Access Programs At Critical Access Hospitals.

Health care providers also should ensure that their take appropriate steps to accommodate other disabilities. For instance, the use of support animals by veterans, children, and other patients with physical, emotional or cognitive disorders on the rise, health care providers need to ensure that their policies, practices, training, facilities leases and other vendor contracts, posting and other arrangements are updated to accommodate patients requiring the use of support or comfort animals. OCR’s enforcement actions already have extended to protection of the rights of disabled individuals to have the aid and assistance of their service animals when receiving services from health care providers. For instance, under a settlement agreement with the St. Mercy Medical Center (Mercy) in Fort Smith, Arkansas resolving an OCR complaint that it violated Section 504 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Mercy committed to revise it policies and procedures to comply with Section 504 and to provide staff comprehensive training on their obligations to provide services without discrimination to qualified persons with disabilities. This settlement follows an OCR investigation into a complaint filed by an individual whose service animal was not allowed to go with him into the hospital. See, Mercy Settlement Agreement. This recent newscast video highlights how the failure to update postings, training, and other practices could result in a host of negative publicity and enforcement actions from refusing or limiting the ability of a person with a disability to have the support of his comfort animal within a health care facility. North Texas Vet Cries Foul After Service Dog Rejection. This type of adverse publicity not only can do serious damage to a health care provider’s public image, it also is likely to trigger the type of investigation that lead to the Mercy enforcement action.

Other Disability Discrimination Risks

Defending or paying to settle a disability discrimination charge brought by a private plaintiff, OCR or another agency, or others tends to be financially, operationally and politically costly for a health care organization or public housing provider. In addition to the expanding readiness of OCR, the Justice Department and other agencies to pursue investigations and enforcement of disability discrimination and other laws, physicians and other licensed professionals can expect that they may face disciplinary action by their applicable licensing boards, whose rules typically now make disability or other wrongful discrimination against patients a violation of their rules. Meanwhile, the failure of health care organizations to effectively maintain processes to appropriately include and care for disabled other patients or constituents with special needs also can increase negligence exposure, undermine Joint Commission and other quality ratings, undermine efforts to qualify for public or private grant, partnerships or other similar arrangements, and create negative perceptions in the community.

Act To Manage & Mitigate Disability Risks

In the face of these growing risks , physicians, hospitals and their medical staffs, and other health care providers should review and tighten their policies, leases and other vendor contracts, practices and training to minimize their exposure to prosecution or other sanctions for disability discrimination.

In light of the expanding readiness of OCR, the Justice Department and other agencies to investigate and take action against health care providers for potential violations of the ADA, Section 504 and other federal discrimination and civil rights laws, health care organizations and their leaders should review and tighten their policies, practices, training, documentation, investigation, redress, discipline and other nondiscrimination policies and procedures.

Given a series of recent changes in the provisions of the ADA, discrimination regulations, and enforcement standards, this process generally should begin by reviewing the health care provider’s understanding and policies regarding disability and other discrimination to ensure that they comply with current legal and credentialing requirements and standards. Once the organization confirms its understanding of current rules is up-to-date, the health care provider also should critically evaluate its operations to identify where its postings, policies, training, practices and operations need to be updated or tightened to meet these standards or avoid other risks.

In carrying out these activities, organizations and their leaders should keep in mind the critical role of training and oversight of staff and contractors plays in promoting and maintaining required operational compliance with these requirements. Reported settlements reflect that the liability trigger often is discriminatory conduct by staff, contractors, or landlords in violation of both the law and the organization’s own policies.

To meet and maintain the necessary operational compliance with these requirements, organizations should both adopt and policies against prohibited discrimination and take the necessary steps to institutionalize compliance with these policies by providing ongoing staff and vendor training and oversight, contracting for and monitoring vendor compliance and other actions. Organizations also should take advantage of opportunities to identify and resolve potential compliance concerns by revising patient and other processes and procedures to enhance the ability of the organization to learn about and redress potential charges without government intervention.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer, see here. About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | ADA, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Employer, Employment, Genetic Information, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Licensing, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, OCR, OIG, Physician, Physician Licensing, Real Estate, Rehabilitation Act, Substance Abuse | Tagged: accommodation, ADA, Civil Rights, controlled substance, DEA, Disability, Discrimination, Drug Testing, drugs, HHS, Hospital, Justice Department, licensure, Medical Board, Medical Practice, OCR, Office of Civil Rights, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, Physician, Rehabilitation Act | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR To Covered Entities: Learn From WellPoint $1.7 Settlement

July 12, 2013

WellPoint $1.7 M HIPAA Settlement Expensive Lesson On HIPAA Risks Of Leaving PHI Too Accessible In Web-Based Applications

With health care providers, health care organizations and others increasingly using Web-based applications and portals in operations and patient communications, managed care company WellPoint Inc. (WellPoint) is learning a $1.7 million lesson about the importance of ensuring Web-based applications and portals that allow access to members or other consumers protected health information (PHI) incorporate the administrative, technical and other security safeguards required by the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security rules.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) announced late yesterday (July 11, 2013) that WellPoint has agreed to pay $1.7 million to settle OCR charges that WellPoint violated the HIPAA Security Rule and left the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of 612,402 individuals accessible to unauthorized individuals over the Internet by failing to implement appropriate administrative and technical safeguards in its Web-based applications. See WellPoint HIPAA Settlement Press Release.

Web-based application use is increasingly popular among health care providers, health plans, employers and others. Health care providers use them for health care operations, as well as patient engagement and communication tools. Employers and health plans use them both in plan administration and as member tools.

The WellPoint settlement shows that managed care and other health insurers, health plans and their employer or other sponsors, health care providers, health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their business associates can’t let their enthusiasm for the ease of use of these products to compromise the security of PHI.

Rather, health care providers and other Covered Entities, employer and other health plan sponsors, their business associates, and the Web and other technology developers, providers and consultants marketing products, services or other solutions to these organizations should learn from WellPoint’s hard lesson to ensure that current and future Web-based applications, portals and other information system components that are or could be used to provide access to PHI incorporate the Security Rule safeguards both when originally implemented and with each subsequent upgrade.

HIPAA Privacy, Security & Breach Notification Rules Require PHI Safeguards & Other Protections

The Breach Notification Rule added to HIPAA under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health, or HITECH Act requires HIPAA-covered entities to notify OCR, affected individuals and the media promptly of a breach of “unsecured protected health information” (UPHI) impacting more than 500 individuals. For smaller breaches, the Breach Notification Rule still requires prompt notice to impacted individuals, but allows Covered Entities to disclose the breach to OCR as part of an annual breach report and to forego notification to the media. UPHI generally includes any PHI, whether or not ePHI that is not either secured or destroyed in the manner described by the Breach Notification Rules.

In addition to the Breach Notification Rule, most Covered Entities and their business associates also are subject to state laws or regulations that impose similar or additional breach notification and other standards and responsibilities on the protection of personal health or other data including required notification and other responses following a breach of the security of UPHI or other PHI.

WellPoint’s $1.7 HIPAA Security Mistake

WellPoint’s $1.7 million settlement lesson resulted from an OCR investigation started in response to a breach report WellPoint submitted to comply with the Breach Notification Rules.

According to OCR, the Breach Report indicated that security weaknesses in an online application database left the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of 612,402 individuals accessible to unauthorized individuals over the Internet.

OCR says its investigation indicated that WellPoint did not implement appropriate administrative and technical safeguards as required under the HIPAA Security Rule. According to OCR, WellPoint did not:

Adequately implement policies and procedures for authorizing access to the on-line application database;
Perform an appropriate technical evaluation in response to a software upgrade to its information systems; or
Have technical safeguards in place to verify the person or entity seeking access to electronic protected health information maintained in its application database.

As a result, OCR concluded that from October 23, 2009 until March 7, 2010, WellPoint impermissibly disclosed the ePHI of 612,402 individuals by allowing access to their ePHI maintained in the application database. This data included names, dates of birth, addresses, Social Security numbers, telephone numbers and health information.

Under the resulting WellPoint HIPAA Resolution Agreement, WellPoint must pay OCR a $1.7 million settlement payment as well as take a series of corrective actions to correct the deficiencies in its policies and practices that resulted in the reported breach to minimize future risks of breaches resulting from these deficient.

OCR Warns Learn From WellPoint’s Experience

All Covered Entities and their business associates and leaders should heed the lesson sent to them by OCR in announcing the WellPoint settlement and take appropriate steps other to ensure that appropriate policies and safeguards are adopted and applied in selecting and implementing future application or system upgrades, as well as review existing systems to ensure that the security of existing systems and applications have incorporated and apply the requisite safeguards.

OCR made clear that the WellPoint settlement is intended to send a message to Covered Entities and their business associates to ensure that these steps are appropriately taken. The settlement announcement states:

This case sends an important message to HIPAA-covered entities to take caution when implementing changes to their information systems, especially when those changes involve updates to Web-based applications or portals that are used to provide access to consumers’ health data using the Internet. Whether systems upgrades are conducted by covered entities or their business associates, HHS expects organizations to have in place reasonable and appropriate technical, administrative and physical safeguards to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of electronic protected health information – especially information that is accessible over the Internet.

The settlement announcement also reminds business associates that OCR will begin holding them directly accountable along with their Covered Entity clients for complying with many HIPAA requirements beginning in September, stating:

Beginning Sept. 23, 2013, liability for many of HIPAA’s requirements will extend directly to business associates that receive or store protected health information, such as contractors and subcontractors.

Take Documented Steps To Show You Hear OCR’s Messages

Covered entities and their business associates and leaders, and vendors and consultants offering services or products to them should take care to conduct careful and well-documented reviews and implement corrective actions necessary to show their applications and systems, policies and practices reflect their strong commitment and action to appropriately protect PHI in accordance with the expectations shown by the WellPoint HIPAA Resolution Agreement and other OCR settlements, OCR’s updated HIPAA regulations, and other OCR and industry information.

In addition to the guidance set forth in OCR’s Resolution Agreements with WellPoint and other Covered Entities, revisions to OCR’s Privacy and Security Rules in OCR’s 2013 restatement of its regulations here cause all Covered Entities and their business associates conduct a well-documented reassessment of the adequacy of their existing policies, systems and practices and steps taken to redress any uncovered gaps.

Among other things, the 2013 Regulations:

Revise OCR’s HIPAA regulations to reflect the HITECH Act’s amendment of HIPAA to add the contractors and subcontractors of health plans, health care providers and health care clearinghouses that qualify as business associates to the parties directly responsible for complying with and subject to HIPAA’s civil and criminal penalties for violating HIPAA’s Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification rules;
Update previous interim regulations implementing HITECH Act breach notification rules that require Covered Entities including business associates to give specific notifications to individuals whose PHI is breached, HHS and in some cases, the media when a breach of unsecured information happens;
Update interim enforcement guidance OCR previously published to implement increased penalties and other changes to HIPAA’s civil and criminal sanctions enacted by the HITECH Act;
Implement HITECH Act amendments to HIPAA that tighten the conditions under which Covered Entities are allowed to use or disclose PHI for marketing and fundraising purposes and prohibit Covered Entities from selling an individual’s health information without getting the individual’s authorization in the manner required by the 2013 Regulations;
Update OCR’s rules about the individual rights that HIPAA requires that Covered Entities to afford to individuals who are the subject of PHI used or possessed by a Covered Entity to reflect tightened requirements enacted by the HITECH Act that allow individuals to order their health care provider not to share information about their treatment with health plans when the individual pays cash for the care and to clarify that individuals can require Covered Entities to provide electronic PHI in electronic form;
Revise the regulations to reflect amendments to HIPAA made as part of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) which added genetic information to the definition of PHI protected under the HIPAA Privacy Rule and prohibits health plans from using or disclosing genetic information for underwriting purposes; and
Clarifies and revises other provisions to reflect other interpretations and information guidance that OCR has issued since HIPAA was passed and to make certain other changes that OCR found appropriate based on its experience administering and enforcing the rules.

Covered Entities were required to begin complying with most of these rule changes earlier this year. However, delayed compliance dates in the 2013 Regulations allowed Covered Entities and Business Associates to delay updates to pre-existing business associate agreements and the date that OCR would begin enforcing many of the HIPAA Rules directly against business associates to September 23, 2013.

Even without the necessity Settlements like that involving WellPoint, these 2013 Regulations make it imperative that Covered Entities to take the necessary steps to conduct an appropriate and well-documented review and update as needed their systems, policies and practices, business associate agreements, training and documentation.

With self-disclosures of breaches mandated by the Breach Notification Rules and OCR audits and enforcement rising, careful documentation of these activities and its analysis is necessary so that Covered Entities can be in a position to show OCR that the risk assessments required by the Security Rules was conducted as well as the efforts and commitment of the Covered Entity or business associate in the event of a breach investigation or audit. Yesterday’s WellPoint HIPAA announcement is just the latest in an ever-growing list of examples of the expensive consequences that can result if a Covered Entity or business associate cannot produce this documentation in response to an OCR audit or investigation. See, e.g. OCR Hits Alaska Medicaid For $1.7M+ For HIPAA Security Breach; OCR Audit Program Kickoff Further Heats HIPAA Privacy Risks; $1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report; HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website; Providence To Pay $100000 & Implement Other Safeguards. In contrast, the OCR website also provides a multitude of examples showing how the ability to produce documentation and other evidence showing diligent efforts to comply has helped other covered entities that fall under OCR investigation to avoid or mitigate serious sanctions.

Coupled with statements by OCR about its intolerance, the WellPoint and other settlements provide a strong warning to covered entities of the need to carefully and appropriately manage their HIPAA encryption and other Privacy and Security responsibilities. Covered entities are urged to heed these warning by strengthening their HIPAA compliance and adopting other suitable safeguards to minimize HIPAA exposures.

In response to the 2013 Regulations and these expanding exposures, all Covered Entities should review critically and carefully the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration OCR’s investigation and enforcement actions against WellPoint and others, emerging litigation and other enforcement data; their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses; and other developments to decide if additional steps are necessary or advisable. Covered Entities and business associates should document this review in a manner that both reflects the scope and diligence of their activities including relevant considerations and decision-making about identified potential susceptibilities and reasoning about the adequacy of safeguards and other solutions.

Because this review is likely to uncover existing or past deficiencies or breaches, most covered entities and business associates will want to discuss with qualified legal counsel the planned assessment within the scope of attorney-client privilege to understand when and how to conduct the assessment to preserve options to claim attorney-client privilege to protect sensitive work product or discussions that may result in the course of the investigation within the attorney-client communication, work product or other evidentiary privileges, evaluation of the adequacy and appropriateness of the audit and resulting investigations and its documentation, and other assistance in strengthening the defensibility of compliance and risk management activities.

For Help With Compliance, Risk Management, Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

If you need help with HIPAA and other health and health plan related regulatory policy or enforcement developments, or to review or respond to these or other human resources, employee benefit, or other compliance, risk management, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help.

Nationally recognized for her extensive work, publications and leadership on HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns, Ms. Stamer has extensive experience representing, advising and assisting health care providers, health plans, their business associates and other health industry clients to establish and administer medical and other privacy and data security, employment, employee benefits, and to handle other compliance and risk management policies and practices; to investigate and respond to OCR and other enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. She regularly designs and presents HIPAA and other risk management, compliance and other training for health care providers, health plans and their sponsors, their workforces, professional associations and others.

Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Her experience includes advising hospitals, nursing home, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to Board of Medicine, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns.

Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance responding to concerns about the matters discussed in this publication or other health care concerns, wish to obtain information about arranging for training or presentations by Ms. Stamer, wish to suggest a topic for a future program or update, or wish to request other information or materials, please contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer, see here.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Anti-KickBack, DME, Doctor, E-Prescribing, false claims act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Money Laundering, OIG, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Substance Abuse | Tagged: Health Care Providers, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA Privacy, HIPAA Security, OCR, Privacy, WellPoint | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Hollywood Pavillion & Other Fraud Convictions Show Individuals Risk Prison Time For Health Care Fraud Involvement

July 6, 2013

Convictions Show Growing Fraud Enforcement Risks Reach Broadly To Broad Range Of Actors

Do you love your health care organization enough to go to jail? With federal and state prosecutors stepping up health care fraud investigation and enforcement, this is a question that individuals leading, working or investing in health care organizations increasingly need to seriously consider.

As federal and state officials continue to ramp up their war on health care fraud, the ever-growing list of criminal convictions of individuals found to have participate in or tolerated prohibited billing, referral or other activities prohibited under federal or state health care fraud laws are intended to both punish the guilty and send a strong message to others throughout the industry: Don’t Do The Crime If You Don’t Want To Serve The Time!

Hollywood Pavilion Convictions

The July 28 federal jury conviction of four individuals for their involvement in nearly $70 million of fraudulent Medicare billings by Hollywood Pavilion (HP), a Miami-area mental health care hospital is the latest case in point. The successful prosecutions shows again the readiness of the Justice Department to prosecute individuals at all levels of organizations for their participation in health care fraud activities even after obtaining criminal convictions, civil settlements, and program disqualification or other administrative consequences against the health care organizations, their leaders, employees and others that participate illegal schemes that defraud federal health care programs like Medicare, private health insurance plans or both.

In the verdicts announced July 28 stemmed from the Justice Department’s prosecution of the former Chief Executive Officer, the former in-patient clinical director, former head of intensive outpatient care and former director of physical therapy for various health care fraud, wire fraud and other charges for their participation in a massive scheme that attempted to defraud the United States of approximately $70 million by taking advantage of Medicare beneficiaries.

Federal officials originally announced charges against the four defendants as part of high-profile sting and takedown by the Medicare Fraud Strike Force of 91 individuals across the nation for their alleged involvement in submitting approximately $430 million in false billings to federal health care programs. See Indictment of 91 Shows Growing Heath Care Fraud Enforcement Risk.

The convictions resulted after the Justice Department tried the defendants with illegally paying bribes to a network of patient recruiters, falsifying documents and other criminal conduct in violation of federal health care fraud, wire fraud and other laws. Based on evidence presented at trial, the federal jury found:

Karen Kallen-Zury, 59, and Daisy Miller, 44, each guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and health care fraud, five substantive counts of wire fraud and two substantive counts of health care fraud;
Michele Petrie, 64, guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and health care fraud and three substantive counts of wire fraud;
Kallen-Zury, Miller, Petrie and a fourth defendant, Christian Coloma, 49, of one count of conspiracy to pay bribes in connection with Medicare; and
Kallen-Zury and Coloma also each guilty of five substantive counts of paying bribes.

The convictions resulted after Federal prosecutors charged the four defendants and one other individual with participating and aiding HP to illegally bill Medicare for nearly $70 million for services that were not properly rendered, for patients that did not qualify for the services being billed and for claims for patients procured through bribes and kickbacks from at least 2003 through at least August 2012.

At trial, Federal prosecutors claimed that the defendants and their co-conspirators caused the submission of false and fraudulent claims to Medicare through HP, a state-licensed psychiatric hospital located in Hollywood that purportedly provided, among other things, inpatient psychiatric care and intensive outpatient psychiatric care. Prosecutors claimed the defendants paid illegal bribes and kickbacks to patient brokers in order to obtain Medicare beneficiaries as patients at HP who did not qualify for psychiatric treatment, then illegally submitted claims to Medicare for those patients who were procured through bribes and kickbacks.

Among other things, Federal prosecutors charged and introduced evidence that:

Karen Kallen-Zury, the CEO and registered agent of HP, attempted to conceal the payment of bribes and kickbacks by creating false documents to make it appear as if legitimate services were being rendered;
Miller, the clinical director of HP’s inpatient facility, and Petrie, the head of HP’s intensive outpatient program, facilitated the payment of bribes to patient recruiters and oversaw the fraudulent admissions and treatment of unqualified patients;
Coloma, the director of physical therapy for an entity associated with HP, facilitated the payment of bribes and kickbacks, and he supervised the creation of false documents to conceal the bribery scheme.

All four defendants now are awaiting sentencing.

Zealous Investigation & Prosecution Part of National Anti-Health Care Fraud Campaign

These and other convictions provide tangible proof of the growing success of the efforts to zealously investigate and prosecute health fraud by the Justice Department, HHS and other federal officials under their joint the Health Care Fraud Prevention & Enforcement Action Team (HEAT), Medicare Fraud Strike Force and other anti-fraud efforts. The joint Department of Justice-HHS Medicare Fraud Strike Force that lead to these charges and convictions is a multi-agency team of federal, state and local investigators designed to combat Medicare fraud through the use of Medicare data analysis techniques and an increased focus on community policing. Since its announcement, the Strike Force has used the combined resources of agents from the FBI, HHS-Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG), multiple Medicaid Fraud Control Units, and other state and local law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute a rising number of organizations and individuals throughout the industry for alleged violations of Federal health care fraud prohibitions.

In recent years, Congress has amended the False Claims Act and enacted other reforms that give the Justice Department and other federal officials working in these anti-fraud efforts new tools that they are using to strengthen the effectiveness of their anti-fraud investigation and prosecution efforts. See Health Care Fraud Enforcement Packs New Heat.

Empowered by these and other new tools, the Justice Department and other participants in the HEAT and Medicare Fraud Strike Force increasingly are successful in prosecuting and convicting health care providers and others for participating in activities and schemes that violate federal or state health care fraud, referral, anti-kickback or other federal or state laws. See, e.g., North Texas Medical Supply Company Owner Indicted For Health Care Fraud Now Also Charged With Immigration Fraud; Former Houston Texas Physician Gets 70 Month Prison Sentence For Fraud Conviction; Euless Healthcare Corporation Owner, Associates Face Conspiracy And Health Care Fraud Charges For Alleged Submission Of $700,000+ In Fraudulent Health Care Claims; Former Manager 9th Employee Sentenced For Involvement In Maxim Medicare False Claims Action; Detroit-Area Foot Doctor Pleads Guilty to Medicare Fraud Scheme; Merck To Pay $950 Million To Settle Vioxx® Off-Label Marketing Charges. Indeed, since the jury rendered its July 28 verdict, Justice Department officials already have announced several other prosecutorial successes. See, e.g.,Los Angeles Medical Supply Company Owner Sentenced to Five Years in Prison for $8.4 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme; Los Angeles-Area Doctor and Patient Recruiter Plead Guilty to Participating in a Power Wheelchair Scheme That Defrauded Medicare of Over $10.1 Million; Owner of Rehabilitation Facility Pleads Guilty to Mail Fraud Charge; Local Oncology Practice Sentenced To Pay Millions for Medicare Fraud.

In addition to criminal prosecutions, the HHS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, working with the HHS-OIG, are using a wide range of new and old tools in their campaign against what they perceive as fraudulent providers and to deter other perceived aggressiveness by health care providers and organizations. See e.g., U.S. to use software to crack down on Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP fraud; Health Care Fraud Enforcement Packs New Heat; OIG Shares Key Insights On When Owners, Officers & Managers Face OIG Program Exclusion Based On Health Care Entity Misconduct; OIG Launch of Health Care Fraud “Most Wanted” List Sign of Enforcement Risks; CMS Delegated Lead Responsibility For Development of New Affordable Care Act-Required Medicare Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol; HHS announces Rules Implementing Tools Added By Affordable Care Act to Prevent Federal Health Program Fraud.

The effectiveness of these Federal efforts to deter, find and prosecute false claims and other perceived abuses of Federal health care law has been significantly strengthened since Congress passed the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act). Among other things, ACA empowered HHS to:

Suspend payments to providers and suppliers based on credible allegations of fraud in Medicare and Medicaid;
Impose a temporary moratorium on Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP enrollment on providers and suppliers when necessary to help prevent or fight fraud, waste, and abuse without impeding beneficiaries’ access to care.
Strengthen and build on current provider enrollment and screening procedures to more accurately assure that fraudulent providers are not gaming the system and that only qualified health care providers and suppliers are allowed to enroll in and bill Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP;
Terminate providers from Medicaid and CHIP when they have been terminated by Medicare or by another state Medicaid program or CHIP;
Require provider compliance programs, now required under the Affordable Care Act, that will ensure providers are aware of and comply with CMS program requirements.

See HHS announces Rules Implementing Tools Added By Affordable Care Act to Prevent Federal Health Program Fraud.

Act To Manage Risks

In response to the growing emphasis and effectiveness of Federal officials in wielding these and other tools against health care providers and organizations, health care providers covered by federal false claims, referral, kickback and other health care fraud laws should consider auditing the adequacy of existing practices, tightening training, oversight and controls on billing and other regulated conduct, reaffirming their commitment to compliance to workforce members and constituents and taking other appropriate steps to help prevent, detect and timely redress health care fraud exposures within their organization and to position their organization to respond and defend against potential investigations or charges.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Her experience includes advising hospitals, nursing home, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to Board of Medicine, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns.

