Employer | | Page 2

$400K HIPAA Settlement Shows Need To Conduct Timely & Appropriate Risk Assessments

April 12, 2017

Metro Community Provider Network (MCPN), a federally-qualified health center (FQHC), must pay $400,000 and implement a corrective action plan to resolve U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) charges it violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Security Rule by failing to implement a security management process to safeguard electronic protected health information (ePHI). The settlement is the latest reminder to health providers, payers and their business associates to conduct timely risk assessments, implement needed security and otherwise manage HIPAA compliance.

The Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan, like most others before it, resulted from an investigation opened in response to a breach report. On January 27, 2012, MCPN filed a breach report with OCR indicating that a hacker accessed employees’ email accounts and obtained 3,200 individuals’ ePHI through a phishing incident. OCR’s investigation revealed that MCPN took necessary corrective action related to the phishing incident. However, the investigation also revealed that MCPN failed to conduct a risk analysis until mid-February 2012 – well after the hacking incident reported in the breach report.

Prior to the breach incident, MCPN had not conducted a risk analysis to assess the risks and vulnerabilities in its ePHI environment, and, consequently, had not implemented any corresponding risk management plans to address the risks and vulnerabilities identified in a risk analysis.

When MCPN finally conducted a risk analysis, OCR found that risk analysis, as well as all subsequent risk analyses, were insufficient to meet the requirements of the Security Rule.

OCR made a point in announcing the Resolution Agreement of noting it considered MCPN’s status as a FQHC when balancing the significance of the violation with MCPN’s ability to maintain sufficient financial standing to ensure the provision of ongoing patient care. MCPN provides primary medical care, dental care, pharmacies, social work, and behavioral health care services throughout the greater Denver, Colorado metropolitan area to approximately 43,000 patients per year, a large majority of whom have incomes at or below the poverty level. It is likely that OCR would have imposed a much greater settlement amount had the covered entity not been a FQHC serving the poor.

About The Author

Recognized by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as a “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%/ the highest) and “Top Rated Lawyer,” with special recognition as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Health Care,” “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, the author of this update is widely known for her 29 plus years’ of work in health care, health benefit, health policy and regulatory affairs and other health industry concerns as a practicing attorney and management consultant, thought leader, author, public policy advocate and lecturer.

Throughout her adult life and nearly 30-year legal career, Ms. Stamer’s legal, management and governmental affairs work has focused on helping health industry, health benefit and other organizations and their management use the law, performance and risk management tools and process to manage people, performance, quality, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer supports these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis as well as outsourced operations or special counsel on an interim, special project, or ongoing basis with strategic planning and product and services development and innovation; workforce and operations management, crisis preparedness and response as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

Throughout her career, she has helped health industry clients manage workforce, medical staff, vendors and suppliers, medical billing, reimbursement, claims and other provider-payer relations, business partners, and their recruitment, performance, discipline, compliance, safety, compensation, benefits, and training ;board, medical staff and other governance; compliance and internal controls; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; change management; assess, deter, investigate and address staffing, quality, compliance and other performance; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other data security and breach and other health IT and data; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party reporting, audits, investigations and enforcement; government affairs and public policy; and other compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns.

Author of leading works on HIPAA and other privacy and data security works and the scribe leading the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, her experience includes extensive compliance, risk management and data breach and other crisis event investigation, response and remediation under HIPAA and other laws.

The American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting, former Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, past ABA JCEB Council Representative, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has worked closely with a diverse range of physicians, hospitals and healthcare systems, DME, Pharma, clinics, health care providers, managed care, insurance and other health care payers, quality assurance, credentialing, technical, research, public and private social and community organizations, and other health industry organizations and their management deal with governance; credentialing, patient relations and care; staffing, peer review, human resources and workforce performance management; outsourcing; internal controls and regulatory compliance; billing and reimbursement; physician, employment, vendor, managed care, government and other contracting; business transactions; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; licensure and accreditation; vendor selection and management; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy and other concerns.
As a core component of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively throughout her career with health care providers, health plans and insurers, managed care organizations, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, management services organizations, professional associations, medical staffs, accreditation agencies, auditors, technology and other vendors and service providers, and others on legal and operational compliance, risk management and compliance, public policies and regulatory affairs, contracting, payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations and matters including extensive involvement advising, representing and defending public and private hospitals and health care systems; physicians, physician organizations and medical staffs; specialty clinics and pharmacies; skilled nursing, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing and management services organizations; consultants; investors; technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers; and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry investigation, enforcement including insurance or other liability management and allocation; process and product development, contracting, deployment and defense; evaluation, commenting or seeking modification of regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement, and a host of other related concerns for public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, employers, and others.and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns.
Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and group and other health benefit programs and coverages including but not limited to advising public and private payers about coverage and program design and documentation, advising and defending providers, payers and systems and billing services entities about systems and process design, audits, and other processes; provider credentialing, and contracting; providers and payer billing, reimbursement, claims audits, denials and appeals, coverage coordination, reporting, direct contracting, False Claims Act, Medicare & Medicaid, ERISA, state Prompt Pay, out-of-network and other nonpar insured, and other health care claims, prepayment, post-payment and other coverage, claims denials, appeals, billing and fraud investigations and actions and other reimbursement and payment related investigation, enforcement, litigation and actions.

Heavily involved in health care and health information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations innovation and a Scribe for ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with OCR for many years who has authored numerous highly-regarded works and training programs on HIPAA and other data security, privacy and use, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive work and leadership on leading edge health care and benefit policy and operational issues including meaningful use and EMR, billing and reimbursement, quality measurement and reimbursement, HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security and data breach and other information privacy and data security rules and many other concerns. Her work includes both regulatory and public policy advocacy and thought leadership, as well as advising and representing a broad range of health industry and other clients about policy design, drafting, administration, business associate and other contracting, risk assessments, audits and other risk prevention and mitigation, investigation, reporting, mitigation and resolution of known or suspected violations or other incidents and responding to and defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, DOJ, OCR, FTC, state attorneys’ general and other federal or state agencies, other business partners, patients and others.

Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers and other plan sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA, FACTA, trade secret and other information privacy and data security rules, including the establishment, documentation, implementation, audit and enforcement of policies, procedures, systems and safeguards, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others. In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, MGMA, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in Pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; a ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposium and chair, faculty member and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry, human resources, employment and other privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management. Examples of her many highly regarded publications on these matters include “Protecting & Using Patient Data In Disease Management: Opportunities, Liabilities And Prescriptions,” “Privacy Invasions of Medical Care-An Emerging Perspective,” “Cybercrime and Identity Theft: Health Information Security: Beyond HIPAA,” as well as thousands of other publications, programs and workshops these and other concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, Insurance Thought Leadership and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

©2017 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ All other rights reserved. For information about republication or other use, please contact Ms. Stamer here.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, ASC, Border Health, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Civil Rights, Conditions of Participation, Consumer Driven Health Care, Corporate Compliance, data breach, data security, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, ERISA, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, managed care, Meaningful Use, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare Advantage, Mental Health, Mental Heatlh, OCR, Patient Empowerment, Peer Review, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Psychiatric, public health, Rural Health Care, Technology, Telemedicine, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Administration, Veterans Health Care, Wellness | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Trump Administration Grants Fiduciary Rule Prohibited Transaction Relief

March 27, 2017

Employer and other employee benefit plan sponsors, fiduciaries and investment and financial service providers and other plan service providers should review their plans for possible transactions that may qualify for excise tax relief under new guidance issued today by the Internal Revenue Service and Department of Labor.

IRS Announcement 2017-04, scheduled for publication in the Federal Register as IRB 2017-16 on April 17, 2017, provides relief from the excise taxes under section 4975 of the Internal Revenue Code and any related reporting requirements to conform to the temporary enforcement policy described by the Department of Labor (DOL) in Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) 2017-01 with respect to the final fiduciary duty rule published in the Federal Register on April 8, 2016 (81 F.R. 20946), entitled “Definition of the Term ‘Fiduciary’; Conflict of Interest Rule – Retirement Investment Advice” and related prohibited transaction exemptions, including the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BIC Exemption), the Class Exemption for Principal Transactions in Certain Assets Between Investment Advice Fiduciaries and Employee Benefit Plans and IRAs (Principal Transactions Exemption), and certain amended prohibited transaction exemptions (collectively, PTEs)

The relief parallels similar relief provided by the Department of Labor to these individuals in a recently released Field Assistance Bulletin.

The new DOL and IRS guidance gives temporary relief to the DOL final regulation defining who is a “fiduciary” of an employee benefit plan under § 3(21)(A)(ii) of ERISA as a result of giving investment advice to a plan or its participants or beneficiaries published April 6, 2016. That final rule, which also applies to the definition of a “fiduciary” of a plan under § 4975(e)(3)(B) of the Code, treats persons who provide investment advice or recommendations for a fee or other compensation with respect to assets of a plan as fiduciaries in a wider array of advice relationships than was true of the prior regulatory definition. Concurrent with its publication of the final rule, the DOL published the PTEs, which provide two new administrative class exemptions from the prohibited transaction provisions of ERISA and the Code, as well as amendments to previously granted exemptions.

The PTEs would allow, subject to appropriate safeguards, certain broker-dealers, insurance agents, and others that act as investment advice fiduciaries, as defined under the final rule, to continue to receive a variety of forms of compensation that would otherwise violate prohibited transaction rules, triggering excise taxes and civil liability.

The final fiduciary duty rule became effective on June 7, 2016, and has an applicability date of April 10, 2017. The PTEs also have an applicability date of April 10, 2017, with a phased implementation period ending on January 1, 2018, for the BIC Exemption and the Principal Transactions Exemption.

President Trump, by Memorandum to the Secretary of Labor dated February 3, 2017, directed the DOL to examine whether the fiduciary duty rule may adversely affect the ability of Americans to gain access to retirement information and financial advice and to prepare an updated economic and legal analysis concerning the likely impact of the rule as part of that examination.

After requesting comments on the final rule on March 3, DOL on March 10, 2017, announced a temporary enforcement policy related to its proposal to extend for 60 days the applicability date of the fiduciary duty rule and the related PTEs. The policy announced in FAB 2017-01 provides that:

If DOL issues a final rule after April 10 implementing a delay in the applicability date of the fiduciary duty rule and related PTEs, the DOL will not initiate an enforcement action because an adviser or financial institution did not satisfy conditions of the rule or the PTEs during the “gap” period in which the rule becomes applicable before a delay is implemented, including a failure to provide retirement investors with disclosures or other documents intended to comply with provisions of the rule or the related PTEs.
If DOL decides not to issue a delay in the fiduciary duty rule and related PTEs, the DOL will not initiate an enforcement action because an adviser or financial institution, as of the April 10 applicability date of the rule, failed to satisfy conditions of the rule or the PTEs, provided that the adviser or financial institution satisfies the applicable conditions of the rule or PTEs, including sending out required disclosures or other documents to retirement investors, within a reasonable period after the publication of a decision not to delay the April 10 applicability date.

Field Assistance Bulletin 2017-01 provides that, to the extent circumstances
surrounding its decision on the proposed delay of the April 10 applicability date give rise to the need for other temporary relief, including retroactive prohibited transaction relief, the DOL will consider taking such additional steps as necessary with respect to the arrangements and transactions covered by the DOL temporary enforcement policy and any subsequent related DOL enforcement guidance. Following the issuance of the FAB, stakeholders have raised concerns about the potential application of excise taxes under Code § 4975 and related reporting obligations in cases covered by the DOL’s temporary enforcement policy.

Because the Code and ERISA contemplate consistency in the enforcement of the prohibited transaction rules by the IRS and the DOL, the Treasury Department and the IRS determined it appropriate to adopt a corresponding temporary excise tax non-applicability policy that conforms with the DOL’s temporary enforcement policy described in FAB 2017-01. Accordingly, ,Because the Code and ERISA contemplate consistency in the enforcement of the prohibited transaction rules by the IRS and the DOL, as further reflected in and facilitated by the statutory Reorganization Plan, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that it is appropriate to adopt a temporary excise tax non-applicability policy that conforms with the DOL’s temporary enforcement policy described in FAB 2017-01. Accordingly, Announcement 2017-04 provides that the IRS will not apply § 4975 and related reporting obligations with respect to any transaction or agreement to which the DOL’s temporary enforcement policy, or other subsequent related enforcement guidance, would apply.

The new collective guidance provides a short reprieve from the obligation to comply with the otherwise applicable of the fiduciary rule pending the new administration to review and reconsideration of that rule. How many will welcome this relief, plan sponsors, fiduciaries and service providers need to keep in mind that it’s provisions are temporary in nature and do not preclude a participant or beneficiary from seeking to establish liability of an individual providing advice or assistance with respect to services under the facts and circumstances in an ERISA lawsuit. Because of the risk of litigation even when the agencies are standing down from enforcement, plan sponsors and fiduciaries and the service providers that assist them with reviewing and making investmentat all times should take care to be able to defend their actions under the fiduciary rules.

Leave a Comment » | Employer, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Plan Investment, Prohibited Transaction | Tagged: ERISA, fiduciary, investment advice, orohibited transactions, tetirement plan | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$5.5M Memorial HIPAA Resolution Agreement Shows Need To Audit

February 16, 2017

Memorial Healthcare Systems (MHS) has paid the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) $5.5 million to settle potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules. The nonprofit corporation which operates six hospitals, an urgent care center, a nursing home, and a variety of ancillary health care facilities throughout the South Florida area with affiliated physician offices through an Organized Health Care Arrangement (OHCA) also agreed to implement a robust corrective action plan as part of the Resolution Agreement.

The MHS Resolution sends a strong message to all health care providers, health plans health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their business associates that simply adopting HIPAA policies alone is insufficient to avoid getting nailed by OCR under HIPAA; Covered Entities and their business associates also must implement, audit and enforce those policies.

The MHS Resolution Agreement resulted from an investigation initiated by the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) after MHS reported to OCR that protected health information (PHI) of 115,143 individuals had been impermissibly accessed by its employees and impermissibly disclosed to affiliated physician office staff. This information consisted of the affected individuals’ names, dates of birth, and social security numbers. The login credentials of a former employee of an affiliated physician’s office had been used to access the ePHI maintained by MHS on a daily basis without detection from April 2011 to April 2012, affecting 80,000 individuals.

The investigation revealed that although MHS had workforce access policies and procedures in place, MHS failed to implement procedures with respect to reviewing, modifying and/or terminating users’ right of access, as required by the HIPAA Rules. Further, MHS failed to regularly review records of information system activity on applications that maintain electronic protected health information by workforce users and users at affiliated physician practices, despite having identified this risk on several risk analyses conducted by MHS from 2007 to 2012.

MHS’ failure to follow through to implement the controls required by its policies and audit and enforce compliance with HIPAA and its HIPAA policies was a costly mistake. Other Covered Entities should heed MHS’ painful lesson and take documented steps to ensure its HIPAA policies not only are adopted, but also implemented and monitored and audited for compliance.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, ASC, Border Health, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Civil Rights, Consumer Driven Health Care, Corporate Compliance, data breach, data security, Doctor, drug treatment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Laws, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare Advantage | Tagged: audit, civil monetary penalty, Data Breach, healthcare, HIPAA, Hospital, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Prepare For Changing IRS Tax-Exempt Org & Employee Plan Audit & Exam Info Request Rules

November 22, 2016

Health care organizations sponsoring tax-qualified employee benefit plans or operating as tax-exempt entities under the Internal Revenue (Code) should expect changes in the practices Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agents use to issue and enforce document requests (IDRs) in connection with an IRS audit or other investigation of their employee benefit plans’ tax status or compliance after March 1, 2017.

The IRS Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division (TEGE) just issued internal guidance (Guidance) outlining the new procedures its agents will use to gather information for employee benefit plan and exempt organization examinations including information requests made in connection with:

Employee Benefit Form 5500 Examination Procedures
Exempt Organizations Pre-Audit Procedures
On-Site Examinations
Tax Exempt Bonds Examinations
Indian Tribal Government Examinations and
Federal, State and Local Governments (FSLG) Examinations

The new Guidance follows other recent announcements of changes of IRS employee plan or exempt organization procedures such as recently announced changes in IRS employee plan correction procedures. See, e.g., IRS Qualified Plan Correction Procedures Changing 1/1/17.

The new procedures defined in the Guidance apply more broadly and take effect April 1, 2017. The Guidance also requires that TEGE update the following IRMs to specifically reflect the new procedures within the next two years:

IRM 4.71.1, Overview of Form 5500 Examination Procedures;
IRM 4.75.10, Exempt Organizations Pre-Audit Procedures;
IRM 4.75.11, On-Site Examination Guidelines;
IRM 4.81.5, Tax Exempt Bonds Examination Program Procedures – Conducting the Examination;
IRM 4.86.5, Conducting Indian Tribal Government Examinations; and
IRM 4.90.9, Federal, State and Local Governments (FSLG) – Procedures, Workpapers and Report Writing.

According to TEGE the new procedures set forth in the Guidance are designed to “ensure” that IRS Counsel is prepared to enforce IDRs through the issuance of a summons when necessary while also reinforcing the IRS’ commitment to the respect of taxpayer rights under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. TEGE says the updated procedures established in the Guidance will promote these goals by:

Providing for open and meaningful communication between the IRS and taxpayers;
Reducing taxpayer burdens
Providing for consistent treatment of taxpayers;
Allowing the IRS to secure more complete and timely responses to IDRs;
Providing consistent timelines for IRS agents to review IDR responses; and
Promoting timely issue resolution.

In furtherance of these goals, the new Guidance, among other things requires:

“Active involvement” by managers of IRS examiners’ early in the process;
Taxpayers to be involved in the IDR process;
Examiners to discuss the issue being examined and the information needed with the taxpayer prior to issuing an IDR;
Examiners to ensure that the IDR clearly states the issue and the relevant information they are requesting;
If the taxpayer does not timely provide the information requested in the IDR by the agreed upon date, including extensions, examiners to issue a delinquency notice;
If the taxpayer fails to respond to the delinquency notice or provides an incomplete response, for the examiner to issue a pre-summons notice to advise the taxpayer that the IRS will issue a summons unless the missing items are fully provided; and
For a summons to be issued if the taxpayer fails to provide a complete response to the pre-summons letter by its response due date.

While it remains to be seen exactly how well the new procedures will promote the intended goals in operation, leaders, sponsors, administrators and tax advisors to employee benefit plans and exempt organizations tagged for audits after the Guidelines will need to understand these new procedures to take advantage of all available options for mitigating exposures and liability from the audit as well as to avoid unfortunate missteps that could result in forfeiture of otherwise available tax-related rights and options or otherwise increase the tax and other associated risks and liabilities of the entities or others associated with them arising from the audit.

Along with responding to these tax-related risks, leaders and advisors of health care or other tax-exempt organizations and sponsors and sponsors, fiduciaries, and administrators of tax-qualified employee benefit plans also should keep in mind and take steps to ensure the often substantial non-tax related risks that usually arise concurrently or evolve from a TEGE or other tax-related audit or investigation of their benefit programs or tax-exempt status when preparing for or responding to a TEGE audit or investigation. These often substantial tax and non-tax exposures typically makes it desirable if not necessary to involve experienced legal counsel in the process as soon as possible.

