Employment |

Ensure Health Care & Other Compliance Practices Updated For New DOJ Voluntary Disclosure Policy

February 24, 2023

Health care, life sciences and other organizations and their leaders generally recognize the need for effective compliance programs to mitigate their organizational and individual criminal liability risks for violations of the constantly widening plethora of federal health care, tax, marketing, labor and employment, antitrust, marketing, securities, cyber liability, safety, environmental and other laws.

To maintain and promote the effectiveness of these efforts, organizations and their leaders now need to consider the advisability of enhancements or other modifications of their organization’s Federal Sentencing Guideline and other compliance programs and practices in light of the new corporate criminal conduct Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (“VSD policy”) announced by the Department of Justice on February 23, 2023. Concurrently, organizations and their leaders also will want to monitor and respond promptly to Justice Department statements and congressional recommendations on proposed Guideline changes providing critical insights into the Justice Department’s planned interpretation and enforcement of federal criminal laws and the Guidelines against organizations and their leaders like those available here.

While the application of the VSP policy inherently requires subjective decision-making, the VSP policy and other emerging statements reinforce to organizations and their leaders the advisability of ensuring their organizations adopt and administer effective Federal Sentencing Guideline compliance programs for the ever-growing list of laws applicable to their organizations that carry potential felony and class A misdemeanor criminal liability and timely to investigate and self-disclose violations with the assistance of legal counsel in accordance with the Guideline requirements for liability mitigation to mitigate the potential liability exposure of the organization and its leader.

VSD Policy Standardizes USAO Sentencing Guideline Organization Liability Determinations

Chapter 8 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines sets standards for the assessment of criminal liability and punishment against corporations, partnerships, labor unions, pension funds, trusts, non-profit entities, and governmental units (“organizations”) and their leaders for legal violations committed by the organization that carry felony or Class A misdemeanor liability or when the Federal Sentencing Guidelines impute criminal liability to the organization for criminal acts that an employee of the organization commits an act within the apparent scope of his employment.

The standards for organizational sentencing offer organizations the opportunity to mitigate their liability exposure if it can persuade the prosecuting U.S. attorneys office (“USAO”) it had in place and followed an effective compliance program, promptly reported the violation to the authorities, and that high-level leaders were not involved in the actual offense conduct. On the other hand, an organization’s lack of an effective compliance program, delay in investigation, cover-up or failure or delay of timely disclosure and failure to make prompt restitution for violations are aggravating factors that can increase its potential sanction.

According to the Justice Department, the Justice Department intends that the VSD policy ensure that organizations can rely on receiving the same treatment and benefits for voluntarily self-disclosing criminal conduct under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines organizational liability rules to any USAO no matter where the organization operates by setting “a nationwide standard” for how USAOs will determine whether an organization has made a voluntary self-disclosure and making transparent the specific, tangible benefits to an organization that the USAO will offer the organization for making a voluntary self-disclosure, fully cooperating, and remediating the criminal conduct.

In furtherance of this goal, the new VSD policy provides that a USAG will consider an organization to have made a VSD for purposes of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines if it becomes aware of misconduct by employees or agents before that misconduct is publicly reported or otherwise known to the DOJ, and discloses all relevant facts known to the company about the misconduct to USAO in a timely fashion before an imminent threat of disclosure or government investigation.

In the absence of any aggravating factor, the VSD policy calls for the USAG “significant benefits” to a corporation that voluntarily self-discloses criminal conduct committed by its employee or agent in accordance with the VSD policy, fully meets the other requirements of the VSD policy, fully cooperates and timely and appropriately remediates the criminal conduct including agreeing to pay all disgorgement, forfeiture, and restitution resulting from the misconduct. The promised significant benefits for organizations making a qualifying VSD include that the USAO:

Will not seek a guilty plea;
May choose not to impose any criminal penalty and in any event will not impose a criminal penalty that is greater than 50% below the low end of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) fine range; and
Will not seek the imposition of an independent compliance monitor if the company demonstrates that it has implemented and tested an effective compliance program.

The VSD policy identifies three aggravating factors that could warrant a USAO seeking a guilty plea even if the other requirements of the VSD policy are met:

If the misconduct poses a grave threat to national security, public health, or the environment;
If the misconduct is deeply pervasive throughout the company; or
If the misconduct involved the current executive management of the company.

The Justice Department says the presence of an aggravating factor does not necessarily mean that a guilty plea will be required. Rather, the USAO will assess the relevant facts and circumstances to determine the appropriate resolution. If a guilty plea is ultimately required, the Justice Department says the organization will still receive the other benefits under the VSD policy, including that the USAO will recommend a criminal penalty of at least a 50% and up to a 75% reduction off the low end of the USSG fine range, and that the USAO will not require the appointment of a monitor if the company has implemented and tested an effective compliance program.

In cases where a company is being jointly prosecuted by a USAO and another DOJ component, or where the misconduct reported by the company falls within the scope of conduct covered by VSD policies administered by other DOJ components, the USAO will coordinate with, or, if necessary, obtain approval from, the DOJ component responsible for the VSD policy specific to the reported misconduct when considering a potential resolution. Consistent with relevant provisions of the Justice Manual and as allowable under alternate VSD policies, the USAO may choose to apply any provision of an alternate VSD policy in addition to, or in place of, any provision of its policy.

VSD Policy Reenforces Necessity of Effective Compliance Program & Guideline Compliance

The stated goal of the VSD policy to incentivize companies to maintain effective compliance programs capable of identifying misconduct, expeditiously and voluntarily disclose and remediate misconduct, and cooperate fully with the government in corporate criminal investigations sends a strong message to organizations and their leaders to maintain and administer effective compliance programs and follow the VSD policy promptly when issues arise.

While the Justice Department touts the benefits of compliance with the VSD policy, its adoption also carries an implicit warning to organizations against failing to comply with its provisions.

With the Biden Administration accelerating enforcement of a wide range of federal laws carrying criminal liability, organizations and their leaders should heed this warning by auditing and enhancing their and their organization’s potential criminal exposures and the adequacy of their compliance policies, practices and documentation.

Because of the highly sensitive nature of this type of analysis for the organization and its leaders, before starting the review, and throughout its conduct organizations are urged to engage and seek guidance from qualified legal counsel to position their review for protection, within the scope of attorney, client privilege, and other evidentiary protections, as well as to maximize the benefit of the effort undertaken in the event of future investigations or enforcement.