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer, see here.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Anti-KickBack, DME, Doctor, E-Prescribing, false claims act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Money Laundering, OIG, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Substance Abuse | Tagged: controlled substance, DEA, Drug Testing, drugs, false claims act, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, HEAT, licensure, Medicaid, Medical Board, Medicare, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, physical therapy, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

55 Hospitals To Pay $35M+ To Settle FCA Claims Charges On Kyphoplasty Procedures

July 6, 2013

Whistleblowers Played A Big Role, Collectively Will Receive $5.5 Million From Settlement Proceeds

Fifty-five hospitals in 21 states will pay a total of more than $34 million to settle Justice Department allegations that the health care facilities submitted false claims to Medicare for a minimally-invasive procedure used to treat certain spinal fractures that often are due to osteoporosis known as “kyphoplasty.”

The settlement stems from charges by the Justice Department and Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) that the settling hospitals frequently billed Medicare for performing kyphoplasty procedures on the more costly inpatient basis, rather than an outpatient basis, in order to increase their Medicare billings when the kyphoplasty could have been performed safely and effectively as an outpatient procedure without any need for a more costly hospital admission.

With the settlements announced July 1, the Justice Department says it has now reached settlements with more than 100 hospitals totaling approximately $75 million to resolve allegations that they mischarged Medicare for kyphoplasty procedures. Justice Department officials credited whistleblowers with helping it to identify the charged misconduct in virtually all of the cases. They collectively will receive an estimated $5.5 million of the total of $34 million to be paid under the settlements.

55 Settlements Impact Systems & Providers Across The Nation

According to the Justice Department’s July 1 announcement of the settlements, the settling facilities, and the amounts they have agreed to pay, include 23 hospitals affiliated with HCA Inc., Nashville, TN, who have agreed to pay a total of $7,145,842.72. These include:

Aventura Hospital & Medical Center, Aventura, FL
Capital Regional Medical Center, Tallahassee, FL
Coliseum Medical Center, Macon, GA
Coliseum Northside Hospital, Macon, GA
Conroe Regional Medical Center, Conroe, TX
Denton Regional Medical Center, Denton, TX
Doctors Hospital of Sarasota, Sarasota, FL
Edmond Regional Medical Center, Edmond, OK
Fawcett Memorial Hospital, Port Charlotte, FL
Fort Walton Beach Medical Center, Fort Walton Beach, FL
Garden Park Medical Center, Gulf Port, MS
JFK Medical Center, Atlantis, FL
Los Robles Regional Medical Center, Thousand Oaks, CA
North Florida Regional Medical Center, Gainesville, FL
Northlake Medical Center, Tucker, GA
Oklahoma University Medical Center, Oklahoma City, OK
Palmyra Medical Center, Albany, GA
Redmond Regional Medical Center, Rome, GA
Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center, Fort Myers, FL
St. Lucie Medical Center, Port Saint Lucie, FL
Summit Medical Center, Hermitage, TN
Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center, Las Vegas, NV
Wesley Medical Center, Wichita, KS

Also 6 hospitals affiliated with Lifepoint Hospitals, Inc., Brentwood, TN, have agreed to pay a total of $2,522,502.69. These include:

Andalusia Regional Hospital, Andalusia, AL
Jackson Purchase Medical Center, Mayfield, KY
Lake Cumberland Regional Hospital, Somerset, KY
Minden Medical Center, Minden, LA
Russellville Hospital, Russellville, AL
Western Plains Medical Complex, Dodge City, KS

Also, 5 hospitals affiliated with Trinity Health, Livonia, MI, have agreed to pay a total of $3,910,017.53. These include:

Mercy Medical Center, – Dubuque, Dubuque, IA
Mercy Medical Center – Sioux City, Sioux City, IA
St. Joseph Mercy Hospital, Pontiac, MI
Mercy Health Partners, Muskegon, MI
Mount Carmel New Albany Surgical Hospital, New Albany, OH

Justice Department officials also report that 4hospitals affiliated with Morton Plant Mease BayCare Health System, Clearwater, FL, have agreed to pay a total of $2,378,325.45. These include:

Morton Plant Hospital, Clearwater, FL
Morton Plant North Bay Hospital, New Port Richey, FL
Mease Dunedin Hospital, Dunedin, FL
Mease Countryside Hospital, Safety Harbor, FL

Justice Department officials also say 3 hospitals affiliated with Baptist Memorial Health Care Corporation, Memphis, TN, have agreed to pay a total of $691,168. These are:

Baptist Memorial Hospital-Golden Triangle, North Columbus, MS
Baptist Memorial Hospital-Collierville, Collierville, TN
Baptist Memorial Hospital-Memphis, Memphis, TN

In addition, Justice Department officials say 2 hospitals affiliated with Covenant Health, Knoxville, TN, have agreed to pay a total of $1,845,641.74. These are Parkwest Medical Center in Knoxville, TN and Methodist Medical Center of Oak Ridge in Oak Ridge, TN.

Meanwhile, 2 hospitals affiliated with Bayhealth Medical Center, Newark, DE, also reportedly have agreed to pay a total of $1,115,306.37. These are Bayhealth Kent General Hospital, Dover, DE and Bayhealth Milford Memorial Hospital, Milford, DE.

In addition to these hospitals, the following facilities have agreed to pay the following settlements:

Atrium Medical Center, Middletown, OH, has agreed to pay $4,232,992.50
Altru Health System, Grand Forks, ND, has agreed to pay $1,492,690
Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, has agreed to pay $1,485,846
Des Peres Hospital, St. Louis, MO, has agreed to pay $900,000
Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami, FL, has agreed to pay $1,846,194.00
New England Baptist Hospital, Boston, MA, has agreed to pay $374,814.48
St. Anne’s Hospital, Fall River, MA, has agreed to pay $552,745
The Queen’s Medical Center, Honolulu, HI, has agreed to pay $1,055,249.57
Trover Health System, Madisonville, KY, has agreed to pay $1,162,837
Wayne Memorial Hospital, Goldsboro, NC, has agreed to pay $1,250,000.

In addition to today’s settlement, the government previously settled with Medtronic Spine LLC, the corporate successor to Kyphon Inc., for $75 million to settle allegations that the company defrauded Medicare by counseling hospital providers to perform kyphoplasty procedures as inpatient rather than outpatient procedures.

According to Tom O’Donnell, Special Agent in Charge of the Office of Investigations of the HHS-OIG New York Regional Office, “The settlements related to kyphoplasty billing that have been reached with over 100 hospitals represent one of the largest and most successful multi-party health care investigations in the nation.”

While these settlements relate specifically to kyphoplasty procedures, they send a message impacting all procedures and practice areas that they risk OIG and/or Justice Department prosecution if procedures are performed in a most costly manner to increase reimbursement which is not medically necessary. Justice Department officials warned health care providers that Justice and OIG will act “Whenever hospitals knowingly overcharge Medicare, critically needed resources are wasted and health costs are driven up.”

Whistleblower Involvement Played Big Role

As in other recently announced settlement agreements, see e.g., Whistleblower Collects $2.7 M of $14.5M Sound Inpatient Physicians Overbilling Settlement, whistleblower involvement played a key role in helping OIG and Justice to identify and prosecute the alleged misconduct.

According to the Justice Department, all but four of the settling facilities announced today were named as defendants in a qui tam, or whistleblower, lawsuit brought under the False Claims Act, which permits private citizens to bring lawsuits on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of the proceeds of any settlement or judgment awarded against a defendant. The lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Buffalo, N.Y., by Craig Patrick and Charles Bates. Mr. Patrick is a former reimbursement manager for Kyphon, and Mr. Bates was formerly a regional sales manager for Kyphon in Birmingham, Ala. The whistleblowers will receive a total of approximately $5.5 million from the settlements.

Mitigate Risks With Effective Oversight of Both Documentation & Operations

As Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division Stuart F. Delery noted in the settlement announcement. “Physicians who participate in Medicare and other federal health care programs must document and bill for their services accurately and honestly.” With qui tam and other whistleblower participation, the Justice Department, HHS and other federal and state fraud investigators go beyond merely challenging whether the medical record documentation supports the charges billed to question whether the medical record itself accurately reflects the care in fact delivered by relying upon testimony of employees or other “insiders” often with an axe to grind against the provider.

To mitigate these exposures, health care providers clearly should work diligently both to ensure that their billing and other compliance programs accurately, honestly and completely document the care provided and code and bill for those services in accordance with the currently applicable federal program rules. While these compliance and risk management programs are indispensable components of any effective health care fraud compliance program, health care providers also should recognize that the effectiveness of their health care fraud and other compliance program also may depend on the effectiveness of their operational and workforce oversight and management. Along with effective billing and other fraud detection and compliance programs, providers also need effective medical quality and records documentation, provider and workforce performance and management, investigations and other management programs.

As a key element of these activities, providers should constantly be on watch for evidence of gaps between the medical and billing documentation and the factual realities looking at broad range of sources. Providers should target these activities to cover both specific medical documentation, coding and care, and other operational indicators that could show a problem. With qui tam and other whistleblower claims rising, however, providers should keep in mind that mere auditing of records and billing patterns alone often fails to uncover key evidence of potential concerns.

To help identify potential areas of scrutiny, providers should carefully monitor and examine the adequacy of their compliance and risk management agreements against corporate integrity agreements with other providers who have reached settlements with the Department of Justice, HHS Office of Inspector General or other agencies like the TranS1 Inc. Corporate Integrity Agreement .

Health care providers also should take into account a plethora of other potential indicators including but not limited to peer review and quality assurance data, deficient as well as inexplicably exceptional medical record or other record keeping documentation, hotline, exist interview and other workforce feedback, disagreements among providers in patterns of care, political and interpersonal differences, and a host of other indicators that could show a valid compliance concern or a developing hostility that could become the incentive for a whistleblower or other complaint. Providers should document these and other efforts to investigate, monitor and redress potential concerns In addition, providers also should guard against qui tam, retaliation and other claims by ensuring that their human resources, peer review, credentialing, background and other investigations, privacy and other operational activities are designed, documented to be both legally compliant and defensible.

For More Information Or Assistance

Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies and to respond to DEA and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns including a number of programs and publications on OCR Civil Rights rules and enforcement actions. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to ask about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Affordable Care Act, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Conditions of Participation, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, false claims act, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Hospital, Laws, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Outpatient, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Public Policy, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark, Substance Abuse | Tagged: false claims act, HEAT, Hospitals, Medicaid Fraud, Medicare Fraud, Overbillng, Physicians, qui tam, Upcoding | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Whistleblower Collects $2.7 M of $14.5M Sound Inpatient Physicians Overbilling Settlement

July 6, 2013

Former employee-turned Whistleblower Craig Thomas will collect $2.7 million out of the $14.5 million settlement that Sound Inpatient Physicians Inc. (SIP) will pay $14.5 million to settle allegations that it overbilled Medicare and other federal health care programs under a settlement announced by the Justice Department on July 3, 2013. The SIP announcement comes the same day the Justice Department announced medical device manufacturer TranS1 Inc., now known as Baxano Surgical Inc., will pay $6 million to resolve whistleblower-prompted FCA allegations that TranS1 Inc. caused health care providers to submit false claims to Medicare and other federal health care programs for minimally-invasive spine surgeries.

Both the SIP and TranS1 Inc. charges and settlement clearly show the ever-growing risk of Justice Department prosecution that providers face when billing Medicare or other government programs for care beyond the level delivered and documented in the medical record. The litigation and resulting settlement also show the too-often underappreciated rule that employees, vendors and other whistleblowing insiders increasingly play in the initiation and success of these prosecutions and how they impact the ability of providers charged with fraud to prove they have billed Medicare or other federal health plans accurately and honestly for services actually delivered in the manner documented in the record and in accordance with applicable Federal program rules.

To mitigate these exposures, health care providers both should strengthen their health care medical record documentation, billing and other fraud and compliance programs and their employee, vendor and other workforce relations and management processes.

Former SIP Employee’s Qui Tam Claim Prompted Suit

The settlement resolves charges that SIP fraudulently inflated billings to government programs brought in U.S. ex rel. Craig Thomas v. Sound Inpatient Physicians, Inc. and Robert A. Bessler, Civil Action No. C09-5301RBL (W.D. Wash.) that initially came to the government’s attention through a lawsuit filed by former SIP employee, Craig Thomas, under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act (FCA). The FCA allows private citizens to bring civil actions on behalf of the government and share in any recovery. Thomas will receive $2.7 million of the $14.5 million settlement for exposing Sound Physicians’ inflated claims.

In the lawsuit, the Justice Department alleged that SIP, a Tacoma, Washington-based employer of more than 700 hospitalists and post-acute physicians at 70 hospitals and a growing network of post-acute facilities in 22 states, between 2004 and 2012, knowingly submitted inflated claims to federal health benefits programs for its hospitalist employees for higher and more expensive levels of service than documented by hospitalists in patient medical records.

The SIP civil settlement illustrates the growing reliance on whistleblowers and other FCA tools by the Federal government in its rising campaign against false claims and other health care fraud by physicians, hospitals and other health care providers under the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative announced in May 2009 by Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Since January 2009, the Justice Department claims to have recovered a total of more than $14.7 billion through FCA cases, with more than $10.7 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.

TranS1 Inc. Whistleblower Gets $1M+ Out of $6M Settlement

Whistleblower claims also prompted the charges and settlement announced against medical device manufacturer TranS1 Inc. The Justice Department announced July 3 that TranS1 Inc. has agreed to pay the United States $6 million to resolve allegations under the FCA. Whistleblower Kevin Ryan, whose qui tam claim prompted the investigation that lead to the settlement will collect $1,020,000 from the settlement.

The settlement resolves Justice Department charges developed out of the qui tam action of a former employee that TranS1 knowingly caused health care providers to submit claims with incorrect diagnosis or procedure codes for minimally-invasive spine fusion surgeries using Trans1’s AxiaLIF System. That device was developed as alternative to invasive spine fusion surgeries. The United States alleges that TranS1 improperly counseled physicians and hospitals to bill for the AxiaLIF System by using incorrect and inaccurate codes intended for more invasive spine fusion surgeries. The Justice Department alleged that, as a result, health care providers received greater reimbursement than they were entitled to for performing the minimally-invasive AxiaLIF procedures.

The Justice Department also claimed TranS1 knowingly paid illegal remuneration to certain physicians for participating in speaker programs and consultant meetings intended to induce them to use TranS1 products, in violation of the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b), and thereby caused false claims to be submitted to federal health care programs. The Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits offering or paying remuneration to induce referrals of items or services covered by federally-funded programs and is intended to ensure that a physician’s medical judgments are not compromised by improper financial incentives and are based solely on the best interests of the patient.

In addition, the Justice Department alleged that TranS1 promoted the sale and use of its AxiaLIF System for uses that were not approved or cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, including use in certain procedures to treat complex spine deformity, and which were thus not covered by federal health care programs.

“A medical device manufacturer violates the law when it advises physicians and hospitals to report the wrong codes to federal health insurance programs in order to increase reimbursement rates,” said Rod J. Rosenstein, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland. “Health care providers are required to bill federal health care programs truthfully for the work they perform.”

As part of the settlement, TranS1 has agreed to enter into a corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services. That agreement provides for procedures and reviews to be put in place to avoid and promptly detect conduct similar to that which gave rise to this matter.

Mitigate Risks With Effective Oversight of Both Documentation & Operations

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

OIG Urges CMS To Step Up Efforts To Recover “Overpayments”

July 2, 2013

The Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) is recommending that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) step-up efforts to collect Medicare overpayments to providers currently considered uncollectable because the provider has failed to repay overpayments identified and demanded by CMS six or more months after CMS demands repayment. The recommendations made in OIG’s Medicare’s Currently Not Collectible Overpayments Report (Report) reflect the ever-growing emphasis of HHS on reducing Medicare and other federal program costs by aggressive enforcement of Medicare and other federal regulations against providers. While CMS has not concurred with all of OIG’s recommendations in the Report, providers can expect CMS to further tighten its overpayment processes in response to these and other OIG recommendations.

According to the Report, CMS identifies billions of dollars in alleged Medicare overpayments to health care providers each year. In fiscal year (FY) 2010, overpayments totaled $9.6 billion. While CMS identifies these amounts, the Report notes that CMS does not recover all overpayments. Under CMS current accounting policies, CMS classifies overpayments for which the provider has not repaid at least 6 months after the due date on the Medicare demand letter as “currently not collectible” (CNC). CMS does not report these CNC amounts in CMS’s annual financial statements because it considers these amounts unlikely to be recovered.

The Report summaries the results of an OIG study of these CNC amounts. In the study, OIG requested details from CMS about CNC overpayments in FY 2010 and summary financial data for FYs 2007 to 2010. CMS provided most of the data from its Healthcare Integrated General Ledger Accounting System (HIGLAS). OIG also surveyed CMS and all its claims processing contractors to identify (1) hindrances to debt collection and (2) strategies to reduce the number and dollar amount of overpayments that become CNC.

According to the Report, CMS reported $543 million in new CNC overpayments across all contractors in FY 2010. However, CMS provided detailed information on $69 million in CNC overpayments for only seven contractors. Citing contractor transitions, CMS did not provide detailed data for the remaining 32 contractors. For 54 percent of CNC overpayments associated with the seven contractors, the provider type was missing in HIGLAS. For the seven contractors, 97 percent of FY 2010 CNC overpayments were not recovered. According to contractors, inaccurate provider contact information delays or prevents some overpayment demand letters from reaching providers. In addition, CMS and contractors reported that expanding the types of provider identifiers used to recover payments could improve debt collection efforts.

Based on these findings, OIG recommended that CMS should:

Ensure the HIGLAS variable for provider type is populated for all overpayments,
Ensure that demand letters are mailed to the contacts and addresses identified by the provider, and
Use tax identification numbers and provider transaction access numbers in addition to national provider numbers for the collection of overpayments.

According to OIG, CMS partially concurred with the first recommendation, did not agree with our second recommendation, and concurred with our third recommendation. Accordingly, at minimum, providers should expect that CMS will step up use of tax identification and provider transaction access numbers in tracking down and collecting overpayments demanded by OIG.

The Report is just one of a plethora of activities that OIG, CMS and other HHS agencies, alone or in conjunction with the Department of Justice and other federal and state agencies are conducting in their campaign to control Medicare and other federal program costs by targeting provider reimbursements.With health care fraud and other billing audits and enforcement rising, hospitals and other health care providers should heed these reports as continuing reminders to tighten their billing practices to ensure defensibility in the event of an audit or other enforcement action.

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

OCR Makes Technical Corrections To HIPAA Omnibus Final Rule; September 2013 Enforcement Deadline Looming

June 7, 2013

The Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is publishing Technical Corrections (Technical Corrections) to the Modifications to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, Enforcement, and Breach Notifications Rules Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act; Other Modifications to the HIPAA Rules; Final Rule (Omnibus Rule) previously published on January 25, 2013. The Technical Corrections will appear in the June 7, 2013 Federal Register. Physicians, hospitals, clinics and other health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their business associates should take into account the Technical Corrections as they rush to update business associate agreements, policies, practices, training and other HIPAA compliance to comply with the Omnibus Rule changes by the September 2013 deadline.

Technical Corrections To Omnibus Rule Released

OCR published the Omnibus Rule to implement changes to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, Enforcement, and Breach Notification Rules (“the HIPAA Rules”) enacted by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“the HITECH Act”) and section 105 of Title I of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, as well as to address public comment received on the interim final Breach Notification Rule and to other changes to the HIPAA Rules. The Technical Corrections are scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on June 7, 2013.

The Technical Corrections correct various typographical errors and other oversights in the Omnibus Regulations as originally published. While many of these corrections have limited material impact, certain corrections do have substantive implications. For instance, by correcting errors in references to other provisions of the Omnibus Regulations, the Technical Corrections clarify that the authority of OCR to extend the time pursuant to § 160.508(c)(5) for violations before February 18, 2009 also applies to violations occurring on or after February 18, 2009, as there is for violations occurring prior to February 18, 2009.

Covered Entities and their business associates will need to review and take into account the Technical Corrections as they work to review and update their policies and practices for handling and disclosing personally identifiable health care information (“PHI”) in response to the Omnibus Rule.

Get Moving To Update HIPAA Compliance For New Omnibus Rule Requirements As Amended By Technical Corrections

Covered Entities and their business associates have a lot to accomplish between now and September to update their business associates and comply with other changes made by the Omnibus Rule by its September 2013 deadline. Among other things, the Omnibus Regulations:

Revise OCR’s HIPAA regulations to reflect the HITECH Act’s amendment of HIPAA to add the contractors and subcontractors of health plans, health care providers and health care clearinghouses that qualify as business associates to the parties directly responsible for complying with and subject to HIPAA’s civil and criminal penalties for violating HIPAA’s Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification rules;
Update previous interim regulations implementing HITECH Act breach notification rules that require Covered Entities including business associates to give specific notifications to individuals whose PHI is breached, HHS and in some cases, the media when a breach of unsecured information happens;
Update interim enforcement guidance OCR previously published to implement increased penalties and other changes to HIPAA’s civil and criminal sanctions enacted by the HITECH Act;
Implement HITECH Act amendments to HIPAA that tighten the conditions under which Covered Entities are allowed to use or disclose PHI for marketing and fundraising purposes and prohibit Covered Entities from selling an individual’s health information without getting the individual’s authorization in the way required by the Omnibus Regulations;
Update OCR’s rules about the individual rights that HIPAA requires that Covered Entities to afford to individuals who are the subject of PHI used or possessed by a Covered Entity to reflect tightened requirements enacted by the HITECH Act that allow individuals to order their health care provider not to share information about their treatment with health plans when the individual pays cash for the care and to clarify that individuals can require Covered Entities to provide electronic PHI in electronic form;
Revise the regulations to reflect amendments to HIPAA made as part of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) which added genetic information to the definition of PHI protected under the HIPAA Privacy Rule and prohibits health plans from using or disclosing genetic information for underwriting purposes; and
Clarifies and revises other provisions to reflect other interpretations and information guidance that OCR has issued since HIPAA was passed and to make certain other changes that OCR found appropriate based on its experience administering and enforcing the rules.

Liability & Enforcement Risks Heighten Need To Act To Review & Update Policies & Practices

The restated rules in the Omnibus Rule make it imperative that Covered Entities review the revised rules carefully and updated their policies, practices, business associate agreements, training and documentation to comply with the updated requirements and other enforcement and liability risks. OCR even prior to the regulations has aggressively investigated and enforced the HIPAA requirements. See, e.g., OCR Hits Alaska Medicaid For $1.7M+ For HIPAA Security Breach; OCR Audit Program Kickoff Further Heats HIPAA Privacy Risks; $1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report; HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website; Providence To Pay $100000 & Implement Other Safeguards.

Coupled with statements by OCR about its intolerance, the HONI and other settlements provide a strong warning to covered entities of the need to carefully and appropriately manage their HIPAA encryption and other Privacy and Security responsibilities. Covered entities are urged to heed these warning by strengthening their HIPAA compliance and adopting other suitable safeguards to minimize HIPAA exposures.

All Covered Entities should review critically and carefully the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration OCR’s investigation and enforcement actions, emerging litigation and other enforcement data; their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses; and other developments to decide if additional steps are necessary or advisable. In response to these expanding exposures, all covered entities and their business associates should review critically and carefully the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration OCR’s investigation and enforcement actions, emerging litigation and other enforcement data; their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses, and other developments to decide if tightening their policies, practices, documentation or training is necessary or advisable.

For More Information Or Assistance

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experience with health plan privacy and data security matters, Ms. Stamer serves as the scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Technical Session meeting with OCR each May and has worked, spoken and published extensively on these and other privacy and data security concerns and controls. Extensively published and a popular speaker on HIPAA and other data security matters, Ms. Stamer works extensively with health care providers, health plans, employers, insurance and financial services, technology and other clients on privacy, data seurity and other privacy and cybercrime concerns. She also serves as the Scribe for the ABA JCEB Agency Techical Sessions Meetings with the Office of Civil Rights which occur each May in Washington, D.C.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Affordable Care Act, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Hospital, Laws, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Outpatient, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Public Policy, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark, Substance Abuse | Tagged: Acute Care, CMS, Hospital, Medicare, PPS, Prospective Payment, Skilled Nursing, SNF | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

National Provider Calls: Medicare Shared Savings Program Application Process — Register Now

May 24, 2013

Medicare Fee For Service (FFS) providers and others interested in participating in Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) should consider participating in the two National Provider Calls that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) plans to host on the Medicare Shared Savings Program (Shared Savings Program) outlined in final regulations published October 20, 2011 of the Affordable Care Act.