To help their entities or employee benefit plans respond appropriately to an audit and manage tax and non-tax related risks and responsibilities that the audit may trigger or enhance the entity, its responsible sponsoring entities, fiduciaries, officers and board members, or other responsible parties generally should seek legal advice within the scope of attorney-client privilege from legal counsel not only immediately upon receiving an IDR or other notice of an IRS audit or investigation, as well periodically before notification of an audit or investigation. Early involvement of legal counsel generally is necessary both to understand and manage both the tax and non-tax exposures associated with the audit, as well as to preserve and utilize the potential benefits of attorney-client privilege and other evidentiary privileges that could help to mitigate both the tax and non-tax related risks for the entity and other responsible parties. Pre-audit consultation with qualified legal counsel within the scope of attorney-client privilege also can help to prevent or resolve potential tax-qualification or other compliance concerns on a coordinated, holistic basis in advance or more efficiently in the event of an audit or investigation. Such pre-audit review and planning often can help entities and their leaders prevent or resolve problems with more flexibility and less risk for the entity and responsible leaders.

When planning for or responding to a TEGE or other audit or other investigation, tax-exemption hospitals and employee benefit plan sponsors and fiduciaries generally will want to engage qualified legal counsel to guide these activities and maximize the availability of attorney-client privileged, work product and other evidentiary privileges. While federal tax rules afford some evidentiary privileges to certain accounting professionals when providing tax representation or advice, the protective scope of such privileges generally are more limited than attorney-client privilege and work product evidentiary privileges and typically do not apply to non-tax matters. The narrower availability of evidentiary privileges generally makes it advisable to engage legal counsel at the beginning of the process to help maximize the availability of evidentiary privileges throughout the process. As a result, most entities and their leaders will want to consider involvement of legal counsel to maximize privilege protections and non-tax related exposures even if the parties plan for a qualified tax professional or other consultant to play a significant role in assisting them to prepare for and respond to the audit.

About The Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for work, teachings and publications.

Ms. Stamer works with health industry and other businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management and other performance and operations management and compliance. She supports her clients both on a real-time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with daily performance management and operations, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organization including her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association; Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Gulf Coast TEGE Council Exempt Organization Coordinator; a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; former board member and Vice President of the Managed Care Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; a member and advisor to the National Physicians’ Council for Healthcare Policy; current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section; a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group; immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and current RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council; past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a former member of the Board of Directors, Treasurer, Member and Continuing Education Chair of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposia chair and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry, human resources, employment, employee benefits, compensation, and other regulatory and operational risk management. Examples of her many highly regarded publications on these matters include the “Texas Payday Law” Chapter of Texas Employment Law, as well as thousands of other publications, programs and workshops these and other concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see CynthiaStamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via email here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please provide your current contact information and preferences including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Affordable Care Act, Ambulatory care, Border Health, Consumer Driven Health Care, Corporate Compliance, DME, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment law, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Grants, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Indian Health, Nonprofits, public health, Tax, Tax-Exemption, Uncategorized | Tagged: 403(b), 457, 457 plan, 501(c)(3), employee benefits, foundation, Health Care, Health Plan, healthcare, indian nation, retirement plans, Tax, Tax-Exemption | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Healthcare Fraud Exposures Significant & Rising For Owners, Execs & Other Leaders

October 17, 2016

Owners, operators, and leaders of health care organizations face an ever-growing imperative to lock down compliance by the organization and its employees and agents both to protect their organizations and its investors and themselves personally against the criminal, civil and administrative sanctions that result when health care organizations or their people break the rules.

The Departmnet of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) increasingly are going after owners, operators and other leaders of healthcare organizations for participating in, failing to act to prevent or inadequately investigating and redressing fraud or other illegal conduct in their organizations or by members of their organization’s team. Leaders and owners need to learn the rules and what to do to manage their risk. Owners and leaders must get informed about their expectations and exposures and learn and take the right steps to adopt compliance plans, monitor and enforce compliance, investigate and redress concerns and deal with these responsibilities and risk

The latest slew of federal health care fraud prosecutions reported by DOJ and OIG during the first two weeks of October illustrate some of the risks owners and executives face when they, their organization or employees or agents violate these rules. DOJ and federal regulators like OIG have made clear that they construe these rules to require leaders both to abstain from violating these laws and to adopt and administer effective compliance plans, oversight and other actions to train and prevent their employees and agents from violating these rules. See, e.g., Practical Guidance for Health Care Governing Boards on Compliance Oversight.

Of course, owners and management leaders inevitably face significant financial loss and other fallout if their organizations or members of their teams are found to have violated federal or state health care fraud laws. Over the past decade, however, owners and leaders increasingly also face growing risks of personal prosecution when their organization or someone on their team breaks the rules.

Owners, executives or other leaders who may be tempted to underesktimate the significance of these warnings should note DOJ’s increasingly aggressive and heavy handed prosecution of owners, executives and other leaders who either directly participate in, or by failing to adopt or administer meaningful compliance and investigation practices, are perceived to have allowed, encouraged or facilitated employees or agents to engage in actions hat DOJ, OIG or other federal regulators consider fraudulent.

DOJ’s growing emphasis on holding health care executives accountable for health care fraud or other violations of federal health care and other laws is clearly reflected in the prosecutions and convictions it announced during the first two weeks of October clearly demonstrate the critical need for health care organization owners, officers and other leaders (executives) to safeguard themselves personally, as well as their organizations against becoming targeted or convicted of health care fraud or other violations of federal health care laws by ensuring their organization adopts and administers effective compliance programs and taking other meaningful, well-documented steps , efforts to ensure the effectiveness of these compliance efforts.

Federal criminal and civil health care fraud laws both prohibit owners, operators and executives from participating in or conspiring to violate federal anti-kickback, anti-referral, false claims and other health care fraud laws, as well as provide various mechanisms that impose liability against owners and executives that fail to adopt and administer appropriate compliance, audit and other oversight and enforcement processes and procedures. Since October 1, 2016, for instance, DOJ has announced the following healthcare charges, convictions and settlements involving owners and executives.

On October 4, 2016, a federal judge sentenced Bassem Kuran, the President and owner of Pennsylvania based a VIP Ambulance, Inc 10 months imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release, plus ordered him to pay $66,901.93 in restitution for making false statements to Medicare. See Ambulance Company Owner Sentenced To 10 Months In Prison;
On October 5, 2016, DOJ four California residents that operated Louisiana based Care Concepts, LLC, and California based Choice Home Medical Equipment and Supplies (Choice), Geoffrey and Marla Ricketts and Samuel and Sunyup Kim, are awaiting sentences of up to 10 years in prison, $250,000 fines, restitution liabilities, and three years’ supervised release for their health care fraud convictions relating to a $38 million fraud scheme centering around the distribution of “talking glucose meters” not medically needed and often not even requested. Four Californians Plead Guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Health Care Fraud;
On October 6, 2016, the owner of a medical supply company was sentenced to 60 months in prison for his role in a scheme that fraudulently billed more than $4 million to Medicare. Owner of Los Angeles Medical Supply Company Sentenced to 60 Months in Prison for Multimillion-Dollar Medicare Fraud Scheme;
On October 6, 2016. United States Attorney for the Western District of Missouri Tammy Dickinson and Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster announced the sentencing for federal health care fraud of a Springfield, Mo. man who operated four Family Medical Center clinics in southern Missouri. See Springfield Man Sentenced for Fraud Scheme to Overcharge Medicaid, Medicare at Four Clinics;
On October 6, 2016, DOJ announced the sentencing in federal court of the Los Angeles owner of a medical supply company to 5 years in prison for his role in a scheme that fraudulently billed more than $4 million to Medicare. See Owner of Los Angeles Medical Supply Company Sentenced to 60 Months in Prison for Multimillion-Dollar Medicare Fraud Scheme;
On October 7, 2016, a Tampa, Florida home health agency owner was convicted by a federal jury for her participation in a multimillion-dollar health care fraud and money laundering scheme. Owner of Florida Home Health Agency Convicted in Multimillion-Dollar Health Care Fraud Scheme;
On October 12, 2016, U.S. Attorney Josh J. Minkler announced the indictment of former Chief Executive Officer James Burkhart, former Indiana nursing home chain American Senior Communities (ASC) Chief Operating Officer Daniel Benson, for their alleged roles in a vast fraud, kickback, and money laundering scheme involving ASC. Former American Senior Communities executives indicted;
On October 13, 2016, the U.S. Attorney in Massachusetts announced the agreement of Haverhill-based skilled nursing facility operator Whittier Health Network, Inc., and its Director of Long Term Care, Leo Curtin, to pay $2.5 million to resolve allegations concerning inflated Medicare claims. See Nursing Home Operator and Director of Long Term Care to Pay $2.5 Million to Settle False Claims for Rehabilitation Therapy. See Nursing Home Operator and Director of Long Term Care to Pay $2.5 Million to Settle False Claims for Rehabilitation Therapy; and
On October 14, 2016, a federal district judge in the Northern District of Alabama sentenced the former chief executive of two non-profit health clinics for the poor and homeless to 18 years in prison for funneling millions in federal grant money to private companies he formed to contract with the clinics. See Former Non-Profit Health Clinics CEO Sentenced to 18 Years for Funneling Millions in Grant Money to Private Companies.

Of course, the costs and liabilities of federal criminal or civil investigations and prosecutions are only part of the challenges an organization and its leaders generally face when their healthcare organization or its actions are questioned under federal health care fraud or other laws. Whistleblower or other claims of employees and agents claiming to have been penalized for questioning practices, shareholder or other investor lawsuits, federal program disqualification, loss of position or reputation, the financial and other burdens of responding to and defending investigations and charges and a parade of other horribles that typically attend investigations and prosecutions also often exact a heavy toll on health care organization owners and leaders caught up in federal fraud investigations or prosecutions.

In the face of these growing risks, healthcare owners, executives and other leaders need a clear and up to date understanding of health care fraud laws and the obligations and expectations that these rules create not only for their organizations, but also increasingly them personally. Owners and other leaders need to understand the health care fraud rules, the ways that liability can attach not only to their organization but also themselves and their leaders under these rules, the burdens of proof and assumptions that create special challenges in responding to challenges or defending charges and actions and strategies they should take before, during, and after compliance issue or prosecution arises to strengthen their ability to defend or mitigate their and their organization’s liability exposures. As part of these efforts, owners and leaders not only should ensure that their organization adopt, train staff and others on and meaningfully administer up-to-date compliance programs in a manner that clearly documents the commitment of their organization and its leaders to compliance. Owners, executives and leaders also should become educated about the expectations of DOJ, HHS and other agencies and whistleblowers are likely to expect concerning their role and actions as owners and leaders both in establishing a clear expectation of compliance, as well as adopting, overseeing and enforcing practices and policies to maintain compliance, investigate and redress potential wrongdoing and otherwise maintain the compliance and culture expected and required under federal law. Owners and leaders should ensure that they and others in their organization are trained to recognize potential compliance issues, understand the steps they and their organization need to take when a potential compliance concern arises, and how to conduct and document investigations and other actions to strengthen their and their organization’s ability to defend against potential charges or other claims..

Owners, executives and other leaders also should anticipate, and prepare in advance for the likelihood that they and their organizations will need to respond investigations, suspected violations, whistleblower claims and other events that could create substantial exposure for their organizations and themselves personally. Leaders need to understand that the nature and risks associated with these potential health care fraud liabilities may make ill-advised commonly used settlement or other practices for resolving quickly disputes or other concerns. Owners and leaders bearing these responsibilities should seek specific advice and training about their responsibilities, as well as recommended strategies for investigating and responding to concerns that may carry or give rise to these risks. Most leaders also will want to ensure that their employment, shareholder and other agreements include sufficient flexibility and protections to protect the executive or other leader for termination, retaliation or other loss or injury for taking appropriate steps to investigate and respond to a compliance concern as well as plan in advance by arranging for their organization to provide indemnification, insurance or other coverage, and/or securing personally coverage to provide coverage needed to fund what often may be substantial legal fees arising out of investigation and defense of investigations, charges, or other actions and the corporate, employment and other fallout that often accompanies such events.

About The Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, current American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, former scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and JCEB Council Representative, former Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, the former Board President and Treasurer of the Richardson Development Center for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, and past Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, is AV-Preeminent (the highest) rated attorney repeatedly recognized for her nearly 30 years of experience and knowledge representing and advising healthcare, health plan and other health industry and others on these and other regulatory, workforce, risk management, technology, public policy and operations matters as a Martindale-Hubble as a “LEGAL LEADER™” and “Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law, Labor and Employment Law, and Business & Commercial Law and among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” by D Magazine.

Ms. Stamer’s health industry 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, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns.

Ms. Stamer also is known for her experience in HIPAA and other privacy and data security and breach concerns. The scribe for ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with OCR for many years, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers and other plan sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA, FACTA, trade secret and other information privacy and data security rules, including the establishment, documentation, implementation, audit and enforcement of policies, procedures, systems and safeguards, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others. In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

You can get more information about her health industry experience here or 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 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 found these updates of interest, you may be interested in other recent Solutions Law Press, Inc. updates like the following:

Go here to register to receive other Solutions Law Press, Inc. updates and announcements about other upcoming briefings, training or other programs, products, services, and activities or to learn more about Solutions Law Press, Inc., its publications, programs and training, PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment community service and education projects, event management and other resources and services.

For important information concerning this communication see 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, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Clinical pathway, Conditions of Participation, Controlled Substances, Corporate Compliance, data breach, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, E-Prescribing, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, Evidence Based Medicine, false claims act, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, health care reimbursement, Health Policy, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, managed care, Medicaid, Medical Records, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Money Laundering, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Prospective Payment, Psychiatric, Public Policy, substance abuse treatment, Tax, Uncategorized | Tagged: Board Governance, Compliance, Directors and Officers, false claims act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care Fraud, internal controls, Risk Management, STARK | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Tenet To Pay $513M For Anti-kickback Law Guilty Plea

October 3, 2016

Tenet Healthcare Corp. and two of its hospitals will pay $513 million and enter guilty pleas to resolve criminal charges and civil claims the hospitals illegally paid kickbacks for patient referrals, the U.S. Department of Justice Announce on Monday, October 2, 2016.

Atlanta Medical Center Inc. and North Fulton Medical Center Inc. were charged October 2 in a criminal information in federal court in Atlanta with conspiracy to defraud the United States by obstructing the lawful government functions of the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) and to violate the Antikickback Statute (AKS), which, among other things, prohibits payments to induce the referral of patients for services paid for by federal health care programs.

Tenet HealthSystem Medical Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively THSM) entered into a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Northern District of Georgia related to the charges in the criminal information. THSM is the parent company of Atlanta Medical Center Inc., North Fulton Medical Center Inc., Spalding Regional Medical Center Inc. and Hilton Head Hospital, and employed their executives. THSM is a subsidiary of Tenet Healthcare Corporation. Under the terms of the NPA, THSM and Tenet will avoid prosecution if they, among other requirements, cooperate with the government’s ongoing investigation and enhance their compliance and ethics program and internal controls. Tenet has also agreed to retain an independent compliance monitor to address and reduce the risk of any recurrence of violations of the AKS by any entity owned in whole, or in part, by Tenet. The term of THSM’s and Tenet’s obligations under the NPA is three years, but the NPA may be extended for up to one year. the plea deal announced, the two Tenet subsidiaries have agreed to plead guilty to the charges alleged in the criminal information and will forfeit over $145 million to the United States – which represents the amount paid to Atlanta Medical Center Inc. and North Fulton Medical Center Inc. by the Medicare and Georgia Medicaid programs for services provided to patients referred as part of the scheme.

In the concurrently announced civil settlement, Tenet agreed to pay $368 million to the federal government, the state of Georgia and the state of South Carolina to resolve claims asserted in United States ex rel. Williams v. Health Mgmt. Assocs., Tenet Healthcare, et al., a lawsuit filed by Ralph D. Williams, a Georgia resident, in the Middle District of Georgia, under the federal and Georgia False Claims Acts. The acts permit whistleblowers to file suit for false claims against the government entities and to share in any recovery. The federal share of the civil settlement is $244,227,535.30, the state of Georgia will recover $122,880,339.70 and the state of South Carolina will recover $892,125. Mr. Williams’ share of the combined civil settlement amount is approximately $84.43 million.

The Tenet investigations, enforcement actions and settlement demonstrate the continuing criminal and civil risks that health care organizations, individual providers and their employees and representatives run when engaging in aggressive marketing, billing or other practices under the Anti-kickback or other Federal health care fraud laws, as well as the role that employee and other whistleblowers with inside information often play in bringing actions and behaviors that provide the basis for prosecution of these and other charges or claims against healthcare organization and the health care providers, management and other individuals participating in or responsible for managing conduct to comply with these rules.

Health care organizations, their management, providers, and others participating in the planning, administration or oversight of transactions or other activities that could become subject to scrutiny or prosecution under these and other Federal or state healthcare laws should act proactively to manage their risks by using care to adopt and administer documented effective compliance plans and processes that prevent involvement in prohibited actions, to periodically conduct documented audits and other oversight to maintain demonstrated efforts to ensure their organizations and actions in operations comply with these requirements, continuously remain on the alert for and monitor transactions and arrangements in which they are involved for signs of potential violations or other risky conduct, to take prompt, well-documented corrective action to investigate and address as appropriate potential concerns including but not limited to the monitoring and investigation of employee complaints, performance, termination and other events for evidence of potential whistleblower or other concerns.

About The Author

Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, current American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, former scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and JCEB Council Representative, former Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, the former Board President and Treasurer of the Richardson Development Center for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, and past Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, is AV-Preeminent (the highest) rated attorney repeatedly recognized for her nearly 30 years of experience and knowledge representing and advising healthcare, health plan and other health industry and others on these and other regulatory, workforce, risk management, technology, public policy and operations matters as a Martindale-Hubble as a “LEGAL LEADER™” and “Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law, Labor and Employment Law, and Business & Commercial Law and among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” by D Magazine.

You can get more information about her health industry experience here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press Inc.™

If you found these updates of interest, you may be interested in other recent Solutions Law Press, Inc. updates like the following:

Leave a Comment » | Ambulatory care, Anti-KickBack, ASC, billing, Corporate Compliance, Doctor, Employer, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Policy, Hospital, hospitals, Medicaid, Medicare, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

North Memorial Hit With $3.9M HIPAA Fine For HIPAA Violations

March 25, 2016

Just one day after the announcement of a $1,555,000 settlement with North Memorial Health Care of Minnesota under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules, the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) announced March 17, 2016 that Feinstein Institute for Medical Research has agreed to pay $3.9 million and will undertake a substantial corrective action plan to settle charges of HIPAA violations and bring its operations into compliance. The two settlements drive home again the substantial liability that health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates risk for violating HIPAA. Register for March 30, 2016 Solutions Law Press, Inc. briefing to learn the latest about this and other new regulatory and enforcement guidance impacting the HIPAA compliance obligations and risks of health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates. 3/30 Webex Shares Latest On Security, Patient Access & Other HIPAA Developments.