Possessing an up-to-date understanding of material civil and criminal legal obligations and exposures is absolutely critical to the effectiveness of this review. With laws and regulations constantly changing, organizations and their leaders must establish a documented, provable culture of compliance. This starts with ensuring their organizations have adopted strong policies of compliance coupled with processes for monitoring and identifying laws carrying potential criminal liability, exposure or otherwise, requiring corporate compliance programs. Along with requirements to comply, leadership also must implement appropriate processes for auditing compliance as well as receiving and investigating complaints or other indicators that arguably put their organization or its leadership on notice of potential compliance concerns.

When implementing compliance procedures, for any specific law, organizations, and their leaders will also want to ensure that their processes and policies are designed to meet the seven criteria that Chapter 8 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines outlines for establishing an “effective compliance program”

The maintenance and enforcement of compliance standards and procedures reasonably capable of reducing the prospect of criminal activity;
Oversight by high-level personnel;
Due care in delegating substantial discretionary authority;
Effective Communication to all levels of employees;
Reasonable steps to achieve compliance, which include systems for monitoring, auditing, and reporting suspected wrongdoing without fear of reprisal.
Consistent enforcement of compliance standards including disciplinary mechanisms; and
Reasonable steps to respond to and prevent further similar offenses upon detection of a violation.

Taking into account these criteria and the new VSP policy, organizations and their leaders also should ensure their organization has appropriate procedures and protocols for receiving, investigating and reports of potential violations and the organization’s timely and appropriate response in a manner that best positions the organization to demonstrate the culture of compliance, and other factors necessary to qualify for the maximum leniency under the guidelines. in a manner that best positions the organization to demonstrate the culture of compliance, and other factors necessary to qualify for the maximum leniency under the guidelines.

When designing and administering compliance investigations and responses, documentation and other evidence regarding actions taken, communications and deliberations, play a key role in deciding how the organization and its leaders will be treated under the VCD policy and the guidelines. For this reason, organizations should include appropriate procedures to determine when and how legal counsel will become involved to guide the process and allow for the use of attorney-client privilege to help protect, sensitive discussions along the way. Legal counsel also should assist in documenting the process and findings for presentation to the Justice Department and subsequent communications with it through resolution.

More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.

About the Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee, Chair-Elect of the ABA TIPS Section Medicine & Law Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading-edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health and managed care and employer benefits legal, public policy and operational concerns in the healthcare, employer benefits, and insurance and financial services industries. She speaks and publishes extensively on HIPAA and other related compliance issues.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 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 in reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

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 your profile here.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and educational purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules make it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access to this publication.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department 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 » | Anti-KickBack, ASC, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employment, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

SCOTUS: Emotional Injury Damages Not Recoverable In Patient’s Private Rehab Act and ACA Disability Discrimination Lawsuit But Other Significant Liability Risks Remain

May 2, 2022

Today’s Supreme Court ruling that emotional distress damages are not recoverable in a private action to enforce the disability discrimination and accommodation requirements of either the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Rehab Act”) or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) prevents health care and other businesses subject to these requirements against the risk of large emotional injury awards in private actions for discrimination based on these laws. However, health care providers and other organizations subject to these requirements should use care to maintain compliance to avoid large actual damage awards to plaintiffs bringing private lawsuits, program exclusion, penalties or other governmental sanctions or both.

Cummings Supreme Court Ruling

The May 1, 2022 United States Supreme Court ruling in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller authored by Supreme Court Justice John Roberts resulted from a suit that sought emotional distress damages brought by filed by a deaf and legally blind woman, Jane Cummings against Premier Rehab Keller after it denied her request that it provide an American Sign Language interpreter at her physical therapy sessions. Premier Rehab told Cummings the therapist could communicate with her through other means, Claiming Premier Rehab’s failure to provide an ASL interpreter constituted discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the Rehab Act and Section 1557 of the ACA, Cummings sued Premier Rehab seeking various damages and other relief, including emotional distress damages.

The Supreme Court took notice that Premier Rehab was subject to these laws because its receipt of Medicare and Medicaid payments qualified as federal financial assistance triggering their applicability.

The Supreme Court affirmed the previous District Court and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ rulings that emotional distress damages are not recoverable in a private action to enforce either the Rehab Act or the ACA.

The Supreme Court Majority based its decision on its finding that the Rehab Act and Act both are spending statutes that condition their offer of federal funding on a promise by the recipient not to discriminate creating what amounts essentially to a contract between the Government and the recipient of funds. Following previously established Supreme Court precedent for “private spending clause actions,” the Court ruled the emotional distress or other remedy is not available unless “the funding recipient is on notice that by accepting federal funding, it exposes itself to liability of that nature.”

To decide whether emotional distress damages are available under the Spending Clause statutes in this case, the Court therefore asked if a prospective funding recipient deciding whether to accept
federal funds would have had “clear notice” regarding that liability. Because the two statutes are silent on the availability of emotional injury damages, the Supreme Court followed prior precedent by looking to whether the emotional damages sought by Cummings were the type of damages traditionally available in suits for breach of contract so as to put Premier Rehab and other defendants on notice of their exposure to such damages from actions under the Rehab Act or ACA. While acknowledging some exceptional circumstances where punitive damages may be recovered where “the conduct constituting the breach is also a tort for which punitive damages are recoverable,” the Court found such damages “are generally not available for breach of contract.” Concluding that the recognized exception to the general rule was insufficient to give funding recipients the requisite notice that they could face such damages. the Supreme Court ruled that funding recipients under the Rehab Act and the ACA “have not, merely by accepting funds, implicitly consented to liability for punitive damages.”

To read the full Majority opinion and related consenting and dissenting opinions, see here.

Liability Risks Remain Substantial Despite Cummings Ruling

While the Supreme Court’s ruling means private litigants cannot recover emotional injury damages in discrimination actions brought to enforce the Rehabilitation Act or the ACA, health industry and other organizations remain subject to other substantial liability risks for improper discrimination in violation of those laws. Beyond recoveries for actual damages, attorneys’ fees and costs recoverable by private litigants, covered organizations also can face substantial civil monetary penalties, program disqualification, in some instances even False Claims Act liability for billing in violation of program conditions of participation and other risks. As federal agencies continue to make enforcement of these sanctions a priority, organization covered by either of these laws should use care to maintain appropriate compliance and risk management to ensure their ability to defend against any potential charges.