On Thursday, June 20, CMS subject matter experts will provide an overview and updates to the Shared Savings Program application process for the January 1, 2014 start date. A question and answer session will follow the presentations.
On Thursday, July 18, CMS subject matter experts will be available to answer questions about the Shared Savings Program and application process for the January 1, 2014 start date.

The Shared Savings Program Application web page has important information, dates, and materials on the application process. CMS encourages call participants to review the application and materials before the call.

To receive call-in information, interested participants must register for the call on the CMS Upcoming National Provider Calls registration website. Registration will close at 12pm on the day of the call or when available space has been filled. Since CMS says it will make no exceptions, interested persons should plan to register as soon as possible.

Following the conference calls, CMS plans to post the presentation on the FFS National Provider Calls web page. In addition, a link to the slide presentation will be emailed to all registrants on the day of the call.

CMS says certain continuing education credit may be awarded for participation in certain CMS National Provider Calls. Visit the Continuing Education Credit Information web page to learn more.

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

Feds Arrest 36 More California & Florida Providers On Defrauding Medicare Of More than $66 Million

May 16, 2013

The Federal Medicare Fraud Strike Force’s arrest of 36 providers in California and Florida highlights again the continuing and growing zeal of federal health care fraud investigation and enforcement efforts. On May 14, 2013 the Justice Department announced it arrested and charged with Medicare fraud 12 defendants in Los Angeles here and 24 South Florida residents here in fraud enforcement actions on opposite coasts. The charges show the continuing commitment by Federal officials to find an prosecute health care fraud.

Florida Arrests

In South Florida, Federal officials announced charges against 24 South Florida residents for their alleged participation in various schemes to defraud Medicare out of more than $45,299,935 million. The charges in South Florida are part of a nationwide takedown by Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations in eight cities that resulted in charges against 89 individuals, including doctors, nurses and other licensed professionals, for their alleged participation in Medicare fraud schemes involving approximately $223 million in false billings.

Specifically, the South Florida cases announced as part of the nationwide Medicare Fraud Strike Force takedown include the following:

U.S. v. Emilio Amador, Cristobal Gonzalez, Eduims Mora, Jose Contreras, and Elizabeth Monteagudo, where five defendants are charged with conspiracy to receive health care kickbacks and substantive counts of receiving kickbacks in connection with a federal health care program. According to the indictment, the defendants participated in a scheme involving Caring Nurse Home Health, Corp. and Good Quality Home Health, Inc. The defendants allegedly supplied patients to Caring Nurse and/or Good Quality in exchange for kickbacks and bribes. Caring Nurse and Good Quality, in turn, fraudulently billed Medicare for approximately $50 million for home health services that were not provided and/or were not medically necessary. If convicted, the defendants face up to five years for each count.
United States v. Rafael Meana and Janet Farigola, where Defendants Rafael Meana and Janet Farigola are charged with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and several substantive counts of health care fraud. According to the indictment, the defendants participated in a scheme involving Lord’s Medical & Rehab Center, Inc. (Lords), a medical clinic that purportedly provided Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with medical items and services. From February 2010 through July 2011, Meana and Farigola allegedly caused Lord’s to submit approximately $5,497,047 in Medicare claims falsely claiming that health care benefits and services were medically necessary and had been provided to Medicare beneficiaries. As a result of the submission of these claims, Medicare paid Lord’s approximately $2,240,134. If convicted, the defendants face up to ten years in prison for each count of health care fraud.
United States v. Jose Moran, Rafael Meana, and Armando Rubio Cordero, where the defendants are charged with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and several substantive counts of health care fraud. According to the indictment, the defendants participated in a scheme involving Lord Family Services, Inc., a medical clinic that purportedly provided Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with medical items and services. From January 2010 through September 2011, the defendants allegedly caused Lord Family Services, Inc. to submit approximately $1,919,751 in Medicare claims falsely claiming that health care benefits and services were medically necessary and had been provided to Medicare beneficiaries. As a result of the submission of these claims, Medicare paid Lord Family Services, Inc. approximately $976,476. If convicted, the defendants face up to ten years in prison for each count of health care fraud.
United States v. Karina Merino, where defendant Karina U. Merino is charged with a single count of health care fraud in connection with her role in a massive health care fraud scheme involving Ideal Home Health, Inc. (Ideal), which submitted more than $40 million in fraudulent claims to Medicare. The Information alleges that Merino, as a nurse for Ideal, falsified patient visitation logs to reflect that home health care nursing services had been provided to beneficiaries when such services had, in fact, not been provided. Ideal fraudulently billed the Medicare program for approximately $148,000. If convicted of the health care fraud charge, Merino faces up to ten years in prison.
United States v. Delia Y. Chaveco and Arturo Y. Chaveco,
where Delia Y. Chaveco and Arturo Y. Chaveco (the Chavecos) were charged by Information with a single count of conspiracy to receive kickbacks in connection with a federal health care benefit program. This charge stems from the Chavecos’ role in a health care fraud scheme involving Ideal Home Health Inc. (Ideal), an agency that submitted more than $40 million in fraudulent claims to the Medicare program. The Information alleges that Ideal and other Miami-Dade area home health agencies paid the Chavecos kickbacks in exchange for recruiting Medicare beneficiaries that they later used to bill the Medicare program. If convicted, the defendants face up to five years in prison.
United States v. Roberto Marrero, Sandra Fernandez Viera and Enrique Rodriguez, where defendants are charged with conspiracy to commit health care fraud, conspiracy to receive and pay health care kickbacks, and substantive kickback charges. Defendants Roberto Marrero and Sandra Fernandez Viera were the owners and operators of Trust Care Health Services, Inc. (Trust Care), which allegedly paid kickbacks and bribes to patient recruiters and beneficiaries to obtain Medicare beneficiaries, and then submitted more than $20 million in false and fraudulent claims to Medicare, primarily for skilled nursing diabetic care and physical/occupational therapy. Defendant Enrique Rodriguez worked as a patient recruiter for Trust Care, supplying patients in exchange for kickbacks and bribes. A civil injunction is being filed under 18 U.S.C. § 1345 to restrain the defendants’ assets to satisfy restitution in the criminal matter. If convicted, the defendants face up to ten years for the health care fraud charges and five years for each count of the kickback charges.
United States v. Dora Moreira, Ivan Alejo, and Hugo Morales,
where the defendants are charged with conspiracy to commit health care fraud, conspiracy to receive and pay health care kickbacks, substantive kickback charges, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and substantive money laundering. Defendant Dora Moreira was the owner and operator of Anna Nursing Services Corp. (Anna Nursing), which paid kickbacks and bribes to patient recruiters and beneficiaries to obtain Medicare beneficiaries. Anna Nursing was paid more than $7 million for the false claims it submitted to Medicare, which claims were primarily for physical/occupational therapy. Defendant Ivan Alejo worked at Anna Nursing, and was responsible for, among other things, negotiating kickback rates and distributing kickback payments to patient recruiters on behalf of Anna Nursing. Defendant Hugo Morales worked as a physical therapist on behalf of Anna Nursing, and was responsible for, among other things, fabricating patient medical documentation. Defendant Dora Moreira laundered money for the purpose, among others, of concealing the proceeds of the fraud and the payment of kickbacks to recruiters. The Asset Forfeiture Section has obtained restraining orders on the corporate bank account and on real property that is traceable to the fraud. If convicted, the defendants face up to ten years for the health care fraud charges, five years for each count of the kickback charges, and twenty years for the money laundering charges.
United States v. Marina Sanchez Pajon and Miguel Jimenez,
where Federal officials charge defendants with conspiracy to commit health care fraud, conspiracy to receive and pay health care kickbacks, and substantive kickback charges. Defendants Marina Sanchez Pajon and Miguel Jimenez were the owners and operators of Flores Home Health Care Inc. (Flores Home Health), which allegedly paid kickbacks and bribes to patient recruiters and beneficiaries to obtain Medicare beneficiaries. Flores Home Health was paid more than $8 million for the false claims it submitted to Medicare, which claims were primarily for physical/occupational therapy. The Asset Forfeiture Section has obtained seizure warrants and restraining orders on five vehicles and bank accounts containing $160,000. They have also filed lis pendens against four real properties that were purchased with proceeds of the fraud. If convicted, the defendants face up to ten years for the health care fraud charges and five years for each count of the kickback charges.
United States v. Miguel A. Rodriguez, where defendant Miguel A. Rodriguez is charged with three counts of paying kickbacks in connection with a federal health care program. The defendant allegedly paid kickbacks and bribes to induce medical providers to refer Medicare beneficiaries to his medical company for services, including x-rays. If convicted, the defendant faces up to five years in prison for each count of the kickback charges.
United States v. Enrique Alberto Siret Rodriguez, where defendant Enrique Alberto Siret Rodriguez is charged with four counts of health care fraud and two counts of paying kickbacks in connection with a federal health care program. The defendant allegedly paid kickbacks and bribes to a doctor for fraudulent home health care prescriptions that could be used to fraudulently bill Medicare. If convicted, the defendant faces up to 10 years in prison for each health care fraud count and up to five years for each of the kickback counts.
United States v. Alberto Cosme Garcia, where defendant Alberto Cosme Garcia is charged with one count of health care fraud and two counts of paying kickbacks in connection with a federal health care program. The defendant allegedly paid kickbacks and bribes to a doctor for fraudulent home health care prescriptions that could be used to fraudulently bill Medicare. If convicted, the defendant faces up to 10 years in prison for the health care fraud count and up to five years for each of the kickback counts.

Los Angeles Charges

In Los Angeles, the Health Care Fraud Task Force action resulted in 12 arrests including California’s second-largest biller for chiropractic services, a physician’s assistant, and owners of durable medical equipment and ambulance companies, in relation to seven criminal cases that the Justice Department alleges resulted in the cumulative submission of more than $22 million in false billings to Medicare. The charges filed in Los Angeles are part of a nationwide “takedown” by Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations in eight cities that led to charges against 89 individuals for their alleged participation in schemes to collectively submit about $223 million in fraudulent claims to Medicare. See here.

The dozen defendants taken into custody are among 13 people charged in Los Angeles in cases that allege health care fraud. A thirteenth defendant is a fugitive.

Federal officials charge Dr. Houshang Pavehzadeh, of the Sylmar Physician Medical Group, allegedly billed Medicare more than $1.7 million for chiropractic treatments he never performed. During the scheme, which ran from 2005 through 2012, Dr. Pavehzadeh, 40, of Agoura Hills, became the second-largest Medicare biller in California for chiropractic services – even though he was not in the United States when some of the alleged services were performed. In addition to being charged with health care fraud, Pavehzadeh is charged with aggravated identity theft related to Medicare beneficiaries whose information he used to bill Medicare as a part of the scheme. When investigators tried to conduct an audit of Pavehzadeh’s claims, he falsely reported to the Los Angeles Police Department that he had been carjacked and that patient files requested by the auditors had been stolen from his car. Pavehzadeh surrendered this morning, and he is scheduled to be arraigned with other Los Angeles-area defendants this afternoon in the Roybal Federal Building.

Nine defendants affiliated with DME companies were also charged in five separate indictments.

Olufunke Fadojutimi, 41, of Carson, a registered nurse; Ayodeji Temitayo Fatunmbi, 41, formerly of Carson, and now believed to be residing in Nigeria; and Maritza Velazquez, 40, of Las Vegas, were charged with health care fraud. The scheme allegedly revolved around Lutemi Medical Supplies, a DME company Fadojutimi owned and where Fatunmbi and Velazquez worked. According to the indictment in this case, Lutemi billed Medicare more than $8.3 million in claims, primarily for medically unnecessary power wheelchairs. Fadojutimi and Fatunmbi allegedly laundered Medicare funds in order to purchase fraudulent prescriptions for those power wheelchairs and pay illegal kickbacks to recruit Medicare beneficiaries. Fadojutimi was arrested this morning in Los Angeles, while Velazquez was arrested in Las Vegas. Fatunmbi is currently a fugitive being sought by federal authorities.
Susanna Artsruni, 45, of North Hollywood, and Erasmus Kotey, 76, of Montebello, a licensed physician’s assistant, allegedly worked together to commit health care fraud out of a medical clinic on Vermont Avenue where they both worked. Kotey allegedly prescribed medically unnecessary DME, including power wheelchairs, for Medicare beneficiaries. Many of those power wheelchair prescriptions were then used by Artsruni’s DME company, Midvalley Medical Supply, to support fraudulent claims to Medicare. In only four months, the clinic and Midvalley billed Medicare more than $525,000 for these fraudulent claims. Artsruni has previously been convicted of health care fraud and was on pretrial supervision at the time she allegedly laundered some of the proceeds of this fraud. Artsruni was arrested this morning, while Kotey self-surrendered.

Three other DME cases were also charged, alleging fraudulent Medicare billing for medically unnecessary power wheelchairs that were sometimes never even delivered.

In one case, Akinola Afolabi, 53, of Long Beach, the owner of Emmanuel Medical Supply, allegedly submitted more than $2.6 million in in false and fraudulent billing to Medicare.
In another case, Queen Anieze-Smith, 52, of Encino, and Abdul King-Garba, 47, of Westwood, the owners and operators of ITC Medical Supply, allegedly submitted more than $1.8 million in false and fraudulent billing to Medicare.
In the third case, Clement Etim Aghedo, 53, of Fontana, the owner of Ace Medical Supply Company, allegedly submitted more than $1.8 in false and fraudulent claims to Medicare. Afolabi, Anieze-Smith, and King-Garba were all arrested this morning, while Aghedo self-surrendered.

In the seventh case brought as part of today’s takedown, three defendants affiliated with Gardena-based ProMed Medical Transportation, an ambulance company, were charged with submitting more than $5.9 million in false claims to Medicare between 2008 and 2011. ProMed’s owner, Yaroslav Proshak, 45, of Valley Village; general manager Sharetta Wallace, 35, of Inglewood; and office manager and biller Sergey Mumjian, 40, of West Hollywood, submitted claims for medically unnecessary transportation services and then created fake documentation purporting to support those claims. Proshak, Wallace, and Mumjian were arrested this morning.

The charge of health care fraud carries a statutory maximum penalty of 10 years in federal prison. Money laundering carries a potential penalty of 20 years in prison. Aggravated identity theft carries a mandatory two-year prison term.

Aggressive Medicare Health Care Fraud Task Force Enforcement Continues

The announcement of these arrests provides more evidence of the continuing zealousness of Federal health care fraud investment and enforcement efforts targeting heath care providers for health care fraud or other aggressive activities.

The Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations that lead to todays’ charges are part of the continuing activities Health Care Fraud Prevention & Enforcement Action Team (HEAT), a joint initiative announced in May 2009 between the Department of Justice and HHS to focus their efforts to prevent and deter fraud and enforce current anti-fraud laws around the country.

Since March 2007, Federal officials credit Strike Force operations in nine locations with leading to charges against more than 1,500 defendants who collectively have falsely billed the Medicare program for more than $5 billion.

In addition, the HHS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, working in conjunction with the HHS-OIG, are taking steps to increase accountability and decrease the presence of fraudulent providers.

In announcing the Florida charges, HHS Secretary Sebelius commented on the effect of recent legal changes that have given Federal officials new tools in investigating and fighting health care fraud. She said, “The Affordable Care Act has given us additional tools to preserve Medicare and protect the tens of millions of Americans who rely on it each day,” said Secretary Sebelius. “By expanding our authority to suspend Medicare payments and reimbursements when fraud is suspected, the law allows us to better preserve the system and save taxpayer dollars. Today we’re sending a strong, clear message to anyone seeking to defraud Medicare: You will get caught and you will pay the price. We will protect a sacred trust and an earned guarantee.”

Meanwhile, U.S. Attorney General Holder said, “Today’s announcement marks the latest step forward in our comprehensive efforts to combat fraud and abuse in our health-care systems.”

In the face of these criminal efforts and expanding civil and administrative enforcement actions by Federal officials targeting heaelth care fraud and other aggressive billing and referral efforts, health care providers should exercising continuing care to maintain compliance with applicable rules and carefully document these and other compliance and risk management efforts.

For Help With Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

If you need assistance providing compliance or other training, reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer medical privacy and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns/ She also regularly designs and presents risk management, compliance and other training for health care providers, professional associations and others. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press

1 Comment | DME, Doctor, false claims act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Plan, Health Plans, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Money Laundering, OIG, Physician, Physician Licensing, Reimbursement | Tagged: false claims act, Health Care Fraud, HEAT, Medical Licensure, Physician, texas medical board | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Former White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Schmidt, Stamer & Others Share Key HIPAA & Other Privacy & Data Security Insights 5/21 In LA

May 3, 2013

SLP Readers Get Discount: Go to
blocked::http://securitysummitla.eventbrite.com/” href=”http://securitysummitla.eventbrite.com/” data-mce-href=”http://securitysummitla.eventbrite.com/”://securitysummitla.eventbrite.com/ and enter Promotional Code: Health_Summit_125

Former White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt and Solutions Law Press, Inc. editor attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer are two of an impressive lineup of leaders scheduled to share key HIPAA & other privacy and data security compliance and risk management strategies at the Healthcare HITECH Privacy and Security Summit at the Fifth Annual Information Security Summit on May 21 in Los Angeles. The program offers essential insights for hospitals, physicians, and other health care providers, health plans and insurers, employers and other health plan sponsors, fiduciaries and administrators, their business associates and other business partners and others on what their organizations should do to cope with the rapidly changing and expanding privacy and data security obligations of HIPAA and other federal and state laws.

With the rapidly approaching and privacy and data breach penalties and enforcement rising, health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates must get moving to update business associate contracts, policies and notices and processes to meet changing HIPAA rules while managing ongoing compliance and risks.

Former Cybersecurity Coordinator Schmidt Keynotes

The Healthcare HITECH Privacy and Security Summit will bring together leaders in Privacy and Security within government and private industry for a day of collaboration, networking and presentations by leading Privacy and Security professionals sharing who HIPAA covered entities and business associates need to know to comply with new HITECH rules and OCR investigations.

Stamer Speaks On Latest HIPAA Rules & Developments

Solutions Law Press, Inc. editor attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will help lay the foundation for the workshop by briefing participants on changes made to HIPAA rules by the new Omnibus HIPAA Rulemaking changes that the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) plans to start enforcing in September, 2013.

Armed with the latest insights from serving as the scribe for the ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with the Office of Civil Rights (OCR), Ms. Stamer, a practicing attorney and widely published author and speaker, will discuss required changes and other recommended steps and strategies that covered entities and their business associates should take to maintain HIPAA compliance and manage HIPAA and other related risks in light of the Omnibus HIPAA Rulemaking changes, new OCR guidance for health care providers about disclosures to avert threats to health or safety, recent audit and enforcement activities and other changing risks and responsibilities including:

The latest on OCR’s regulatory guidance, audit and investigation and enforcement rules, actions and strategies and their implications on covered entities and business associates;
Changes to breach notification rules and their implications on covered entities and their business associates;
Practical implications of new rules on who is covered and their responsibilities;
Required and recommended updates to policies, business associate and other agreements, privacy notices and other HIPAA compliance arrangements;
Effective training and other risk management strategies;
Planning for, investigating and mitigating PHI privacy breaches and other compliance concerns under new rules other selected events; and
Other selected strategies for coordinating HIPAA and other privacy and data breach responsibilities and risk management; and
Participant questions.

For a complete agenda, to register, to get details on sponsorship or for other information, see here.

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Affordable Care Act, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Border Health, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Consumer Driven Health Care, Corporate Compliance, DME, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Hospital, Laws, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Outpatient, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Public Policy, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark, Substance Abuse | Tagged: Breach Notification, Data Breach, Data Security PHI, HIPAA, personal financial information, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CMS Proposes To Further Tighten Medicare Provider Enrollment Rules

May 1, 2013

The proposed rule would also strengthen certain provider enrollment provisions including allowing HHS to deny enrollment of providers affiliated with an entity that has unpaid Medicare debt, deny or revoke billing privileges for individuals with felony convictions, and revoke privileges for providers and suppliers who are abusing their billing privileges.

Since provider enrollment is the gateway to Medicare, CMS routinely evaluates its provider enrollment policies, and has implemented new safeguards as a result of the Affordable Care Act. In the February 2011 final screening rule (72 FR 5862). CMS identified additional changes in enrollment policy that would increase the integrity of the Medicare program. Now, CMS is proposing include the following provisions:

Add the ability to deny the enrollment of providers, suppliers and owners affiliated with an entity that has unpaid Medicare debt. This proposal would prevent individuals and entities from being able to incur substantial debt to Medicare, leave the Medicare program and then re-enroll as a new business to avoid repayment of the outstanding Medicare debt. We are proposing that CMS would only enroll individuals or entities if they repay the debt or enter into a repayment plan, if they are otherwise eligible for the program.
Deny enrollment or revoke the billing privileges of a provider or supplier if a managing employee has been convicted of certain felony offenses. This provision ensures that CMS can block or remove bad actors from the Medicare program to protect beneficiaries and safeguard the Medicare Trust Fund.
Permit CMS to revoke billing privileges of providers and suppliers that have a pattern or practice of billing for services that do not meet Medicare requirements. This proposal is intended to address providers and suppliers that regularly submit inaccurate claims in such a way that it poses a risk to the Medicare program.
Make the effective date of billing privileges consistent across certain provider and supplier types. Most practitioners and practitioner groups may only submit bills as of the filing date of their enrollment application. CMS is proposing to eliminate ambulance suppliers’ current ability to bill for up to a year prior to enrollment in the Medicare program. CMS is also proposing to require that ambulance providers and other provider and supplier types submit any claims within 60 days of revocation of billing privileges, consistent with the requirements for practitioners and practitioner groups.

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

HHS Proposes Increasing Health Care Fraud Reporting Rewards To Up To $9.9 Million

May 1, 2013

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) plans to increase rewards paid to Medicare beneficiaries and others whose tips about suspected fraud lead to the successful recovery of funds to as high as $9.9 million. Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced proposed regulations that would increase the penalties on April 24. In addition, a new funding opportunity released this month supports the expansion of Senior Medicare Patrol (SMP) activities to educate Medicare beneficiaries on how to prevent, detect and report Medicare fraud, waste and abuse.

The Obama Administration has made health care fraud prosecutions and settlement a key element of its health care cost containment plan. Over the last three years, the administration claims its enforcement efforts have recovered over $14.9 billion in fraud, some of which resulted from fraud reporting by individuals.

Summary Of The SMP Incentive Reward Program Proposals

The SMP is a national, volunteer-based program that empowers Medicare beneficiaries to prevent and report Medicare fraud, waste, and abuse. Since 1997, HHS reports more than 7,000 referrals have been made to CMS and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for investigation since 1998.

Under the proposed changes, CMS is proposing to increase the potential reward amount for information that leads to a recovery of Medicare funds from 10 percent to 15 percent of the final amount collected. HHS currently offers a reward of 10 percent up to $1,000 under the current incentive reward program. In changes are modeled on an IRS program that has returned $2 billion in fraud since 2003, HHS proposes to increase the portion of the recovery on which CMS will pay a reward up to the first $66 million recovered – this means an individual could receive a reward of $9.9 million if CMS recovers $66 million or more.

HHS began paying rewards to individuals who reported tips that led to the recovery of funds in 1998. According to HHS, to date, HHS has recovered approximately $3.5 million as a result of this program and paid just $16,000 for 18 rewards. The proposed changes are similar to the IRS whistleblower program that has resulted in recoveries of over $2 billion since 2003.

To expand the SMP program’s capacity to reach more Medicare beneficiaries, the Administration for Community Living issued a new funding opportunity. Each of the current 54 SMP projects is eligible for varying funding levels, up to a total of $7.3 million across the program.

HHS says thhese proposed changes will support the administration’s comprehensive approach to program integrity, including the work being done with the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team, a joint effort between HHS and the Department of Justice to fight health care fraud. The Obama Administration credits this joint effort with recovering a record $4.2 billion in taxpayer dollars in fiscal year 2012.

The proposed increase in the reward for blowing the whistle on health care fraud is intended to fuel further reports by beneficiaries, workers and others of suspected health care fraud. Health care providers should share any concerns about the proposed increase in the rewards as well as review and tighten their health care fraud prevention and risk management to defend against rising exposures.

For more details, read a fact sheet on the proposed rule available here for more details.

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

CMS Proposes Changes To Accute Care Hospital & Skilled Nursing Facility Propective Payment Rules

May 1, 2013

Acute care hospitals and skilled nursing facilities participating in Medicare should review proposed changes to key Medicare reimbursement rules and act quickly to share feedback on any provisions of significant concern.

The Centers For Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is proposing changes to its Prospective Payment Systems and other reimbursement key reimbursement rules for Hospitals and Skilled Nursing Facilities for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014. Advance copies of the proposed rules were made available May 1.