Feinstein Settlement

Feinstein is a biomedical research institute that is organized as a New York not-for-profit corporation and is sponsored by Northwell Health, Inc., formerly known as North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System, a large health system headquartered in Manhasset, New York that is comprised of twenty one hospitals and over 450 patient facilities and physician practices.

OCR’s investigation began after Feinstein filed a breach report indicating that on September 2, 2012, a laptop computer containing the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of approximately 13,000 patients and research participants was stolen from an employee’s car. The ePHI stored in the laptop included the names of research participants, dates of birth, addresses, social security numbers, diagnoses, laboratory results, medications, and medical information relating to potential participation in a research study.

OCR’s investigation discovered that Feinstein’s security management process was limited in scope, incomplete, and insufficient to address potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI held by the entity. Further, Feinstein lacked policies and procedures for authorizing access to ePHI by its workforce members, failed to implement safeguards to restrict access to unauthorized users, and lacked policies and procedures to govern the receipt and removal of laptops that contained ePHI into and out of its facilities. For electronic equipment procured outside of Feinstein’s standard acquisition process, Feinstein failed to implement proper mechanisms for safeguarding ePHI as required by the Security Rule.

“Research institutions subject to HIPAA must be held to the same compliance standards as all other HIPAA-covered entities,” said OCR Director Jocelyn Samuels. “For individuals to trust in the research process and for patients to trust in those institutions, they must have some assurance that their information is kept private and secure.”

The resolution agreement and corrective action plan may be found here.

The Feinstein settlement announcement follows yesterday’s announcement of a $1.5 million plus settlement with North Memorial to resolve HIPAA charges that it failed to implement a business associate agreement with a major contractor and failed to institute an organization-wide risk analysis to address the risks and vulnerabilities to its patient information. North Memorial is a comprehensive, not-for-profit health care system in Minnesota that serves the Twin Cities and surrounding communities. The settlement highlights the importance for healthcare providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and their business associates to comply with HIPAA’s business associate agreement and other HIPAA organizational, risk assessment, privacy and security, and other requirements.

OCR’s announcement emphasizes the importance of meeting these requirements. “Two major cornerstones of the HIPAA Rules were overlooked by this entity,” said Jocelyn Samuels, Director of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR). “Organizations must have in place compliant business associate agreements as well as an accurate and thorough risk analysis that addresses their enterprise-wide IT infrastructure.”

The settlement comes from charges filed after OCR initiated its investigation of North Memorial following receipt of a breach report on September 27, 2011, which indicated that an unencrypted, password-protected laptop was stolen from a business associate’s workforce member’s locked vehicle, impacting the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of 9,497 individuals.

OCR’s investigation indicated that North Memorial failed to have in place a business associate agreement, as required under the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules, so that its business associate could perform certain payment and health care operations activities on its behalf. North Memorial gave its business associate, Accretive, access to North Memorial’s hospital database, which stored the ePHI of 289,904 patients. Accretive also received access to non-electronic protected health information as it performed services on-site at North Memorial.

The investigation further determined that North Memorial failed to complete a risk analysis to address all of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the ePHI that it maintained, accessed, or transmitted across its entire IT infrastructure — including but not limited to all applications, software, databases, servers, workstations, mobile devices and electronic media, network administration and security devices, and associated business processes.

In addition to the $1,550,000 payment, North Memorial is required to develop an organization-wide risk analysis and risk management plan, as required under the Security Rule. North Memorial will also train appropriate workforce members on all policies and procedures newly developed or revised pursuant to this corrective action plan.

The Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan can be found here.

Settlement Latest Reminder To Manage HIPAA Risks

Following up on OCR’s imposition of its second-ever HIPAA Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) and the latest in an ever-growing list of settlements by Covered Entities under HIPAA, the North Memorial settlement is another example of the substantial liability that Covered Entities face for violating HIPAA. To avoid these liabilities, Covered Entities must constantly be diligent to comply with the latest guidance of OCR concerning their obligations under HIPAA. As OCR continues to issue additional guidance as well as supplement this guidance through information shared in settlement agreements like the North Memorial settlement, even if Covered Entities reviewed their practices in the last 12-months, most will want to update this review in response to new OCR guidance and enforcement actions, including new guidance on obligations to provide plan members or other subjects of protected health information with access to or copies of their records and other guidance, as well as the ever expanding list of enforcement actions by OCR.

Since the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (HITECH) amended HIPAA, Covered Entities face growing responsibilities and liability for maintaining the security of ePHI. In response to HITECH, OCR continues to use a carrot and stick approach to encouraging and enforcing compliance. As demonstrated by OCR’s imposition of the second-ever HIPAA Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) of $239,000 against Lincare and the ever-growing list of Resolution Agreements OCR announces with other Covered Entities, OCR continues to step up enforcement against Covered Entities that breach the Privacy and Security Rules. See OCR’s 2nd-Ever HIPAA CMP Nails Lincare For $239,000.

On the other hand, OCR also continues to encourage voluntary compliance by Covered Entities by sharing guidance and tools to aid Covered Entities to understand fulfill their HIPAA responsibilities such as the HIPAA Security Rule Crosswalk to NIST Cybersecurity Framework (Crosswalk) unveiled by OCR on February 24, 2016.The crosswalk that maps the HIPAA Security Rule to the standards of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (the Cybersecurity Framework) as well as mappings to certain other commonly used security frameworks.

While stating that the HIPAA Security Rule does not require use of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, OCR says it hopes the Crosswalk will provide “a helpful roadmap” for HIPAA Covered Entities and their business associates to understand the overlap between the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, the HIPAA Security Rule, and other security frameworks that can help Covered Entities safeguard health data in a time of increasing risks and help them to identify potential gaps in their programs. At the same time, OCR’s announcement of its release of the Crosswalk also cautions users that “use of the Framework does not guarantee HIPAA compliance.” Rather, OCR says “the crosswalk provides an informative tool for entities to use to help them more comprehensively manage security risks in their environments.

With a USA Today report attributing more than 40 percent of data breaches to the healthcare industry over the last three years 91 percent of all health organizations having reporting breaches over the last two years, OCR has made clear that it intends to zealously investigate and enforce the Security Rules against Covered Entities that violate the Security Rules against Covered Entities that fail to take suitable steps to safeguard the security of PHI as required by the HIPAA Security Rule. To meet these requirements, the HIPAA Security Rule requires that Covered Entities conduct and be prepared to product documentation of their audit and other efforts to comply with the Security Rule Most Covered Entities will want to consider including an assessment of the adequacy of their existing practices under the Crosswalk and other requirements disclosed by OCR in these assessments to help position the Covered Entity to defend or mitigate HIPAA CMP and other liabilities in the event of a HIPAA breach or audit.

Latest Guidance Clarifies Patient Rights To Access PHI & Allowable Charges

In addition to maintaining adequate security, HIPAA also requires Covered Entities to provide individuals with the right to access and receive a copy of their health information from their providers, hospitals, and health insurance plans in accordance with the HIPAA Privacy Rule. In response to recurrent difficulties experienced by individuals in exercising these rights, OCR recently published supplemental guidance to clarify and promote better understanding and compliance with these rules by Covered Entities.

OCR started this process in January, 2015 by releasing a comprehensive fact sheet (Access fact sheet) and the first in a series of topical frequently asked questions (FAQs) addressing patients’ right to access their medical records, which set forth requirements providers must follow in sharing medical records with patients, including that they must do so in a timely manner and in a format that works for the patient.

Earlier this month, OCR followed up by publishing on March 1, 2016 a second set of FAQs addresses additional issues, including the fees individuals may be charged for copies of their health information and the right of individuals to have their health information sent directly to a third party if they so choose.

Covered entities and their business associates should move quickly to review and update their business associate agreements and other practices to comply with this new guidance as well as watch for further guidance and enforcement about these practices from OCR.

Other Key HIPAA Regulatory & Enforcement Changes Raise Responsibilities & Risks

OCR’s new guidance on access to PHI follows a host of other regulatory and enforcement activities. While the particulars of each of these new actions and guidance vary, all send a very clear message: OCR expects Covered Entities and their business associates to comply with HIPAA and is offering tools and other guidance to aid them in that process.. In the event of a breach or audit, Covered Entities and their business associates need to be prepared to demonstrate their efforts to comply. Those that cannot show adequate compliance efforts should be prepared for potentially substantial CMP or Resolution Agreement payments and other sanctions.

Register For 3/30 Webex Briefing

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ invites to catch up on the latest guidance on the Covered Entities’ responsibility under HIPAA to provide access to patients to PHI by registering here to participate in the “HIPAA Update: The Latest On Security, Patient Access & Other HIPAA Developments” Webex briefing by attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer that Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ will host beginning at Noon Central Time on Wednesday, March 30, 2016. Get additional information or register here.

About The Author

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely recognized for her extensive work and pragmatic thought leadership, experience, publications and training on HIPAA and other privacy, medical records and data and other health care and health plan concerns.

Recognized as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in both Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law, a “Texas Top Lawyer,” an “AV-Preeminent” and “Top Rated Lawyer” by Martindale-Hubble and as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in employee benefits 2015 by D Magazine; Ms. Stamer has more than 28 years of extensive proven, pragmatic knowledge and experience representing and advising health industry clients and others on operational, regulatory and other compliance, risk management, product and process development, public policy and other key concerns.

Beyond her extensive involvement advising and defending clients on these matters, Ms. Stamer also has served for several years as the scrivener for the ABA JCEB’s meeting with OCR for many years. She returns as Chair of the Southern California ISSA Health Care Privacy & Security Summit for the third year in 2016, as well as speaks and serves on the steering committee of a multitude of other programs.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares shared her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on HIPAA and other concerns by her service in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organization including her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE; Coalition on Patient Empowerment, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Board Compliance Chair and Board member of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and current RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Counsel, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposia chair and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry, human resources, employment and other privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management. Examples of her many highly regarded publications on these matters include “Protecting & Using Patient Data In Disease Management: Opportunities, Liabilities And Prescriptions,” “Privacy Invasions of Medical Care-An Emerging Perspective,” “Cybercrime and Identity Theft: Health Information Security: Beyond HIPAA,” as well as thousands of other publications, programs and workshops these and other concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clientson the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see CynthiaStamer.com or the Stamer│Chadwick │Soefje PLLC or contact Ms. Stamer via email to here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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. ©2016 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ All other rights reserved.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Consumer Driven Health Care, data breach, data security, Disease Management, Doctor, drug treatment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, Employment law, FACTA, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Labor Law, Laws, managed care, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Health, Mental Heatlh, OCR, Outpatient, Patient Empowerment, Pharmacy, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Psychiatric, Reproductive Rights, Rural Health Care, substance abuse treatment, Technology, Telemarketing, Telemedicine, Union, Veterans Health, Wellness | Tagged: breech, Data Breech, HIPAA, Medical Confidentiality, Medical Privacy, North Memorial, OCR, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

North Memorial Health Care Pays $1.5M Plus HIPAA Settlement For Business Associate Agreement Deficiencies

March 16, 2016

North Memorial Health Care of Minnesota has agreed to pay $1,550,000 to settle charges that it potentially violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules by failing to implement a business associate agreement with a major contractor and failing to institute an organization-wide risk analysis to address the risks and vulnerabilities to its patient information. North Memorial is a comprehensive, not-for-profit health care system in Minnesota that serves the Twin Cities and surrounding communities. The settlement highlights the importance for healthcare providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and their business associates to comply with HIPAA’s business associate agreement and other HIPAA organizational, risk assessment, privacy and security, and other requirements.

The Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan can be found on the HHS website at: http://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/compliance-enforcement/agreements/north-memorial-health-care/index.html.

Settlement Latest Reminder To Manage HIPAA Risks

Latest Guidance Clarifies Patient Rights To Access PHI & Allowable Charges

Other Key HIPAA Regulatory & Enforcement Changes Raise Responsibilities & Risks

Register For 3/30 Webex Briefing

About The Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Corporate Compliance, data breach, data security, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Federal Health Center, Genetic Information, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health IT, Health Plan, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, managed care, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Health, OCR, Outpatient, Pandemic, Patient Empowerment, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy, Psychiatric, Rural Health Care, Technology, Telemarketing, Telemedicine | Tagged: business associate, covered entity, Health Care, Health Plan, HIPAA, Hospital, Medical Privacy, North Memorial, OCR, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

3/30 Webex Shares Latest On Security, Patient Access & Other HIPAA Developments

March 9, 2016

Solutions Law Press, Inc. ™ Invites You To A Special WebEx Briefing

HIPAA Update: The Latest On Security, Patient Access & Other HIPAA Developments

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

1:00 P.M.-2:00 P.M. Eastern | 12:00 P.M.-1:00 P.M. Central 11:00 A.M-12:00 P.M. Mountain | 10:00 A.M-11:00 A.M. Pacific

Health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (Covered Entities) face new imperatives to review and tighten their practices to ensure their practices comply with recently released guidance from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR)) emphasizing and clarifying the responsibilities of health care providers, health plans and the healthcare clearinghouses under the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) to provide access to individuals that are the subject of protected health information or “PHI” to access or copies of their PHI in accordance with HIPAA’s rules and other recent HIPAA guidance and enforcement. With OCR’s recent release of added guidance and OCR enforcement statistics continuing to show HIPAA access rule violations among the most common HIPAA violations and OCR stepping up HIPAA enforcement, health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses can expect heightened scrutiny and enforcement of these requirements. Additionally, Covered Entities also should evaluate the adequacy of their other practices in light of other recent OCR guidance and enforcement actions.

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ invites to catch up on the latest guidance on HIPAA’s requirements to provide access to patients to PHI by registering here to participate in the Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ “HIPAA Update: The Latest On Security, Patient Access & Other HIPAA Developments” WebEx briefing from Cynthia Marcotte Stamer on Friday, March 18, 2016. During the Briefing, Ms. Stamer will provide participants with:

√ An update on OCR enforcement actiions and guidance over past 12 months

√ A detailed discussion of OCR’s new guidance about when Covered Entities must provide PHI access or copies to patients

√ Discuss rules and best practices for verifying the identity and credentials of an individual requesting PHI as a patient or personal representative of a patient

√ Share tips for contracting and dealing with business associates to facilitate administration of patient PHI access and security compliance activities

√ Share other practical considerations & best practices for compliance and risk management

√ Respond to participant questions on a time permitting basis

√ More

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Recognized as “Legal Leader™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in both Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law, a “Texas Top Lawyer,” and an “AV-Preeminent” and “Top Rated Lawyer” by Martindale-Hubble, singled out as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in employee benefits 2015 by D Magazine;, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely recognized for her more than 28 years extensive work and pragmatic thought leadership, experience, publications and training on HIPAA and other privacy, medical records and data and other health care, health plan and employee benefits, workforce and related regulatory and other compliance, performance management, risk management, product and process development, public policy and other key operational concerns.

As a core component of her work as the Managing Shareholder of Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, PC, the Co-Managing Member of Stamer Chadwick Soefje PLLC, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively throughout her nearly 30 year career with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, their technology and other vendors and service providers, and others on legal and operational risk management and compliance including extensive involvement with HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security and data breach and other information privacy and data security rules and concerns; prevention, investigation, response, mitigation and resolution of known or suspected data or privacy breaches or other incidents; defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR, FTC, state attorneys’ general and other federal or state agencies; reporting and redressing known or suspected breaches or other violations; business associate and other contracting; insurance or other liability management and allocation; process and product development, contracting, deployment and defense; evaluation, commenting or seeking modification of regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement, and a host of other related concerns for public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, employers, and others. Ms. Stamer also has worked extensively domestically and internationally on public policy and regulatory advocacy on HIPAA and other privacy and data security risks and requirements as well as a broad range of other health, employee benefits, human resources, insurance, tax, compliance and other matters and representing clients in dealings with the US Congress, Departments of Labor, Treasury, Health & Human Services, Federal Trade Commission, HUD and Justice, as well as a state legislatures attorneys general, insurance, labor, worker’s compensation, and other agencies and regulators as well supports clients in defending litigation as lead strategy counsel, special counsel and as an expert witness.

Beyond her extensive involvement advising and defending clients on these matters, Ms. Stamer also has served as the scrivener for the ABA JCEB’s meeting with OCR on HIPAA for many years. She returns as Chair of the Southern California ISSA Health Care Privacy & Security Summit for the third year in 2016, as well as speaks and serves on the steering committee of a multitude of other programs.

Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposia chair and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry, human resources, employment and other privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management. Examples of her many highly regarded publications on these matters include “Protecting & Using Patient Data In Disease Management: Opportunities, Liabilities And Prescriptions,” “Privacy Invasions of Medical Care-An Emerging Perspective,” “Cybercrime and Identity Theft: Health Information Security: Beyond HIPAA,” as well as thousands of other publications, programs and workshops these and other concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients, serves on the faculty and planning committee of many workshops, seminars, and symposia, and on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see CynthiaStamer.com or the Stamer│Chadwick │Soefje PLLC or contact Ms. Stamer via email to here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.

REGISTRATION & PROGRAM DETAILS

Registration Fee per course is $75.00 per person. Registration Fee Discounts available for groups of three or more participants from the same organization. Limited opportunities for participation. Registration accommodated on a first come basis. Completed registration and payment required via website registration 48 hours in advance of the program. No checks or cash accepted. Persons not registered with completed payment at least 48 hours in advance will only participate subject to availability and completed registration and payment. Payment only accepted via website PayPal. Register Here!

The Webex will be conducted over the internet. Participants will receive access code and instructions for sign on to participate in the Webex and/or dial in to participate in the program via telephone after processing of completed registration. Participants must have access to a computer with internet access and to telephone access to dial in via telephone to participate in the program. Solutions Law Press, Inc. is not responsible for any interruption or interference in participation resulting from limitations in the internet connectivity, computer, telephone or other equipment used by the participant to access and participate in the program.

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 better anticipate legal and operational issues impacting their organization’s 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 inquire about 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, the applicability of which to any particular circumstances may be impacted by legal changes, the specific facts and circumstances or other factors. Consequently, 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 not intended to or shall not be construed as establishing an attorney-client relationship, to constitute legal advice or a substitute for legal advice, or otherwise provide any assurance or expectation from Solutions Law Press, Inc., the presenter or any related parties that any participant or any other party can rely upon the information or any statements presented herein. 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. If you would prefer not to receive communications from Solutions Law Press, Inc. send an e-mail with “Solutions Law Press Unsubscribe” in the Subject to support@solutionslawyer.net. 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. ©2016 Solutions Law Press, Inc.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Clinical pathway, Conditions of Participation, Consumer Driven Health Care, data breach, data security, DEA, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, FACTA, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, managed care, Meaningful Use, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, OCR, Outpatient, Peer Review, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy, Psychiatric, substance abuse treatment, Technology, Telemedicine, Wellness | Tagged: Breach Notification, Data Breech, Employer, GINA, Health Care, Health insurer, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA Privacy, HIPAA Security, Hospital, Medical Privacy, PHI, Physician, Protected Health Information | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

NLRB 29 Unfair Labor Practice Charges Against Community Health Systems, Inc. Shows Industry Labor Risks

October 19, 2015

A 29-count unfair labor practices complaint brought by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against national hospital giant, Community Health Systems, Inc. and seven of its hospitals (CHS), reminds other hospital and health care systems about the need to take steps to maintain and strengthen the defensibility of their own union organizing and other labor-management relations processes as well as to prepare for the added complication the necessity of dealing with a union could present to their ability to manage already complex compliance, employment and employee benefit and other responsibilities.