For instance, HHS recently reaffirmed its continued commitment and prioritization of protecting disabled individuals against disability discrimination by its publication of its February 4, 2022 FAQs for Healthcare Providers during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency: Federal Civil Rights Protections for Individuals with Disabilities under Section 504 and Section 1557. Published to remind health care providers of their obligations under law and provide examples of applicability, HHS clarifies in that guidance that federal civil rights laws apply to health care providers, including those administering COVID-19 testing, medical supplies, and medication. These rules also apply to entities providing hospitalization, long-term care, intensive treatments, and critical care, such as oxygen therapy and mechanical ventilators. HHS also confirm that federal civil rights laws apply to state Crisis Standard of Care plans, procedures, and related standards for triaging scarce resources that hospitals are required to follow. HHS Issues New Guidance for Health Care Providers on Civil Rights Protections for People with Disabilities. See also New Guidance to Boost Accessibility and Equity in COVID-19 Vaccine Programs (December 22, 2021); HHS Takes Action to Prevent Discrimination and Strengthen Civil Rights (November 18, 2021); HHS and DOJ Issue Guidance on “Long COVID” and Disability Rights Under the ADA, Section 504, and Section 1557 (July 26, 2021); OCR Provides Technical Assistance to the State of Arizona to Ensure Crisis Standards of Care Protect Against Age and Disability Discrimination (May 25, 2021); HHS Announces Prohibition on Sex Discrimination Includes Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (May 10, 2021); New Legal Guidance and Resources to Ensure — and Expand — Access to COVID-19 Vaccines for People with Disabilities and Older Adults (April 13, 2021).

HHS’ guidance announcements all include a warning like the one from OCR Director Lisa J. Pino in the February 4, 2022 announcment that “OCR will continue our robust enforcement of federal civil rights laws that protect people with disabilities from discrimination, including when Crisis Standards of Care are in effect.”

The current and historical enforcement record of HHS demonstrates the teeth behind this commitment. OCR has a long and continuing history of extracting substantial settlements or civil monetary penalties from health care or other organizations receiving Medicare, Medicaid or other federal funds administered by HSS for engaging in conduct OCR finds inconsistent with the ACA or Rehabilitation Act discrimination requirements. See, e.g., Settlement Agreement Reached with Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families to Address Discrimination Against Parents with Disabilities (March 30, 2022); Massachusetts Healthcare Provider Resolves Allegations of Discriminatory Practices Regarding Patients Needing Opioid Use Disorder Treatment (December 22, 2021); HHS Office for Civil Rights and U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts Settle Disability Discrimination Case with Baystate Medical Center (November 17, 2021); HHS Office for Civil Rights and U.S. Attorney’s Office Settle Disability Discrimination Case with Backus Hospital (October 5, 2021); Rhode Island, Massachusetts Healthcare Provider Resolves Allegations of Discriminatory Practices Regarding Patients Needing Opioid Use Disorder Treatment (August 9, 2021).

These OCR guidance and enforcement actions and similar activities by other federal agencies send a strong message that OCR and other federal agencies will continue and expand their zealous investigation and enforcement of disability and other violations by health care providers and other public and private organizations covered by the Rehabilitation Act, the ACA or other federal discrimination and civil rights laws. Health care providers and others regulated by these federal discrimination laws should consider auditing the adequacy of existing practices, reaffirming their own and their business partners’ compliance, retraining workforce and taking other appropriate steps to help prevent illegal discrimination within their organization and to position their organization to respond and defend against potential discrimination investigations or charges.

For Additional Information Or Assistance

If you need have questions or need assistance with health, health or other insurance, employee benefit, payroll, investment or other data, systems or other privacy or security related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help. Longtime scribe for the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits agency meeting with OCR and author of leading publications on HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns, Ms. Stamer regularly assists clients and provides input to Congress, OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and cybersecurity, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns.

Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

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 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. She also is a highly-sought out speaker on privacy and data security who serves on the planning faculty and speaks 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, e-mail Ms. Stamer or call (214) 452-8297.

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 available here.

Important Information About This Communication

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access of this publication.

Leave a Comment » | 1335 Waiver, Academic medicine, ADA, air ambulance, Ambulatory care, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Civil Rights, Conditions of Participation, Corporate Compliance, Covid, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, DME, early childhood education, Emergency Care, Employee Benefits, Employment, false claims act, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, health care reimbursement, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HHS, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Labor Law, Laws, Life Sciences, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Health, Mental Heatlh, nursing home, occupational health, OCR, OIG, Opiates, Outpatient, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Reimbursement, Section 1557 | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CMS Updates COVID-19 Guidance For Visiting Nursing Homes & LTC Facility Vaccination During Omicron Surge

January 13, 2022

CMS recently updated its Nursing Home Resource Centerwith new pieces of informational guidance on visitation and vaccines in response to the recent surge in Omicron cases.

Visitation

As of January 6, CMS updated the Nursing Home Visitation FAQs (PDF) to give additional guidance about visitation during the Omicron surge and also created an infographic (PDF) to graphically represent how to safely conduct visits to nursing homes during this time of spiking COVID cases around the country. Nursing home providers, patients, caregivers, and CMS partners can use these 2 new resources to stay informed about CMS’ latest thinking for keeping nursing homes safe in the current COVID climate.

CMS also continues to urge long-term care settings, like nursing homes, assisted living, residential care communities, group homes, and senior housing, to ensure residents and staff get COVID-19 vaccine primary series and booster shots.

Vaccination

while long-term care and other Medicare and Medicaid participating healthcare providers continue to await the Supreme Court’s decision on the enforceability and validity of the Biden administration vaccine mandate for program participation, CMS continues to urge long-term care providers to coordinate access to COVID-19 vaccines, either in the local community or on-site using the newest CDC resources.

As a reminder, through enforcement discretion, CMS allows Medicare-enrolled immunizers, including but not limited to pharmacies working with the U.S., to bill directly and get direct reimbursement from the Medicare program for vaccinating Medicare skilled nursing facility residents. See, Medicare billing and payment information.