CMS’ proposed rules on Prospective Payment System and Consolidated Billing for Skilled Nursing Facilities for FY 2014 are scheduled for official publication on May 1, 2013.

CMS’ proposed rules on Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and Long Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System, etc. are scheduled for official publication on May 10, 2013.

Acute care hospitals and skilled nursing facilities should evaluate the implications of the proposed changes and provide relevant feedback as necessary to CMS.

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

OCR Shares New Tools to Educate Consumers and Providers about HIPAA Privacy and Security

April 30, 2013

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has developed an array of new tools to educate consumers and health care providers about the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules.

Many consumers are unfamiliar with their rights under the HIPAA Privacy Rule. With that in mind, OCR has posted a series of factsheets, also available in eight languages, to inform consumers about their rights under the HIPAA Privacy Rule. These materials are available on OCR’s website here.

The fact sheets compliment a set of seven consumer-facing videos released earlier this year on OCR’s YouTube channel. An additional video, The HIPAA Security Rule, has been designed for providers in small practices and offers an overview of how to establish basic safeguards to protect patient information and comply with the Security Rule’s requirements. The videos are available on the HHS OCR YouTube Channel at here.

OCR has also launched three modules for health care providers on compliance with various aspects of the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules, available at Medscape.org:

Patient Privacy: A Guide for Providers at here;
HIPAA and You: Building a Culture of Compliance here; and
Examining Compliance with the HIPAA Privacy Rule here.

The Medscape modules offer free Continuing Medical Education (CME) credits for physicians and Continuing Education (CE) credits for health care professionals.

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Affordable Care Act, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Hospital, Laws, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Outpatient, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Public Policy, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark, Substance Abuse | Tagged: Covered Entities, Data, Health Care, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA Audits, OCR, Privacy, Security | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HHS Publishes Medicaid Expansion Final Regs, Invites Public Comment

April 1, 2013

The Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) has published its final rule with a request for comments that provides, effective January 1, 2014, the federal government will pay 100 percent of the cost of certain newly eligible adult Medicaid beneficiaries. These payments will be in effect through 2016, phasing down to a permanent 90 percent matching rate by 2020. The Affordable Care Act authorizes states to expand Medicaid to adult Americans under age 65 with income of up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level (approximately $15,000 for a single adult in 2012) and provides unprecedented federal funding for these states.

Under the Affordable Care Act, states that cover the new adult group in Medicaid will have 100 percent of the costs of newly eligible Americans paid for by the federal government in 2014, 2015, and 2016. The federal government’s contribution is then phased-down gradually to 90 percent by 2020, and remains there permanently. For states that had coverage expansions in effect prior to enactment of the Affordable Care Act, the rule also provides information about the availability of an increased FMAP for certain adults who are not newly eligible.

For the full text of the final rule, see http://www.ofr.gov/inspection.aspx.

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Affordable Care Act, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Hospital, Laws, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Outpatient, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Public Policy, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark, Substance Abuse | Tagged: Covered Entities, Data, Health Care, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA Audits, OCR, Privacy, Security | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Hospitals with 2012 CMS Adverse Complaint Inspection Reports in AHCJ Data Bank Should Prepare Response

March 27, 2013

Acute-care and critical access hospitals that had adverse complaint inspections in 2012 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) may want to prepare to respond to press and public inquiries. The Association of Health Care Journalists (AHCJ) updated its website, healthcareinspectionreports.com, to include details about deficiencies cited during complaint inspections at acute-care and critical access hospitals throughout the United States since January 1, 2011 obtained from CMS.

Although AHCJ cautions in its website that the posted data should not be used to rank hospitals because of omissions and limitations in the data, hospitals with posted reports in the data bank should expect that the reports on their hospital may draw the attention of the media, patients, health plans and others.

AHCJ publishes the reports, which historically have not been easily accessible to the general public. AHCJ cautions that the data is not necessarily complete and should not be used to rank hospitals within a state. AHCJ says data on acute-care and critical hospital access hospitals is incomplete because CMS has just begun gathering this data and releasing it in electronic format. AHCJ also says some reports are missing narrative details. Beyond that, CMS acknowledges that other reports that should appear may not. It does not include results of routine inspections or those of psychiatric hospitals or long-term care hospitals. It also does not include hospital responses to deficiencies cited during inspections. Those can be obtained by filing a request with a hospital or the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).AHCJ to make future iterations of this data more complete. At this time, this data should not be used to rank hospitals within a state or between states. It can be used to review issues identified at hospitals during recent inspections.

Subject to these limitations, an individual wishing to review the available data can click on a state on the map will retrieve a list of all hospitals with their violations grouped together.

In anticipation of potential media or public review and reaction to the AHCJ website posting, hospitals with adverse reports posted on the website should consider acting proactively. Hospitals should consult with counsel and their public relations team to plan and prepare a factually accurate response to the shared reports and other suitable mitigation activities.

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Affordable Care Act, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Hospital, Laws, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Outpatient, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Public Policy, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark, Substance Abuse | Tagged: health care quality, Health Plans, Hospitals, Public Relations | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR Invites Comments On Plans to Survey HIPAA Covered Entities Audited Under 2012 HIPAA Audit Program

March 25, 2013

The Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) wants to ask the 115 health plans, health care clearinghouses, and health care providers (covered entities) that OCR audited in 2012 for compliance with Privacy and Security Rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) under its HIPAA Audit Program to share feedback about their experience. The planned survey announcement follows OCR’s recent released of restated HIPAA Privacy & Security Rules scheduled to take effect in September, 2013 and as OCR continues and expanding its HIPAA Audit Program in 2013. All together, the signs are clear that covered entities should update and strengthen their HIPAA compliance and risk management practices to withstand the tightened rules and enforcement.

OCR initiated the HIPAA Audit Program in 2012 to comply with Section 13411 of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act’s requirement that it audit covered entity and business associate compliance with the HIPAA privacy, security, and breach notification rules. While it continues its HIPAA Audit Program in 2013, OCR also is evaluating the effectiveness of the HIPAA Audit Program audits in 2012.

To this end, OCR currently is conducting a review of the HIPAA Audit program to determine its efficacy in assessing the HIPAA compliance efforts of covered entities. As part of that review, OCR plans to ask covered entities audited under the HIPAA Audit Program in 2012 to complete an online survey about their experience. In anticipation of its conduct of the proposed surveys, OCR is inviting public comment on the burden to Covered Entities to complete the planned online survey, which OCR estimates will take two hours to complete through May 20, 2013. According to OCR, the survey will gather information on the effect of the audits on the audited entities and the entities’ opinions about the audit process. The online survey will be used to:

Measure the effect of the HIPAA Audit program on covered entities;
Gauge their attitudes towards the audit overall and in regards to major audit program features, such as the document request, communications received, the on-site visit, the audit report findings and recommendations;
Obtain estimates of costs incurred by covered entities, in time and money, spent responding to audit-related requests;
Seek feedback on the effect of the HIPAA Audit program on the day-to-day business operations; and
Assess whether improvements in HIPAA compliance were achieved as a result of the Audit program.

OCR says it will use the information, opinions, and comments collected using the online survey to produce recommendations for improving the HIPAA Audit program.

For instructions to comment or more details, see here.

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Affordable Care Act, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Hospital, Laws, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Outpatient, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Public Policy, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark, Substance Abuse | Tagged: Covered Entities, Data, Health Care, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA Audits, OCR, Privacy, Security | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

ONC-Authorized Certification Bodies & Accredited Testing Labs Scope Expansion for 2014 Edition Testing & Certification

January 12, 2013

The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) is pleased to announce that ONC-Authorized Certification Bodies (ACBs) in the ONC HIT Certification Program are now authorized to test and certify EHR products in accordance with the 2014 Edition Standards and Certification Criteria, as outlined in the Health Information Technology: Standards, Implementation Specifications, and Certification Criteria for Electronic Health Record Technology, 2014 Edition; Revisions to the Permanent Certification Program for Health Information Technology Final Rule. For additional information on the Accredited Testing Laboratories (ATLs) scope expansion, see www.nist.gov/nvlap. For more information on the ONC HIT Certification Program, see http://www.healthit.gov/certification.

For Representation, Training & Other Resources

If you need help monitoring HIPAA and other health and health plan related regulatory policy or enforcement developments, or to review or respond to these or other health care or health IT related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help.

Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers, health plans, their business associates and other health industry clients to establish and administer medical privacy and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. She regularly designs and presents HIPAA and other risk management, compliance and other training for health plans, employers, health care providers, professional associations and others.

Scheduled to serve as the scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits agency meeting with OCR, Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance frequently appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others. You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here.

If you need help with these or other compliance concerns, wish to ask about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

You can review other recent publications and resources and additional information about the other experience of Ms. Stamer here. Examples of some recent publications that may be of interest include:

If you need help investigating or responding to a known or suspected compliance, litigation or enforcement or other risk management concern, assistance with reviewing, updating, administering or defending a current or proposed employment, employee benefit, compensation or other management practice, wish to inquire about federal or state regulatory compliance audits, risk management or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms Stamer here or at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides business and management information, tools and solutions, training and education, services and support to help organizations and their leaders promote effective management of legal and operational performance, regulatory compliance and risk management, data and information protection and risk management and other key management objectives. Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ also conducts and assist businesses and associations to design, present and conduct customized programs and training targeted to their specific audiences and needs. For additional information about upcoming programs, to explore becoming a presenting sponsor for an upcoming event, e-mail your request to info@Solutionslawpress.com These programs, publications and other resources are provided only for general informational and educational purposes. Neither the distribution or presentation of these programs and materials to any party nor any statement or information provided in or in connection with this communication, the program or associated materials are intended to or shall be construed as establishing an attorney-client relationship, to constitute legal advice or provide any assurance or expectation from Solutions Law Press, Inc., the presenter or any related parties. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future Alerts or other information about developments, publications or programs or other updates, send your request to info@solutionslawpress.com. CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: The following disclaimer is included to comply with and in response to U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230 Regulations. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN. If you are an individual with a disability who requires accommodation to participate, please let us know at the time of your registration so that we may consider your request.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, DEA, DME, Doctor, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, Meaningful Use, OCR, Physician | Tagged: Health Care, HIPAA, OCR, Physician, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Medical Device Excise Tax Rules Supplemented

December 9, 2012

Medical device manufacturers heads up! The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has adopted interim rules for relating to the excise tax on medical devices imposed by § 4191 (the “medical device excise tax”) of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”).

Section 4191, enacted by section 1405 of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 in conjunction with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the Affordable Care Act) enacted a new excise tax on the sale of certain medical devices. The excise tax imposed by Code section 4191 is 2.3% of the price for which the taxable medical device is sold. The medical device excise tax is codified in chapter 32, subtitle D of the Code (“chapter 32”), which pertains to excise taxes imposed on the sale or use of taxable articles by manufacturers, producers, and importers (commonly referred to as “manufacturers excise taxes”). See § 48.0-2(a)(4)(i) of the Manufacturers and Retailers Excise Tax Regulations (Regulations). The Code defines the term “manufacturer” to include a “producer” and an “importer”.

On December 7, 2012, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Treasury Department issued TD 9604, containing final regulations under § 4191. The final regulations did not address certain issues that the IRS and the Treasury Department continue to study. These issues included the determination of price under § 4216(b); the tax treatment of medical software licenses; the taxability of donated medical devices; and the taxability of medical convenience kits.

The IRS recently followed up by issuing Notice 2012-77. Notice 2012-77 available here contains the IRS’ rules about:

How to determine price for purposes of the medical device excised tax under Code section 4216(b);
Donated taxable medical devices;
Licensing of taxable medical devices;
The tax treatment of medical convenience kits;
Transition relief to medical device manufacturers from the failure to deposit penalties imposed by § 6656; and
Invites comments from taxpayers about its rules.

As these rules take effect January 1, 2013, device manufacturers should review the new guidance and update their procedures to provide for timely determination and payment of any required device taxes. In addition, device manufacturers also will need to kep an eye out for potential changes in the rules. The IRS and the Treasury Department have said they may issue additional published guidance on these issues in the future.

For Help With Monitoring Developments, Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

If you need help reviewing or commenting on the Tests Procedures or monitoring or responding to these or other health care or health IT related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, can help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and A Fellow in the American Bar Association, State Bar of Texas and other prominent organizations, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers, health plans, their business associates and other health industry clients to set up and administer medical privacy, EHR and other technology and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. She regularly designs and presents HIPAA and other risk management, compliance and other training for health plans, employers, health care providers, professional associations and others.

Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance often appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others.

You can get more information about her experience here.

Other Recent Updates & Resources

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in the following recent updates on health care, health plan and employee benefits, human resources and other risk management and compliance matters. Recent examples on health care compliance and risk management matters include:

Congress Sends Bill Amending Lab Testing Rule Violation Sanctions

Learn Latest On OCR New HIPAA De-Identification Guidance & Other HIPAA Developments In 12/12 HIPAA Update Workshop!

$12M+ Settlement Recoveries In 2 Health Care Fraud Whistleblower Claims Shows Providers, Owners, Management & Staff Must Manage Compliance & Risks

Feds Health Fraud Suit Against Psychiatrists Shows Risks Providers Run From Aggressive Referral or Billing Activities

ONC Releases Next Wave of 2014 Draft Test Methods For Public Review and Comment; Plans 11/13 Virtual Workshop

Recent OIG Audit Reports Provide Insights Where Fraud Audits Likely To Look Next

Hospital Chain HCA Inc. Pays $16.5 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations That Hospital

Detroit-Area Doctor Charged for Role in Alleged $40 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme

Five More Individuals Charged in Detroit for Alleged Roles in $24.7 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme

Massachusetts Ear Group To Pay $1.5 Million To Resolve HIPAA Charges

Personal Consumer Information Protection In Health Care Operations Topic of Stamer’s 11/1 Speech

ONC Releases First Wave of EHR Test Procedures; More To Come

OCR Releases HIPAA Compliance Training Tool As Enforcement Risks Rise

Health Care Orgs Disability Exposure High As $475K Paid To Settle Justice Department Charges Medical Fitness Screenings of EMTs, Others Violated ADA

HHS/DOJ Partner With Private Health Plans To Further Ramp Up Health Care Fraud Heat!

AHRQ Issues New Guide for Use of Interactive Preventive Care Record

Nextcare Inc. $10 Million False Claims Act Settlement Shows Qui Tam Role In False Claims Act Prosecutions

For more resources and publications training materials by Ms. Stamer, see here.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ARRA, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Meaningful Use, Mental Heatlh, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, DME, medical device, medical device excise tax, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Updated 2013 ACA Prescription Drug Fee Calculation & Payment Rules Released; 12/18 Deadline To File Form 8947

December 4, 2012

December 17, 2012 is the deadline for covered entities to file a Form 8947 as part if its reporting and payment of the Form 8947The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Notice 2012-74 sets forth the instructions for calculation and reporting branded prescription drug fee for the 2013 fee year under Section 9008 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by section 1404 of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Affordable Care Act).

The Act imposes an annual fee on covered entities engaged in the business of manufacturing or importing branded prescription drugs. The Branded Prescription Drug Fee Regulations in 26 C.F.R. Part 51 published on August 18, 2011 provide the method for calculating each covered entity’s annual fee and the fee year for purposes of these rules and how the fee must be reported and paid. See 76 Fed. Reg. 51245. These regulations also define terms for the administration of the fee.

Notice 2012-74/s instructions on the 2013 prescription drug fee discusses:

The submission of Form 8947, “Report of Branded Prescription Drug Information,”
The time and manner for notifying covered entities of their preliminary fee calculation;
the time and manner for covered entities to submit error reports for the dispute resolution; process; and
The time for the IRS to notify covered entities of their final fee calculation.

12/18/12 Deadline to File Form 8947

One of the deadlines for this process is rapidly approaching. Section 51.3T provides that annually, each covered entity may submit a completed Form 8947, “Report of Branded Prescription Drug Information,” in accordance with the instructions for the form. Generally, the form solicits information from covered entities on National Drug Codes, orphan drugs, designated entities, rebates, and other information specified by the form or its instructions. The form is to be filed by the date prescribed in guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin.

Notice 2012-74 sets the deadline for a covered entity that chooses to submit Form 8947 for 2013 at December 17, 2012.

Preliminary Fee Calculation

For the 2013 fee year, the IRS will mail each covered entity a paper notice of its preliminary fee calculation by April 1, 2013. This mailing will include a National Drug Code (NDC) attachment (NDC attachment) that lists the covered entity’s NDCs and the sales data reported to the IRS by each government program pursuant to § 51.4T.

A covered entity may request that the IRS send a CD-ROM with the NDC attachment in Microsoft Excel format. The covered entity must make this request by March 15, 2013. This request must be made either by telephone to Ingrid Taylor at (908) 301-2118 or Mi Lim at (312) 292-3775 (not toll-free calls) or by email to it.bpd.fee@irs.gov. If a covered entity makes this request timely, the IRS will mail the covered entity its notice of preliminary fee calculation on paper and the NDC attachment on paper and CD-ROM by April 1, 2013.

Submitting Error Reports For The Dispute Resolution Process

For the 2013 fee year, a covered entity that chooses to submit an error report regarding its preliminary fee calculation must mail the error report by May 16, 2013. When the IRS mails each covered entity a notice of its preliminary fee calculation by April 1, 2013, the IRS will also send each covered entity a template on a CD-ROM that the covered entity must use to prepare its error report. All completed templates and the supporting documentation must be submitted on a CD-ROM to the IRS in a timely fashion.

Final Fee Calculation & Payment

The IRS will notify each covered entity of its final fee calculation for 2013 by August 31, 2013. In accordance with § 51.8T(c), each covered entity must pay this fee by September 30, 2013.

For Help With Monitoring Developments, Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance often appear in medical privacy and other technology, risk management and compliance-related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others.

You can get more information about her experience here.

Other Recent Updates & Resources

OIG Recommends CMS, ONC Tighten EMR Incentive Program Rules To Improve Oversight

Congress Sends Bill Amending Lab Testing Rule Violation Sanctions

Learn Latest On OCR New HIPAA De-Identification Guidance & Other HIPAA Developments In 12/12 HIPAA Update Workshop!

$12M+ Settlement Recoveries In 2 Health Care Fraud Whistleblower Claims Shows Providers, Owners, Management & Staff Must Manage Compliance & Risks

Feds Health Fraud Suit Against Psychiatrists Shows Risks Providers Run From Aggressive Referral or Billing Activities

ONC Releases Next Wave of 2014 Draft Test Methods For Public Review and Comment; Plans 11/13 Virtual Workshop

Recent OIG Audit Reports Provide Insights Where Fraud Audits Likely To Look Next

Hospital Chain HCA Inc. Pays $16.5 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations That Hospital

Detroit-Area Doctor Charged for Role in Alleged $40 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme

Five More Individuals Charged in Detroit for Alleged Roles in $24.7 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme

Massachusetts Ear Group To Pay $1.5 Million To Resolve HIPAA Charges

Personal Consumer Information Protection In Health Care Operations Topic of Stamer’s 11/1 Speech

ONC Releases First Wave of EHR Test Procedures; More To Come

OCR Releases HIPAA Compliance Training Tool As Enforcement Risks Rise

Health Care Orgs Disability Exposure High As $475K Paid To Settle Justice Department Charges Medical Fitness Screenings of EMTs, Others Violated ADA

HHS/DOJ Partner With Private Health Plans To Further Ramp Up Health Care Fraud Heat!

AHRQ Issues New Guide for Use of Interactive Preventive Care Record

Nextcare Inc. $10 Million False Claims Act Settlement Shows Qui Tam Role In False Claims Act Prosecutions

For more resources and publications training materials by Ms. Stamer, see here.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ARRA, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Meaningful Use, Mental Heatlh, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy | Tagged: CMS, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Fraud Task Force, Health Care Reimbursement, HHS, Hospitals, Inpatient, Medicare, OIG, outpatient, Physicians | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Hospitals Urged To Tighten Inpatient & Outpatient Admission Records As OIG Audits Hospitals for New vs. Established Patients,

November 29, 2012

Hospitals should act quickly to adopt appropriate compliance policies and tighten outpatient and inpatient admissions recordkeeping and associated billing activities to minimize exposures signaled by audits announced by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG).

OIG reportedly is auditing inpatient and outpatient hospital claims for new and established patients to identify potential overcharges by some hospital-based outpatient clinics that may have resulted from treating established patients as if they were new patients. OIG’s Office of Audit Services reportedly sent letters to some hospitals in October, asking about a handful of claims for new patient visits that OIG suspects the hospital should have billed as established patient visits. In addition to requesting specific information about line items on the claims and their internal controls for billing new versus established patients and provide descriptions of written policies and procedures governing the facilities classification of new versus established patients and internal controls for detecting errors.

Medicare typically pays more for new versus established patients since CMS implemented the outpatient prospective payment system in 2000. Since 2008, CMS rules have specified that patients who visit the hospital outpatient clinic within three years are established patients, and after that they are new, with Medicare paying more for the latter. See(73 Fed. Reg. 68502, 68679 (November 18, 2009). Data mining technology increasingly used by CMS and other federal fraud investigators facilities the ability of Medicare and others to identify errors in coding and billing resulting from misclassication of existing patients as new.

Many hospitals may be exposed under this requirement for a variety of reasons including failure to appropriately track and coordinate inpatient and outpatient admission data, defaults built into recordkeeping systems and omissions to timely update practices or training. In contrast to the risk of overbilling from incorrectly treating patients as new, hospitals that bill all patients as established to overcome inadequacies in their ability to track new versus established patients often leave money on the table unnecessarily by foregoing added reimbursement that the facility otherwise would qualify for it could reliably identify new patients.

While strengthening coding and billing to ward of risks, may debate the appropriateness of CMS’ new versus existing patient distinction outside the physician office context. Critics contend that unlike in the physician office context, the level of care or resources delivered for a new patient compared to a patient who previously visited the hospital doesn’t generally differ. Parties with these concerns should continue to ensure appropriate compliance with existing rules while providing input and feedback to CMS and other regulators about their concerns with the policy’s suitability.

For Help With Monitoring Developments, Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance often appear in medical privacy and other technology, risk management and compliance-related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others.

You can get more information about her experience here.

Other Recent Updates & Resources

OIG Recommends CMS, ONC Tighten EMR Incentive Program Rules To Improve Oversight

Congress Sends Bill Amending Lab Testing Rule Violation Sanctions

Learn Latest On OCR New HIPAA De-Identification Guidance & Other HIPAA Developments In 12/12 HIPAA Update Workshop!

$12M+ Settlement Recoveries In 2 Health Care Fraud Whistleblower Claims Shows Providers, Owners, Management & Staff Must Manage Compliance & Risks

Feds Health Fraud Suit Against Psychiatrists Shows Risks Providers Run From Aggressive Referral or Billing Activities

ONC Releases Next Wave of 2014 Draft Test Methods For Public Review and Comment; Plans 11/13 Virtual Workshop

Recent OIG Audit Reports Provide Insights Where Fraud Audits Likely To Look Next

Hospital Chain HCA Inc. Pays $16.5 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations That Hospital

Detroit-Area Doctor Charged for Role in Alleged $40 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme

Five More Individuals Charged in Detroit for Alleged Roles in $24.7 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme

Massachusetts Ear Group To Pay $1.5 Million To Resolve HIPAA Charges

Personal Consumer Information Protection In Health Care Operations Topic of Stamer’s 11/1 Speech

ONC Releases First Wave of EHR Test Procedures; More To Come

OCR Releases HIPAA Compliance Training Tool As Enforcement Risks Rise

Health Care Orgs Disability Exposure High As $475K Paid To Settle Justice Department Charges Medical Fitness Screenings of EMTs, Others Violated ADA

HHS/DOJ Partner With Private Health Plans To Further Ramp Up Health Care Fraud Heat!

AHRQ Issues New Guide for Use of Interactive Preventive Care Record

Nextcare Inc. $10 Million False Claims Act Settlement Shows Qui Tam Role In False Claims Act Prosecutions

For more resources and publications training materials by Ms. Stamer, see here.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ARRA, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Meaningful Use, Mental Heatlh, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy | Tagged: CMS, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Fraud Task Force, Health Care Reimbursement, HHS, Hospitals, Inpatient, Medicare, OIG, outpatient, Physicians | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OIG Recommends CMS, ONC Tighten EMR Incentive Program Rules To Improve Oversight

November 29, 2012

The Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General is recommending the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) act to improve the effectiveness of its oversight and management of the Medicare electronic health record (EHR) incentive program. The recommendations are likely to impact on the requirements that hospitals and other professionals will be required to meet to get and keep EHR program incentive payments. Consequently, hospitals, physicians and other providers and their technology and other systems advisors and vendors should carefully watch and respond to changes that these two agencies implement in response to the OIG feedback.