The consolidated complaint announced by the NLRB today (October 19, 2015) alleges that CHS and seven wholly owned subsidiary hospitals make up a single integrated employer that has violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by engaging in a series of unfair labor practices. Specifically, the complaint claims CHS violated employee rights by, among other things: maintaining rules that infringe on employees’ rights to discuss wages, hours, and working conditions with one another and to advocate for better treatment; making statements and taking actions against employees for participating in union activities; and failing to engage in good-faith collective bargaining with the unions the NLRB says employees have selected as their exclusive collective-bargaining representatives.

The complaint involves 29 charges filed against CHS hospitals by the following NLRB Regional Offices:

Region 8, Cleveland against Affinity Medical Center – Massillon, Ohio
Region 9, Cincinnati against Kentucky River Medical Center – Jackson, Kentucky
Region 10, Atlanta against Bluefield Regional Medical Center – Bluefield, West Virginia and Greenbrier Valley Medical Center – Ronceverte, West Virginia
Region 21, Los Angeles against Fallbrook Hospital – Fallbrook, California
Region 31, Los Angeles against Barstow Community Hospital – Barstow, California and
Region 32, Oakland against Watsonville Community Hospital – Watsonville, California.

The consolidated complaint requests specific remedial relief, including: reimbursement for negotiation expenses; a make-whole remedy, including reinstatement, for employees who were the subject of discretionary discharges prior to any bargaining with the employees’ exclusive collective bargaining representatives; the reading and electronic transmission of a Notice to Employees; and a broad, corporate-wide cease and desist order given prior findings of serious unfair labor practices involving many of the facilities in the current matter. To avoid unnecessary delay and to conserve public and private resources, the General Counsel transferred all of these cases to Region 8, Cleveland, which issued the consolidated complaint. Absent settlement, the NLRB is scheduled to begin litigation in Cleveland on December 15, 2015.

The NLRB complaint against CHS is one of a growing number of actions where the NLRB, packed with Obama Administration appointees have gone after hospital or other health care employers as part of their broader pro-Labor agenda. See e.g., Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation of Mobile, Board Case No. 15-CA-68248 (reported at 357 NLRB No. 174) (6^th Cir. decided August 15, 2013 under the name Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC f/k/a Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation of Mobile v. NLRB).

These decisions should remind health care and other employers of the highly union-friendly bent of the NLRB under the current administration, as well as the hazards of mishandling efforts to defend against union organizing and other protected activities under the NLRA. Beyond the obligation to recognize and bargain with properly certified collective bargaining unions, the NLRB and other federal labor laws also grant employees a host of other protections. Among these are recently affirmed rights-even for a worker not represented by a union – to insist another employee be present when participating in disciplinary and certain other meetings with management, rules limit the ability of employers to prohibit or restrict employees requiring employees to keep confidential and not discuss among each other salary, wages or other terms of compensation or employment terms and conditions, and others. The Obama Administration has made known its desire to expand these rights further and has carried out an aggressive legislative, regulatory and enforcement campaign in pursuit of this goal since taking office. For this reason, health care or other organizations should seek the advice and assistance of qualified legal counsel experienced with labor management relations matters to review policies for compliance, to prepare and administer anti-organizing activities, and to evaluate and respond to union organizing or bargaining activities.

Amid these obligations and the pro-Labor enforcement attitude of the current administration, health industry organizations and their leaders must be prepared both to deal appropriately with labor-management relations organizing, bargaining and other obligations and to manage these responsibilities along with other critical compliance and operations management responsibilities. Beyond dealing with organizing and certification details, the recognition of a union also generally brings obligations for the employer to bargain on a wide range of matters. While most employers understand that this might include wages and benefits, it also includes bargaining about other terms and conditions of employment such as policies on compliance, investigations, discipline and a broad range of other concerns. For this reason, organization also can complicate compliance, risk management, financial and other critical management operations. Furthermore, union organizers and representatives often look for whistleblower or other opportunities to use compliance obligations as tools to strengthen bargaining or undermine employer credibility. For this reason, health industry and other employers targeted for organization or facing other labor-management risks should act early to tighten their compliance and manage risks in anticipation of the need to defend their actions in the event of a union organization or other action.

For More Information Or Assistance

The author of this article, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, is a Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization concurrently recognized a “Top” Health Care, Labor & Employment and ERISA/Employee Benefits Lawyer for her more than 28 years’ experience advising and defending public and private, rural and metro area hospital; health care system; nursing home; home health; rehabilitation; physical therapy; medical clinic; medical staff, physician practice group, independent practice association, and management services organization; staffing; HMOs, PPOs, ACOs, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage and other managed care organization; pharmacy; life sciences; durable medical equipment; allied health; health care technology; and other health industry clients.

As a Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law whose practice focuses on health industry clients, Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has included continuous involvement advising and representing health care organizations about employment, labor-management, peer review and staffing and other workforce management and compensation concerns. Ms. Stamer also continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance management and discipline; quality; governance; privacy, data security and breach; health care and other fraud prevention, risk management and defense; Medicare, Medicaid, managed care and insurance and other billing and reimbursement; safety and contagious disease; FDA; DEA; STARK, Fraud & Abuse, False Claims Act and other fraud prevention, investigation, remediation, and defense; managed care contracting and compliance; health care, insurance and other licensure and accreditation; managed care, government and other contracting and contract enforcement; antitrust; nonprofit and other general corporate and business matters and transactions; disaster preparedness and response; government audits and other enforcement; investigation and discipline; board and corporate governance; and other compliance, reengineering and change management, risk management, regulatory and government affairs, public policy and operations concerns.

Scribe for the ABA JCEB annual Technical Sessions meeting with OCR for the past five 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.

Ms. Stamer’s experience includes extensive involvement helping these and other health industry clients to establish, administer, and defend their practices and to conduct other dealings with the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), Board of Medicine, Department of Insurance, NLRB, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Wage and Hour and other Labor Department, Department of Defense, Justice Department and state attorneys’ general, Department of Health and other health care industry regulators.

Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals; Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association; founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Health Policy and Project COPE: The Coalition on Patient Empowerment; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, Past Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas Board, Past Board President of the Richardson Development Center Early Child Intervention Agency (not Warren Center for Children) and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Council, the American Bar Association (ABA) and State Bar of Texas, Cindy serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Insurance Thought Leadership, Employee Benefit News, HR.com, on the leadership of the ABA JCEB Council and several ABA Sections, and in many other professional and civic organizations and educational faculties, Ms. Stamer also is a prolific and popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry, labor and employment and other related concerns. She 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 as well as conducts workshops and programs and publications on these and many other compliance, operational and risk management, and other health industry matters. 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.

For more information about Ms. Stamer and her health industry or other experience, see here or 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, register here.

About Solutions Law Press

©2015 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. Non-exclusive license to republish granted to Solutions Law Press. All other rights reserved. 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, see 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.

2 Comments | Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, ASC, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Employer, Employment, Employment law, Federal Health Center, Health Care, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Physician, Psychiatric, Uncategorized | Tagged: collective bargaining, Health Care, Labor-Managment Relations, NLRB, NRLA, unfair labor practice, Union, Union Organizing, Union-managment relations, workforce | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Former National Quality Forum Committee Co-Chair Pays $1M, Excluded From Medicare In Fraud Settlement

March 5, 2015

A former National Quality Forum Committee Safe Practices Co-Chair landed in hot water under the False Claims Act for receiving compensation to use his influence and position to influence safety practices standards. Patient safety consultant Dr. Charles Denham, will pay $1 million to settle Justice Department allegations that he violated the False Claims Act by soliciting and accepting kickbacks while he co-chaired the Safe Practices Committee 2009 and 2010, according to a Justice Department announcement. The consulting company Health Care Concepts Inc. and the research organization Texas Medical Institute of Technology, operated by Denham both also are parties to the settlement.

With physicians and other health care organizations increasingly stepping up involvement in credentialing organizations and government advisory and other task forces, the enforcement action highlights another area where health care organizations and their people need to be careful to avoid violations of the False Claims Act or other laws. The settlement illustrates both the need for health care providers participating in HHS or other government advisory or other consulting roles to carefully evaluate their compensation and other arrangements for illegal remuneration or other prohibited elements in light of the continuing emphasis on and success of the Departments of Health & Human Services (HHS) and Justice in investigating and prosecuting arrangements they view as health care fraud under the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative announced in 2009.

The charges against Denham resolved by the settlement stem from payments he and his companies received while he co-chaired the Safe Practices Committee. The Safe Practices Committee reviews, endorses and recommends standardized healthcare performance measures and practices. The settlement resolves allegations that, under agreements entered into in 2008, Denham received monthly payments from CareFusion Corporation while serving as the co-chair of the Safe Practices Committee. The Justice Department charged that Denham did not disclose to the committee, or any other individual or component of the National Quality Forum, that he was receiving payments from CareFusion while co-chairing the Committee and that Denham solicited and received these payments in exchange for influencing the recommendations of the National Quality Forum and for recommending, promoting and/or arranging for the purchase of CareFusion’s product, ChloraPrep, in violation of the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute. The United States alleged that this conduct caused the submission of false or fraudulent claims for ChloraPrep to federal health care programs.

In addition to paying $1 million to the United States, Dr. Denham and his two businesses will be excluded from Medicare, Medicaid and all federal health programs as part of the settlement.

The settlement highlights another example of the widespread success HHS, the Justice Department and other agencies participating in the HEAT initiative in using the False Claims Act against doctors, hospitals and other health care providers and organizations. Since January 2009, the Justice Department reports recovery of more than $23.8 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $15.2 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs. With HHS and the Justice Department claiming it recovers an average return of $8 for each $1 invested in health care fraud enforcement, the enforcement initiative is a key player in Federal efforts to control and reduce federal health care expenditures. The Obama Administration tout the success of these efforts to fuel Congressional and public support for continuation and expansion of these and other health care fraud enforcement efforts by HHS, the Justice Department and other agencies.

“Kickback schemes undermine the integrity of medical decisions, subvert the health marketplace and waste taxpayer dollars,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “Doctors and other health care professionals who accept illegal inducements undermine the public’s trust in federal health care programs and will continue to be the focus of our enforcement efforts

Given the success of the programs and the HEAT agencies commitment to continuing their heavy-handed enforcement efforts, physicians, hospitals, skilled nursing, home health, durable medical equipment, and other health care providers and their leaders should stay ever diligent in their efforts to maintain compliance and other necessary defenses in anticipation of government scrutiny of their operations and activities. As part of these efforts, health care providers and organizations serving on advisory task forces or committees to government agencies or to credentialing or standard settling organizations that provide input on regulatory, standard setting or other activities need to use special care to ensure that any potential conflicts of interest are properly identified and disclosed and that the arrangements otherwise are structured and conducted to avoid violations of both the Anti-Kickback and other health care fraud laws and lobbying, conflict of interest and other laws, regulations and policies applicable to those activities.

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, Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 26 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, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. The scribe for the American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits annual agency meeting with the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA and other information privacy and data security rules, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others. In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

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

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you found these updates of interest, you also be interested in one or more of the following other recent articles published on the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform electronic publication available here, our electronic Solutions Law Press Health Care Update publication available here, or our HR & Benefits Update electronic publication available here. You also can get access to information about how you can arrange for training on “Building Your Family’s Health Care Toolkit,” using the “PlayForLife” resources to organize low-cost wellness programs in your workplace, school, church or other communities, and other process improvement, compliance and other training and other resources for health care providers, employers, health plans, community leaders and others here. 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. You can reach other recent updates and other informative publications and resources.

Examples of some of these recent health care related publications include:

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 concerning 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.

1 Comment | Academic medicine, Accreditation, ADA, ASC, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Employer, Employment, Employment law, Federal Health Center, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Mental Heatlh, OCR, Physician, Rehabilitation Act, Veterans Health | Tagged: Anti-Kickback, Health Care Fraud, HEAT, HHS, Illegal Remuneration, Medicare Exclusion, National Quality Forum, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

State Exchange Problems Added ACA Threat Regardless of SCOTUS Decision In King v. Burwell

March 3, 2015

While most Americans are familiar with the well-publicized issues and higher than projected premium costs of coverage offered to Americans enrolling in health care coverage through the federal healthcare marketplace Healthcare.gov created under the health care reforms of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA), many Americans are just beginning to recognize the growing problems and concerns emerging with state exchanges in those states that elected to enact their own exchange. As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in the challenge to the payment of ACA subsidies to individuals in states that elected not to adopt a state-run health care exchangeto pay for coverage purchased through the federal healthcare.gov marketplace in King v. Burwell on Wednesday, March 4, 2015, the growing evidence of rapidly emerging funding and other challenges affecting state-run exchanges raise concerns about the solvency and reliability of coverage promised and purchased through those state-run exchanges. These state exchange funding difficulties create concerns not only for state lawmakers, but also for the health care providers and patients that are relying upon adequate funding to ensure that patients can receive promised care and coverage and the health care providers caring for these patients will receive promised payment for these services.

During the Congressional debates leading up to the enactment of ACA, for instance, ACA advocates touted the Massachusetts health care mandates and reform law of Massachusetts as part of the model for ACA and evidence of the potential benefits offered by enactment of ACA. Now Massachusetts officials are blaming ACA for serious underfunding and other problems in their state’s health care connector.

Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker recently cited the Health Connector and its challenges in enrolling Massachusetts residents in health insurance plans as part of the Affordable Care Act that forced the state to temporarily transition hundreds of thousands of state residents into the commonwealth’s Medicaid program as a primary reason for the state’s projected $1.5 billion budget deficit. He now has asked for the resignations of four Massachusetts Health Connector board members: MIT professor Jonathan Gruber, Covered California actuarial consultant John Bertko; Massachusetts Nonprofit Network CEO Rick Jakious and Spring Insurance Group CEO George Conser.

The Massachusetts experience is not unique. Other states also are experiencing significant funding and other problems dealing with the ACA mandates and implementation. See, e.g., Funding Woes Imperil Future of State Run Exchanges; State Insurance Exchanges Face Challenges In Offering Standardized Choices Alongside Innovative Value-Based Insurance.

This mounting evidence of serious cost, financing and other concerns in state-run exchanges creates new reason for concern about the future of ACA’s health care reforms even for those citizens of states whose eligibility for subsidies is not challenged by the King v. Burwell Supreme Court challenge. These state exchange funding difficulties create concerns not only for state lawmakers, but also for the health care providers and patients that are relying upon adequate funding to ensure that patients can receive promised care and coverage and the health care providers caring for these patients will receive promised payment for these services.These and other budget overruns and operational challenges raise serious questions about the ability of the federal government or the states to fund the promises currently made by ACA in its present form. Congress and state governments almost certainly will be forced to deal with these broader challenges regardless of the outcome of King v. Burwell. As American leaders continue to struggle to deal with these and other mounting problems impacting the U.S. health care system, the input of individual Americans and businesses and community leaders is more critical than ever. Get involved in helping to shape improvements and solutions to the U.S. health care system and the Americans it cares for by sharing your ideas and input through the Coalition For Responsible Health Care Policy and exchanging information and ideas for helping American families deal with their family member’s illnesses, disabilities and other healthcare challenges through Project COPE: Coalition for Patient Empowerment here.

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

Do you have ideas or experiences to share about medical debit, ACA or other health care challenges? Have ideas for helping improve ACA and other health care policies impacting the US health care system, helping Americans cope with these and other health care challenges or other health care matters? Know other helpful resources or experiences that you are willing to share? Are you concerned about health care coverage or other health care and disability issues or policy concerns? Join the discussion and share your input by joining Project COPE: Coalition for Patient Empowerment here.

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

The Coalition and its Project COPE arise and operate on the belief that health care reform and policy must be patient focused, patient centric and patient empowering. 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.

The outcome of this latest health care reform push is only a small part of a continuing process. Whether or not the Affordable Care Act makes financing care better or worse, the same challenges exist. The real meaning of the enacted reforms will be determined largely by the shaping and implementation of regulations and enforcement actions which generally are conducted outside the public eye. Americans individually and collectively clearly should monitor and continue to provide input through this critical time to help shape constructive rather than obstructive policy. Regardless of how the policy ultimately evolves, however, Americans, American businesses, and American communities still will need to roll up their sleeves and work to deal with the realities of dealing with ill, aging and disabled people and their families. While the reimbursement and coverage map will change and new government mandates will confine providers, payers and patients, the practical needs and challenges of patients and families will be the same and confusion about the new configuration will create new challenges as patients, providers and payers work through the changes.

We also encourage you and others to help develop real meaningful improvements by joining Project COPE: Coalition for Patient Empowerment here by sharing ideas, tools and other solutions and other resources. 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.

You also may be interested in one or more of the following other recent articles published on the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform electronic publication available here, our electronic Solutions Law Press Health Care Update publication available here, or our HR & Benefits Update electronic publication available here such as:

You also can find out about how you can arrange for training for you, your employees or other communities to participate in training on “Building Your Family’s Health Care Toolkit,” using the “PlayForLife” resources to organize low-cost wellness programs in your workplace, school, church or other communities, and other process improvement, compliance and other training and other resources for health care providers, employers, health plans, community leaders and others here.

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, Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 26 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, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. The scribe for the American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits annual agency meeting with the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA and other information privacy and data security rules, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include employers and their health and other employee benefit plans, public and private health care providers, health insurers, plan fiduciaries and service providers, technology and other vendors, and others. In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

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

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

Examples of some of these recent health care related publications include:

Health Care Employer’s Discrimination Triggers Medicare, EEOC Prosecutions

March 2, 2015

Health care employers and organizations should review and tighten their employment and other discrimination policies and risk management in light of recent employment discrimination enforcement actions targeting health care organization staffing decisions by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

OCR Race Discrimination Medicare Action

A new OCR Voluntary Resolution Agreement with Shiawassee County Medical Facility reminds health care providers of the frequently underappreciated Medicare/Medicaid program participation risks of certain types of employment discrimination to be careful not to allow patient preferences to lead them into the trap of violating the prohibition against race, color, and national origin under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or other federal nondiscrimination laws when making patient staffing assignments.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in the administration of any federally-funded program based on race, color, or national origin. OCR’s longstanding “Guidelines for Compliance of Hospitals with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” make clear that OCR interprets Title VI prohibits assignment of hospital staff based on the racial preference of the patient.

A newly announced OCR investigation and Resolution Agreement Shiawassee County Medical Care Facility, a 136-bed Medicare and Medicaid certified skilled nursing facility, illustrates the need for Medicare and Medicaid certified health care providers of all types to ensure their compliance with Title VI and, in particular, to refrain from making any staff assignments based on racial considerations.