Long-term care another healthcare providers also need to continue to ensure that they meet all other contagious disease and related requirements for participation in these federal programs as well as our meeting and managing their occupational health and safety, occupational injury, sick and disability leave, employee benefit, accommodation and anti retaliation mandates. See, e.g. SCOTUS To Hear Oral Arguments on OSHA COVID-19 Vaccination Rule Enforceability On January 7; COVID-19 Vaccination Rule Injunctions Leave Employers With Significant Liability Challenges Even As OSHA Extends Comment Period on OSHA COVID-19 Vaccine ETS

More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.

About the Author

Past Board President of the Richardson Development Program for Children ECE and Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health industry legal, public policy and operational concerns.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 30 plus year career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns.

As a part of this work, she has continuously and extensively worked with domestic and international health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, and insurers; managed care and insurance organizations; hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; consultants; investors; EHR, claims, payroll and other technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, self-insured health and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers and other payers, health industry advocacy and other service providers and groups and other health and managed care industry clients as well as federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies.

This involvement encompasses helping health care systems and organizations, schools, ECEs, group and individual health care providers, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients prevent, investigate, manage and resolve sexual assault, abuse, harassment and other organizational, provider and employee misconduct and other performance and behavior; manage Section 1557, Civil Rights Act and other discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; contracting and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other payers and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EHR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, ant kickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; 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 actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement; and other strategic and operational concerns.

Author of a multitude of health industry and other highly regarded publications and presentations, 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 and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, 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, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 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 available here.

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Leave a Comment » | ASC, Centers For Disease Control, Conditions of Participation, Coronavirus, Corporate Compliance, Covid, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, Health Plan, healthcare, HHS, Hospice, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Life Sciences, long-term care, Medicaid, Medicaid Advantage, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, occupational health, OSHA, Pandemic, participating provider, Provider contracting | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CMS/CDC Mandating COVID Vaccination For All Nursing Home Staff

August 18, 2021

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announced today plans to mandate COVID-19 vaccination for all Medicare and Medicaid-participating nursing home staff.

The joint announcement released today states the agencies are developing an emergency regulation requiring staff vaccinations within the nation’s more than 15,000 Medicare and Medicaid-participating nursing homes.

The agencies view the new requirement as a key component of protecting the health and safety of nursing home residents and staff.

Today’s action is in keeping with CMS’s authority to establish requirements to ensure the health and safety of individuals receiving care from all providers and suppliers participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. About 62% of nursing home staff are currently vaccinated as of August 8 nationally, and vaccination among staff at the state level ranges from a high of 88% to a low of 44%. The emergence of the Delta variant in the United States has driven a rise in cases among nursing home residents from a low of 319 cases on June 27, to 2,696 cases on August 8, with many of the recent outbreaks occurring in facilities located in areas of the United States with the lowest staff vaccination rates.

In May, the Agency issued new regulations that require Long-Term Care (LTC) facilities and Intermediate Care Facilities for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities (ICFs/IID) to educate residents, clients, and staff about COVID-19 vaccination and, when available, offer a COVID-19 vaccine to these individuals. These regulations also mandate that LTC facilities report weekly COVID-19 vaccination data for residents and staff to the CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN).

Today’s announcement states the agencies will continue to analyze vaccination data for residents and staff from the CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) data as an additional method of compliance monitoring and in keeping with current practice, as well as deploy the Quality Improvement Organizations (QIOs)—operated under the Medicare Quality Improvement Program—to educate and engage nursing homes with low rates of vaccinations.

Meanwhile, the announcement strongly encourages nursing home residents and staff members to get vaccinated as the Agency undergoes the necessary steps in the rule-making process over the course of the next several weeks. CMS expects nursing home operators to act in the best interest of residents and their staff by complying with these new rules, which the Agency expects to issue in September.

According to today’s announcement, CMS also expects nursing home operators to use all available resources to support employees in getting vaccinated, including employee education and vaccination clinics, as they work to meet this staff vaccination requirement.

More Information

This article is republished by permission of the author, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. To review the original work, see here.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to receive future updates by registering here and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy. 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 your profile here. For specific information about the these or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

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 board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 30+ years working as an on demand, special project, consulting, general counsel or other basis with domestic and international business, charitable, community and government organizations of all types, sizes and industries and their leaders on labor and employment and other workforce compliance, performance management, internal controls and governance, compensation and benefits, regulatory compliance, investigations and audits, change management and restructuring, disaster preparedness and response and other operational, risk management and tactical concerns.

For more information about these concerns or Ms. Stamer’s work, experience, involvements, other publications, or programs, see www.cynthiastamer.com, on Facebook, on LinkedIn or Twitter or e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Centers For Disease Control, Conditions of Participation, Covid, Doctor, Employer, Employment, Employment law, Federal Health Center, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, Health Policy, healthcare, HHS, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Licensing, long-term care, Medicaid, Medicaid Advantage, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Mental Health, nursing home, OSHA, Physician, Public Policy, quality reporting, Reimbursement, Skilled Nursing Facility, substance abuse treatment, Whistleblower | Tagged: Health Care, Hospital, Covid, Long-term care, Medicare, nursing home, Physician, vaccination | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Dentists Face OSHA Retaliation Suit For Retaliating Against Workers Asking About COVID Safety

July 16, 2021

A new U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) lawsuit against two North Texas dentists warns health industry and other employers to tread carefully when dealing with employees about COVID-19 or other safety concerns.

The charges arises from the dental practice’s failure to reinstate a dental hygienist and a dental assistant who expressed concerns about the coronavirus safety measures the practice would implement when it reopened in Spring 2020. The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, names Roger H. Bohannan, DDS Inc. and owners Roger Bohannan and David Bohannan.

In March and April 2020, OSHA says Roger Bohannan and David Bohannan, owners of Roger H. Bohannan DDS Inc. furloughed their employees after the state of Texas prohibited specific dental procedures at the height of the pandemic. While furloughed, the two employees asked what safety measures would be in place once patients and employees returned. After receiving a call to return to work, the employer did not reinstate the hygienist after the employee cited guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and OSHA.

The dental assistant was contacted for rehiring but the employer rescinded the offer after the assistant inquired about what safety measures were in place for their protection.