According to an OIG study reported here, the CMS estimates that it will pay $6.6 billion in EHR incentive payments to providers under the program between 2011 and 2016. Many hospitals, physician organizations and other providers are making substantial investments in EHR and related technologies in reliance of expectation of receiving program incentive payments. Accordingly, parties hoping to qualify for incentive programs need to watch closely the actions that the agencies take in response to this OIG input or otherwise that impacts on qualification and audits.

OIG Study & Findings

OIG’s early assessment of CMS’s oversight of the Program found that because professionals and hospitals self-report data to prove fulfillment of program requirements, CMS’s efforts to verify these data will help make sure the integrity of Medicare EHR incentive payments.

The recommendation comes from an OIG study reviewing CMS’s oversight of professionals’ and hospitals’ self-reported meaningful use of certified EHR technology in 2011, the first year of the program. OIG evaluated self-reported information against program requirements. It also looked at CMS’s audit planning documents, regulations and guidance for the program and conducted structured interviews with CMS staff on CMS’s oversight.

Based on this evaluation, OIG foundCMS faces obstacles to overseeing the Medicare EHR incentive program that leave the program vulnerable to paying incentives to professionals and hospitals that do not fully meet the meaningful use requirements. OIG says CMS has not yet implemented strong prepayment safeguards, and has limited ability to safeguard incentive payments postpayment. OIG also reports that the ONC requirements for EHR reports may contribute to CMS’s oversight obstacles.

OIG Recommended Corrective Action

Based on its study, OIG is recommending that CMS take the following actions.

Obtain and review supporting documentation from selected professionals and hospitals prior to payment to verify the accuracy of their self‑reported information and
Issue guidance with specific examples of documentation that professionals and hospitals should maintain to support their compliance.

CMS did not agree with our first recommendation, stating that prepayment reviews would increase the burden on practitioners and hospitals and could delay incentive payments. Despite this CMS feedback, OIG nevertheless is continuing to recommend that CMS conduct prepayment reviews to improve program oversight. CMS concurred with our second recommendation.

OIG also recommended that ONC take the following actions:

Require that certified EHR technology be capable of producing reports for yes/no meaningful use measures where possible and
Improve the certification process for EHR technology to make sure applicants provide accurate EHR reports.

ONC concurred with both recommendations.

Recommended Provider Action

Hospitals and providers looking to take advantage of the HER incentive payments should carefully monitor the developments resulting from these recommendations and take proper actions to stay compliant with evolving requirements as they move forward.

Along with monitoring these responses, providers participating in the incentive program also need to stay abreast of other developments. For instance, last month, ONC announced the release of the Wave 7 2014 Edition Draft Test Methods (test procedures, tools, and applicable test data and files). See 2014 Edition Draft Test Procedures webpage. Additional waves of test methods are impending. ONC says it expects the final set of Test Methods to be available for use in early 2013.

For Help With Monitoring Developments, Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

You can get more information about her experience here.

Other Recent Updates & Resources

Congress Sends Bill Amending Lab Testing Rule Violation Sanctions

Learn Latest On OCR New HIPAA De-Identification Guidance & Other HIPAA Developments In 12/12 HIPAA Update Workshop!

$12M+ Settlement Recoveries In 2 Health Care Fraud Whistleblower Claims Shows Providers, Owners, Management & Staff Must Manage Compliance & Risks

Feds Health Fraud Suit Against Psychiatrists Shows Risks Providers Run From Aggressive Referral or Billing Activities

ONC Releases Next Wave of 2014 Draft Test Methods For Public Review and Comment; Plans 11/13 Virtual Workshop

Recent OIG Audit Reports Provide Insights Where Fraud Audits Likely To Look Next

Hospital Chain HCA Inc. Pays $16.5 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations That Hospital

Detroit-Area Doctor Charged for Role in Alleged $40 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme

Five More Individuals Charged in Detroit for Alleged Roles in $24.7 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme

Massachusetts Ear Group To Pay $1.5 Million To Resolve HIPAA Charges

Personal Consumer Information Protection In Health Care Operations Topic of Stamer’s 11/1 Speech

ONC Releases First Wave of EHR Test Procedures; More To Come

OCR Releases HIPAA Compliance Training Tool As Enforcement Risks Rise

Health Care Orgs Disability Exposure High As $475K Paid To Settle Justice Department Charges Medical Fitness Screenings of EMTs, Others Violated ADA

HHS/DOJ Partner With Private Health Plans To Further Ramp Up Health Care Fraud Heat!

AHRQ Issues New Guide for Use of Interactive Preventive Care Record

Nextcare Inc. $10 Million False Claims Act Settlement Shows Qui Tam Role In False Claims Act Prosecutions

For more resources and publications training materials by Ms. Stamer, see here.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ARRA, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Meaningful Use, Mental Heatlh, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, CMS, EHR, Electronic Health Records, Health Care, health care IT, Health Care Provider, Health Plans, HIPAA, OIG, ONC, PHI, Physicians, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$12M+ Settlement Recoveries In 2 Health Care Fraud Whistleblower Claims Shows Providers, Owners, Management & Staff Must Manage Compliance & Risks

November 23, 2012

The Justice Department’s announcement that it will recover more than $11.3 million in False Claims Act recoveries under two settlements announced on November 20, 2012 provides yet another sharp reminder to health care providers of the critical need to carefully manage billing, referral and other practices to manage health care fraud related exposures.

On November 20, the Justice Department announced that Morton Plant Mease Health Care Inc. and its affiliated hospitals (Morton Plant) will pay $10,169,114 to the federal government to resolve allegations that Morton Plant facilities violated the False Claims Act by submitting false claims for services rendered to Medicare patients. The same day, the Justice Department also announced its achievement of a $1.286 million settlement with Harmony Care Hospital, Inc. and its owner Harmony Care Hospice Inc. (Harmony) and Harmony owner and chief executive officer Daniel J. Burton of allegations that the South Carolina-based company submitted false claims to Medicare for patients under care at its hospice facilities.

Both settlements show the role that disgruntled current or former employees or other whistleblowers increasingly play in these and other health care fraud investigations as well as the significant exposures that health care providers, their owners and management risk by engaging or failing to investigate and resolve practices that Federal officials consider to violate the False Claims Act or other federal health care fraud laws.

Morton Plan Settlement

The Morton Plant settlement resolves whistleblower allegations that, between July 1, 2006 and July 31, 2008, Morton Plant improperly billed for certain interventional cardiac and vascular procedures as inpatient care when those services should have been billed as less costly outpatient care or as observational status. See United States ex rel. Randi Ferrare v. Morton Plant Mease Health Care, Inc., No. 08:cv:01689-T-266MSS (M.D. Fl.).

Morton Plant owns and operates, or is affiliated with, Morton Plant Hospital, St. Joseph’s Hospital, Morton Plant North Bay Hospital, St. Anthony’s Hospital, Mease Countryside Hospital and Mease Dunedin Hospital. These hospitals are part of the BayCare Health System in Florida’s Pinellas, Hillsborough and Pasco counties.

The Morton Plant action arose from a qui tam, or whistleblower, lawsuit filed by Randi Ferrare, a former director of Health Management Services at Morton Plant Hospital. Under the False Claims Act, private citizens, known as relators, can bring suit on behalf of the United States and share in any recovery. Ms. Ferrare will receive over $1.8 million as her share of the government’s recovery.

Harmony $1.2 Million Settlement

The Harmony settlement arises out of a qui tam action filed against Harmony Care Hospice Inc. (Harmony) and Harmony owner and chief executive officer Daniel J. Burton have agreed to pay the United States $1,286,999.32 to settle allegations that the South Carolina-based company submitted false claims to Medicare for patients under care at its hospice facilities.

The Harmony settlement resolves a lawsuit filed by former Harmony employees Mona Singletary and Lynda Fulton under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act. The qui tam case is captioned United States ex rel. Singletary, et al. v. Harmony Care Hospice, Inc., et al. , Case No. 2:10-cv-01404-PMD (D.S.C.).

Hospices provide palliative care – medical treatment that concentrates on reducing the severity of a disease’s symptoms – to patients who decide to forego curative care of their illness. Medicare beneficiaries are entitled to hospice care if they have a terminal prognosis of six months or less. The United States alleged that Harmony and Burton knowingly submitted or caused to be submitted false claims for patients who did not have such a prognosis and thus were not eligible for hospice care.

Under the Harmony settlement agreement, its owner and chief executive officer, Burton is individually liable for $200,000 of the settlement amount. The balance of more than $1 million will be paid by Harmony. As part of the settlement, Harmony and Burton will enter into a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Office of Inspector General (OIG), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to address the allegations raised in the qui tam complaint. Together, Singletary and Fulton will receive $244,529.87 as their share of the government’s recovery.

Whistleblowers Key Prosecutorial Tool

The approximately $2 million paid out to whistleblowers under these two settlements drives home the growing importance that current or former employees, officers or other insiders increasingly play in federal and state health care fraud prosecutions. Whistleblowers like Ferrare, Singletary and Fulton are increasingly common and valuable tools that the federal government uses to find and prosecute alleged health care fraud. By promoting the availability of qui tam and other recoveries and broadly advertising their payment, federal prosecutors and investigators are priming the pump for future investigations and prosecution. See also Nextcare Inc. $10 Million False Claims Act Settlement Shows Qui Tam Role In False Claims Act Prosecutions; Oklahoma’s Harmon Memorial Hospital, Physician Pay $1.5M Qui Tam Health Care Fraud Settlement.

The two settlements also show the growing zealousness of the federal war on health care fraud. Both cases were investigated by the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which was announced by Attorney General Eric Holder and Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services in May 2009.

The partnership between the two departments has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation. One of the most powerful tools in that effort is the False Claims Act, which the Justice Department has used to recover more than $10.1 billion since January 2009 in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs. The Justice Department’s total recoveries in False Claims Act cases since January 2009 are over $13.9 billion. Federal officials have and continue to rack up an ever-increasing list of civil settlements and judgments using the False Claims Act and other civil enforcement tools. See e.g., See, e.g., Feds Health Fraud Suit Against Psychiatrists Shows Risks Providers Run From Aggressive Referral or Billing Activities; Recent OIG Audit Reports Provide Insights Where Fraud Audits Likely To Look Next; Hospital Chain HCA Inc. Pays $16.5 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations That Hospital; Pharmas Face New Pressure To Put Patients Before Profits After GlaxoSmithKline Record $3 Billion Health Care Fraud, FDCA Conviction & Settlement.

In addition to the high dollar civil judgments and settlements recovered. by the HEAT Task Force, federal prosecutors also are racking up a growing list of criminal convictions and sentences. See e.g., Health Care Providers Warned To Raise Defenses As Feds Charge 91 Individuals Bilked Medicare For Approximately $430 Million; Detroit-Area Doctor Charged for Role in Alleged $40 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme; Five More Individuals Charged in Detroit for Alleged Roles in $24.7 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme; Baton Rouge Area Women Heading To Prison For DME Health Care Fraud Participation; Houston Man Gets 24 Month Prison Sentence For Anti-Kickback & Other Health Care Fraud Convictions.

For instance, along with the Morton Plan and Harmony civil settlements, the Justice Department also announced on November 20, 2012 that a registered nurse pleaded guilty November 20 and a former program coordinator pleaded guilty November 19 for their roles in a $63 million mental health care fraud scheme involving defunct health provider Health Care Solutions Network Inc. (HCSN) in Miami. See here.

These and other investigations and enforcement actions show that health care providers, their owners, officers, providers and other staff need to take seriously health care reimbursement, referral and other health care fraud and compliance responsibilities, as well as to carefully manage workforces to mitigate exposures to qui tam and other health care fraud exposures.

These activities are intended to send a strong message to health care providers that bill Medicare, Medicaid, or other public or private health care programs that they must be prepared to defend any charges billed to these or other federal health care programs and to defend their other business practices.

Providers Urged To Manage Risks

In response to these threats, health care providers should take steps to strengthen their billing, referral, audit, medical and other recordkeeping and other compliance and risk management practices to enhance their ability to defend or prevent these exposures. While most providers already are moving to tighten these practices, the move to electronic health records, changing rules and other pressures are undermining the sufficiency of these efforts. This investigation shows that beyond mere aggressive billing practices, federal officials also are targeting for enforcement physicians and other health care providers that participate in financial or other referral incentive or reward practices prohibited by the anti-kickback, STARK or other relevant law as well as the filing of Medicare, Medicaid or other health claims for undelivered, unnecessary or otherwise uncovered care or services.

Amid these and other enforcement actions, all health industry players should exercise care to steer clear of activities that might violate federal health care fraud rules as well as consider whether corrective or other action might be necessary to address risks of prior activities that with the benefit of hindsight taking into account the current enforcement climate reflect potential exposures. Providers should carefully monitor existing Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state program reimbursement, terms of participation, reimbursement and other guidance; Office of Inspector General (OIG), Justice Department and other agency audit and enforcement activities and other developments that could impact on the defensibility of their billing, referral or other practices and tighten compliance and oversight as necessary to mitigate risks.

In the case of physicians and certain other professionals, these plans need to include both efforts to manage potential government investigation risks and management of their practices to mitigate peer review or other disciplinary or practice regulatory oversight that often arises when the practices and hospitals start tightening oversight and controls on practices as part of their own efforts to protect their organizations from fraud or other audits.

While almost all health care providers can find room to improve their documentation and tighten other compliance, it also is important that providers also plan for how they will finance the cost of defending an audit or other investigation. Often, the financial cost of defending these and other charges prevents physicians or other health care providers from lodging effective defenses of legitimate practices. To help avoid this quagmire, providers generally will want to explore getting special liability coverage, indemnification or other protection as part of their planning arrangements.

For Help With Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

If you need help providing compliance or other training, reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers and other health industry clients to establish, audit, administer and defend billing, referral, privacy, staffing and recruitment and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. She also regularly designs and presents risk management, compliance and other training for health care providers, professional associations and others. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. Contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Hospital, Hospital, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Medicaid, Medicare, OIG, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Real Estate, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark | Tagged: Anti-Kickback, Health Care Fraud, healthcare provider, Hospital, Physician, referral, STARK | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Feds Health Fraud Suit Against Psychiatrists Shows Risks Providers Run From Aggressive Referral or Billing Activities

November 16, 2012

A civil lawsuit seeking millions of dollars of damages from a Chicago-area psychiatrist provides a clear warning to physicians and other health care providers of the significant potential legal risks that can arise if they improperly receive compensation or other perks for participating in conferences, prescribing treatments or engage in other arrangements that violate federal or state anti-kickback or other health care fraud laws.On November 15, 2012, the Justice Department sued Chicago-area psychiatrist Dr. Michael J. Reinstein in the Northern District of Illinois with receiving illegal kickbacks on at least 50,000 claims and filing at least 140,000 false Medicare and Medicare Claims for antipsychotic medications he prescribed for thousands of mentally ill patients in area nursing homes. The suit against Dr. Michael J. Reinstein seeking triple damages under the False Claims Act, plus a civil penalty of $5,500 to $11,000 for each alleged false claim. See here.

The lawsuit involves Reinstein’s use of clozapine, a rarely-used medication that has serious potential side effects and is generally considered a drug of last resort, particularly for elderly patients. While clozapine has been shown to be effective for treatment-resistant forms of schizophrenia, it is also known to cause numerous side effects, including a potentially deadly decrease in white blood cells, seizures, inflamation of the heart muscle, and increased mortality in elderly patients.

According to the suit, 69-year old Reinstein has provided psychiatric medical services in the Chicago area since 1973. According to the lawsuit, Reinstein routinely prescribed antipsychotic and other psychiatric medications knowing that, because most of his patients are indigent nursing home residents, pharmacies dispensing the medications submitted claims to Medicaid, and beginning in 2006, to Medicare Part D. Reinstein also submitted Medicare and Medicaid claims for pharmacologic management of his patients, knowing that he did not engage in substantive evaluations of his patients’ medical and psychiatric conditions to properly manage their medications. Instead, he allegedly prescribed medications to his patients based on his receipt of kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies.

Prior to August 2003, Reinstein prescribed Clozaril, the trade name for clozapine manufactured by Novartis, and he often had more than 1,000 patients using the medication at any given time. For many years, Novartis paid Reinstein to promote Clozaril, the complaint alleges. After Novartis’ patent for Clozaril expired in 1998, Reinstein resisted pharmacy and drug company efforts to switch his patients to generic clozapine and he continued to be the largest prescriber of Clozaril to Medicaid recipients in the United States. In July 2003, Novartis notified Reinstein that was withdrawing its support for Clozaril, and ended the regular payments that it had been making to Reinstein.

In August 2003, Reinstein finally agreed to switch his patients to generic clozapine manufactured by Miami-based IVAX Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the suit alleges, if IVAX agreed to pay Reinstein $50,000 under a one-year “consulting agreement;” pay his nurse to speak on behalf of clozapine; and fund a clozapine research study by a Reinstein-affiliated entity known as Uptown Research Institute. IVAX agreed and Reinstein immediately began switching his patients from Clozaril to IVAX’s clozapine. He quickly became the largest prescriber of generic clozapine in the country.

“Reinstein’s inordinate prescribing of clozapine stands in stark contrast to its extremely limited use by other physicians,” the lawsuit states. While generally only four percent of schizophrenia patients who were prescribed antipsychotics received clozapine, during the time Reinstein was alegedly accepting kickbacks from IVAX, more than 50 percent of his patients were prescribed IVAX’s clozapine. At one nursing home, Reinstein had 75 percent of the 400 residents on IVAX’s clozapine.

Between 2003 and 2006, the lawsuit charges Reinstein requested, and IVAX provided, additional direct and indirect benefits to Reinstein and his associates, including paying airfare, lodging, meals, and entertainment expenses for a pharmacy owner and spouse, Reinstein’s nurse, his accountant and spouse, his administrative assistant and spouse, and Reinstein and his wife to travel to IVAX’s headquarters in Miami. IVAX also paid for Reinstein and his entourage to go on a fishing trip, a boat cruise, and a golf outing; annual renewal of Reinstein’s $50,000 “consulting agreement;” and tickets to sporting events and free IVAX-manufactured medication for Reinstein’s personal use.

In January 2006, IVAX became a subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd., an Israeli company. About seven months before the merger, Reinstein began moving large numbers of his patients to a form of clozapine manufactured by a competitor of IVAX/Teva. In April 2006, Teva paid all expenses for Reinstein and his entourage to travel to Miami, including a $2,300 boat cruise, and at least two dinners costing more than $1,700 each. During this trip Teva employees asked Reinstein what the company could do to induce Reinstein to prescribe more clozapine, and Reinstein suggested that Teva hire an associate of his from Chicago, the lawsuit alleges. Teva agreed and in the months after the hiring Reinstein put several hundred patients back on Teva’s clozapine. From 2007 to 2009, the suit alleges, Teva and Reinstein entered into annual “speaker agreements” that resulted in Teva paying Reinstein more than $100,000.

Based on this alleged conduct, the suit charges Medicaid received and paid more than 100,000 false claims from various pharmacies for IVAX/Teva clozapine prescriptions written by Reinstein between August 2003 and July 2011 as a result of illegal kickbacks he solicited and received from IVAX and Teva. Between 2006 and July 2011, Medicare Part D received and paid more than 40,000 false claims involving similar kickback-induced prescriptions. Likewise, between August 2003 and July 2011, Reinstein allegedly submitted more than 40,000 false claims and received payment from Medicaid for purported pharmacologic management, as well as more than 10,000 similar false claims to Medicare.

This lawsuit is one a growing list of civil and criminal investigations and enforcement actions by federal and state prosecutors targeting health care providers using expanded health care fraud laws and investigatory and prosecutorial powers granted under the Affordable Care Act and other legislation to help bring down health care costs.

Through these and other flashy prosecutions, as well as a continuous campaign of audits and other activities, federal officials are trying to reduce Medicare and other health care expenditures, both by prosecuting health care providers for intentionally submitting false claims, as well as using the treat of audits, program, disqualification or civil or criminal prosecution to scare health care providers to reduce legitimate billings that could trigger a federal audit or other federal scrutiny.

Federal officials are aided in these efforts by an arsenal of new health care fraud statistical profiling and other health care fraud detection and enforcement tools granted by Congress in recent years that make it easier for federal officials to target and successfully prosecute or bring other sanctions against health care providers whose billing or other business practices come under scrutiny.

Coupled with the ever-lengthening list of civil settlements and civil monetary penalties, program disqualifications, and audits, Federal officials use high profile criminal sweeps like those announced today both to send a message to health care providers generally, and as a tool to pressure and encourage health care providers to accept settlements proposed by federal auditors and prosecutors to avoid the potential threat of more serious criminal, civil or administrative prosecutions.

For Help With Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

If you need help providing compliance or other training, reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers and other health industry clients to establish, audit, administer and defend billing, referral, privacy, staffing and recruitment and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns/ She also regularly designs and presents risk management, compliance and other training for health care providers, professional associations and others. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. Contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Hospital, Hospital, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Medicaid, Medicare, OIG, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Real Estate, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark | Tagged: Anti-Kickback, DME, Health Care Fraud, healthcare provider, home health, Hospital, Physician, referral, STARK | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

ONC Changes Start Time, Releases Agenda For 11/13 Virtual Workshop On Health IT Test Standards

November 9, 2012

The Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) today (November 9, 2012) announced a preliminary agenda of topics and the procedures that health care providers and other interested parties wishing to participate in a public virtual workshop on the ONC Health Information Technology (IT) Certification Program and 2014 Edition Test Methods that ONC plans to host on Tuesday, November 13, 2012 from 8:15 AM-4:30PM EST.

The announced commencement time is 45 minutes earlier than the originally announced 9:00 AM start time that ONC had announced as the start time for the workshop in November 8 announcements.

To review the preliminary agenda for the workshop, see http://www.healthit.gov/policy-researchers-implementers/2014-edition-draft-test-methods.

According to today’s ONC announcement, parties wishing to participate in the virtual workshop should register for ONC Certification Technical Workshop on Nov 13, 2012 8:15 AM EST at https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/2114316126469925632 . ONC says that successful registrants will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

The planned workshop follows ONC’s anno0uncement of the release for review of the latest in a series of electronic medical records Test Standards that ONC has issued recently in its march to implement its mandate. ONC says all Test Methods will undergo public review and comment before being finalized and approved by ONC for use in testing and certification. ONC typically allows a two week period of public review and comment from the date posted for public review and comment on each Wave.

In keeping with this process, ONC is inviting interested persons to submit comments and suggestions to ONC.Certification@hhs.gov. All submissions should include “2014 Test Methods” in the subject line. ONC asks that parties submitting input to be as specific as possible in their comment submissions.

ONC says it expects the final set of Test Methods to be available for use in early 2013.

For Help With Monitoring Developments, Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

If you need help reviewing or commenting on the Tests Procedures or monitoring or responding to these or other health care or health IT related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, can help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers, health plans, their business associates and other health industry clients to establish and administer medical privacy and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. She regularly designs and presents HIPAA and other risk management, compliance and other training for health plans, employers, health care providers, professional associations and others.

Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance frequently appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others.

You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here.

Other Recent Updates & Resources

For additional resources and publications training materials by Ms. Stamer, see here.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ARRA, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Meaningful Use, Mental Heatlh, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, EHR, Electronic Health Records, Health Care, health care IT, Health Care Provider, Health Plans, HIPAA, ONC, PHI, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

ONC Releases Next Wave of 2014 Draft Test Methods For Public Review and Comment; Plans 11/13 Virtual Workshop

November 8, 2012

The Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) today (November 8, 2012) announced the release of the Wave 7 2014 Edition Draft Test Methods (test procedures, tools, and applicable test data and files). To review the 2014 Edition draft Test Methods, visit the 2014 Edition Draft Test Procedures webpage. As a follow up to this announcement, ONC is inviting interested parties to participate in a public workshop on the ONC HIT Certification Program and 2014 Edition Test Methods on Tuesday, November 13^th, 9AM-4:30PM EST.

The Test Procedures announced today are the latest in a series ONC has issued recently. ONC says all Test Methods will undergo public review and comment before being finalized and approved by ONC for use in testing and certification. ONC typically allows a two week period of public review and comment from the date posted for public review and comment on each Wave.

ONC says it expects the final set of Test Methods to be available for use in early 2013.

To help interested parties stay informed about the Test Messages, ONC also announced today it will host a virtual public workshop on the ONC HIT Certification Program and 2014 Edition Test Methods on Tuesday, November 13^th, 9AM-4:30PM EST. According to ONC, the topics to be covered include 2014 Test Procedures, Test Tools, Test Data, ONC Timeline, and the Certified Health IT Product List (CHPL). ONC says additional details regarding access and agenda will be forthcoming. Watch the ONC website.