The Resolution Agreement between OCR and Shiawassee, a 136-bed Medicare and Medicaid certified skilled nursing facility, resolved charges that the facility violated Title VI by giving a nursing staff instruction to not assign African-American staff to a Caucasian Resident. Based on an investigation, OCR found Shiawassee needed to change its policies and procedures to bring them into full compliance with Title VI. To implement fully the prohibition against consideration of race in staff assignments, Shiawassee signed a with OCR which calls for the appointment of a Title VI Coordinator to oversee Shiawassee’s overall compliance with Title VI including special responsibilities for the investigation and adjudication of any Title VI complaints filed internally with Shiawassee. In addition, Shiawassee must train its workforce on Title VI, and submit reports to OCR regarding compliance.

The Shiawassee charges and Resolution agreement follow a similar Agreement in August 2014 between OCR and Hurley Medical Center in Flint, Michigan , which also resolved OCR charges arising from that facilities staff assignment based on a patient’s racial preference. Read the Hurley Agreement here.

Phoenix EEOC ADA Discrimination Action

The HHS against Shiawassee enforcement action coincides with an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announcement of its filing of disability discrimination lawsuit under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) against another health care provider, ValleyLife of Phoenix, Arizona. EEOC charges that ValleyLife engaged in illegal disability discrimination in violation of the ADA when it allegedly fired employees with disabilities instead of providing them with reasonable accommodations when their eligibility for family leave ended under the Family & Medical Leave Act ended and allegedly failed to keep employees’ medical records confidential. See EEOC v. ValleyLife, Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-00340-GMS (N.Az).

In EEOC v. ValleyLife, the EEOC charges that ValleyLife fired employees with disabilities rather than provide them with reasonable accommodations due to its inflexible leave policy. The policy compelled the termination of employees who had exhausted their paid time off and/or any unpaid leave to which they were eligible under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). According to the EEOC, ValleyLife fired supervisor, Glenn Stephens, due to his need for further surgery when his FMLA leave eligibility ended. EEOC claims this termination violated the ADA because ValleyLife did not engage in any interactive process to determine whether any accommodations (including additional leave) were possible. Stephens had worked for ValleyLife for over ten years at the time of his termination. The EEOC contends that ValleyLife’s failure to offer extended leave or other accommodation to Stephens when his leave eligibility ended violated the ADA, which protects workers from discrimination based upon disability and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental impairments of disabled employees unless doing so would cause an undue hardship.

The suit also alleges that ValleyLife commingled medical records in employee personnel files and failed to maintain these medical records confidential in violation of the medical record confidentiality requirements of the ADA, which requires employees’ to keep medical documents confidential and separate from other personnel records.

The lawsuit seeks lost wages and compensatory and punitive damages for the alleged victims, as well as appropriate injunctive relief to prevent discriminatory practices in the future.

Prepare Employment Discrimination Defenses

The OCR action against Shiawassee and the EEOC suit against ValleyLife remind health industry employers of the need to use care to monitor and manage employment discrimination risks. Health care organizations should avoid the temptation to assume that their organizations can rely upon patient preferences or other common industry concerns to defend against claims of disability, race or other discrimination. Instead, health care organizations should review and update their policies and practices to ensure that they properly comply with applicable employment and other federal and state disability discrimination law and are operationalized in a manner to create and keep appropriate documentation to defend staffing decisions against potential claims of illegal discrimination under the ADA, Civil Rights, or other laws that could adversely impact their organization’s eligibility to participate in Medicare, Medicaid or other federal programs, trigger judgments or penalties, or both.

Health care organizations also need to exercise care to ensure that their patient access, care and other policies also comply and are administered to withstand scrutiny under Medicare terms of participation, the ADA, the Civil Rights Act and other federal discrimination laws. These health industry employers should both evaluate their existing policies and practices, as well as their processes for conducting and documenting investigations and other activities associated with the administration of FMLA or other disability accommodation, patient and other staffing and other activities to position their organization to identify potential exposures and position themselves to defend their decisions against OCR, EEOC or other government agency investigations, private plaintiff claims or both.

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

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

Examples of some of these recent health care related publications include:

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Accreditation, ADA, ASC, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Employer, Employment, Employment law, Federal Health Center, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Mental Heatlh, OCR, Physician, Rehabilitation Act, Veterans Health | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Care Providers, Provide ACO, Reimbursement Reform Input To HHS

March 2, 2015

Physicians, nurses, hospitals and other health care providers, patients and others concerned about health care reimbursement and other health care reforms in the United States should sign up and participate in the new Health Care Payment Learning and Action Network (“Network”) the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is creating to help shape ongoing reform of the US health care delivery system to promote better care, smarter spending, and healthier people through the expansion of new health care payment models and other reforms. HHS is inviting private payers, employers, providers, patients, states, consumer groups, consumers, and other partners within the health care community to register here to participate in the Network activities including kickoff event scheduled for Wednesday, March 25, 2015.

HHS hopes cooperation through the Network will help the entire U.S. health care system match and exceed the following HHS goals for Medicare:

Tying 30 percent of payments to quality or value through alternative payment models, such as Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) or bundled payment arrangements by the end of 2016, and
Tying 50 percent of payments to alternative payment models by the end of 2018. The Network will also support the broader goal of tying the vast majority of payments in the health care system to quality or value.

As HHS moves forward to promote ACOs and other reforms, it is particularly important that providers and patients provide feedback and input about the goals and ideas HHS is promoting as solutions for “improving” health care. While HHS often touts consolidation of care into ACOs and other reimbursement strategies using government generated standards of quality as the best means of improving quality and cost-effectiveness, many patients, providers and others worry that HHS ACO and other reimbursement reforms as presently implemented or contemplated by HHS cut costs at the expense of patients by denying reimbursement or other access for effective care options based on cost or ignore other patient needs in the name of cost savings. Active, consistent participation in these and other opportunities for input is critical for those concerned about these and other issues to question and shape the goals, assumptions and actions HHS, Congress and others take to change the U.S. health care system.

HHS says most Network meetings will occur virtually by teleconference or webinar. In-person meetings will occur in the Washington D.C. area. HHS plans to hold the first live streaming of the kickoff event on Wednesday, March 25, 2015. HHS will share details through e-mails to those registered online to participate in the network. Individuals and organizations concerned about ACO and other HHS-lead health care reforms are urged to register and participate in the Network as one of the ways to help monitor and shape health care reform as lead by HHS.

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

Do you have feedback or other experiences to share about medical debit, ACA or other health care challenges? Have ideas for helping improve our system, helping Americans cope with these and other health care challenges or other health care matters? Know other helpful resources or experiences that you are willing to share? Are you concerned about health care coverage or other health care and disability issues or policy concerns? Join the discussion and share your input by joining Project COPE: Coalition for Patient Empowerment here.

The Coalition and its Project COPE are founded and operate based on the belief that health care reform and policy must be patient focused, patient centric and patient empowering. 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.

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

Examples of some of these recent health care related publications include:

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 26 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. The scribe for the American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits annual agency meeting with the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA and other information privacy and data security rules, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others. In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

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, Border Health, Centers For Disease Control, Conditions of Participation, Consumer Driven Health Care, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, Evidence Based Medicine, false claims act, FDA, Federal Health Center, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Policy, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, OIG, Outcomes Data, Patient Empowerment, Pharmacy, Physician, Prospective Payment, Public Policy, Rural Health Care, Stark, Telemedicine | 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

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

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

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 » | 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

Doc Caught Submitting Conflicting Patient Records to Private Payer Versus Medicare Criminally Sentence, Pays Civil Settlement

July 23, 2013

The recent criminal sentencing and civil settlement of Illinois physician Dr. Mahmoud Yassin highlights the growing- but too often appreciated exposure of physicians and other health care providers and their billing or other management who submit conflicting claims data to private and government claims or otherwise permit in false falsely bill or participate in the cover-up of fraudulent or other improper billings to payers. The Yassin sentencing is notable both because Yassin incurred criminal liability for obstruction based on his presentation of altered patient records to a private payer and and civil liability for making false claims to Medicare and others.

Yassin was sentenced July 22, 2013 to serve 30 days in prison and 3 years of probation and to pay a fine of $10,000, a special assessment of $100, and restitution to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois in the amount of $19,615.17 in federal district court in Benton, Illinois for Obstructing a Criminal Health Care Fraud Investigator. The felony obstruction conviction stemmed from charges that on March 2, 2012, when a FBI agent, having served a subpoena for patient records on Dr. Yassin, gave an altered patient progress note that showed an in-office examination previously claimed to an insurance carrier, but which had not taken place.

In a separate civil settlement with the United States Attorney’s Office regarding false claims to Medicare, Dr. Yassin also previously has paid double damages for $87,348.64. The restitution and civil false claims settlement were based on claims for in person office visits in which the patient either failed to show up for an appointment or only was spoken to by telephone.

The Yassin prosecution demonstrates the importance of providers getting their records and billings straight when billing both private payers and government payers. While most health care providers recognize the significant exposure they incur from overbilling Medicare or other federal programs as a result of the highly publicized, heavy-handed audit and enforcement activities of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) and Department of Justice (DOJ), many don’t recognize their exposure from private payer billings or the potential interaction between private and government claims investigations Amendments enacted as part of the anti-fraud provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) added private health plans to the list of plans protected by federal prohibitions against fraudulent billing by providers. Furthermore, federal fraud investigators and private payers increasingly are working together on the investigation and redress of false billing and other aggressive practices. These and other risks mean that providers cannot afford to be unprepared when asked to respond to investigations like one that lead to the Yassin conviction, recoupment or other audit and enforcement actions See, Secondary Payers Hit Physician Group With Recoupment After Medicare Audit Findings. Rather, physicians and other health care clinics must be ready to prove and defend their billings to public and private payers. In both cases, these preparations should ensure that records accurately and completely document the care provided, that the coding and billing applied is reflective of actual care and consistent with existing reimbursement, and otherwise defensible. As demonstrated by Yassin, inconsistencies between records presented to different payers should be avoided.

For More Information Or Assistance

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 » | Accreditation, Ambulatory care, ASC, Doctor, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Hospital, Joint Commission, Medical Licensure, OIG, Physician | Tagged: accreditation, Ambulatory care organizations, ambulatory surgery, Doctor, false claims act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reimbursement, Health Insurance, Health Plans, HEAT, HIPAA, Hospital, Hospitals, Joint Commission, Physician, Physicians, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Improper Billing Of Private Payers Increasing Source Of Liability & Risk For Providers

July 8, 2013

Physicians or other health care providers now have even more to worry about when a Medicare or other federal program audit reveals overpayments – repayment demands from commercial insurers and self-insured health plans, who are secondary payers. Federal officials and private payers alike increasingly are coming after providers to recover overpayments or other inappropriate billings identified through audits or other investigations. In the face of these actions, providers should use care to ensure that their billing and compliance programs appropriately manage and monitor the defensibility of claims billed to private payers as well as those to Medicare or other government programs.

Most health care providers recognize the significant exposure they incur from overbilling Medicare or other federal programs as a result of the highly publicized, heavy-handed audit and enforcement activities of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) and Department of Justice (DOJ).

Unfortunately, many health care providers don’t recognize that overbilling private payers can carry similar risks and liabilities. Amendments enacted as part of the anti-fraud provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) added private health plans to the list of plans protected by federal prohibitions against fraudulent billing by providers.

While CMS, OIG and DOJ tend to emphasize Medicare and other federal program recoveries in media releases about their overbilling and health care fraud enforcement efforts, careful review of these actions increasingly shows that these enforcement actions often also cover overbilling of private health plans uncovered in connection with the underlying Medicare or other federal program overpayment audit or investigation. For instance, upcoding and other false billing of claims was the basis of the federal criminal health care fraud prosecution of the Chief Executive Officer of a small, rural Texas health care clinic. Texas Clinic CEO Sentence Highlights Risks Of Upcoding. See, also Pharmas Face New Pressure To Put Patients Before Profits After GlaxoSmithKline Record $3 Billion Health Care Fraud & FDCA Settlement.

Unfortunately, many providers have failed to recognize and adequately respond to these and other clear indicators of their exposure to fraud, recoupment and other enforcement actions from sloppy or otherwise improper billings to private insurers and self insured plans. With health care reform increasingly focusing on reducing health care expenditures in the private as well as public arena, already existing federal and state enforcement against providers for improper billing of private payers will inevitably grown.

Taking into account these and other trends toward stepped up enforcement against aggressive billing by providers of private insurance or self-insured plans, physicians and other providers should not be surprised or unprepared to respond to recoupment or other audit and enforcement actions like that recently reported by Nina Youngstrom in AIS Health about the recoupment demands by commercial insurers against a Kansas health care clinic based on the Medicare audit findings of overpayments. See, Secondary Payers Hit Physician Group With Recoupment After Medicare Audit Findings. Rather, physicians and other health care clinics must be ready to prove and defend their billings to private payers as well as Medicare and other government payers.

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

2 Comments | Accreditation, Ambulatory care, ASC, Doctor, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Hospital, Joint Commission, Medical Licensure, OIG, Physician | Tagged: accreditation, Ambulatory care organizations, ambulatory surgery, Doctor, false claims act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reimbursement, Health Insurance, Health Plans, HEAT, HIPAA, Hospital, Hospitals, Joint Commission, Physician, Physicians, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Ambulatory Care Orgs Face New Joint Commission Standards Beginning January 1, 2014

July 8, 2013

Ambulatory care organizations should review their current policies and procedures for compliance with revised ambulatory care organization accreditation standards published by the Joint Commission (TJC) on June 25, 2013. The new changes are effective January 1, 2014. The revisions include changes to standards on:

Renewal of clinical privileges
Requirements on providing care without regard to a patient’s ability to pay
Requirements for patient education about follow-up care to apply at the end of any episode of care;
Human resources
Leadership
Medication management
National patient safety goals
Provision of care, treatment, and services.

Ambulatory care organizations should begin assessing the implications of the new standards and identifying and implementing any changes they determine necessary or advisable to meet the new standards as soon as possible to ensure adequate time to operationalize compliance necessary to maintain desired accreditation.

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

OSHA Safety Violations At Veterans’ Medical Center Reminder To Manage OSHA Compliance

March 1, 2013

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued seven notices of unsafe or unhealthful working conditions found at the Battle Creek Veterans Administration Medical Center, following a safety inspection conducted in July as part of OSHA’s Federal Agency Targeting Inspection Program. OSHA’s announcement of the citations highlights the need for all health care and other employers to manage safety compliance. The citations highlight the high enforcement and penalty risks that public and private health care providers risk by failing to comply with OSHA’s safety, recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

Health Industry Employers High Priority OSHA Enforcement Target

Under these OSHA requirements, all employers, including federal and private health industry employers, are responsible for knowing what hazards exist in their facilities and taking appropriate precautions by following OSHA standards so workers are not exposed to such hazards. Physician practices, hospitals and other health care providers in both the public and private sectors generally are subject to these federal requirements, as well as various state and federal environmental and patient safety requirements. Enforcement of compliance in the health care industry is a high priority for OSHA because of the high rates of occupational accident and injury among health industry workers. Federal agencies generally must comply with the same safety standards as private-sector employers.

OSHA prioritizes monitoring and enforcing occupational safety standards throughout the health care industry because of the high incidence of occupational accidents and illnesses among health care workers. According to OSHA, more workers are injured in the healthcare and social assistance industry sector than any other. This industry has one of the highest rates of work related injuries and illnesses and it continues to rise. In 2020, the healthcare and social assistance industry reported a 40% increase in injury and illness cases which continues to be higher than any other private industry sector – 806,200 cases (2020 Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, BLS). Over half of these cases (447,890) resulted in at least one day away from work. The total incidence rate for this sector was 5.5 cases per 100 FTE workers in 2020, compared to 3.8 per 100 FTE workers in 2019. Nursing assistants were amongst the occupations with the highest rates of musculoskeletal disorders of all occupations in 2020, with 15,360 cases. Musculoskeletal disorders made up 52% of all days away from work cases for nursing assistants. See here. In addition to the medical staff, large healthcare facilities employ a wide variety of trades that have health and safety hazards associated with them. These include mechanical maintenance, medical equipment maintenance, housekeeping, food service, building and grounds maintenance, laundry, and administrative staff. Because of these risks, OSHA has extensive occupational health and safety requirements for physician practices, hospitals, nursing homes, home health and other health industry employers and targeted audit and enforcement programs to enforce and promote compliance with these requirements. See here.

Violations are common and frequently result in citations, particularly in certain key areas. The most frequently cited areas affecting health industry employers include violations of the following standards:

Section 1910.132, General requirements.
Section1910.133, Eye and face protection.
Section 1910.134, Respiratory protection.
Section 1910 Subpart Z – Toxic and Hazardous Substances
Section 1910.1030, Bloodborne pathogens.
Section 1910.1047, Ethylene oxide.
Section 1910.1048, Formaldehyde.
Section 1910.1096, Ionizing radiation.
Section 1910.1200, Hazard Communication.
Section 1910.1450, Occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals in laboratories.

Battle Creek VA OSHA Safety Violations

In the case of the Battle Creek Veterans Administration Medical Center, OSHA says an inspection uncovered several repeat safety violations, as well as certain other serious safety violations. OSHA reports that three repeat safety violations involved failing to evaluate the workplace to identify if permit-required confined spaces were present and label such spaces with danger signs; failing to adequately guard automated laundry equipment to prevent employees from entering the work area, and failing to fully guard the belt and pulley of an air compressor. To issue notices for repeat violations, OSHA must have issued at least one other notice for the same violation at one of the agency’s establishments within the same standard industrial classification code, commonly known as the SIC code. OSHA previously has cited U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs facilities in Danville and North Chicago, Illinois, and Minneapolis, Minnesota for the same safety and health violations.

The serious safety violations found included three serious safety violations for unguarded floor openings in the general repair shop; failing to inspect powered industrial trucks prior to placing them in service, and failing to remove trucks from service in need of repair. Additionally, OSHA found a circuit breaker panel was not mounted correctly. OSHA issues a serious notice when it finds a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

Beyond the repeat and serious violations, OSHA reports it also found one other-than-serious violation for failing to close unused openings on electrical cabinets and junction boxes. An other-than-serious violation is one that has a direct relationship to job safety and health, but probably would not cause death or serious physical harm.

While the medical center and other federal agencies are required to comply with the same OSHA rules as private sector employers, the VA and other federal agencies don’t face the same liabilities when cited. OSHA cannot propose monetary penalties against another federal agency for failure to comply with OSHA standards.

Since private sector employers that don’t enjoy the VA’s immunity liability run much greater risks for failing to maintain workplace safety, including significant civil and in the case of a workplace death, potentially even criminal penalties, private sector hospitals and other organizations should exercise special care to ensure appropriate safety in their workplaces.