An OSHA investigation found Bohannan Dentistry discriminated against the employees for exercising their rights under section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and for engaging in the protected activity of making a good faith health and safety complaint. The two employees were not rehired while all of the other staff members at the North Richland Hills practice were reinstated when the furlough ended.

OSHA charges that Bohannan Dentistry violated employees’ rights by terminating them for reporting concerns about unsafe working conditions.

The complaint asks the court to order the dental practice to:

Pay the complainant damages, plus interest, for all past and future lost wages and benefits resulting from the termination; reimbursement for costs and expenses; compensatory damages, including for compensation for emotional pain and distress and exemplary or punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
Post a notice for employees stating that the defendants will not in any manner discriminate against any employee for engaging in activities protected by Section 11(c) of the OSH Act.

The lawsuit highlights the OSHA retaliation exposure employers could face if found to retaliate against employees for expressing concern about COVID or other safety. This is just one on the many minefields employers face dealing with employees in relation to COVID-19 safety concerns, leave, vaccination, remote work, return to work, benefits and other concerns. Health care and other employers are urged to work closely with experienced employment counsel to decide and administer their policies and responses.

More Information

If you are interested in a more information about the concerns discussed in this article or other concerns or developments, see here.

If you 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 your profile here. For specific information or counsel about the these or other legal, management or public policy developments, Ms. Stamer’s work, experience, involvements, other publications, or programs, contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297, follow her on Facebook, LinkedIn or Twitter or see Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. Website.

About the Author

Most widely recognized for her work with health care, life sciences, insurance and data and technology organizations, she also has worked extensively with health plan and insurance, employee benefits, financial, transportation, manufacturing, energy, real estate, accounting and other services, public and private academic and other education, hospitality, charitable, civic and other business, government and community organizations. and their leaders.

Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising, representing, defending and training domestic and international public and private health care and life sciences, charitable, community and governmental, and other business organizations and their leaders, employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries and service providers, insurers, and others. A widely published author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer also has published and spoken extensively on wage and other and other health care, human resources, employee benefits and other workforce and services; insurance; workers’ compensation and occupational disease; business reengineering, disaster and distress; and many other compliance, governance, risk management, operational and public and regulatory affairs concerns.

A former lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its pension project, Ms. Stamer also has worked internationally and domestically as an advisor to health, managed care, insurance, and other business, community and government leaders on these and other legislative, regulatory and other legislative and regulatory design, drafting, interpretation and enforcement, as well as regularly advises and represents organizations on the design, administration and defense of workforce, employee benefit and compensation, safety, discipline, reengineering, regulatory and operational compliance and other management practices and actions.

Ms. Stamer also serves in leadership of a broad range of professional and civic organizations and provides insights and thought leadership through her extensive publications, public speaking and volunteer service with a diverse range of organizations including as Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Vice Chair of the International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee, Past ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group Chair and Council Representative and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, past Region IV Chair and national Society of Human Resources Management Consultant Forum Board Member, past Texas Association of Business BACPAC Chair, Regional Chair and Dallas Chapter Chair, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, 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, past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation and many others.

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 available here such as:

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, CDC, Centers For Disease Control, Coronavirus, Corporate Compliance, COVID-19, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Disease Management, Doctor, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, Employment law, Health Care, Health Care Finance, home health, Hospital, OSHA, Pandemic, Physician, Uncategorized | Tagged: Covid, Dentist, Doctor, Health Care, OSHA, return to work, Safety | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Biden-Harris Plan To Beat COVID-19 Includes Plan To Expand Medicare, Other Health Care Plans

January 21, 2021

Newly sworn in President Joe Biden chose to make an executive order outlining the core principles for his Administration’s policy for fighting COVID-19 the first signed in his new administration.

The text of the COVID-19: The Biden-Harris plan to beat COVID-19 reads as follows:

The American people deserve an urgent, robust, and professional response to the growing public health and economic crisis caused by the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. President Biden believes that the federal government must act swiftly and aggressively to help protect and support our families, small businesses, first responders, and caregivers essential to help us face this challenge, those who are most vulnerable to health and economic impacts, and our broader communities – not to blame others or bail out corporations.

The Biden-Harris administration will always:

Listen to science
Ensure public health decisions are informed by public health professionals
Promote trust, transparency, common purpose, and accountability in our government
President Biden and Vice President Harris have a seven-point plan to beat COVID-19.

Ensure all Americans have access to regular, reliable, and free testing.

Double the number of drive-through testing sites.
Invest in next-generation testing, including at home tests and instant tests, so we can scale up our testing capacity by orders of magnitude.
Stand up a Pandemic Testing Board like Roosevelt’s War Production Board. It’s how we produced tanks, planes, uniforms, and supplies in record time, and it’s how we will produce and distribute tens of millions of tests.
Establish a U.S. Public Health Jobs Corps to mobilize at least 100,000 Americans across the country with support from trusted local organizations in communities most at risk to perform culturally competent approaches to contact tracing and protecting at-risk populations.
Fix personal protective equipment (PPE) problems for good.

President Biden is taking responsibility and giving states, cities, tribes, and territories the critical supplies they need.

Fully use the Defense Production Act to ramp up production of masks, face shields, and other PPE so that the national supply of personal protective equipment exceeds demand and our stores and stockpiles — especially in hard-hit areas that serve disproportionately vulnerable populations — are fully replenished.
Build immediately toward a future, flexible American-sourced and manufactured capability to ensure we are not dependent on other countries in a crisis.
Provide clear, consistent, evidence-based guidance for how communities should navigate the pandemic – and the resources for schools, small businesses, and families to make it through.

Social distancing is not a light switch. It is a dial. President Biden will direct the CDC to provide specific evidence-based guidance for how to turn the dial up or down relative to the level of risk and degree of viral spread in a community, including when to open or close certain businesses, bars, restaurants, and other spaces; when to open or close schools, and what steps they need to take to make classrooms and facilities safe; appropriate restrictions on size of gatherings; when to issue stay-at-home restrictions.
Establish a renewable fund for state and local governments to help prevent budget shortfalls, which may cause states to face steep cuts to teachers and first responders.
Call on Congress to pass an emergency package to ensure schools have the additional resources they need to adapt effectively to COVID-19.
Provide a “restart package” that helps small businesses cover the costs of operating safely, including things like plexiglass and PPE.
“THIS ISN’T ABOUT POLITICS. IT’S ABOUT SAVING LIVES.”