For Help With Monitoring Developments, Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

If you need help reviewing or commenting on the Tests Procedures or monitoring or responding to these or other health care or health IT related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, can help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers, health plans, their business associates and other health industry clients to establish and administer medical privacy and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. She regularly designs and presents HIPAA and other risk management, compliance and other training for health plans, employers, health care providers, professional associations and others.

Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance frequently appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others.

You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here.

Other Recent Updates & Resources

For additional resources and publications training materials by Ms. Stamer, see here.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ARRA, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Meaningful Use, Mental Heatlh, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, EHR, Electronic Health Records, Health Care, health care IT, Health Care Provider, Health Plans, HIPAA, ONC, PHI, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Care Providers Warned To Raise Defenses As Feds Charge 91 Individuals Bilked Medicare For Approximately $430 Million

October 4, 2012

Health Care Providers Warned To Raise Defenses As Feds Charge 91 Individuals Bilked Medicare For Approximately $430 Million

A total of 91 doctors, nurses and other licensed medical professionals in Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, Brooklyn, Baton Rouge and Chicago are facing health care fraud charges for their alleged participation in false Medicare billings totaling approximately $429.2 million to Medicare fraud schemes under federal indictments unsealed in a joint Department of Justice and HHS Medicare Fraud Strike Force nationwide takedown jointly announced by Attorney General Eric Holder, Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and other agencies today (October 4, 2012). Coming on the heels of President Obama’s touting of the health care fraud fighting success of his Administration during his debate with Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, the indictments are the latest warning to health care providers of the advisability of tightening their Medicare and other health care billing and other compliance practices.

Highlights of The Latest Strike Force Action

Together, dozens of charged individuals were arrested or surrendered as federal officials unsealed indictments charging more than $230 million in home health care fraud; more than $100 million in mental health care fraud and more than $49 million in ambulance transportation fraud; and millions more in other frauds.

The defendants charged are accused of various health care fraud-related crimes, including conspiracy to commit health care fraud, health care fraud, violations of the anti-kickback statutes and money laundering. The charges are based on a variety of alleged fraud schemes involving various medical treatments and services such as home health care, mental health services, psychotherapy, physical and occupational therapy, durable medical equipment (DME) and ambulance services.

According to court documents, the defendants allegedly participated in schemes to submit claims to Medicare for treatments that were medically unnecessary and oftentimes never provided. In many cases, court documents allege that patient recruiters, Medicare beneficiaries and other co-conspirators were paid cash kickbacks in return for supplying beneficiary information to providers, so that the providers could submit fraudulent billing to Medicare for services that were medically unnecessary or never provided. Collectively, the doctors, nurses, licensed medical professionals, health care company owners and others charged are accused of conspiring to submit a total of approximately $429.2 million in fraudulent billing.

“Today’s coordinated actions represent one of the largest Medicare fraud takedowns in Department of Justice history, as measured by the amount of alleged fraudulent billings,” said Assistant Attorney General Breuer. “We have made it one of the Department’s missions to hold accountable those who abuse the Medicare program for personal profit. And there are Medicare fraudsters in prisons across the country – some who will be there for decades – who can attest to our determination, and our effectiveness.”

In Miami, a total of 33 defendants are charged for their alleged participation in various fraud schemes involving a total of $204.5 million in false billings for home health care, mental health services, occupational and physical therapy, and DME. In one case, three defendants are charged for participating in a fraud scheme at LTC Professional Consultants and Professional Home Care Solutions Inc. which led to approximately $74 million in fraudulent billing for home health care. In another case, five defendants are charged for participating in a fraud scheme at Hollywood Pavilion which led to $67 million in fraudulent billing for mental health services.

Sixteen individuals, including three doctors and one licensed physical therapist, are charged in Los Angeles with participating in various fraud schemes involving a total of $53.8 million in false billings. In one case, four defendants are charged for allegedly participating in a fraud scheme at Alpha Ambulance Inc., which led to approximately $49.2 million in fraudulent billing for ambulance transportation. The case represents the largest ambulance fraud scheme ever prosecuted by the Medicare Fraud Strike Force. According to court documents, the defendants provided beneficiaries ambulance rides that were medically unnecessary.

In Dallas, 14 individuals – including two doctors and two registered nurses – are charged for their alleged participation in various fraud schemes involving a total of $103.3 million in false billings. In one case, three defendants – a medical doctor and two registered nurses – are charged with participating in a fraud scheme at Raphem Medical Practice and PTM Healthcare Services which led to approximately $100 million in fraudulent billing for home health care services. According to court documents, Dr. Joseph Megwa signed approximately 33,000 prescriptions for more than 2,000 unique Medicare beneficiaries from 2006 to 2011. Many of these Medicare beneficiaries had primary care physicians who never certified home healthcare services for them. In order to handle the volume of prescriptions, Megwa allegedly signed stacks of documents without reviewing them.

Seven individuals are charged in Houston for their participation in a fraud scheme at a hospital which led to $158 million in fraudulent billing for community mental health center services. According to court documents, the defendants who served as administrators at the hospital paid kickbacks – in the form of cigarettes, food and coupons redeemable for items available at the hospital’s “country stores” – to Medicare beneficiaries in exchange for those beneficiaries’ attendance at the hospital’s partial hospitalization programs (PHP). Allegedly, beneficiaries watched television, played games and engaged in other non-PHP activities rather than receiving the services for which the hospital billed Medicare. Previously, on Feb. 22, 2012, the assistant administrator of the hospital, Mohammad Kahn, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit health care fraud and paying kickbacks related to $116 million worth of fraudulent claims submitted to Medicare. After his guilty plea, an additional $42 million in fraudulent claims were discovered that are included in today’s totals.

In Brooklyn, 15 individuals, including one doctor and four chiropractors, are charged for their alleged participation in various fraud schemes involving a total of $23.2 million in false billings. In one case, nine defendants, including a medical doctor, are charged with participating in a fraud scheme at Cropsey Medical Care PLLC which led to approximately $13.8 million in fraudulent billing for physical therapy and related services. According to court documents, the defendants paid cash kickbacks to Medicare beneficiaries in exchange for physical therapy that was not medically necessary and on some occasions never provided to beneficiaries.

In Baton Rouge, four defendants, including a licensed practical nurse, are charged for their roles in fraud schemes involving approximately $2.4 million in false claims for medically unnecessary durable medical equipment.

In Chicago, two defendants, including a dermatologist and a psychologist, are charged for their roles in fraud schemes involving, according to court documents, millions of dollars in false claims for medically unnecessary laser treatments and psychotherapy services.

In addition to the criminal indictments, HHS also used recently expanded health care fraud powers granted as part of the Affordable Care Act to suspend and took other administrative action against 30 health care providers following a data-driven analysis that HHS claims showed “credible allegations of fraud.” Under the Affordable Care Act, HHS is able to suspend payments until the resolution of an investigation.

According to today’s announcement the charges and other actions announced today resulted from coordinated health care fraud investigations conducted by the Medicare Fraud Strike Force as part of the Health Care Fraud Prevention & Enforcement Action Team (HEAT), a joint initiative announced in May 2009 between the Department of Justice and HHS to focus their efforts to prevent and deter fraud and enforce current anti-fraud laws around the country.

Federal officials now credit strike force operations in nine locations have charged more than 1,480 defendants who collectively have falsely billed the Medicare program for more than $4.8 billion since strike force operations began in March 2007.

Charges Part of Widening War Against Health Care Providers

The charges unsealed today are the latest and among the most sweeping of an ever-lengthening list of flashy prosecutions and federal program disqualification actions that federal officials are conducting against health care providers using expanded health care fraud laws and investigatory and prosecutorial powers granted under the Affordable Care Act and other legislation.

For Help With Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

If you need help providing compliance or other training, reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers and other health industry clients to establish, audit, administer and defend billing, referral, privacy, staffing and recruitment and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns/ She also regularly designs and presents risk management, compliance and other training for health care providers, professional associations and others. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. Contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Hospital, Hospital, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Medicaid, Medicare, OIG, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Real Estate, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark | Tagged: Anti-Kickback, DME, Health Care Fraud, healthcare provider, home health, Hospital, Physician, referral, STARK | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Recent OIG Audit Reports Provide Insights Where Fraud Audits Likely To Look Next

September 24, 2012

Healthcare providers, Medicare, Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) intermediaries, State Medicaid and CHIP fund recipients, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage Plan and others wanting to get a leg up on potential audit targets likely to draw the attention of the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) and their health care fraud auditors and investigators may get valuable insights by monitoring OIG audit reports of Medicare Intermediaries and others. Reports of deficiencies uncovered in these audits and recommendations to tighten procedures and seek repayments often prompt demands for repayment and tighter payment and audit guidelines and procedures.

The following are some of the most recently-issued OIG audit reports:

New York Claimed Some Unallowable Costs for Services by New York City Providers under the State’s Developmental Disabilities Waiver Program (A-02-10-01027)

OIG says the New York State Department of Health (DOH) claimed Federal Medicaid reimbursement for some Office for People With Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) waiver program services provided by New York City providers that did not comply with certain Federal and State requirements. http://go.usa.gov/rk8V.

Based on sample results, OIG estimates that DOH improperly claimed $7.8 million in Federal Medicaid reimbursement for OPWDD waiver program services during calendar years 2006 through 2008. Federal law authorizes Medicaid home and community-based services (HCBS) waiver programs. A State’s HCBS waiver program must be approved by CMS and allows a State to claim Federal reimbursement for services not usually covered by Medicaid.

Of the 100 beneficiary-months in the random sample, DOH properly claimed Medicaid reimbursement for OPWDD waiver program services during 86 beneficiary-months. However, DOH claimed Medicaid reimbursement for services that did not comply with certain Federal and State requirements for the remaining 14 beneficiary-months. OIG reported the claims for unallowable services were made because DOH and OPWDD’s policies and procedures for overseeing and administering the waiver program were not adequate to ensure that (1) providers claimed reimbursement only for services actually provided and maintained all the required documentation to support services billed and (2) OPWDD waiver program services were provided only to beneficiaries pursuant to written plans of care.

OIG recommended that DOH:

Refund $7.8 million to the Federal Government and
Work with OPWDD to strengthen policies and procedures to ensure that (a) providers claim reimbursement only for OPWDD waiver program services actually provided and maintain the required documentation to support services billed and (b) OPWDD waiver program services are provided pursuant to written plans of care.

DOH and OPWDD concurred with the recommendations.

Medicare Contractors’ Payments to Providers in Jurisdiction 11 for Full Vials of Herceptin Were Often Incorrect (A-03-11-00013)

OIG reported that most payments for one or more full vials of Herceptin that the Medicare contractors made to providers in Jurisdiction 11 (North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia) from January 2008 through December 2010 were incorrect. Herceptin (trastuzumab) is a Medicare-covered biological drug used to treat breast cancer that has spread to other parts of the body. http://go.usa.gov/rk9P.

Of the 2,507 selected line items, OIG says 2,029 were incorrect and included overpayments totaling $2.4 million that the providers had not identified or refunded by the beginning of our audit. Providers refunded overpayments on 138 line items totaling $131,000 before our fieldwork. The remaining 340 line items were correct.

The 2,029 incorrect line items included incorrect units of service and a lack of supporting documentation. The providers attributed the incorrect payments to chargemaster errors, clerical errors, and billing systems that could not prevent or detect the incorrect billing of units of service. In some cases, providers could not store unused doses for later use because their pharmacies incorrectly reconstituted the Herceptin. When this occurred, the providers billed Medicare for the entire vial, including waste. The Medicare contractors made these incorrect payments because neither the Fiscal Intermediary Standard System nor the Common Working File had sufficient edits in place during our audit period to prevent or detect the overpayments.

OIG recommended that Palmetto GBA, LLC (Palmetto), the Medicare Administrative Contractor for Jurisdiction 11:

(1) Recover the $2.4 million in identified overpayments,
Implement a system edit that identifies for review line items for multiuse-vial drugs with units of service equivalent to one or more entire vials, and
Use the results of this audit in its provider education activities.

Palmetto concurred with the OIG findings and recommendations and described corrective actions that it had taken or planned to take.

Texas Did Not Report Excess Contractor Profits in Accordance With Federal Regulations (A-06-10-00062)

A Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS) is a system of software and hardware used to process Medicaid claims and manage information about Medicaid beneficiaries, services, and providers. The Texas Health and Human Services Commission (State agency) contracts with a fiscal agent, Affiliated Computer Services/Texas Medicaid Health Partnership (ACS/TMHP), to process claims through the MMIS. The contract between the State agency and ACS/TMHP requires a prospective price redetermination (PPR) audit to establish whether ACS/TMHP earned profit in excess of the 11 percent allowed by the contract.

OIG reports it found that the State agency did not refund $2.6 million (Federal share) of the $26.7 million in excess profits identified through the PPR audit in accordance with Federal requirements. During fiscal year 2009, the State agency claimed expenditures for 20 MMIS projects with total costs of $71.3 million. All of these expenditures were allowable and claimed at the appropriate reimbursement rate; however, the State agency did not obtain prior approval for 2 of the 20 projects. Also, the State agency did not obtain prior approval for 16 additional projects. The total budgets for the 18 projects for which the State agency did not obtain prior approval totaled $59 million ($32.9 million Federal share). http://go.usa.gov/rkXW.

OIG recommended that the State agency:

(1) Refund to the Federal Government $2.6 million for excess profits related to the PPR audit,
Ensure that prior approval is obtained on future projects as required by Federal regulations, and
Obtain retroactive approval for the 18 projects that did not have the required prior approval from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

The State agency agreed with OIG’s first and third recommendations and described corrective actions it had taken or planned to take. Regarding the second recommendation, the State agency described the process by which it seeks CMS approval for certain projects.

Review of Medicare Outpatient Billing for Selected Drugs at Self Regional Healthcare (A-09-12-02032)

For the 61 line items reviewed, OIG reported that Self Regional Healthcare did not bill Medicare for injections of selected drugs in accordance with Federal requirements, resulting in overpayments totaling $130,000. http://go.usa.gov/rkX.d.

Review of Medicare Outpatient Billing for Selected Drugs at Methodist Healthcare – Memphis Hospitals (A-09-12-02022)

For 60 of the 82 line items reviewed, OIG reported it found that Methodist Healthcare – Memphis Hospitals did not bill Medicare for injections of selected drugs in accordance with Federal requirements, resulting in overpayments totaling $178,000. http://go.usa.gov/rkNY.

Medicare Part D Made Some Incorrect Payments to Community Insurance Inc. for Institutional Beneficiaries in 2008 (A-05-11-00042)

OIG reports that the Medicare Part D program incurred drug costs for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries during Skilled Nursing stays that should have been covered under Part C in 2008. Community Insurance Inc’s incurrence of the $23,000 in gross drug costs as Part D costs had an overpayment effect of $13,000 as well as a $9,000 reconciliation effect at year end. http://go.usa.gov/rkNB.

North Shore Community Health, Inc., Claimed Unallowable Costs Against Recovery Act Grants (A-01-11-01502)

OIG reported it could not determine whether $2 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) grant costs claimed by North Shore Community Health, Inc. (North Shore), was allowable under the terms of the grants and applicable Federal regulations. North Shore did not track and account for Recovery Act expenditures separately from other (Federal and non-Federal) operating expenses; therefore, it could not demonstrate that it spent Recovery Act grant funds for allowable costs. http://go.usa.gov/rk85.

OIG says this deficiency occurred because North Shore did not:

(1) Maintain a financial management system that provided for accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of its Recovery Act grants and
Separately track and account for Recovery Act funds.

OIG recommended that the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) require North Shore to refund $2 million to the Federal Government, or work with North Shore to determine whether any of the costs that it claimed against Recovery Act grants were allowable, and ensure North Shore:

(1) Develops a financial system that provides for the accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each HHS-sponsored project or program and
Tracks and accounts for each grant’s expenditures separately from other operating expenditures.

North Shore stated that it adjusted its internal financial reporting process to be in compliance with Federal requirements.

Under the Recovery Act, P.L. No. 111-5, enacted February 17, 2009, HRSA received $2.5 billion, including $2 billion to expand the Health Center Program to serve more patients, stimulate new jobs, and meet the expected increase in demand for primary health care services among the Nation’s uninsured and underserved populations.

OIG Says Lawndale Christian Health Center Claimed Unallowable Costs Under Recovery Act Grants (A-05-11-00057)

Lawndale Christian Health Center claimed $535,000 that was allowable under the terms of the grant and applicable Federal regulations. However, Lawndale claimed Federal grant expenditures totaling $174,000 that were unallowable. We could not determine the allowability of costs totaling $637,000 according to the OIG. See http://go.usa.gov/rFQP.

Alabama Improperly Claimed Federal Funds for Children’s Health Insurance Program Enrollees Who Had Medicaid or Other Health Insurance Coverage (A-04-11-08008)

OIG reports that Alabama improperly claimed Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Federal financial participation (FFP) for some individuals who were concurrently enrolled in CHIP and Medicaid. The Federal and State Governments jointly fund and administer both Medicaid and CHIP. States may not claim CHIP FFP for individuals who are concurrently enrolled in CHIP and Medicaid or who have other health insurance coverage. See http://go.usa.gov/rFQG.

Based on OIG sample results, OIG estimated that Alabama improperly claimed $1.5 million in CHIP FFP for enrollees who were concurrently enrolled in CHIP and Medicaid from October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010. Alabama also improperly claimed $153,000 in CHIP FFP for individuals who had other health insurance coverage from October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010.

OIG says the concurrent enrollment in CHIP and Medicaid occurred because:

Medicaid enrollment could be retroactive for up to 3 months, during which the individual could also have been enrolled in CHIP and
Supplemental Security Income eligibility, and consequent Medicaid enrollment, could be retroactive to the original application date, a period during which the individual could also have been enrolled in CHIP.

Moreover, the State agency did not have adequate internal controls to prevent or promptly correct concurrent enrollments. The CHIP payments that Alabama claimed on behalf of individuals who had other health insurance coverage occurred because State policy allowed for a coordination of benefits between CHIP and other health insurance coverage.

OIG recommended that Alabama:

Refund $1.5 million (Federal share) for FFP claimed on behalf of individuals who were concurrently enrolled in CHIP and Medicaid,
Refund $153,000 (Federal share) for FFP claimed on behalf of individuals enrolled in CHIP who had other health insurance coverage,
Develop additional policies and procedures to prevent or promptly recoup CHIP payments made on behalf of individuals who are identified as enrolled concurrently in Medicaid, and
Revise the current policy that allows for a coordination of benefits between CHIP and other health insurance coverage.

The OIG notes Alabama disagreed with all of its recommendations.

South Carolina Claimed Some Unallowable Room-and-Board Costs under the Intellectual and Related Disabilities Waiver (A-04-11-04012)

OIG reports that the South Carolina Department of Health & Human Services (State agency) operates a waiver program that provides long-term care and support for individuals with intellectual or related disabilities. The State agency contracts with the South Carolina Department of Disabilities and Special Needs (the Department) to provide waiver services. The Department provides these services through contractual arrangements with a network of 39 local Disabilities and Special Needs (DSN) Boards.

OIG reported it found that the State agency claimed Medicaid reimbursement of $6.7 million ($4.8 million Federal share) for unallowable room-and-board costs under the waiver program that the Department operated. The State agency claimed unallowable room-and-board costs because neither the State agency nor the Department had adequate controls to:

Ensure that the Department followed applicable Federal law and guidance or its own guidance or
Detect errors or misstatements on the local DSN boards’ cost reports. See http://go.usa.gov/rFQz.

Additionally, OIG says the Department did not prescribe a uniform format for the local DSN boards to follow when preparing the cost reports. Rather, each local board prepared its cost reports in its own format, making it difficult to identify when unallowable costs were claimed.

OIG recommended that the State agency:

Refund to the Federal Government $4.8 million, representing the Federal share of the room-and-board costs that the Department improperly claimed on its waiver cost reports;
Instruct the Department to follow Federal law and its own guidance and remove room-and-board related administrative and general costs from future waiver program cost reports;
Instruct the Department to develop a uniform cost reporting process and require each local board to follow this process;
Instruct the Department to strengthen its cost report review procedures to ensure that it will detect errors or misstatements on the local DSN boards’ cost reports; and
Strengthen its own procedures for reviewing the waiver cost reports submitted by the Department.

The State agency concurred with all of our recommendations and said that it would work with CMS to negotiate repayment of the improperly claimed room-and-board costs.

Review of New Mexico Medicaid Personal Care Services Provided by Coordinated Home Health (A-06-09-00064)

The OIG reported that its audit found that the State did not always ensure that Coordinated Home Health’s (Coordinated) claims for Medicaid personal care services complied with certain Federal and State requirements. Based on sample results, OIG estimated that Coordinated improperly claimed at least $11 million (Federal share) for personal care services during the period October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2008. http://go.usa.gov/rFUW.

According to OIG, personal care services may be provided to individuals who are not inpatients at a hospital or residents of a nursing facility, an intermediate care facility for individuals with intellectual disabilities, or an institution for mental disease. Examples of personal care services include, but are not limited to, cleaning, shopping, grooming, and bathing.

Of the 100 claims in the OIG sample, OIG reported that 54 complied with requirements, but 46 did not. Three of the forty-six claims were partially allowable. The 46 claims contained a total of 60 deficiencies: 49 deficiencies on insufficient attendant qualifications and 11 deficiencies on other concluded that Coordinated improperly claimed $8,000 for the 46 claims.

Based on these findings, OIG recommended that the State:
Refund to the Federal Government the $11 million paid to Coordinated for unallowable personal care services and
Ensure that personal care services providers maintain evidence that they comply with Federal and State requirements.

OIG reported that Coordinated disagreed with almost all of OIG’sfindings, and the State disagreed with OIG’s recommended refund amount. The State also said that some of the documentation requirements are not Federal requirements; they are State requirements, which do not require recovery of payments.

For Help With Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

If you need help providing compliance or other training, reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer medical privacy and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns/ She also regularly designs and presents risk management, compliance and other training for health care providers, professional associations and others. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. Contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Hospital, Hospital, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Medicaid, Medicare, OIG, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Real Estate, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark | Tagged: Anti-Kickback, DME, Health Care Fraud, healthcare provider, home health, Hospital, Physician, referral, STARK | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Hospital Chain HCA Inc. Pays $16.5 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations That Hospital

September 23, 2012

HCA Inc., one of the nation’s largest for-profit hospital chains, has agreed to pay the United States and the state of Tennessee $16.5 million to settle claims that it violated the False Claims Act and the Stark Statute, the Department of Justice announced September 19, 2012. The settlement agreement and the litigation it resolves are a reminder to hospitals, physicians and other health care providers of the growing readiness of the Justice Department and other federal and state regulators and enforcement agencies to prosecute health care providers for STARK, anti-kickback back or other violations of federal or state health health care fraud laws.

HCA Settlement & Underlying Charges

As alleged in the settlement agreement, during 2007, HCA, through its subsidiaries Parkridge Medical Center, located in Chattanooga, Tenn., and HCA Physician Services (HCAPS), headquartered in Nashville, Tenn., entered into a series of financial transactions with a physician group, Diagnostic Associates of Chattanooga, through which it provided financial benefits intended to induce the physician members of Diagnostic to refer patients to HCA facilities. These financial transactions included rental payments for office space leased from Diagnostic at a rate well in excess of fair market value in order to assist Diagnostic members to meet their mortgage obligations and a release of Diagnostic members from a separate lease obligation.

The Stark Statute restricts financial relationships that hospitals may enter into with physicians who potentially may refer patients to them. Federal law prohibits the payment of medical claims that result from such prohibited relationships.

The civil settlement resolves a lawsuit, United States ex rel. Bingham v. HCA, No. 1:08-CV-71 (E.D. Tenn.), pending in federal court in the Eastern District of Tennessee under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, which allow private citizens to bring civil actions on behalf of the United States and share in any recovery. As part of the civil settlement, HCA has agreed to pay $16.5 million to the United States and the state of Tennessee, with the federal portion representing $15,693,000 of the settlement amount. The whistleblower will receive an 18.5 percent share.

Also as part of the settlement, Parkridge Medical Center has entered into a comprehensive five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to ensure its continued compliance with federal health care benefit program requirements.

Settlement Part of Expanding Health Care Fraud Prosecution Efforts

This resolution is part of the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud and another step for the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which was announced by Attorney General Eric Holder and Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services in May 2009. The partnership between the two departments has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation. One of the most powerful tools in that effort is the False Claims Act, which the Justice Department has used to recover more than $9.4 billion since January 2009 in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs. The Justice Department’s total recoveries in False Claims Act cases since January 2009 are over $13.1 billion.