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 nearly 35 years of 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 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, Corporate Compliance, Employer, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, 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, Health Care Fraud, hospita, Hospital, Medicaid Fraud, Medicare Fraud Task Force, OSHA, Safety | 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

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

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

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

Director of Texas Office of e-Health Coodination To Discuss Texas HIE Strategy in 3/14 HHS Sponsored Teleconference

March 14, 2012

On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 at 1 p.m. EDT, National eHealth Collaborative’s NeHC University will host Stephen Palmer, Director of the Office of e-Health Coordination at the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, to describe the HIE strategy being pursued by the state of Texas. Palmer will be joined by Kem McClelland of the Integrated Care Collaboration, Tony Gilman of the Texas Health Services Authority, and Bryan White of the North Texas Accountable Healthcare Partnership to showcase the Texas strategy in action and detail the progress that has been made on the ground.

To participate register and join NeHC University’s Spotlight on the Texas Statewide HIE Strategy.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

[*] 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, business associate, Health Care, Health Plan, HIPAA, HITECH Act, OCR | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report

March 13, 2012

Resolution Agreement Also 1^st Announced With Health Plan

Health care providers, health plans and other covered entities beware and prepare! Reporting a large breach under the HITECH Act breach notification rules will trigger a Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) investigation into whether OCR should impose civil monetary penalties against the reporting covered entity under the Privacy and Security Rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee (BCBST) has agreed to pay OCR $1,500,000 and to take certain other actions specified in a corrective action plan to avoid civil monetary penalties for charges of HIPAA violations. The BCBST Resolution Agreement is particularly significant, both as:

The first reported enforcement action directly resulting from the filing by a covered entity of a breach report required by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act Breach Notification Rule; and
The first reported resolution agreement reached with a covered entity that is a health plan.

These notable enforcement firsts show the HITECH Breach Notification Rule’s significance as an OCR HIPAA enforcement tool, the heightened exposure to an OCR opening a HIPAA civil monetary penalty (CMP) investigation following a report, as well as the willingness of OCR to sanction health plans as well as other covered entities that breach HIPAA’s Privacy or Security Rules.

BCBST Investigation Began In Response to HITECH Act Breach Notification Rule Report

The OCR investigation that lead to the BCBST settlement began in response to BCBST making a report required under the Breach Notification Rule of the theft of 57 unencrypted computer hard drives from a leased facility in Tennessee, which contained the protected health information (PHI) of over 1 million individuals. Read more details here.

The Breach Notification Rule enacted as part of amendments to HIPAA under the HITECH Act requires covered entities to report an impermissible use or disclosure of protected health information, or a “breach,” of 500 individuals or more to HHS and the media as well as an annual consolidated report of smaller breaches to HHS.[1] Along with the Breach Notification Rules, the HITECH Act also increased the civil monetary penalties (CMPs) that covered entities like BCBST can incur for HIPAA violations. When it imposed its first ever CMP last year, OCR imposed a $4.3 million CMP against Cignet Health of Prince George’s County, Md. (Cignet).

In an apparent effort to impose a potentially larger CMP assessment arising from the investigation of its breach report, BCBST greed to pay $1,500,000 and adopt other corrective actions detailed in a corrective action plan.

Enforcement Actions Highlight Growing HIPAA Exposures For Covered Entities

The BCBST Resolution Agreements, like the Cignet CMP and other high dollar Resolution Agreements OCR has announced against various health care providers highlight the significance of the HITECH Act amendments to HIPAA’s enforcement and CMP rules, as well as the significance of its Breach Notification Rule as a tool in OCR’s investigation and enforcement efforts.

“This settlement sends an important message that OCR expects health plans and health care providers to have in place a carefully designed, delivered, and monitored HIPAA compliance program,” said OCR Director Leon Rodriguez. “The HITECH Breach Notification Rule is an important enforcement tool and OCR will continue to vigorously protect patients’ right to private and secure health information.”

The BCBST Resolution Agreement provides yet another reminder to covered entities and their business associates of the 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. Fortips, 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.

[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.

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.

[*] 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, business associate, Health Care, Health Plan, HIPAA, HITECH Act, OCR | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Medical Identity Theft/Fraud Convictions Highlight Need For Health Care Providers To Safeguard Health Information, Guard Against Fraud Schemes

November 27, 2011

Convictions Highlight Health Care Data Bases Attractive, Vulnerable Target For Medicare Fraud Schemers

A Federal judge sentenced 25 year old Miami resident Yenky Sanchez, 25 to serve more than 5 years in Federal prison for his role in the theft of Medicare numbers and other information of elderly and disabled Florida residents as part of a plan to defraud Medicare, Medicaid and other federal programs. Coming on the heels of a November 3 conviction in West Virginia of Sargis Tadevosyan in a separate identity theft for Medicare fraud scheme, the convictions highlight the growing commitment and effectiveness of Federal and state investigators in investigating and prosecuting individuals who seek to use identity theft schemes to defraud Medicare or other federal programs.

Sanchez Conviction & Sentencing

The sentence arises from criminal charges brought by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in conjunction with other federal and state agencies, which charged Sanchez considered to commit health care fraud, authentication feature fraud and aggravated identity theft. According to DOJ documents, Sanchez, participated in a scheme with Raul Diaz-Perera, to steal and sell Medicare numbers and other data about clients of their employer, the Florida Department of Children and Families’ (DCF). Diaz-Perera previously was employed with DCF. According to the evidence at trial against Sanchez and a factual proffer filed with the court during the plea hearing for co-defendant Diaz-Perera, Sanchez used his position as employees at a DCF call center in downtown Miami to steal Medicare numbers and other personal information for purposes of committing health care fraud and identity theft. The intent of Sanchez and his co-conspirator was for those numbers to be used to fraudulently bill Medicare for services that were never provided to the DCF beneficiaries. Sanchez was convicted of conspiring to commit health care fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349; conspiring to commit authentication feature fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1028(a)(3) and (f); and aggravated identity theft, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1028A(a)(1). Based on these convictions, U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga sentenced Sanchez on November 21, 2011 to 65 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. Judge Altonaga also imposed a $5,000.00 fine on Sanchez.

Tadevosyan Conviction

Federal officials previously also had scored another Medicare fraud/identity theft prosecution victory just a few short weeks earlier in West Virginia. On November 3, 2011, a federal jury convicted Armenia citizen Sargis Tadevosyan in connection with a health care fraud scheme that intended to defraud millions of dollars from Medicare. Tadevosyan was found guilty of two felony counts: conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. Tadevosyan faces up to 20 years in prison for the conspiracy conviction and a mandatory consecutive sentence of two years for aggravated identity theft and a $250,000 fine when he is sentenced on January 26, 2012.

In contrast to the small scale conspiracy that apparently occurred in the Sanchez case, the Tadovosyn scheme apparently was orchestrated by organized crime. Department of Health and Human Resources Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG) uncovered the activities of Tadovosyn as part of its investigation of fraud schemes involving false front providers, whereby a company posed as a Medicare health care provider, and unlawfully billed Medicare as if they were providing legitimate services. Ultimately, investigators discovered that Tadevosyn and others were involved in defrauding Medicare and other health care payers as part of a scheme that used false front provider companies. In total, more than $4 million in Medicare claims were submitted by the false front providers. To co-conspirators of Tadevosyn pleaded guilty in September to aiding and abetting aggravated identity theft in connection to the health care fraud plot. Those two co-defendants are scheduled to be sentenced on December 1, 2011.

In announcing the Tadevosyan conviction, federal officials affirmed their commitment to finding and prosecuting identity theft targeting Medicare and other health insurance programs. “This investigation revealed that organized criminal groups are still brazenly attempting to steal taxpayer money from our national health insurance programs,” said Nicholas DiGiulio, Special Agent in Charge for the Inspector General’s Office of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. “Today’s results demonstrate that we will do whatever it takes to catch these individuals in the act before they receive a penny of taxpayers’ money.”

Federal Laws, Investigations & Prosecutions of Medical Identity Theft Schemes Tightening

Whether from deliberate schemes to misappropriate data or other less sinister compromises of personal health information or other sensitive data, health care providers, health plans and other businesses face rising responsibilities to protect data and increasing exposures for failing to do so.

Federal law imposes stiff sanctions against organizations and individuals that engage in theft of personal or other sensitive information, health or other federal program fraud or both. In an effort to stem the tide of health care and identity theft fraud, federal and state legislators and regulators have tightened federal and state laws to strengthen laws prohibiting health care fraud and identity theft, to require that health care providers, health plans, federal and state agencies and others that collect, possess or access sensitive personal health information, personal financial information or other sensitive date safeguard and protect sensitive information against improper access or misuse, to increase the penalties for violation of these federal and state laws and to provide law enforcement with expanded tools to investigate and prosecute violations of these laws. See e.g., Cybercrime and Identity Theft: Health Information Security Beyond HIPAA.

As a result of these new and expanded mandates, health care providers, health plans, financial organizations and a broad range of other businesses and governmental agencies face a host of complicated mandates to protect personal health information, personal financial information and other sensitive data under laws such as the Health Information Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA), the Fair & Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), state and federal identity theft and data security and other laws and significant liability for failing to fulfill these responsibilities.

Health care providers, health insurers and others handling protected health information are particularly at risk when their data is compromised. Recent amendments to HIPAA require these entities and their business associates to tighten their data privacy and security safeguards and to monitor and timely report data breaches, as well as significantly expand their potential liability exposure for failing to comply with HIPAA’s requirements. See e.g., UCLA Health Systems Payment of $865,500 To Settle HIPAA Charges Shows Rising HIPAA Risk; CVS Settles Privacy Charges; Rite Aid Agrees to Pay $1 Million to Settle HIPAA Privacy Case As Office of Civil Rights Proposes Tighter HIPAA Privacy & Security Regulations; 2 New HIPAA Criminal Actions Highlight Risks From Wrongful Use/Access of Health Information; President Signs Long-Sought Red Flag Rule Exemption Into Law. As part of its ongoing implementation of stepped up enforcement responsibility and powers enacted as part of these recent amendments, the HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR) announced on November 8, 2011 its kickoff of a new compliance audit effort. These developments send a forceful message that all businesses generally and health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and their business associates specifically must get serious about compliance with the privacy, security and data breach requirements of HIPAA and other applicable law by implementing and administering the policies, procedures, training and oversight necessary to comply with these and other federal and state mandates regarding the protection of personal health information and other sensitive data. Learn more about the recent convictions and related data breach exposures here.

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

Leave a Comment » | ARRA, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, FACTA, false claims act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OCR, Reimbursement, Technology, Telemarketing, Telemedicine, Veterans Health Administration | Tagged: Data Security, FACTA, Health Care Fraud, HIPAA, Identity Theft, Justice Department, Medicaid, Medicare, OCR, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

100,000+ Primary Care Providers Signed Up To Get EHRs Regional Extension Centers

November 17, 2011

The HHS Office for the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology announced today that nearly one-third of all primary care providers -plan to work with their Regional Extension Center (REC) to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Programs as a way to transition from paper records to certified EHRs.

Designed to jump start EHR adoption, the Health Information Technology Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act of 2009, part of the Recovery Act, created a nationwide network of RECs comprised of local nonprofits, to provide guidance and resources to help eligible professionals make the transition from paper records to certified EHRs. Eligible providers that meet meaningful use of certified EHRs criteria may be eligible for incentive payments under the Recovery Act.

The 62 RECs focus on assisting primary care providers and those providers serving traditionally medically underserved populations as they take part in the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs and meaningfully use EHRs in ways that can reduce health care costs, increase patient safety, and improve the overall quality of patient care. These providers face challenges in EHR adoption including tight budgets, over-stretched health information technology staff, and limited broadband access.

One-half of the providers committed to making the transition to certified EHRs are in small group practices or consortia of small group practices. The remaining providers focus on the underserved with 18 percent in community health centers, 11 percent in public hospitals, and 21 percent in other underserved settings, such as critical access hospitals, rural health clinics, and practices in medically underserved areas.

RECs serve the majority of primary care providers in small practices in rural areas. Today’s figures include over half of the targeted 1,776 critical access and rural hospitals in 41 states and throughout Indian Country.

A complete listing of REC grant recipients and additional information about Regional Extension Centers may be found at http://www.HealthIT.hhs.gov/REC/.

For information about the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs, see http://www.cms.gov/EHRIncentivePrograms.

For information about HHS Recovery Act health IT programs, see http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/announcements/by_topic.html#hit.

For Help With Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

If you need assistance understanding, managing or defending licensing board, peer review or other requirements or actions, 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 23 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 including highly popular programs on “Sex Drugs & Rock ‘N Role: Managing Personal Misconduct in Health Care,” “Managing Physician Performance” 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

Leave a Comment » | Corporate Compliance, Doctor, Employer, Employment, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Peer Review | Tagged: Credentialing, death certificates, EHR, Electronic Medical Records, EMR, licensing, Medical Ethics, Medical Licensure, Peer Review, Physician, Sexual Harassment, Sexual Misconduct | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR Audit Program Kickoff Further Heats HIPAA Privacy Risks

November 9, 2011

The kickoff of a new compliance audit pilot program provides another reason for health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and their business associates to get serious about compliance with the privacy, security and data breach requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).

OCR Pilot Audit Program Begins

On November 8, 2011, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) of the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) announced that it will begin auditing HIPAA compliance this month under a new pilot program.

As amended by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 in Section 13411 of the HITECH Act, requires HHS to provide for periodic audits to make sure covered entities and business associates are complying with the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules and Breach Notification standards. To carry out this mandate, OCR is piloting a program to perform up to 150 audits of covered entities to assess privacy and security compliance between November 2011 and December 2012.

The commencement of OCR HIPAA compliance audits is yet another sign that covered entities and their business associates should get serious about HIPAA compliance. The audit program serves as a new part of OCR’s health information privacy and security compliance program. While OCR says that it presently views the pilot audits as primarily a compliance improvement tool, this does not mean violators should expect a free walk.

Even before the impending audits, HIPAA Privacy exposures of covered entities for failing to comply with HIPAA already had risen significantly. Earlier this year, OCR imposed a $4.3 Million Civil Money Penalty (CMP) against Cignet Health of Prince George’s County (Cignet) for violating HIPAA. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has secured several criminal convictions or pleas under HIPAA’s criminal provisions. Under amendments made by the HITECH Act, state attorneys general also now are empowered to bring civil lawsuits against covered entities and business associates that commit HIPAA violations that injure citizens in their state under certain circumstances. Eventually, individuals injured by HIPAA violations also will get the right to share in a portion of certain HIPAA recoveries.

These and other audit and enforcement activities send a strong message that covered entities and their business associates need to get serious about HIPAA compliance. As stated by OCR Director Georgina Verdugo when announcing the Mass General Resolution Agreement, “To avoid enforcement penalties, covered entities must ensure they are always in compliance with the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules,” Verdugo added, “A robust compliance program includes employee training, vigilant implementation of policies and procedures, regular internal audits, and a prompt action plan to respond to incidents.” Learn more here.

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

Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, a member of the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Arrangements Group, 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 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. Ms. Stamer also regularly helps clients deal 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. Her insights on the required “culture of compliance” with HIPAA are frequently included in medical privacy related publications of the Atlantic Information Service, Modern Health Care, HealthLeaders and many others. 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, employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others. You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here or may contact her at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

You can review other selected publications and resources and additional information about the employment, employee benefits and other experience of Ms. Stamer here.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ASC, Centers For Disease Control, Childrens Health Insurance Program, DEA, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, FACTA, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Medicaid, Medicare, Mental Heatlh, OCR, Outpatient, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Rural Health Care | Tagged: Data Security, Doctor, Health Care Provider, HIPAA, HITECH, home health, Hospital, Physician, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR Settlements Show Health Care & Disabled Housing Providers Face Growing Disability Discrimination Risks

October 19, 2011

A continuing series of federal investigations and enforcement actions highlight the need for health care providers and other health industry organizations to strengthen their disability discrimination management practices to defend against rising exposures to actions by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR) 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.

Federal Disability & Other Laws Prohibit Health Care Provider Discrimination

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 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 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.

Invest in Prevention To Minimize Liability Risks

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

4th Circuit Rejects Affordable Care Act Constitutional Challenges In 2 Suits

September 8, 2011

The Fourth Circuit this morning (September 8, 2011) published decisions ruled rejecting two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on jurisdictional grounds in Liberty University v. Geithner and Commonwealth of Virgina v. Sebelius.

These decisions add to the growing differences of opinions about the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act among the various trial and appeals courts. These disparities make it increasingly likely that the Supreme Court eventually will decide the issue. Absent unforsee circumstances, however, any Supreme Court resolution is unlikely to come before the next round of health plan and exchange deadlines start taking effect in 2012 and the lack of agreement among the courts means that most health care providers and others impacted by the Affordable Care Act must continue to plan and comply absent new rulings or other guidance to the contrary.

If you have about the decisions or other questions about Affordable Care Act or other health care, health plan or related matters, please contact the author, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at cstamer@solutionslawyer.net or (469) 767-8872.

Leave a Comment » | Affordable Care Act, Consumer Driven Health Care, Doctor, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Reform, Health Plan, Health Plans, Laws, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Public Policy | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Constituionality, Constitution, Fourth Circuit, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, Hospital, insurer, patient protection and afforddale care act, Payer, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Unions Get New Tool As NLRB Changes Bargaing Units Certification Rules For Non-Acute Health Care Facilities

September 1, 2011

Non-acute health care facility employers take note. The National Labor Relations Board has changed its approach for deciding what makes up an appropriate bargaining unit in nursing homes and other health care facilities which are not acute care hospitals. In addition, the Board clarified the criteria used in cases where a party argues that a proposed bargaining unit is inappropriate because it excludes certain employees for health care employees in these facilities. The newly announced position comes as unions feeling empowered by the union support of the Obama Administration increasingly are stepping up their organizing, bargaining, regulatory and other muscles against health industry and other employers. Non-acute health care facility and other health industry employers should take steps to manage these rising exposures.

Announcing the policy shift in its 3-to-1 decision in Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, the Board ruled that Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) at a nursing home may form an appropriate unit without including all other nonprofessional employees. The finding overrules the Board’s 1991 decision in Park Manor, which had adopted a special test for bargaining unit determinations in nursing homes, rehabilitation centers, and other non-acute health care facilities.

Under the new criteria for deciding when healthcare workers in facilities other than acute care hospitals constitute an appropriate bargaining unit, employees at such facilities will now be subject to the same “community-of-interest” standard that the Board has traditionally applied at other workplaces. The Board majority found that the 53 CNAs who sought an election in Specialty Healthcare constituted an appropriate unit, and remanded the case to the region to schedule an election.

In explaining its position change, the majority – Chairman Wilma B. Liebman and Members Craig Becker and Mark Gaston Pearce – wrote “We have concluded that the Park Manor approach to determining if a proposed bargaining unit in a nursing home is an appropriate unit has become obsolete, is not consistent with our statutory charge, and has not provided clear guidance to interested parties or the Board,”.

The decision also clarified that where an employer argues that a proposed unit inappropriately excludes certain employees, the employer will be required to prove that the excluded employees share “an overwhelming community of interest” with employees in the proposed unit. The Board majority write that test is drawn from Board precedent endorsed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the decision noted.

Not all of the members of the Board agree with the new position. In dissent, Member Brian Hayes stated that he would adhere to Park Manor. “which established a balanced legal standard maintained in non-acute care health care unit cases without controversy for 20 years (and without any objection from the party seeking review in this case).”