PRESIDENT BIDEN, SEPTEMBER 16, 2020
Plan for the effective, equitable distribution of treatments and vaccines — because development isn’t enough if they aren’t effectively distributed.

Invest $25 billion in a vaccine manufacturing and distribution plan that will guarantee it gets to every American, cost-free.
Ensure that politics plays no role in determining the safety and efficacy of any vaccine. The following 3 principles will guide the Biden-Harris administration: Put scientists in charge of all decisions on safety and efficacy; publicly release clinical data for any vaccine the FDA approves; and authorize career staff to write a written report for public review and permit them to appear before Congress and speak publicly uncensored.
Ensure everyone — not just the wealthy and well-connected — in America receives the protection and care they deserve, and consumers are not price gouged as new drugs and therapies come to market.
Protect older Americans and others at high risk.

President Biden understands that older Americans and others at high-risk are most vulnerable to COVID-19.

Establish a COVID-19 Racial and Ethnic Disparities Task Force, as proposed by Vice President Harris, to provide recommendations and oversight on disparities in the public health and economic response. At the end of this health crisis, it will transition to a permanent Infectious Disease Racial Disparities Task Force.
Create the Nationwide Pandemic Dashboard that Americans can check in real-time to help them gauge whether local transmission is actively occurring in their zip codes. This information is critical to helping all individuals, but especially older Americans and others at high risk, understand what level of precaution to take.
Rebuild and expand defenses to predict, prevent, and mitigate pandemic threats, including those coming from China.

Immediately restore the White House National Security Council Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense, originally established by the Obama-Biden administration.
Immediately restore our relationship with the World Health Organization, which — while not perfect — is essential to coordinating a global response during a pandemic.
Re-launch and strengthen U.S. Agency for International Development’s pathogen-tracking program called PREDICT.
Expand the number of CDC’s deployed disease detectives so we have eyes and ears on the ground, including rebuilding the office in Beijing.
Implement mask mandates nationwide by working with governors and mayors and by asking the American people to do what they do best: step up in a time of crisis.

Experts agree that tens of thousands of lives can be saved if Americans wear masks. President Biden will continue to call on:

Every American to wear a mask when they are around people outside their household.
Every Governor to make that mandatory in their state.
Local authorities to also make it mandatory to buttress their state orders.
Once we succeed in getting beyond this pandemic, we must ensure that the millions of Americans who suffer long-term side effects from COVID don’t face higher premiums or denial of health insurance because of this new pre-existing condition. The Biden-Harris Administration will work to ensure that the protections for those with pre-existing conditions that were won with Obamacare are protected. And, they will work to lower health care costs and expand access to quality, affordable health care through a Medicare-like public option.

As the new Administration and Congress get down to work, health industry organizations as well as all other U.S. organizations and communities, their leaders, and individual employees and citizens should carefully follow, and share their input to the Administration, members of Congress, and other federal, state and local officials on the actions and proposals taken to implement this and other policy that impact their interests. The need for careful attention and scrutiny is particularly important for health, managed care and insurance and management organizations as President Biden made clear throughout his campaign his intent to pursue legislative and regulatory reforms that would reverse actions of the previous administration as well as implement addition reforms to expand coverage and regulation of health care, workforce and other critical policies.

More Information

About the Author

An attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Ms. Stamer has worked as an on demand, special project, consulting, general counsel or other basis with health care providers, health insurers, employer and other management organizations, health and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, insurers, administrators, providers and others and others has published and spoken extensively on these concerns.

A former lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its pension project, Ms. Stamer also has worked internationally and domestically as an advisor and advocate for employer and other plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, insurers, technology and other service providers, managed care organizations, direct primary care and other health care providers and others on these and other legislative, regulatory and other legislative and regulatory design, drafting, interpretation and enforcement, as well as regularly advises and represents organizations on the design, administration and defense of workforce, employee benefit and compensation, safety, discipline, reengineering, regulatory and operational compliance and other management practices and actions.

For more information about these concerns or Ms. Stamer’s work, experience, involvements, other publications, or programs, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer 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 available here such as:

Leave a Comment » | CDC, Centers For Disease Control, Consumer Driven Health Care, Coronavirus, Corporate Compliance, COVID-19, Cultural diversity, Direct Primary Care, Disability Discrimination, DME, Doctor, Emergency Care, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, Employment law, ERISA, Evidence Based Medicine, Fast Track Approval, FDA, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, health care reimbursement, Health Insurance, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HHS, home health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Labor Law, Laws, managed care, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Pandemic, Pharmaceudical, Physician, Reimbursement, Uncategorized | Tagged: Biden Administration, COVID-19, Health Care | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

University of Rochester Medical Center Paying $3 Million For Unencrypted Laptop & Flash Drive

November 6, 2019

$3 million is the hefty price that the University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC) has agreed to pay to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to settle potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules arising from the loss of unencrypted laptops and other mobile devices containing protected health information (PHI). Like prior settlements and civil monetary penalties OCR previously assessed against HIPAA-covered entities for using or storing electronic protected health information (ePHI) on unencrypted mobile devices, the $3 million sanction and other requirements imposed in the URMC Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan made public after the close of business on November 5 reaffirm OCR’s readiness to sanction harshly health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and businesses associates for the loss or compromise of ePHI due to the covered entity’s failure to appropriately encrypt mobile devices. Any HIPAA covered entity or business associate that has not already done so must act to avoid a similar fate by establishing and enforcing systematic procedures to ensure all mobile devices using, accessing, storing or otherwise dealing with ePHI are properly encrypted at all times.

URMC Breach & Resolution Agreement

The URMC Resolution Agreement resolves potential charges resulting from an OCR investigation commenced in response to breach reports UMRC filed with OCR in 2013 and 2017. The breach reports disclosed UMRC’s discovery of the impermissible disclosure of PHI through the loss of an unencrypted flash drive and theft of an unencrypted laptop, respectively. URMC includes healthcare components such as the School of Medicine and Dentistry and Strong Memorial Hospital. URMC is one of the largest health systems in New York State with over 26,000 employees.