In announcing the resolution agreement, federal officials emphasized their readiness to prosecute STARK, anti-kickback and other health care fraud statutes.

“The Department of Justice continues to pursue cases involving improper financial relationships between health care providers and their referral sources, because such relationships can corrupt a physician’s judgment about the patient’s true healthcare needs,” said Stuart F. Delery, the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice’s Civil Division.

“Physicians should make decisions regarding referrals to health care facilities based on what is in the best interest of patients without being induced by payments from hospitals competing for their business,” said Bill Killian, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

“ Improper business deals between hospitals and physicians jeopardize both patient care and federal program dollars,” said Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services. “Our investigators continue to work shoulder to shoulder with other law enforcement authorities to stop schemes that imperil scarce health care resources.”

Coupled with the ever-lengthening list of civil settlements like the HCA settlement, and civil monetary penalties, program disqualifications, and criminal prosecutions, these announcements send a strong message to health care providers to review their transactions, referral and other relationships, and billing practices and address potential exposures.

For Help With Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

If you need help providing compliance or other training, reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer medical privacy and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns/ She also regularly designs and presents risk management, compliance and other training for health care providers, professional associations and others. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. Contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Hospital, Hospital, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Medicaid, Medicare, OIG, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Real Estate, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark | Tagged: Anti-Kickback, DME, Health Care Fraud, healthcare provider, home health, Hospital, Physician, referral, STARK | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Five More Individuals Charged in Detroit for Alleged Roles in $24.7 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme

September 23, 2012

New Charges Bring To A Total of 9 Charged for Their Roles in the Scheme

Charges against five more individuals for their alleged participation in a $24.7 million Medicare fraud scheme involving purported home health and psychotherapy services were unsealed and made public in the Eastern District of Michigan on September 20, 2012 bring to a total of nine individuals now charged in the scheme.

The Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) jointly announced the charges.

DOJ charges in court documents that the scheme allegedly involved a total of more than $24.7 million in fraudulent claims submitted to Medicare for purported home health care and psychotherapy services that were medically unnecessary and/or never provided. Court documents allege that the defendants are operators, employees and marketers associated with home health care and psychotherapy clinics operating in and around Detroit. Defendants charged in the unsealed court documents unsealed today include: Mohammed Sadiq; Jamella Al-Jumail; Firas Alky; Clarence Cooper and Beverly Cooper.

Four defendants charged in the superseding indictment were previously charged and arrested in May 2012 for their roles in the scheme. Defendants previously charged include: Sachin Sharma, Dana Sharma, Abdul Malik Al-Jumail, and Felicar Williams.

The superseding indictment charges all defendants with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud; Sachin Sharma with five counts of health care fraud; Sachin Sharma, Abdul Malik Al-Jumail, Williams, Sadiq, Alky and Clarence Cooper with one count of conspiracy to pay and receive health care kickbacks; and Jamella Al-Jumail with one count of destruction of records in a federal investigation. The superseding indictment also seeks forfeiture from all defendants.

According to the superseding indictment, from January 2007 through April 2012, the defendants operated a large network of purported home health care and psychotherapy companies in the Detroit area through which they conspired to defraud Medicare.

According to court documents, Sachin Sharma, Dana Sharma, Abdul Malik Al-Jumail, Williams, Jamella Al-Jumail, Sadiq, Alky and other alleged co-conspirators incorporated home health care, psychotherapy and other medical service companies to carry out the scheme, including Reliance Home Care, LLC; First Choice Home Health Care Services Inc.; Associates in Home Care Inc.; Haven Adult Day Care Center LLC; Swift Home Care LLC; ABC Home Care Inc.; Accessible Home Care Inc.; and Be Well Home Care LLC. The defendants, along with co-conspirators, allegedly submitted Medicare enrollment applications to let these companies to bill Medicare. Sachin Sharma, Abdul Malik-Al-Jumail, Sadiq, Alky and others allegedly paid kickbacks and bribes to recruiters, including Williams and Clarence Cooper, to get Medicare beneficiaries’ information, which could be used to fraudulently bill Medicare for purported services provided by the companies they operated and controlled. The defendants then allegedly caused these companies to bill Medicare for home health and psychotherapy services, even though these services were not medically necessary and were often not provided.

According to the superseding indictment, the defendants caused Reliance, First Choice, Associates, Haven, Swift, ABC, Accessible and other home health, psychotherapy and medical services companies to bill approximately $24.7 million in claims to Medicare for services that were medically unnecessary and/or not provided. In addition, Jamella Al-Jumail is charged with destroying records relating to Accessible’s Medicare billings upon learning of the May 2012 arrest of Abdul Malik Al-Jumail, her co-conspirator and father.

Clarence and Beverly Cooper, Sadiq and Jamella Al-Jumail were arrested on September 21.

The case is being prosecuted by Fraud Section Assistant Chief Gejaa T. Gobena and Trial Attorney William G. Kanellis. The investigations were conducted jointly by the FBI and HHS-OIG, as part of the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, supervised by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan and the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.

Act To Manage Health Care Fraud Exposures

As health care fraud enforcement remains a lead Federal priority, health care providers face ever-heightening exposures to HEAT task force scrutiny and prosecution. Along with these criminal investigation and enforcement activities, health care providers also face civil monetary penalty, federal program disqualification and other civil and administrative remedies from billing, reimbursement and other health care fraud, billing audits and other enforcement and audit activities.

In response to these and other investigation and oversight activities, health care providers should strengthen their compliance practices and oversight and take other special care to position themselves and their billings to defend against possible challenge.

For Help With Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

If you need help providing compliance or other training, reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer medical privacy and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns/ She also regularly designs and presents risk management, compliance and other training for health care providers, professional associations and others. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. Contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | DME, Doctor, false claims act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Plan, Health Plans, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Money Laundering, OIG, Physician, Physician Licensing, Reimbursement | Tagged: false claims act, Health Care Fraud, HEAT, Medical Licensure, Physician, texas medical board | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

With Risks Rising, Listen To 9/19 OCR Webinar On Civil Rights Enforcement In Health Care

September 18, 2012

With the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and other federal agencies stepping up their civil rights and discrimination compliance audits and enforcement activities and private plaintiff discrimination suits against health care providers and other health industry organizations rising, health care, housing, health insurance and other organizations subject to these requirements are encouraged to learn more about HHS’ view and enforcement of these civil rights rules by participating in the webcast on “Addressing Health Disparities through Civil Rights Compliance and Enforcement” on Wednesday, September 19 from 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. eastern daylight savings time (EST).

September 19 Webinar

According to HHS, the September 19, 2012 webinar will be jointly hosted by the Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Equal Opportunity, Civil Rights & Diversity Management (OEOCRDM) Office of Federal Assistance Management (OFAM) and the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources (ASFR).

Topics of discussion will include:

How non-compliance can contribute to health disparities and disparities in quality care;
Opportunities to ensure HHS-funded programs are in compliance with civil rights laws;
How HHS OCR enforces compliance in your neighborhood.
A panel of OCR and ASFR experts answering questions

To join the webcast click here.

Rising Civil Rights Law Exposures Require Management

Public and private health care and housing providers may face discrimination exposures under various federal laws such as the public accommodation and other disability discrimination prohibitions of the ADA, Section 504, the Civil Rights Act and various other laws. Section 504 requires recipients of Medicare, Medicaid, HUD, Department of Education, welfare and most other federal assistance programs funds including health care, education, housing services providers, state and local governments to ensure that qualified individuals with disabilities have equal access to programs, services, or activities receiving federal financial assistance. The ADA extends the prohibition against disability discrimination to private providers and other businesses as well as state and local governments including but not limited to health care providers reimbursed by Medicare, Medicaid or various other federal programs The ADA requirements extend most federal disability discrimination prohibits to health care and other businesses even if they do not receive federal financial assistance to ensure that qualified individuals with disabilities have equal access to their programs, services or activities. In many instances, these federal discrimination laws both prohibit discrimination and require health care and other regulated businesses to put in place reasonable accommodations needed to ensure that their services are accessible and available to persons with disabilities. Meanwhile the Civil Rights Act and other laws prohibit discrimination based on national origin, race, sex, age, religion and various other grounds. These federal rules impact virtually all public and private health care providers as well as a broad range housing and related service providers.

As part of a broader emphasis on the enforcement of disability and other federal discrimination laws by the Obama Administration, OCR is making investigation and prosecution of suspected disability discrimination by health industry organizations a priority. OCR recently has announced several settlement agreements and issued letters of findings as part of its ongoing efforts to ensure compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) as well as various other federal nondiscrimination and civil rights laws.

Defending or paying to settle a disability discrimination charge brought by a private plaintiff, OCR or another agency, or others tends to be financially, operationally and politically costly for a health care organization or public housing provider. In addition to the expanding readiness of OCR and other agencies to pursue investigations and enforcement of disability discrimination and other laws, the failure of health care organizations to effectively maintain processes to appropriately include and care for disabled other patients or constituents with special needs also can increase negligence exposure, undermine Joint Commission and other quality ratings, undermine efforts to qualify for public or private grant, partnerships or other similar arrangements, and create negative perceptions in the community.

As a result of its stepped up enforcement of the ADA, Section 504 and other civil rights and nondiscrimination rules, OCR is racking up an impressive list of settlements with health care providers, housing and other businesses for violating the ADA, Section 504 or other related civil rights rules enforced by OCR. While OCR continues to wage this enforcement battle in the programs it administers, the Departments of Justice, Housing & Urban Development (HUD), Education, Labor and other federal agencies also are waging war against what the Obama Administration perceives as illegal discrimination in other areas. Along side their own enforcement activities, OCR and other federal agencies are maintaining a vigorous public outreach to disabled and other individuals protected by federal disabilities and other civil rights laws intended to make them aware of and to encourage them to act to enforce these rights. To be prepared to defend against the resulting risk of claims and other enforcement actions created by these activities, health care, housing and other U.S. providers and businesses need to tighten compliance and risk management procedures and take other steps to prepare themselves to respond to potential charges and investigations.

Recent Settlements Highlight Risk

Within recent settlement agreements, entities agreed to take steps to come into compliance with Section 504 and ADA, including: review and revision of policies and procedures; training staff on their non-discrimination obligations; providing a grievance procedure for patients; and other corrective actions specific to each entity’s violations. To learn more details about these actions and settlements, see here.

These and other enforcement actions by OCR and other agencies demonstrate the significant increased federal emphasis on the enforcement of federal discrimination laws against private and public health care and housing providers, state and local governments and other businesses under the Obama Administration. In keeping with this renewed emphasis, the DCF settlement is the latest in a series of federal disability, national origin and other discrimination charges and settlements OCR, has brought over the past year against physicians, public and private hospitals, insurers, federally financed housing providers and other parties providing services financed under programs administered by OCR. As HUD, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and other federal agencies also similarly have increased emphasis in federal discrimination law enforcement during this period, health care providers and other federal program service providers need to be prepared to defend their programs and practices to withstand federal discrimination charges or other investigations by federal agencies, private plaintiffs or both.

As for employment discrimination, violators of these and other federal discrimination prohibitions applicable to the offering and delivery of services and products also face exposure to large civil damage awards to private plaintiffs as well as federal program disqualification, penalties and other federal agency enforcement. Unfortunately, while most businesses and governmental leaders generally are sensitive to the need to maintain effective compliance programs to prevent and redress employment discrimination, the awareness of the applicability and non-employment related disability and other discrimination risk management and compliance lags far behind.

Many private health care organizations assume that OCR’s enforcement actions are mostly a problem for state and local government agencies because state and local agencies and service providers frequently have been the target of OCR discrimination charges. However the record shows OCR enforcement risks are high for both public and private providers.

OCR can and does investigate and brings actions against a wide variety of public and private physicians, hospitals, insurers and other private health care and other federal program participants. In October, 2009, for instance, OCR announced that an Austin, Texas orthopedic surgeon whose practice group sees an average of 200 patients per week, had entered into a settlement agreement to resolve OCR charges that he violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by denying medically appropriate treatment from patients solely because they are HIV-positive.

Invest in Prevention To Minimize Liability Risks

In light of the expanding readiness of OCR to investigate and take action against health care providers for potential violations of the ADA, Section 504 and other federal discrimination and civil rights laws, health care organizations and their leaders should review and tighten their policies, practices, training, documentation, investigation, redress, discipline and other nondiscrimination policies and procedures. In carrying out these activities, organizations and their leaders should keep in mind the critical role of training and oversight of staff and contractors plays in promoting and maintaining required operational compliance with these requirements. Reported settlements reflect that the liability trigger often is discriminatory conduct by staff, contractors, or landlords in violation of both the law and the organization’s own policies.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer, see here.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | ADA, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Employer, Employment, Genetic Information, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Licensing, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, OCR, OIG, Physician, Physician Licensing, Real Estate, Rehabilitation Act, Substance Abuse | Tagged: ADA, controlled substance, DEA, Discrimination, Drug Testing, drugs, Health Care, HHS, Hospital, licensure, Medical Board, Medical Practice, OCR, Office of Civil Rights, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Massachusetts Ear Group To Pay $1.5 Million To Resolve HIPAA Charges

September 17, 2012

Physician practices and other health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates have yet another $1 million plus reminder of the importance of taking proper steps to secure electronic protected health information and take other steps required to comply with the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).

Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary and Massachusetts Eye and Ear Associates, Inc. (collectively referred to as “MEEI”) will pay the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) $1.5 million and take a series of corrective actions to settle potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Security Rule under the resolution agreement available here (“Resolution Agreement”) announced by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) on September 17, 2012.

MEEI Resolution Agreement

The Resolution Agreement settles charges that resulted from an OCR investigation commenced in response to a HIPAA breach report submitted by MEEI reporting the theft of an unencrypted personal laptop containing the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of MEEI patients and research subjects. The laptop information included patient prescriptions and clinical information.

OCR’s investigation indicated that MEEI failed to take necessary steps to comply with certain requirements of the HIPAA Security Rule, such as conducting a thorough analysis of the risk to the confidentiality of ePHI maintained on portable devices, implementing security measures sufficient to ensure the confidentiality of ePHI that MEEI created, maintained, and transmitted using portable devices, adopting and implementing policies and procedures to restrict access to ePHI to authorized users of portable devices , and adopting and implementing policies and procedures to address security incident identification, reporting, and response. OCR’s investigation indicated that these failures continued over an extended period of time, demonstrating a long-term organizational disregard for the requirements of the Security Rule.

To settle the charges, MEEI will pay a $1.5 million settlement to OCR. In addition, the Resolution Agreement also requires MEEI to adhere to a corrective action plan which includes reviewing, revising and maintaining policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the Security Rule, and retaining an independent monitor who will conduct assessments of MEEI’s compliance with the corrective action plan and render semi-annual reports to HHS for a 3-year period.

High Dollar Resolution Agreements Increasingly Common

The MEEI Resolution Agreement follows on the resolution agreement previously announced this year with Arizona-based Phoenix Cardiac Surgery, P.C. (PCS). That resolution agreement required PCS to pay $100,000 and take corrective action to implement policies and procedures to safeguard the protected health information of its patients to settle OCR charges PCS violated HIPAA.

Health care providers and other HIPAA-covered entities should heed the MEEI, PSC and other recent settlements as the latest signal of the risks that health care providers and other covered entities run by failing to adequately implement and administer appropriate HIPAA compliance practices.

Following the announcement by OCR last month that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee (BCBST) would pay $1,500,000 to resolve HIPAA violations charges, and the latest in a series of Resolution Agreements announced by OCR in recent years, the PCS highlights the willingness to sanction health care providers and other covered entities of all sizes. “The case is significant because it highlights a multi-year, continuing failure on the part of this provider to comply with the requirements of the Privacy and Security Rules,” said Leon Rodriguez, director of OCR. “We hope that health care providers pay careful attention to this resolution agreement and understand that the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules have been in place for many years, and OCR expects full compliance no matter the size of a covered entity.”

Enforcement Actions Highlight Growing HIPAA Exposures For Covered Entities

Like the PCS, BCBST and other announced resolution agreements, the MEEI Resolution Agreement provides more evidence of the growing exposures that health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates need to carefully and appropriately manage their HIPAA responsibilities. See HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website. Covered entities are urged to heed these warning by strengthening their HIPAA compliance and adopting other suitable safeguards to minimize HIPAA exposures. For tips, see here.

For Help With Monitoring Developments, Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

If you need assistance monitoring federal health reform, policy or enforcement developments, or to review or respond to these or other health care or health IT related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, can help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers, health plans, their business associates and other health industry clients to establish and administer medical privacy and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. She regularly designs and presents HIPAA and other risk management, compliance and other training for health plans, employers, health care providers, professional associations and others.

Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance frequently appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others.

You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here or contact Ms Stamer here or at (469) 767-8872.

[1] The Breach Notification Rule also requires that covered entities report smaller breaches annually to OCR as part of a consolidated disclosure.

For more tips, see here.

Other Recent Updates & Resources

For additional resources and publications training materials by Ms. Stamer, see here.

[*] The Breach Notification Rule also requires that covered entities report smaller breaches annually to OCR as part of a consolidated disclosure.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ARRA, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Meaningful Use, Mental Heatlh, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy | Tagged: Breach Notification, Health Care, Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act, HIPAA, OCR, Office of Civil Rights, PHI, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

ONC Releases First Wave of EHR Test Procedures; More To Come

September 14, 2012

On September 7th the ONC published the first wave of draft Test Procedures and applicable test data files for the 2014 Edition Elelctronic Health Record (EHR) certification criteria for public review and comment. ONC will release additional Test Procedures in waves on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. Each set of draft test procedures will undergo a two week period of public review and comment from the date posted. You can now provide input on Wave One 2014 draft Test Procedures. Visit the site for detailed information on the 2014 Test Procedure development process at http://www.healthit.gov/policy-researchers-implementers/2014-edition-draft-test-procedures.

For Help With Monitoring Developments, Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

If you need help monitoring federal health reform, policy or enforcement developments, or to review or respond to these or other health care or health IT related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, can help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers, health plans, their business associates and other health industry clients to establish and administer medical privacy and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. She regularly designs and presents HIPAA and other risk management, compliance and other training for health plans, employers, health care providers, professional associations and others.

Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance frequently appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others.

You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here.

Other Recent Updates & Resources

For additional resources and publications training materials by Ms. Stamer, see here.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ARRA, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Meaningful Use, Mental Heatlh, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, EHR, Electronic Health Records, Health Care, health care IT, Health Care Provider, Health Plans, HIPAA, ONC, PHI, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR Releases HIPAA Compliance Training Tool As Enforcement Risks Rise

September 14, 2012

Along with its stepped up enforcement and new audit programs, the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is working to promote and encourage better voluntary compliance by physician and other health care providers by releasing a new interactive security and privacy training game to help educate healthcare providers and their staffs to make more informed decisions regarding privacy and security of health information. Using a game format, the game asks users to respond to privacy and security challenges often faced in a typical medical practice.

With the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) stepping up enforcement and sanctions for health care providers, health plans, health care providers and their businesses associates (covered entities) that violate the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Rules and OCR now auditing HIPAA compliance, covered entities should self-audit within the scope of attorney-client privilege and tighten as necessary existing policies, practices and documentation to comply with evolving requirements of HIPAA and other laws requiring the protection of protected health information (PHI), personal financial information and sensitive data.

As the HIPAA Privacy, Security and Breach Rules include mandates that covered entities train members of their workforce, the new game could be a helpful component for health care providers as part of their organization’s training efforts.

The mounting list of settlement agreements – most of which have required settlement payments of more than $1 million – that OCR has announced show the growing exposures that covered entities face when violating HIPAA. See HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website. These settlements and sanctions prove the importance of covered entities strengthening their HIPAA compliance and adopting other suitable safeguards to keep up HIPAA compliance and minimize HIPAA and other exposures that can arise if PHI, personal financial information and other sensitive data. For tips, see here.

For Help With Monitoring Developments, Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance frequently appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others.

You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here.

Other Recent Updates & Resources

For additional resources and publications training materials by Ms. Stamer, see here.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ARRA, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Meaningful Use, Mental Heatlh, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy | Tagged: Health Care, Health Plans, HIPAA, PHI, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Care Orgs Disability Exposure High As $475K Paid To Settle Justice Department Charges Medical Fitness Screenings of EMTs, Others Violated ADA

August 13, 2012

The Justice Department’s announced prosecution and settlement of a disability discrimination lawsuit against Baltimore County, Maryland for allegedly violating the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by screening emergency medical technicians (EMTs) and other public safety workers provides another reminder to health care providers and other public and private organizations of the need to strengthen their disability discrimination management practices to defend against rising exposures to actions by the U.S. Department of Justice, Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and other agencies as well as private law suits.

Defending or paying to settle a disability discrimination charge brought by a private plaintiff, OCR or another agency, or others tends to be financially, operationally and politically costly for a health care organization or public housing provider. In addition to the expanding readiness of OCR and other agencies to pursue investigations and enforcement of disability discrimination and other laws, the failure of health care organizations to effectively maintain processes to appropriately include and care for disabled other patients or constituents with special needs also can increase negligence exposure, undermine Joint Commission and other quality ratings, undermine efforts to qualify for public or private grant, partnerships or other similar arrangements, and create negative perceptions in the community.

In the employment arena, a settlement announced August 7 with Baltimore County is particularly notable as part of this trend, both for its challenge of medical exams and inquiries for EMTs and others in health care and other areas where safety could be a concern, as well as its objection to medical inquiries made to workers on medical leave during the course of that leave.

Baltimore County Nailed For Health Screening of Public Safety Workers

Employment disability discrimination risk management clearly must be a key element of health care and other organization’s disability discrimination risk management and risk assessments should not take for granted the defensibility of practices previously assumed defensible as required by law or for health and safety reasons. Rather, health care and other employers that require employees to submit to medical examinations, question employees about physician or mental conditions or disabilities, or engage in other similar activities should check the defensibility of those practices in light of the growing challenges to these and other employee screening practices by the Obama Administration and private plaintiff attorneys like the Justice Department disability discrimination complaint that lead to a $475,000 settlement against Baltimore County, Maryland announced by the Justice Department on August 7, 2012. According to the Justice Department, Baltimore County, Maryland will pay $475,000 and change its hiring procedures to resolve a Justice Department lawsuit filed that charged the county violated the ADA by requiring employees to submit to medical examinations and disability-related inquiries without a proper reason, and by excluding applicants from EMT positions because of their diabetes.

ADA Employment Discrimination Generally

Title I of the ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of disability in various aspects of employment. The ADA’s provisions on disability-related inquiries and medical examinations show Congress’s intent to protect the rights of applicants and employees to be assessed on merit alone, while protecting the rights of employers to make sure that individuals in the workplace can efficiently do the essential functions of their jobs. An employer generally violates the ADA if it requires its employees to undergo medical examinations or submit to disability-related inquiries that are not related to how the employee performs his or her job duties, or if it requires its employees to disclose overbroad medical history or medical records. Title I of the ADA also generally requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees’ and applicants’ disabilities as long as this does not pose an undue hardship or the employer the employer otherwise proves employing a person with a disability with reasonable accommodation could not eliminate significant safety concerns. Employers generally bear the burden of proving these or other defenses. Employers are also prohibited from excluding individuals with disabilities unless they show that the exclusion is consistent with business necessity and they are prohibited from retaliating against employees for opposing practices contrary to the ADA. Violations of the ADA can expose businesses to substantial liability.

As reflected by the Baltimore County settlement, violations of the employment provisions of the ADA may be prosecuted by the EEOC or by private lawsuits and can result in significant judgments. Employees or applicants that can prove they were subjected to prohibited disability discrimination under the ADA generally can recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and up to $300,000 of exemplary damages (depending on the size of the employer).

Baltimore County Nailed For Medical Fitness Screening Of EMTs, Other Public Safety Workers

The U.S. Justice Department lawsuit against Baltimore County, Maryland is one in a growing series of lawsuits in which the Justice Department or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is aggressively challenging medical examination and other medical screenings by private and public employers. In its lawsuit against the County, the Justice Department complaint identified 10 current and former police officers, firefighters, EMTs, civilian employees and applicants who were allegedly subjected to inappropriate and intrusive medical examinations and/or other disability-based discrimination. Justice Department officials claimed the County required some employees to undergo medical examinations or respond to medical inquiries that were unrelated to their ability to perform the functions of their jobs. The complaint also alleged the County required employees to submit to medical examinations that were improperly timed, such as requiring an employee who was on medical leave and undergoing medical treatment to submit to a medical exam even though the employee was not attempting to return to work yet.