He also disagreed that the majority’s statement of the community of interest test was consistent with precedent. In his view, “the majority accepts as the definitive standard for unit determinations in all industries an ‘overwhelming community of interest’ test that will make the relationship between petitioned-for unit employees and excluded co-workers irrelevant in all but the most exceptional circumstances. The wording of the test may be different, but in practical effect this is the standard espoused by the dissent and rejected by a Board majority in Wheeling Island Gaming, Inc. [355 NLRB No. 127 (2010)].”

Encouraged by the strong union support of the Obama Administration, unions increasingly are testing health industry and other employers. The Obama Administration has made pro-union legislation and regulation a priority. While health care and budget concerns thus far have slowed efforts by the Administration and Democratic Party supporters in Congress to adopt many legislative proposals intended to strengthen union power, the Administration is using its appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and regulatory and enforcement powers to support unions in other ways. This Administration support coupled with a series of recent National Labor Relations Board and court decisions extending protections both to union workers and those employees engaged in traditional organizing activities, as well as to unorganized workers in the context of certain disciplinary or other common workplace contexts are creating new responsibilities and challenges for employers in recognizing and managing liabilities arising under the National Labor Relations Act and other federal labor laws. Health industry and other employers should familiarize themselves with these changing standards and update their policies, practices and management training to promote their labor-management goals and avoid unintentionally triggering liability by violating these evolving standards.

For Help With Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

If you need help monitoring these or other labor-management relations, or other human resources, health care or related concerns developments, or to review or respond 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. Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, 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. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health industry clients and other businesses with labor-management, human resources, medical staff and peer review and other workforce matters, as well as a broad range of other health industry risk management and compliance concern as well as helping health industry claims with 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 including highly popular programs on “Sex Drugs & Rock ‘N Role: Managing Personal Misconduct in Health Care,” “Managing Physician Performance” 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

Leave a Comment » | Corporate Compliance, Doctor, Employer, Employment, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Hospital, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Care Employers Beat National Average When Offering Health Benefits To Workers

July 29, 2011

A new 2011 U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Study of employee benefits offered shares key insights into the availability of employer-provided health and other coverage.

With regard to health benefits, the report reveals that practices vary significantly among employers, on average, medical care benefits were available to 69 percent of private industry workers. 1/2 private industry workers participated in a medical plan. For single coverage, private sector employers paid 80 percent of the medical care premiums for full-time workers and 69 percent of medical care premiums for full-time workers in private industry. Data shows employees often elect not to take offered coverage.

The study shows that health and other benefits offered by employers and utilized by employees varies widely varied by whether the employer is a government or private sector employer, the industry, size and other characteristics of the employer and the income, profession, education and other characteristics of the employee. It is no surprise that government employers that can pass along costs to taxpayers provide coverage more broadly and subsidize more of the cost.

The report reveals that most health care employers offer health coverage and significantly subsidize the cost of this coverage for their workers. According to the report:

73 percent of private sector health care workers are offered health coverage by their employers;
52 percent of health care workers participate in employer provided health care coverage;
The take up rate by private sector health industry workers for employer provided coverage is 72 percent.

The report also shows that private sector health care employers on average paid 81 percent of single coverage health coverage costs, and only required employees to contribute an average of 19 percent of the cost for their single coverage.

In addition to data on medical benefits, the study also reports that paid leave remains the most commonly provided benefit nationally and includes data on other benefits.

The DOL highlights 1st time reporting of domestic partner status for 1st time in its announcement. Data also provided on paid vacation and other leave.

Read report summary and access report at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ebs2.nr0.htm.

For Help or More Information

If you have questions or need help understanding or responding to the Regulations, with other health benefit design, administration or operations concerns, or with other employee benefits, compensation, labor or employment or other workforce management concerns, please contact the author of this update, Board Certified Labor and Employment attorney and management consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469)767-8872.

Past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, and a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Vice President of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association, Exempt Organizations Coordinator of the Gulf States Area TEGE Council, and Executive Director of the Project COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment, Ms. Stamer is nationally recognized for her more than 23 years pragmatic and innovative health program work.

Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization with extensive leading edge health care, human resources and employee benefits experience.

For more than 24 years, Ms. Stamer has worked with health care providers, payers, government and charitable agencies, policymakers and others on managing health, insurance and employee benefits, practices, people, performance, costs, performance and policy. In the health care industry, Ms. Stamer works extensively with hospitals, physician practices, skilled nursing, hospice, and other health care providers to manage their people, compliance, quality and operations. Along side this work, Ms. Stamer also has worked extensively in the payor community on product design, administration, quality, contracting, compliance, public policy and other concerns. As part of this work, she has worked continuously throughout her career helping self-insured and insured, public and private health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, insurers and others design, administer and defend health and other employee benefit and insurance programs domestically and internationally. She is widely recognized for her experience helping design and implement legally compliant self-insured and insured health reimbursement, mini-med, high-deductible health plans, limited benefit plans, 24-hour and occupational medicine, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, ex-pat and medical tourism, deductible reimbursement and other creative health benefit programs to solve a wide range of financial and other challenges while coping with changing regulatory and market realities. Her work includes both working with clients to design, document, implement and administer these and other arrangements, as well as the development of wellness and disease management, claims administration and appeals, eligibility, and other administrative services, processes and technologies. Ms. Stamer regularly represents and defends these and other clients in dealings with the Department of Labor, Department of Justice, Department of Health & Human Services, Department of Defense, Internal Revenue Service, Securities and Exchange Commission, state insurance regulators, state attorneys general and other federal and state regulators and prosecutors and private plaintiffs in connection with investigations, prosecutions, audits and other actions arising from employee benefit, insurance and related arrangements and products.

Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble Premier AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of health care, insurance, labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls, privacy and data security, board governance and other related risk management matters. Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association,the American Bar Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, Modern Healthcare, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. In addition to her many ABA leadership involvements, she also serves in leadership positions in numerous human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, World At Work, the ICEBS, SHRM and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press

For assistance with assessing or defending your current worker classification, wage and hour or other health care and human resources policies and controls, please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at cstamer@solutionslawyer.net, 972-419-7188..

For More Information or Assistance

The author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers and other health industry clients to respond to these and other health care industry enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management matters.

Board Certified in Labor and 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 physicians, hospitals and other health industry, assisted living, educational and other clients about human resources, employee benefits and compensation, regulatory compliance and enforcement, quality assurance, peer review, licensing and discipline, and other medical staff performance matters. She continuously advises health industry clients about the use of technology, process and other mechanisms to promote compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational needs. As part of this experience, she has worked extensively with health care providers, payers, health care technology and consulting and other health industry clients, as well as other businesses, on privacy, data security, trade secret and related matters. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health care compliance, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, medical staff, public policy, reimbursement, privacy, technology, and other health and managed care industry regulatory, and other operations and risk management concerns for medical societies and staffs, hospitals, the HCCA, American Bar Association, American Health Lawyers Association and many other health industry groups and symposia. Her highly popular and information packed programs include many highly regarded publications on HIPAA, FACTA, medical confidentiality, state identity theft and privacy and other many other related matters. 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. To review some of her many publications and presentations, or for additional information about Ms. Stamer, her experience, involvements, programs or publications, see here.

Other Recent Developments

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the following recent Updates available online by clicking on the article title:

For More Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. You can review other recent health care and internal controls resources and additional information about the health industry and other experience of Ms. Stamer here. 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 at here or e-mailing this information 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. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates and notices about other upcoming Solutions Law Press events, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here. For important information concerning this communication click here.

Leave a Comment » | Border Health, Consumer Driven Health Care, Corporate Compliance, Doctor, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Plan, Health Plans, Hospital | Tagged: employee benefits, Employer, Group Home, Health Care, health coverage, Health Plans, Hospitals, medical, Minimum Wage, Overtime, Residential Care, Wage & Hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

TMP Reminds Texas Doctors To Register To Electronically File Death Certificates; Enforcement Grace Period Ends 6/1

May 17, 2011

Texas physicians that anticipate being called upon to sign a death certificate should register to file the the certificate electronically ahead of time.

Texas law now requires electronic filing of death certifications and advance registration is required to use this process.

According to the Texas Medical Board, more than 100 physicians faced disciplinary action from the Texas Medical Board for failing to complete death certificates electronically, as required by Texas law. In response to requests of members of the Texas Legislature, the Texas Medical Board gave physicians a grace period until June 1 to allow them more time to register and has refunded fines and dismissed pending disciplinary actions. As it prepares to resume enforcement when the grace period ends June 1, 2011, the Texas Medical Board is reminding physicians of the need to register as soon as possible by visiting here.

For Help With Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Corporate Compliance, Doctor, Employer, Employment, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Peer Review | Tagged: Credentialing, death certificates, Electronic Medical Records, licensing, Medical Ethics, Medical Licensure, Peer Review, Physician, Sexual Harassment, Sexual Misconduct | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

5/18 Deadline to Register For 5/19 CMS Provider Call on Medicare and Medicaid EHR Meaningful Use Incentive Programs

May 17, 2011

Wish you knew more about how to use electronic health records (EHRs) to earn incentive payments from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)? CMS plans to host a national provider education call to help you learn more about meaningful use on Thursday, May 19 at 2:30 p.m. EDT. During the call, CMS plans to discuss:

The definition of meaningful use
The requirements for Stage 1 of meaningful use (2011 and 2012)
How to attest to having met meaningful use
Overview of the meaningful use objectives specification sheets
- Stage 1 EHR Meaningful Use Specification Sheets for Eligible Professionals
- Stage 1 EHR Meaningful Use Specification Sheets for Eligible Hospitals
Q&A about meaningful use

In order to receive the call-in information, you must register for the call. It is important to note that if you are planning to sit in with a group, only one person needs to register to receive the call-in data. This registration is solely to reserve a phone line, NOT to allow participation. Registration will close at 2:30 p.m. EDT on May 18, 2011, or when available space has been filled. No exceptions will be made, so please be sure to register prior to this time. In order to register, you should:

Visit the registration page.
Fill in all required information and click “Register.”
You will be taken to the “Thank you for registering” page and will receive a confirmation email shortly thereafter. Please save this page in case your server blocks the confirmation emails. (If you do not receive the confirmation email, check your spam/junk mail filter as it may have been directed there.)
If assistance for hearing impaired services is needed, please email medicare.ttt@palmettogba.com no later than three business days before the call.

Prior to the call, presentation materials will be made available in the “Upcoming Events” section of the Spotlight page on the CMS EHR website.

Want more information about the EHR Incentive Programs?
Make sure to visit the EHR Incentive Programs website for the latest news and updates on the EHR Incentive Programs.

Sixty-two Regional Extension Centers (RECs) across the nation are prepared to offer customized, on-the-ground assistance for eligible professionals and hospitals registering for the CMS EHR Incentive Programs. To locate an REC near you, visit http://www.healthit.

In addition to the May 10 call, recordings of various other recent health information privacy and data security training offered by agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services also now is avaialble on the web. For instance, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) are making presentations from the 4th annual conference on “Safeguarding Health Information: Building Assurance through HIPAA Security” co-hosted in Washington, D.C. on May 10 & 11, 2011 available on line for review. The training is part of a series of continuing efforts by the agencies to outreach to various parties on the Privacy and Security Rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996, as amended (HIPAA). Meanwhile, OCR’s Susan McAndrew on Monday shared insights on OCR’s HIPAA regulatory and enforcement agenda at a teleconference to be hosted by the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits at Noon Central on May 16, 2011. Recordings of these presentations are or will be accessible on the sponsoring organizations from their websites. For details about reviewing the May 10-11 presentations, see the 2011 HIPAA Conference website here. For details about the May 16 teleconference, 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, 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 23 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. On May 3, 2011, Ms. Stamer served as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Commitee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR and will moderate a teleconference featuring comments by OCR’s Susan McAndrew for the Joint Committee on Employee Benefits scheduled for May 16. 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 including highly popular programs on “Sex Drugs & Rock ‘N Role: Managing Personal Misconduct in Health Care,” “Managing Physician Performance” 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

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ASC, DEA, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care Provider, Health IT, Health Plan, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Mental Heatlh, OCR, Physician | Tagged: Health Care, HIPAA, Medical Confidentiality, OCR< Privacy, Security | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR/NIST Share Training Online, OCR’s McAndrew To Speak On May 16 Teleconference

May 10, 2011

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office for Civil Rights (OCR) are making presentations from the 4th annual conference on “Safeguarding Health Information: Building Assurance through HIPAA Security” co-hosted in Washington, D.C. on May 10 & 11, 2011 available on line for review. The training is part of a series of continuing efforts by the agencies to outreach to various parties on the Privacy and Security Rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996, as amended (HIPAA). Meanwhile, OCR’s Susan McAndrew is scheduled to share insights on OCR’s HIPAA regulatory and enforcement agenda at a teleconference to be hosted by the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits at Noon Central on May 16, 2011.

The Security Rule sets federal standards to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of electronic protected health information by requiring HIPAA covered entities and their business associates to implement and maintain administrative, physical and technical safeguards. Presentations cover a variety of current topics including updates on HHS health information privacy and security initiatives, OCR’s enforcement of health information privacy and security activities, integrating security safeguards into health IT and security automation, insider threat trends and safeguards, and more.

The conference is designed to explore the current health information technology security landscape and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security Rule, the agencies share their practical strategies, tips and techniques for implementing the HIPAA Security Rule.

For details about reviewing the May 10-11 presentations, see the 2011 HIPAA Conference website here. For details about the May 16 teleconference, see here.

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

About Solutions Law Press

Health Care Reform’s 1st Birthday: Share What You Think!

March 23, 2011

On the 1st anniversary of the passage of Health Care Reform, let’s celebrate by accepting the invitation from Joe Biden to “discuss how health care reform is already working.”

Below is the text of an e-mail I (and millions of other Americans, I suspect, received an e-mail from Joe Biden, in which he touts health care reform as already saving patients like a young man from Minnesota. In the e-mail, Biden says: “On the one-year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, I think we have a duty to discuss how reform is already working.” OK, tell me what you think?

Unquestionably, health care reform produces some winners and loosers. Although few of the reforms enacted are actually in effect yet, Biden says heath care reform is working and credits the law for saving the life of the young man and millions of others. On the other hands, many patients and doctors treating patients with cancer and other life threatening illnesses complain and report fears that in the future increasing Medicare, Medicaid or other government regulations and market distruptions. Some folks think it’s all good. Other’s think it’s all bad. Many American’s think it’s a little bit of both and many just don’t know.

Where does the truth lie? On the 1st anniversary of the passage of health are reform, one thing is certain. The American health care system and it’s impact on our employees, families, friends, communities and goverment and personal budget’s is too great to be complacent. So, as Health Care Reform turns one, let’s accept the invitation of Vice President Biden and share our experiences and thoughts with our elected representatives, regulators, with others on with others on the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy linkedin a the following link and keep the discussion going until we get it right:

Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy

Here’s the e-mail from “Joe Biden [info@barackobama.com]”

Cynthia –I want to tell you about a family in Minnesota.

Justin and Kari live in Brooklyn Park, right outside of Minneapolis. They’re parents to three children. Their three-year-old, William, was born with a genetic disorder called tuberous sclerosis complex.

For the rest of his life, William will wrestle with tumors in his brain, his heart, his kidneys, his skin, and possibly other major organs. He must take medication to control seizures and faces the threat of kidney disease.

What Justin and Kari want for William is a future. And because of health reform, that’s what he’ll have.

Today, insurance companies are no longer able to discriminate against William because of the condition he’s dealt with since birth. Now, Justin and Kari know they’ll be able to get the kind of care that William needs — today and into the future.

Their story isn’t unique, but it’s one of many that need to be told. We all know people whose lives have been changed because of the Affordable Care Act, even if we don’t realize it. So we’ve found a way to show exactly how reform is working for all of us — for our parents, our siblings, our kids, ourselves.

Will you take a minute to take our Health Reform Checkup and let the people you love know how reform is working for them?

Before the Affordable Care Act, Justin and Kari weren’t sure about the future. They worried that they’d never be able to find coverage for William again if Justin lost his job. They worried about the life that William would lead — whether he’d ever be able to work or support a family.

Not anymore. William’s condition isn’t going away, but he’ll always be able to get care. The Affordable Care Act is one year old today, and it has already changed William’s life — and this country — for good.

Today, there are families who feel better about the future than they did a year ago. They’ve found some security, some relief. And these are people we know. They’re our neighbors, our colleagues, our friends, our families — the people next to us every day.

On the one-year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, I think we have a duty to discuss how reform is already working.

Watch Justin and Kari tell their story, and take a moment to learn how health reform is changing the lives of those you know:

http://my.barackobama.com/Checkup

A year ago, I stood next to the President as he signed health reform into law — and we have you to thank for making that possible.

Yours,

Joe

Paid for by Organizing for America, a project of the Democratic National Committee — 430 South Capitol Street SE, Washington, D.C. 20003. This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

Leave a Comment » | Affordable Care Act, Consumer Driven Health Care, Doctor, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Reform, Health Plan, Health Plans, Laws, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Public Policy | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, Hospital, insurer, patient protection and afforddale care act, Payer, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Sexual Misconduct Investigation Prompts Medical Board Suspension of Texas Doctor

March 16, 2011

Personal Misconduct By Physicians Or Other Health Care Workers Common Trigger for Disciplinary Action Or Other Liability

On March 14, 2011, a disciplinary panel of the Texas Medical Board temporarily suspended, with notice, the medical license of Ramon A. Cruz, M.D., of Denton, based on allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior with several patients. According to the Texas Medical Board, the panel found that Dr. Cruz, Lic. No. K3703, engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with several patients. Four incidents, including an alleged sexual assault, were reported by patients to Denton Police. The panel found that Dr. Cruz’s actions demonstrate a pattern of inappropriate behavior, which is a continuing threat to public health and safety justifying the suspension of his license. The suspension remains in effect until the Board takes further action.

Unprofessional personal misconduct presenting a right to public health and safety is a common trigger for discipline by the Texas Medical Board and other licensing boards. See, e.g. Quality, Recordkeeping & Unprofessional Conduct Lead Reasons For Medical Board Discipline of Physicians. Although complaints based on sexual misconduct occur much less frequently than substance abuse or other types of personal misconduct, the Texas Medical Board and other medical licensing bodies view sexual misconduct as among the most serious types of violations. The prevalence rate of sexual misconduct in physicians is estimated at 6-10 percent but this phenomenon is likely under-reported in physician surveys and by patients. It is believed that the number of false claims made by patients is very low. A 1992 study indicates that only 4-8 percent of patients report a doctor’s sexual misconduct. Physicians found guilty of engaging in prohibited sexual misconduct typically are male, have a mean age of 53, practice in private practice, and have a history of substance abuse, are in the midst of a divorce, separation or other life crisis and tend to engage in higher than typical nonsexual patient touch with patients.

Because of their special role and responsibility with respect to patients and the community, the law, the profession and the public impose high expectations upon physicians and other health care professionals in relation to their sexual conduct toward patients and others. State medical practices and other medical licensure bodies, the American Medical Association Code of Conduct, the Joint Commission, peer review and other disciplinary boards and other regulatory and administrative policies and bodies generally prohibit both sexual assault, sexual harassment, and a broad range of other conduct of a sexual nature considered to be inconsistent with the special relationship of trust occupied by the health care professional.