OCR’s investigation revealed that URMC failed to conduct an enterprise-wide risk analysis; implement security measures sufficient to reduce risks and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level; utilize device and media controls; and employ a mechanism to encrypt and decrypt electronic protected health information (ePHI) when it was reasonable and appropriate to do so. Of note, in 2010, OCR investigated URMC concerning a similar breach involving a lost unencrypted flash drive and provided technical assistance to URMC. Despite the previous OCR investigation, and URMC’s own identification of a lack of encryption as a high risk to ePHI, URMC permitted the continued use of unencrypted mobile devices.

OCR made a point of reaffirming the requirement to encrypt laptops and other mobile devices containing ePHI when announcing the new Resolution Agreement. “Because theft and loss are constant threats, failing to encrypt mobile devices needlessly puts patient health information at risk,” said Roger Severino, OCR Director. “When covered entities are warned of their deficiencies, but fail to fix the problem, they will be held fully responsible for their neglect.”

As part of its punishment for allowing the ePHI breaches by failing to encrypt mobile devices, URMC must pay a $3 million monetary settlement as well as undertake a corrective action plan that includes two years of monitoring their compliance with the HIPAA Rules.

Mobile Device Encryption Requirement Well-Established

OCR repeatedly through published guidance and reported sanctions repeatedly has warned covered entities and business associates not to permit ePHI to be used, accessed or stored on unencrypted laptops or other mobile devices. In 2017, Children’s Medical Center of Dallas (Children’s) paid a $3,217,000.00 Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) after OCR issued its January 18, 2017 Final Determination that Children’s for years knowingly violated HIPAA by failing to encrypt or otherwise properly secure ePHI on laptops and other mobile devices and failing to comply with many other HIPAA requirements. See Learn From Children’s New $3.2M+ HIPAA CMP For “Knowing” Violation of HIPAA Security Rules. An OCR Newsletter Article on Guidance on Mobile Devices and Protected Health Information (PHI), for instance, states:

Entities regulated by the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification Rules (the HIPAA Rules) must be sure to include mobile devices in their enterprise-wide risk analysis and take action(s) to reduce risks identified with the use of mobile devices to a reasonable and appropriate level.
The article also shared insights about some of the steps OCR considers necessary to meet this expectation, as including:

Implement policies for use of mobile devices that are used to handle PHI;
Consider using Mobile Device Management (MDM) software to secure mobile devices;
Install or enable automatic lock/logoff functions;
Require authentication to access devices;
Keep devices’ security features updated;
Procure encryption, anti-virus/anti-malware software, and remote wipe capabilities;
Use a privacy screen to prevent viewing by third-parties;
Assure that Wi-Fi networks used are secure;
Use a secure Virtual Private Network (VPN);
Institute policies regarding downloading third-party apps on devices which access PHI;
Delete all PHI from device before disposing of; and
Provide training on secure use of mobile devices for all employees.

Covered entities and business associates should promptly and continuously act to ensure on a systematic and carefully documented basis that their organization is taking these and and other steps necessary to ensure that all mobile device with ePHI are always appropriately encrypted.

We hope this information was helpful. For more information about HIPAA or other related concerns, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates and join discussions about these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group and registering for updates on our Solutions Law Press Website.

About the Author

As a primary focus of this work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and 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, health industry advocacy and other service providers and groups and other health industry clients as well as federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies.

Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer is noted for her decades-long leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health and other privacy and data security and other health industry legal, public policy and operational concerns. This involvement encompasses helping health care systems and organizations, group and individual health care providers, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients prevent, investigate, manage and resolve sexual assault, abuse, harassment and other organizational, provider and employee misconduct and other performance and behavior; manage Section 1557, Civil Rights Act and other discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; contracting and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other payers and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, antikickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; 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 actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement; and other strategic and operational concerns.

Author of leading works on HIPAA and a multitude of other health care, health plan and other health industry matters, 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 and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, 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, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her services, experience and involvements, e-mail Ms. Stamer here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or see here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides legal risk management and compliance, business strategy and operations, management, leadership and other publications, coaching, , training and education tools and other resources 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, we invite you to register to receive other updates and review our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department 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.

©2019 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Leave a Comment » | 21st century cures act, Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, ASC, Centers For Disease Control, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Civil Rights, Corporate Compliance, Cyber crime, data security, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, health care reimbursement, Health Insurance, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Joint Commission, medical devices, Medical Privacy, NIST, Skilled Nursing Facility, Technology, Telemedicine, Uncategorized | Tagged: cyber cybersecurity, Data Breach, Data Privacy, HIPAA, medical, patient | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Key House Committee Votes To Advance HSA & Other Health Choice Reforms; Plans 7/17 Health Care Fraud Hearings

July 13, 2018

A flurry of activity in the House Ways & Means Committee and other Congressional committees over the past few weeks signals the advisability of keeping a close eye on health care and health benefit reform proposals this Summer in anticipation of both the Fall health benefit enrollment and renewal season and the mid-term November Congressional elections.

Certainly continued Congressional commitment to pursue reform is evident from the House Ways & Means Committee’s health care heavy agenda of hearings and votes that this week alone resulted in its voting in favor of 11 health care reform bills promising new flexibility for employers about how to design their health plans and American families more health care choices and choice about how to pay for it and what coverage to buy popular with many providers, patients and employer and other health plan sponsors. While it remains to be seen if the House and Senate can agree on any or all of these proposal, the bi-partisan sponsorship of many of these proposals and the intensity of the focus of the Committee and others in Congress reflects a strong interest in health care reform by both parties leading up to November that could impact health benefit and other health care choices for providers, employers and American families in the Fall annual enrollment season.

The legislation passed by the Ways & Means Committee this weeks include bills that would:

Provide relief for employers relief from the Obamacare’s employer mandate and delay for an additional year the effective date of the widely disliked “Cadillac Tax;”
Overrule the “Use it Or Lose It” requirement in current Internal Revenue Regulations for healthcare flexible spending arrangement plans (HFSAs) that currently forces employers sponsoring HFSAs to draft their plans to require employees to forfeit unused salary reduction contributions in their HFSA accounts at the end of the year;
Offer individuals and families eligible for Obamacare created health premium subsidies more choice about where to obtain that coverage using their subsidies; and
Expand expand the availability and usability of HSAs in a multitude of ways.