According to the complaint, many affected employees – some of whom had worked for the County for decades – submitted to the improper medical exams for fear of discipline or termination if they refused. The complaint also alleges that the county retaliated against an employee who tried to caution against the unlawful medical exams and refused to hire two qualified applicants for EMT positions because they had diabetes.

In the proposed consent decree filed on August 7, 2012 and awaiting District Court approval, the County seeks to resolve the lawsuit by agreeing to:

Pay $475,000 to the complainants and provide more work-related benefits (including retirement benefits and back pay, plus interest);
Adopt new policies and procedures on the administration of medical examinations and inquiries;
Refrain from using the services of the medical examiner who conducted the overbroad medical examinations in question;
Stop the automatic exclusion of job applicants who have insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus; and
Provide training on the ADA to all current supervisory employees and all employees who participate in making personnel decisions.

Obama Administration Aggressively Enforcing & Interpreting Employment & Other Disability Discrimination Laws

The Baltimore County suit is reflective of the aggressive emphasis that the Obama Administration is placing on challenging employers that require employees to undergo medical screening, respond to medical inquiries or engage in other practices that the EEOC, Justice Department or other Obama Administration officials under Title I of the ADA, as well as its heavy emphasis upon enforcement of the ADA and other disability discrimination laws against U.S. businesses and state and local government agencies generally.

The Justice Department action against Baltimore County is part of the Obama Administration’s sweeping effort to enforce employment and other disability discrimination laws against businesses and state and local government agencies alike. While the Administration’s disability law enforcement reaches broadly, disability discrimination enforcement is particularly notable in the area of employment law. This enforcement targets both public employers like Baltimore County, and private employers. In the private employer arena, for instance, the EEOC earlier this year sued Wendy’s franchisee, CTW L.L.C., (Texas Wendy’s) for allegedly violating the ADA by denying employment to a hearing-impaired applicant. In its suit against Texas Wendy’s, the EEOC seeks injunctive relief, including the formulation of policies to prevent and correct disability discrimination as well as an award of lost wages and compensatory damages for Harrison and punitive damages against CTW L.L.C. In the suit, the EEOC charged that the general manager of a Killeen, Texas Wendy’s refused to hire Michael Harrison, Jr. for a cooker position, despite his qualifications and experience, upon learning that Harrison is hearing-impaired.

According to the EEOC, Harrison, who had previously worked for a different fast-food franchise for over two years, was denied hire by the general manager. Harrison said that after successfully interviewing with the Wendy’s shift manager, he attempted to complete the interview process by interviewing with Wendy’s general manager via Texas Relay, a telephonic system used by people with hearing impairments. Harrison’s told the EEOC that during the call he was told by the general manager that “there is really no place for someone we cannot communicate with.”

As illustrated by the suits against Baltimore County, Texas Wendy’s and many other public and private employers, employers must exercise care when making hiring, promotion or other employment related decisions relating to persons with hearing or other conditions that could qualify as a disability under the ADA.

Defending disability discrimination charges has become more complicated due to both the aggressive interpretation and enforcement of the ADA under the Obama Administration and amendments to the ADA that aid private plaintiffs, the EEOC, the Justice Department and others to prove their case. Provisions of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) that expand the definition of “disability” under the ADA, signed into law on September 25, 2008, broadened the definition of “disability” for purposes of the disability discrimination prohibitions of the ADA to make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that a person has a disability within the meaning of the ADA. The ADAAA retains the ADA’s basic definition of “disability” as an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. However, provisions of the ADAAA that took effect January 1, 2009 change the way that these statutory terms should be interpreted in several ways. Most significantly, the ADAAA:

Directs EEOC to revise that portion of its regulations defining the term “substantially limits;”
Expands the definition of “major life activities” by including two non-exhaustive lists: (1) The first list includes many activities that the EEOC has recognized (e.g., walking) as well as activities that EEOC has not specifically recognized (e.g., reading, bending, and communicating); and (2) The second list includes major bodily functions (e.g., “functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions”);
States that mitigating measures other than “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” shall not be considered in assessing whether an individual has a disability;
Clarifies that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active;
Changes the definition of “regarded as” so that it no longer requires a showing that the employer perceived the individual to be substantially limited in a major life activity, and instead says that an applicant or employee is “regarded as” disabled if he or she is subject to an action prohibited by the ADA (e.g., failure to hire or termination) based on an impairment that is not transitory and minor; and
Provides that individuals covered only under the “regarded as” prong are not entitled to reasonable accommodation.

The ADAAA also emphasizes that the definition of disability should be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA and generally shall not require extensive analysis. In adopting these changes, Congress expressly sought to overrule existing employer-friendly judicial precedent construing the current provisions of the ADA and to require the EEOC to update its existing guidance to confirm with the ADAAA Amendments. Under the leadership of the Obama Administration, the EEOC and other federal agencies have embraced this charge and have significantly stepped up enforcement of the ADA and other federal discrimination laws.

The ADAAA amendments coupled with the Obama Administration’s emphasis on enforcement make it likely that businesses generally will face more disability claims from a broader range of employees and will possess fewer legal shields to defend themselves against these claims. These changes will make it easier for certain employees to qualify as disabled under the ADA. Consequently, businesses should act strategically to mitigate their ADA exposures in anticipation of these changes. Given the Obama Administration’s well-documented, self-touted activism of the EEOC, Justice Department and other federal agencies in prosecuting disability discrimination and promoting a pro-disability enforcement agenda, businesses are encouraged to review and tighten their employment disability discrimination compliance procedures and documentation.

Likewise, businesses should be prepared for the EEOC and the courts to treat a broader range of disabilities, including those much more limited in severity and life activity restriction, to qualify as disabling for purposes of the Act. Businesses should assume that a greater number of employees with such conditions are likely to seek to use the ADA as a basis for challenging hiring, promotion and other employment decisions. For this reason, businesses should exercise caution to carefully document legitimate business justification for their hiring, promotion and other employment related decisions about these and other individuals who might qualify as disabled taking into account both the broadened disability definition and the aggressive interpretative stance of the Obama Administration. Businesses also generally should tighten job performance and other employment recordkeeping to promote the ability to prove nondiscriminatory business justifications for the employment decisions made by the businesses.

Businesses also should consider tightening their documentation regarding their procedures and processes governing the collection and handling records and communications that may contain information regarding an applicant’s physical or mental impairment, such as medical absences, worker’s compensation claims, emergency information, or other records containing health status or condition related information. The ADA generally requires that these records be maintained in separate confidential files and disclosed only to individuals with a need to know under circumstances allowed by the ADA.

As part of this process, businesses also should carefully review their employment records, group health plan, family leave, disability accommodation, and other existing policies and practices to comply with, and manage exposure under the new genetic information nondiscrimination and privacy rules enacted as part of the Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) signed into law by President Bush on May 21, 2008. Effective November 21, 2009, Title VII of GINA amends the Civil Rights Act to prohibit employment discrimination based on genetic information and restricts the ability of employers and their health plans to require, collect or retain certain genetic information. Under GINA, employers, employment agencies, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees face significant liability for violating the sweeping nondiscrimination and confidentiality requirements of GINA concerning their use, maintenance and disclosure of genetic information. Employees can sue for damages and other relief like currently available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other nondiscrimination laws. For instance, GINA’s employment related provisions include rules that will:

Prohibit employers and employment agencies from discriminating based on genetic information in hiring, termination or referral decisions or in other decisions regarding compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment;
Prohibit employers and employment agencies from limiting, segregating or classifying employees so as to deny employment opportunities to an employee based on genetic information;
Bar labor organizations from excluding, expelling or otherwise discriminating against individuals based on genetic information;
Prohibit employers, employment agencies and labor organizations from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information of an employee or an employee’s family member except as allowed by GINA to satisfy certification requirements of family and medical leave laws, to monitor the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace or other conditions specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit employers, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees from discriminating in any decisions related to admission or employment in training or retraining programs, including apprenticeships based on genetic information;
Mandate that in the narrow situations where limited cases where genetic information is obtained by a covered entity, it maintain the information on separate forms in separate medical files, treat the information as a confidential medical record, and not disclosure the genetic information except in those situations specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit any person from retaliating against an individual for opposing an act or practice made unlawful by GINA; and
Regulate the collection, use, access and disclosure of genetic information by employer sponsored and certain other health plans.

These employment provisions of GINA are in addition to amendments to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and Title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act that are effective for group health plan for plan years beginning after May 20, 2009. Added together, employment related disability discrimination are large and growing, meriting stepped up risk assessment and management.

Health Care & Other Organizations Also Targeted For Violations Of Public Accommodation & Other Federal Disability & Other Disability Discrimination Laws

In addition to the well-known and expanding employment discrimination risks, public and private health care and housing providers also increasingly face disability discrimination exposures under various federal laws such as the public accommodation and other disability discrimination prohibitions of the ADA, Section 504, the Civil Rights Act and various other laws that the Obama Administration views as high enforcement priorities.

Section 504 requires recipients of Medicare, Medicaid, HUD, Department of Education, welfare and most other federal assistance programs funds including health care, education, housing services providers, state and local governments to ensure that qualified individuals with disabilities have equal access to programs, services, or activities receiving federal financial assistance. The ADA extends the prohibition against disability discrimination to private providers and other businesses as well as state and local governments including but not limited to health care providers reimbursed by Medicare, Medicaid or various other federal programs The ADA requirements extend most federal disability discrimination prohibits to health care and other businesses even if they do not receive federal financial assistance to ensure that qualified individuals with disabilities have equal access to their programs, services or activities. In many instances, these federal discrimination laws both prohibit discrimination and require health care and other regulated businesses to put in place reasonable accommodations needed to ensure that their services are accessible and available to persons with disabilities. Meanwhile the Civil Rights Act and other laws prohibit discrimination based on national origin, race, sex, age, religion and various other grounds. These federal rules impact virtually all public and private health care providers as well as a broad range housing and related service providers.

As a result of its stepped up enforcement of the ADA, Section 504 and other civil rights and nondiscrimination rules, OCR is racking up an impressive list of settlements with health care providers, housing and other businesses for violating the ADA, Section 504 or other related civil rights rules enforced by OCR. While OCR continues to wage this enforcement battle in the programs it administers, the Departments of Justice, Housing & Urban Development, Education, Labor and other federal agencies also are waging war against what the Obama Administration perceives as illegal discrimination in other areas. Along side their own enforcement activities, OCR and other federal agencies are maintaining a vigorous public outreach to disabled and other individuals protected by federal disabilities and other civil rights laws intended to make them aware of and to encourage them to act to enforce these rights. To be prepared to defend against the resulting risk of claims and other enforcement actions created by these activities, health care, housing and other U.S. providers and businesses need to tighten compliance and risk management procedures and take other steps to prepare themselves to respond to potential charges and investigations.

Recent Settlements Highlight Risk

Enforcement of Discrimination & Other Civil Rights Laws Obama Administration Priority Putting Public & Private Providers At Risk

These and other enforcement actions by OCR and other agencies demonstrate the significant increased federal emphasis on the enforcement of federal discrimination laws against private and public health care and housing providers, state and local governments and other businesses under the Obama Administration. In keeping with this renewed emphasis, the DCF settlementis one of a growing list of federal disability, national origin and other discrimination charges and settlements OCR, has brought over the past year against physicians, public and private hospitals, insurers, federally financed housing providers and other parties providing services financed under programs administered by OCR. As the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and other federal agencies also similarly have increased emphasis in federal discrimination law enforcement during this period, health care providers and other federal program service providers need to be prepared to defend their programs and practices to withstand federal discrimination charges or other investigations by federal agencies, private plaintiffs or both.

Obama Administration Also Aggressively Prosecutes Disability Discrimination In Other Business Operations

Guarding against disability discrimination in employment is not the only area that businesses need to prepare to defend against. The Obama Administration also has trumpeted its commitment to the aggressive enforcement of the public accommodation provisions of the ADA and other federal disability discrimination laws. In June, 2012, for instance, President Obama himself made a point of reaffirming his administration’s “commitment to fighting discrimination, and to addressing the needs and concerns of those living with disabilities.”

As part of its significant commitment to disability discrimination enforcement, the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department has aggressively enforced the public accommodation provisions of the ADA and other federal disability discrimination laws against state agencies and private businesses that it perceives to have improperly discriminated against disabled individuals. For instance, the Justice Department entered into a landmark settlement agreement with the Commonwealth of Virginia, which will shift Virginia’s developmental disabilities system from one heavily reliant on large, state-run institutions to one focused on safe, individualized, and community-based services that promote integration, independence and full participation by people with disabilities in community life. The agreement expands and strengthens every aspect of the Commonwealth’s system of serving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in integrated settings, and it does so through a number of services and supports. The Justice Department has a website dedicated to disabilities law enforcement, which includes links to settlements, briefs, findings letters, and other materials. The settlement agreements are a reminder that private businesses and state and local government agencies alike should exercise special care to prepare to defend their actions against potential disability or other Civil Rights discrimination challenges. All organizations, whether public or private need to make sure both that their organizations, their policies, and people in form and in action understand and comply with current disability and other nondiscrimination laws. When reviewing these responsibilities, many state and local governments and private businesses may need to update their understanding of current requirements. Statutory, regulatory or enforcement changes have expanded the scope and applicability of disability and various other federal nondiscrimination and other laws and risks of charges of discrimination.

To help mitigate the expanded employment liability risks created by the ADAAA amendments, businesses generally should act cautiously when dealing with applicants or employees with actual, perceived, or claimed physical or mental impairments to decrease exposures under the ADA. Management should exercise caution to carefully and proper the potential legal significance of physical or mental impairments or conditions that might be less significant in severity or scope, correctable through the use of eyeglasses, hearing aids, daily medications or other adaptive devices, or that otherwise have been assumed by management to fall outside the ADA’s scope. Employers should no longer assume, for instance, that a visually impaired employee won’t qualify as disabled because eyeglasses can substantially correct the employee’s visual impairment.

Invest in Prevention To Minimize Liability Risks

In light of the expanding readiness of the EEOC, Justice Department, OCR, HUD and other agencies to investigate and take action against health care providers for potential violations of the ADA, Section 504 and other federal discrimination and civil rights laws, health care organizations and their leaders should review and tighten their policies, practices, training, documentation, investigation, redress, discipline and other nondiscrimination policies and procedures. In carrying out these activities, organizations and their leaders should keep in mind the critical role of training and oversight of staff and contractors plays in promoting and maintaining required operational compliance with these requirements. Reported settlements reflect that the liability trigger often is discriminatory conduct by staff, contractors, or landlords in violation of both the law and the organization’s own policies.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer, see here. About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | ADA, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Employer, Employment, Genetic Information, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Licensing, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, OCR, OIG, Physician, Physician Licensing, Real Estate, Rehabilitation Act, Substance Abuse | Tagged: ADA, Civil Rights, controlled substance, County Hospital, DEA, Discrimination, Drug Testing, drugs, Government, Health Care, HHS, Hospital, licensure, Medical Board, Medical Practice, OCR, Office of Civil Rights, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HHS/DOJ Partner With Private Health Plans To Further Ramp Up Health Care Fraud Heat!

July 30, 2012

Health care providers and payers should ensure that practices for billing private payers can withstand the scrutiny of federal and state health care fraud enforcers after the July 26, 2012 announcement of a ground-breaking new public-private antifraud initiative between federal and state health care fraud fighters and a private insurers under which private insurers will share an unprecedented amount of private health claims data, fraud detection practices, and other coöperation with federal and state official fraud prevention and prosecution efforts.

Government Health Care Fraud Fighters Partner With Private Insurers

The Federal health care fraud fighting departmental duo of the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) Justice (DOJ) last week expanded their network of fraud fighting resources by launching a “ground-breaking” partnership among the federal government, State officials, several leading private health insurance organizations, and other health care anti-fraud groups to prevent health care fraud. HHS and DOJ say the following organizations and government agencies are among the first to join this partnership:

America’s Health Insurance Plans
Amerigroup Corporation
Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Coalition Against Insurance Fraud
Federal Bureau of Investigations
Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General
Humana Inc.
Independence Blue Cross
National Association of Insurance Commissioners
National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units
National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association
National Insurance Crime Bureau
New York Office of Medicaid Inspector General
Travelers
Tufts Health Plan
UnitedHealth Group
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
U.S. Department of Justice
WellPoint, Inc.

HHS & DOJ Say Partnering With Private Insurers Will Give Ongoing Anti-Fraud Efforts Even More Punch

In announcing the new partnership on July 26, 2012, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Attorney General Eric Holder touted this new voluntary, collaborative public-private arrangement as the “next step” in the Obama administration’s efforts to combat health care fraud.

“This partnership is a critical step forward in strengthening our nation’s fight against health care fraud,” said Attorney General Holder. “This Administration has established a record of success in combating devastating fraud crimes, but there is more we can and must do to protect patients, consumers, essential health care programs, and precious taxpayer dollars. Bringing additional health care industry leaders and experts into this work will allow us to act more quickly and effectively in identifying and stopping fraud schemes, seeking justice for victims, and safeguarding our health care system.”

“This partnership puts criminals on notice that we will find them and stop them before they steal health care dollars,” Secretary Sebelius said. “Thanks to this initiative today and the anti-fraud tools that were made available by the health care law, we are working to stamp out these crimes and abuse in our health care system.”

Partnership Allows Feds To Use Private Payer Claims Data, Knowledge & Other Fraud Detection Resources

According to HHS and DOJ, the new partnership is designed to share information and best practices in order to improve detection and prevent payment of fraudulent health care billings. Its goal is to reveal and halt scams that cut across a number of public and private payers. HHS and DOJ say the partnership will private insurers to share their anti-fraud insights more easily with investigators, prosecutors, policymakers and other stakeholders and law enforcement officials more effectively to identify and prevent suspicious activities, better protect patients’ confidential information and use the full range of tools and authorities provided by the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) and other statutes to combat and prosecute illegal actions.

One unprecedented element of this partnership will involve the sharing of information on specific schemes, utilized billing codes and geographical fraud hotspots between the public and private partners. The partners say the planned sharing of claims data and other information will help partners prevent, detect and respond to potential health care billing fraud by:

Helping partners to take action, to prevent losses to both government and private health plans before they occur;
Improving their ability to spot and stop payments billed to different insurers for care delivered to the same patient on the same day in two different cities;
In the future to use sophisticated technology and analytics on industry-wide healthcare data to predict and detect health care fraud schemes.

Presumably, this will involve the extension of the use of state-of-the-art technology and data mining practices like those the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already uses to review claims, to track suspected fraud trends and flag suspected fraudulent activity.

Partnership Expands Use & Reach of New Affordable Care Act & Other Health Care Fraud Detection & Enforcement Tools & Collaboration

The partnership builds upon and extends the reach and use of expanded legal tools created by the Affordable Care Act and other laws that Federal and state officials are using in their highly publicized war against health care fraud, waste and abuse in Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and, increasingly, private insurance plans. Using these and other new tools, convictions under the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program increased by over 27% (583 to 743) between 2009 and 2011, and the number of defendants facing criminal charges filed by federal prosecutors in 2011 increased by 74% compared with 2008 (1,430 vs. 821).

The Affordable Care Act and other legislative changes and related programs have significantly strengthened the powers of HHS, DOJ and other federal and state agencies to investigate and prosecute health care fraud. Among other things, these amendments and programs included :

Qui tam and other whistleblower incentives and programs that encourage employees, patients, competitors and others to report suspicious behavior;
Require providers, plans to self-identify, self-report and self-correct false claims and certain other non-compliance;
Increase the federal sentencing guidelines for health care fraud offenses by 20-50% for crimes that involve more than $1 million in losses;
Create penalties for obstructing a fraud investigation or audit;
Make it easier for the government to recapture any funds acquired through fraudulent practices;
Make it easier for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate potential fraud or wrongdoing at facilities like nursing homes;
Under the risk-based provider enrollment rules, providers and suppliers wishing to take part in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP who federal officials view as posing a higher risk of fraud or abuse now must undergo licensure checks, site visits and other heightened scrutiny including ongoing monitoring as part of the new Automated Provider Screening (APS) system CMS implemented in December 2011. The APS uses existing information from public and private sources to automatically and continuously verify information submitted on a provider’s Medicare enrollment application including licensure status Secretary to impose a temporary moratorium on newly enrolling providers or suppliers of a particular type or in certain geographic areas if necessary to prevent or combat fraud, waste, and abuse.
Increased information sharing and coördination of investigations and enforcement among states, CMS, and its law enforcement partners at the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and DOJ including the highly publicized activities of the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT), a joint effort between HHS and DOJ to fight health care fraud.
The power of CMS, in consultation with OIG, to suspend Medicare payments and require States to suspend Medicaid and SCHIP payments to providers or suppliers during the investigation of a credible allegation of fraud;
The deployment and use of the sophisticated data collection and mining technologies of CMS’ new Fraud Prevention System, which since June 30, 2011 has used advanced predictive modeling technology to screen all Medicare fee-for-service claims before payment and target investigative resources on areas that this profile identifies as reflecting heightened risks of health care fraud vulnerability to allow regulators and prosecutors to more efficiently identify and respond to suspected fraudulent claims and emerging trends;
Focused fraud prevention, detection and enforcement activities on Home Health agencies, Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) suppliers and certain other categories of providers and suppliers that federal officials view as historically presenting heightened concerns;
Expansion of the overpayment detection and recovery activities ofthe Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) program to Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare Part D programs; and
Various other tools.

Health Plan Partnership Latest Wrinkle In Fed’s Efforts To Use Private Whistleblower & Other Resources To Find Fraud

The partnership with the health plans is the latest wrinkle in a growing network of private relationships and outreach that HHS and DOJ use to discover health care fraud. By partnering with health plans, HHS and DOJ have recruited the health plans to help federal officials find and redress potential fraud in public and private health plans.

HHS and DOJ already know the value of getting private citizens to watch for and report suspected illegal behavior. Indeed, expended qui tam and other whistleblower activities already are paying off big for federal officials. For example, a former executive’s qui tam claim helped bring about the settlement announced in June, 2012 under which Christus Spohn Health System Corporation recently paid more than $5 million to settle Justice Departmentclaims that it profited from violations of the False Claims Act by inappropriately admitted patients to inpatient status for outpatient procedures. The investigation leading to the settlement began in March 2008 after Christus – Shoreline’s former director of case management filed a lawsuit under seal under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act alleging the six hospitals were submitting false claims to the Medicare program by billing for services that should have been performed on an outpatient basis as if they were more expensive inpatient services. The allegations stated that these hospitals were routinely billing outpatient surgical procedures as if they required an inpatient level of care even though the patients often were discharged from the hospital in less than 24 hours. The federal False Claims Act empowers private citizens with knowledge of fraud against the United States to present those allegations to the United States by bringing a lawsuit on behalf of the United States under seal. If the government’s investigation substantiates those allegations, then the private citizen is entitled to share in any recovery. In this case, that person will receive 20% of the $5,100,481.74 recovery.

With qui tam and other reports of suspected fraud an increasingly frequent and valuable tool in the federal and state wars on health care fraud, officials have added a wide range of programs encouraging and in some cases financially rewarding individuals and businesses that report circumstances leading to fraud convictions. The partnership with health plans reflects the latest wrinkle in these efforts.

Health Care Providers & Health Plans Must Act To Manage Risks

In response to the growing emphasis and effectiveness of Federal officials in investigating and taking action against health care providers and organizations, health care providers covered by federal false claims, referral, kickback and other health care fraud laws should consider auditing the adequacy of existing practices, tightening training, oversight and controls on billing and other regulated conduct, reaffirming their commitment to compliance to workforce members and constituents and taking other appropriate steps to help prevent, detect and timely redress health care fraud exposures within their organization and to position their organization to respond and defend against potential investigations or charges. In light of the growing qui tam risks, health care providers also should tighten internal investigation, exit interview and other human resources and business partner oversight, reporting and investigation policies and practices to help find and redress potential fraud or other qui tam, retaliation and similar exposures early and more effectively.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need help reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Her experience includes advising hospitals, nursing home, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to Board of Medicine, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns.

A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need help responding to concerns about the matters discussed in this publication or other health care concerns, wish to obtain information about arranging for training or presentations by Ms. Stamer, wish to suggest a topic for a future program or update, or wish to request other information or materials, please contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer, see here.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Anti-KickBack, ASC, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, false claims act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Grants, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health IT, Medicaid, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Outpatient, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Rural Health Care, Stark, Uncategorized | Tagged: CMS, DOJ, false claims act, Health Care, health care feraud, Health claims, Health Plans, HHS, Hospitals, Justice Department, OIG, qui tam, Whistleblower | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Partnership Expands Use & Reach of New Affordable Care Act & Other Health Care Fraud Detection & Enforcement Tools & Collaboration

Share this:

Recent Posts

Archives

About Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Share this blog

Archives

Solutions Law Press Health Care Update