Sexual misconduct charges that can result in discipline can include clear atrocities such as rape or other sexual assaults, as well as engagement in inappropriate sexual relationships or overtures to current or former patients, as well as sexual harassment and certain other types of sexual relationships or conduct involving staff or others. See, e.g., Ringer v. Texas State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 8214 (Tex. App. 1999); Texas State Board of Medical Examiners v. Haynes, 388 S.W.2d 258, 261 (Tex. App. 1965); Texas State Board of Medical Examiners v. Koepsel, 159 Tex. 479 (Tex. 1959). In addition discipline by the Board of Medicine, physicians or other health care providers typically also face other consequences such as medical malpractice, sexual harassment or other similar claims or charges, peer review discipline, data bank reports, employment termination or discipline, practice expulsion, and criminal prosecution. Even if a physician or other heath care provider dodges formal discipline, accusations of sexual misconduct by a physician or other health care provider tends to permanently damage the practice and reputation of the health care.

Sexual misconduct by a physician or other health care provider or workforce member also can create significant exposures for hospitals, clinics, affiliated physicians and health care professionals associated with a physician or health care provider found to have engaged in sexual misconduct. Among other things, the failure of these third parties to take adequate steps to prevent, investigate, report or redress another health care provider’s sexual misconduct or harassment may result in malpractice or other civil litigation, licensure or other professional investigation or discipline, reputational damages and other consequences.

To guard against these exposures, physicians and other health care providers should exercise care to avoid engaging in actions that might expose them to charges of sexual assault, harassment or other inappropriate sexual conduct and should adopt policies, adopt procedures and practices to prohibit and provide training and other oversight to encourage other health care providers and staff to avoid such conduct. If a physician or other health care provider or organization observes, receives a report or charge or otherwise becomes aware of information indicating that a potential sexual assault or other inappropriate sexual conduct may have occurred, it should act promptly and appropriately to investigate and redress the conduct or suspected conduct in a manner designed to strengthen their defenses against possible disciplinary action or other liabilities and risks. Because of the legal sensitivity and risk associated with the allegations of sexual misconduct and the investigation of those charges, physicians and other health care providers and organizations involved in these concerns generally should engage competent legal counsel as soon as possible when these concerns come to light for assistance in responding to the concerns, as well as the ability to use attorney-client privilege and work product, peer review, quality, and other legal privileges and other legal rules and safeguards to help promote confidentiality and defensibility of sensitive communications and conduct in connection with the investigation and response to these concerns.

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 23 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 including highly popular programs on “Sex Drugs & Rock ‘N Role: Managing Personal Misconduct in Health Care,” “Managing Physician Performance” 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

Leave a Comment » | Corporate Compliance, Doctor, Employer, Employment, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Peer Review | Tagged: Credentialing, Medical Ethics, Medical Licensure, Peer Review, Physician, Sexual Harassment, Sexual Misconduct | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Care Employer’s NLRB Settlement Shows Care Necessary When Using Social Networking & Other Policies Restricting Employee Communications

February 7, 2011

Health care and other employers should exercise caution when drafting and applying policies regulating employee Facebook or other social networking site, e-mail, or other communications to avoid violating Federal labor laws protecting worker organization rights, as illustrated by a February 7, 2011 settlement agreement reached between a Connecticut ambulance service operator and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

According to the NLRB, Connecticut ambulance service provider American Medical Response (AMR) and the NLRB have agreed to settle a complaint filed on October 27, 2010 that charged AMI with violating the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by firing an employee for making derogatory comments about her supervisor on Facebook.

In its complaint against AMR, the NLRB charged that AMR’s termination of an employee for making derogatory statements about her supervisor on Facebook violated the NLRA because the employee was engaged in protected activity under the NLRA when she posted the comments about her supervisor, and responded to further comments from her co-workers. The NLRB complaint also charged AMR maintained overly-broad rules in its employee handbook regarding blogging, Internet posting, and communications between employees, and that it had illegally denied union representation to the employee during an investigatory interview shortly before the employee posted the negative comments on her Facebook page.

Under the terms of AMI’s settlement with the NLRB[i] approved February 7, 2011, AMI agreed:

To revise its employee handbook rules to avoid improperly restricting employees from discussing their wages, hours and working conditions with co-workers and others while not at work in violation of the NLRA;
Not to discipline or discharge employees for engaging in such discussions; and
Not to deny employee requests for union representation or threaten employees for requesting union representation in the future.

Federal labor law requires that employers tread carefully when dealing with communications by employees concerning terms and conditions of employment and other union or other organizational activity. Existing federal law limits the actions that employers can take to deter or influence employee choices about whether to support or oppose a union certification campaign, to influence the certification of one union representative over another and to deter or penalize employees for communicating about terms and conditions of employment.

Under the NLRA, for instance, employees generally may discuss the terms and conditions of their employment with coworkers. The protections afforded by the NLRB to employee communications about terms and conditions of employment can apply to both unionized and non-unionized employees and workforces. Subject to certain reasonable restrictions on communications within the workplace allowed by the NLRA, the NLRA generally restricts the ability of an employer to prohibit employees from communicating about terms and conditions of employment.

Worker awareness of these protections has grown in many workplaces as a result of a new policy requiring employers that are government contractors to post notification of NLRA rights in the workplace implemented by the Obama Administration in May, 2010, aggressive union organization efforts in the health care and certain other industries and other developments. As a consequence, health industry and other employers need to exercise care to avoid violating the NLRA and other federal labor laws when designing, communicating and applying social networking, e-mail, internet, and other policies that regulate on or off-duty communications by employees.

To minimize liability risks under the NLRA, health industry and other employers should consult with qualified labor and employment counsel before discussing or taking other action in response to these activities to minimize risks of unintentionally running afoul of these requirements. Employers should exercise care even if the communication restraint adopted to comply with legally mandated restrictions on communications such as those required by the privacy and security mandates of laws such as the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA). While the NLRA generally permits restrictions on communications required to comply with law, health industry and other employers should be prepared to demonstrate the legitimacy of the legal need and their tailoring of restrictions on employee communications to meet that need.

For Advice or Other Information

If your organization needs advice or assistance in responding to labor and employment issues in your health care organization or other health care matters, consider contacting the author of this article, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer is nationally known for her more work, training and presentations, and publications on health industry and other staffing and employment, compensation, regulatory, and other operations, risk management and compliance matters.

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. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry and human resources matters, Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, 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. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, her experience, involvements, programs or publications, see here.

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on health care, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, 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:

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ASC, Discrimination, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Employer, Employment, Federal Health Center, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, Hospital, Pharmacy, Physician, Physician Licensing | Tagged: Health Care, HIPAA, Labor, NLRA, unfair labor practice, Union, wrongful discharge | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Minimum Wage, Overtime Risks Highlighted By Labor Department Strike Force Targeting Residential Care & Group Homes

December 16, 2010

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division has appointed a strike force to investigate violations of federal minimum wage, overtime, recordkeeping and child labor law by residential care and group homes in North Carolina. The announced strike force targeting violations in the Charlotte and Raleigh areas with the intention to expand the strike force actions statewide over the next 10 months highlights the growing risks that health and other caregivers face for wage and hour and other employment law violations.

Group homes, including those providing adult resident care, family care, assisted housing and special care, employ more than 7,000 workers in North Carolina. Wage and Hour Division officials project the strike force investigations will affect more than 1,700 workers in the Charlotte area and more than 400 workers in the Raleigh-Cary area.

In cases where a staffing or other middle-layer management company provides services to a residential care facility, Wage and Hour Division investigators will focus on determining whether both companies may be held jointly liable for violations. With multi-establishment enterprises, investigators will be looking to enter into enterprise-wide agreements that affect all operations of the parent corporation.

Misclassification of workers and inappropriate compensation time practices are common compliance concerns among employers generally and for health and caregiver industry employers particularly. As in other industries, these employers often overestimate the scope and applicability of the exempt classification, misclassify workers as independent contractors who are actually common law employees, overestimate their ability to provide “comp time” in lieu of overtime, misapply “on-call” policies, or misunderstand other FLSA requirements.

Wage & Hour Division Fact Sheets and other enforcement actions reflect that many health and other caregiver employers incur overtime and minimum wage violations because improperly classify workers as exempt or contractors, fail to properly count and pay for all hours that an employee works in accordance with the FLSA, fail to properly credit time spent traveling or on call, fail to credit time spent for required attendance at lectures, meetings, training programs, recordkeeping and similar activities, improperly deduct time for breaks, fail to properly credit on call time, and fail to pay for unauthorized hours worked. Enforcement of these requirements against health and other caregiver employers also is rising since the Wage & Hour Division has included employers in these industries among the industry groups targeted for special compliance monitoring under the FLSA and the highly-publicized implementation of updated FLSA regulations regarding the classification of workers a few years ago has peaked the interest of plaintiffs’ attorneys .

These mistakes can be very costly. Health industry and other employers that fail to properly pay employees under Federal and state wage and hour regulations face substantial risk. Violation of wage and hour mandates carries substantial civil – and in the case of willful violations, even criminal- liability exposure. Civil awards commonly include back pay, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. As a consequence, health care and other 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 appropriate steps to minimize their potential liability under applicable wages and hour laws.

Under the FLSA, an employer generally must pay an employee in accordance with the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FSLA unless the employer can prove that the employee qualifies as “exempt” as a white collar employee under the DOL’s FLSA regulations. The FLSA mandates that the base hourly rate of pay of each “non-exempt” employee of not less than the current Federally-established minimum wage for each of the up to initial 40 hours of work performed by the employee in any workweek. Subject to certain limited exceptions, the FLSA’s overtime rules generally also mandate that “non-exempt” employees be paid overtime pay at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for hours in excess of 40 hours of work performed in a given work week. The regulations also provide guidance for determining when leased, contract or other non-traditionally employed workers will be treated as employees, for determining when an employer must treat “on-call” time, travel time, meal and break times, and certain other time periods as compensable hours worked by a non-exempt employee, when “comp time” in lieu of the payment of wages is permitted, various alternative methods for calculating overtime under certain special circumstances, and various other rules applicable to various special circumstances. In addition to these federal wage and hour requirements, employers also generally must comply with various state-imposed minimum wage, overtime, compensable time, paid break, and other rules governing the calculation and payment of wages to employees employed within the particular state in which the employee renders the services.

Under the FSLA and applicable state wage and hour laws, employers generally bear the burden of proving that they have properly paid their employees in accordance with the FLSA. Additionally, the FLSA and most applicable state wage and hour laws mandate that employers maintain records of the hours worked by employees by non-exempt employees, documentation of the employer’s proper payment of its non-exempt employees in accordance with the minimum wage and overtime mandates of the FLSA, and certain other records. Since the burden of proof of compliance generally rests upon the employer, health industry employers should take steps to ensure their ability to demonstrate that they have properly paid non-exempt employees in accordance with applicable FLSA and state wage and hour mandates and that employees not paid in accordance with these mandates qualify as exempt from coverage under the FLSA.

To minimize exposure under the FLSA, health care 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 appropriate steps 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:

Conducting and audit of each worker current classified as exempt or a non-employee worker to assess its continued sustainability and to develop documentation justifying that characterization;
Update policies and procedures;
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 appropriate corrective action after consultation with qualified legal counsel;
Review of existing documentation and recordkeeping practices for hourly employees;
Explore available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees;
Reengineer of work rules and other practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations;
Confirm the adequacy of recordkeeping and other documentation;
Audit and secure appropriate contractual assurance of the adequacy of wage and hour and other practices of staffing, leasing and other organizations providing supplemental workers to provide services; and
Verify the appropriateness or worker classification and compliance practices of workers providing services through a staffing, leasing or other arrangement where the worker is not treated as an employee of the employer.

Because of the potentially significant liability exposure, employers generally will want to consult with qualified legal counsel prior to the commencement of their assessment and to conduct the assessment within the scope of attorney-client privilege to minimize risks that might arise out of communications made in the course of conducting this sensitive investigation.

For More Information or Assistance

Other Recent Developments

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the following recent Updates available online by clicking on the article title:

For More Information

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Corporate Compliance, Doctor, Employer, Employment, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Hospital | Tagged: Employer, Group Home, Health Care, Minimum Wage, Overtime, Residential Care, Wage & Hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Rite Aid Agrees to Pay $1 Million to Settle HIPAA Privacy Case As OCR Moves To Tighten Privacy Rules

August 3, 2010

One of the nation’s largest drug store chains, Rite Aid Corporation and its 40 affiliated entities (Rite Aid) will pay $1 million to settle potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy Rule. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights announcement of the HIPAA resolution agreement with Rite Aid and the concurrent negotiation of a separate consent order of potential FTC Act violations between Rite Aid and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) follows HHS’ announcement of proposed changes to its HIPAA Privacy Rules and associated penalties in response to changes enacted under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (HITECH Act). The Rite Aid settlement and the proposed Privacy Rule changes illustrate the growing penalty risks that health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and their business associates (Covered Entities) face for violating the Privacy Rules.

Rite Aid Resolution Agreement

The Rite Aid resolution agreements settle charges that Rite Aid failed to appropriately safeguard the privacy of its customers when disposing of identifying information on pill bottle labels and other health information. The settlements apply to all of Rite Aid’s nearly 4,800 retail pharmacies and follow an extensive joint investigation by the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the FTC.

OCR opened its investigation of Rite Aid after television media videotaped incidents in which pharmacies were shown to have disposed of prescriptions and labeled pill bottles containing individuals’ identifiable information in industrial trash containers that were accessible to the public in a variety of Rite Aid locations in cities across the United States. OCR and FTC previously settled a similar case involving the national drug store chain CVS in February 2009.

The HIPAA Privacy Rule requires covered entities to safeguard the privacy of patient information and other “protected health information” including during its disposal. In addition to the detailed requirements for protection and safeguarding of protected health information and electronic protected health information under the Privacy Rules, breach notification rules added to HIPAA under the HITECH Act also generally require that Covered Entities investigate and provide timely notification of breach to patients, OCR and in some cases the media when “unsecured protected heath information” is breached. Meanwhile, the FTC Act and associated regulations require those retailers and certain other parties receiving personal financial information to comply with certain requirements for the protection and use of that information and to provide certain notifications of their privacy polices for protecting personal financial information.

The joint OCR and the FTC investigations raised concerns that:

Rite Aid failed to implement adequate policies and procedures to appropriately safeguard patient information during the disposal process;
Rite Aid failed to adequately train employees on how to dispose of such information properly; and
Rite Aid did not maintain a sanctions policy for members of its workforce who failed to properly dispose of patient information.

Under the HHS resolution agreement, Rite Aid agreed to pay a $1 million resolution amount to HHS and must implement a strong corrective action program under which Rite Aid agreed to:

Revise and distribute its policies and procedures regarding disposal of protected health information and sanctioning workers who do not follow them;
Train workforce members on these new requirements;
Conduct internal monitoring; and
Engage a qualified, independent third-party assessor to conduct compliance reviews and render reports to HHS.

In addition, under its FTC consent order, Rite Aid separately agreed to external, independent assessments of its pharmacy stores’ compliance with the FTC consent order.

The HHS corrective action plan will be in place for three years; the FTC order will be in place for 20 years.

Proposed Privacy Rule Changes

The Rite Aid resolution agreement and consent order follows the July 8, 2010 publication by OCR of proposed changes to its existing HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Enforcement Rules in response to amendments enacted under the HITECH Act. Because of the lead time required to implement needed changes in policies, technology and training, Covered Entities need to begin preparations to adjust their health information privacy and data security policies and practices in anticipation of the finalization and implementation of these rules as well as to act quickly to submit their comments about the proposed changes. .

The more than 220 page Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes to revise the existing Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information (Privacy Rule); the Security Standards for the Protection of Electronic Protected Health Information (Security Rule); and the rules pertaining to Compliance and Investigations, Imposition of Civil Money Penalties, and Procedures for Hearings (Enforcement Rule) issued under HIPAA.

The author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers and other health industry clients with HIPAA and other privacy and data security, reimbursement, compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management matters. Ms. Stamer also is regularly conducts training on HIPAA and other health industry compliance, management and operations matters. 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 Recent Developments

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the following recent Updates available online by clicking on the article title:

For More Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you need assistance evaluating or responding to the Health Care Reform Law or health care compliance, risk management, transactional, operational, reimbursement, or public policy concerns, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, at (469) 767-8872, cstamer@Solutionslawyer.net.

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. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry and human resources matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about health industry and other related concerns. 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, 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 additional information about Ms. Stamer, her experience, involvements, programs or publications, see here.

You can review other recent health care and internal controls resources and additional information about the health industry and other experience of Ms. Stamer here. 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 at here or e-mailing this information here. To unsubscribe, e-mail here.

Leave a Comment » | Affordable Care Act, American's Affordable Health Choices Act, Doctor, E-Prescribing, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, FACTA, Health Care, Health Care Reform, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Laws, Meaningful Use, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, OCR, Pharmacy, Prescription Drugs, Technology, Telemedicine | Tagged: Breach Notification, Data Security, FACTA, FTC, HIPAA, HITECH, Privacy, Security | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Office of Civil Rights Proposes Changes To HIPAA Privacy, Security & Civil Sanctions Rules

July 9, 2010

Stay Tuned To Solutions Law Press For More Details

Get ready for even tighter privacy and security rules and more enforcement! The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) on July 8, 2010 proposed changes to its existing Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy, Security, and Enforcement Rules in response to amendments enacted under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act of 2009. Because of the lead time required to implement needed changes in policies, technology and training, health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and their business associates should evaluate and begin preparations to adjust their health information privacy and data security policies and practices in anticipation of the finalization and implementation of these rules.

Solutions Law Press is finalizing arrangements to host a briefing on the proposed changes in August and planning more detailed updates on these developments. Stay tuned to Solutions Law Press for additional updates and details about a future briefing on these proposed HIPAA changes and other developments affecting HIPAA and other health plan and human resources matters. In the meanwhile, you may want to check out other existing Solutions Law Press updates and resources about HITECH Act and other HIPAA developments such as HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website.

The author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers and other health industry clients with HIPAA and other privacy and data security, reimbursement, compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management matters. 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 Recent Developments

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the following recent Updates available online by clicking on the article title:

For More Information

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. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry and human resources matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about health industry and other related concerns. 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, 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 additional information about Ms. Stamer, her experience, involvements, programs or publications, see here.

Leave a Comment » | Corporate Compliance, Doctor, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, FACTA, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, OCR, Physician, Technology | Tagged: Data Breach, Data Securty, Health Care Provider, Health Plans, Healthcare Clearinghouse, HIPAA, OCR, Protected Health Information | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

HIPAA Update: The Latest On Security, Patient Access & Other HIPAA Developments

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Health Industry Employers High Priority OSHA Enforcement Target

Battle Creek VA OSHA Safety Violations

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:

Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Recent Posts

Archives

About Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Share this blog

Archives

Solutions Law Press Health Care Update