While the recurrent stalling of past reform efforts over the past few years calls into question whether any or all of these proposals can make it through the highly politicized and divided Congress, bi-partisian sponsorship of most of the bills reported out this week at least raises the possibility that some of these proposals enjoy sufficient bi-partisan support to potentially pass before the elections. With both parties viewing health care reform as a key issue in the upcoming elections, voter feedback on these proposals could play a big role in determining the prospects for passage this Summer.

Passage of any or all of these proposed reforms between now and year end likely will fuel the need for last minute reconsideration and potential adjustments in plan design choices of employers and other health plan sponsors and administrators, reconsideration of health benefit enrollment choices of individual Americans and their families and a reconsideration of practice billing and health plan participation decisions of physicians and other health care providers. Accordingly, health care providers, employers and other health plan sponsors, American taxpayers and their families and others impacted by health care and health benefit policies will want to carefully monitor these reforms as the Summer progresses:

To provide timely input to Congress on proposed reforms of particular benefit or concern;
To help plan for and deal with rules changes that could impact their options and choices during the upcoming health plan renewal and enrollment season this Fall and going forward; and
To be prepared to make informed choices when voting in the upcoming mid-term Congressional elections in November.

To learn more details about this proposed legislation, its potential implications or other related concerns, see here or contact the author.

About the Author

After holding hearings on health savings account reforms and passing a flurry of health care reform bills intended to give employers relief from two key Obamacare mandates, to allow Obamacare subsidy-eligible Americans the choice to use the subsidies to purchase health care coverage not offered by the Obamacare exchanges, and a host of bills that would expand availability and usability of health savings account (HSA) and health care flexible spending account (HFSA) programs this week, the House Ways and Means Committee will turn its attention to health care fraud oversight and reform next week by holding hearings Tuesday on those health concerns. Health care providers, employer and other health plan sponsors, individual Americans and their families, and others interested in health benefit and health care reform will want to keep a close eye on these and other developments as Congress continues to debate health care reform in the runup to the upcoming 2018 health benefit plan renewal and annual enrollment season and November’s mid-term elections.

Committee Approved 11 Health Care Reform Bills This Week

As a part of its health reform efforts this week, the Committee voted to advance 11 health care reform bills offering new flexibility for employers about how to design their health plans and American families more health care choices and choice about how to pay for it and what coverage to buy popular with many providers, patients and employer and other health plan sponsors.

Among the approved legislation is a bill that would provide key relief for employers from certain key Obamacare mandates that have been widely unpopular with employers. H.R. 4616, the “Employer Relief Act of 2018,” sponsored by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA), which would give employers sponsoring health plans for their employees retroactive relief from Obamacare’s onerous employer mandate and delay for an additional year the effective date of another Obamacare requirement that when effective, will forces employers to pay the 40 percent tax on amounts paid for employer sponsored health care coverage that exceeds cost limits specified in the Obamacare legislation commonly known as the “Cadillac Tax.” Relief from the Cadillac Tax is widely perceived as benefiting bother employers and their employees, as its provisions penalize employers for spending more for employee health coverage than limits specified in the Obamacare law. These provisions also are particularly viewed by many as unfair because rising health plan costs since Obamacare’s passage make it likely that many employers will incur the tax penalty simply by sponsoring relatively basic health plans meeting the Obamacare mandates.

In addition to H.R. 4616, the Committee also voted to approve H.R. 6313, the “Responsible Additions and Increases to Sustain Employee Health Benefits Act of 2018,” sponsored by Rep. Steve Stivers (R-OH), which would overrule the “Use it Or Lose It” requirement in current Internal Revenue Regulations for HFSAs. Currently, this rule forces employers sponsoring HFSAs to draft their plans to require employees to forfeit unused salary reduction contributions in their HFSA accounts at the end of the year. The bill would allow employers to eliminate this forfeiture requirement so that employees could carry over any remaining unused balances in their HFSAs at the end of the year to use in a later year.

The Committee also voted to advance legislation to offer individuals and families eligible for Obamacare created health premium subsidies more choice about where to obtain that coverage. H.R. 6311, the “Increasing Access to Lower Premium Plans Act of 2018,” sponsored by Chairman Peter Roskam (R-IL) and Rep. Michael C. Burgess, M.D. (R-TX), would provide individuals receiving subsidies to help purchase health care coverage through the Obamacare-created health insurance exchange the option to use their premium tax credit to purchase health care coverage from qualified plans offered outside of the exchanges. Currently, subsidies may only be used to purchase coverage from health plans offered through the exchange, which often are much more costly and offer substantially fewer coverage options and less provider choice. In addition, the bill would expand access to the lowest-premium plans available for all individuals purchasing coverage in the individual market and allows the premium tax credit to be used to offset the cost of such plans.

Along with these reforms, the Committee also voted to pass a host of bills that would expand the availability and usability of HSAs including:

H.R. 6301, the “Promoting High-Value Health Care Through Flexibility for High Deductible Health Plans Act of 2018,” co-sponsored by Health Subcommittee Chairman Peter Roskam (R-IL) and Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA), which seeks to expand access and enhance the utility of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) by offering patients greater flexibility in designing their plan design while still being able to maintain their eligibility for HSA contributions.
H.R. 6305, the “Bipartisan HSA Improvement Act of 2018,” sponsored by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) and Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), which also would expand HSA access and utility by allowing spouses to also make contributions to HSAs is their spouse has an FSA and lets employers offer certain services to employees through on-site or retail clinics.
H.R. 6317, the “Primary Care Enhancement Act of 2018,” co-sponsored by Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN) and Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), which seeks to protect HSA-eligible individuals who participate in a direct primary care (DPC) arrangement from losing their HSA-eligibility merely because of their participation in a DPC. In addition, it allows DPC provider fees to be covered with HSAs.
H.R. 6312, the “Personal Health Investment Today (PHIT) Act,” sponsored by Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO) and Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI), which seeks to fight obesity and promote wellness by allowing taxpayers to use tax-preferred accounts to pay costs of gym membership or exercise classes, children’s school sports programs and certain other wellness programs and activities.
H.R. 6309, the “Allowing Working Seniors to Keep Their Health Savings Accounts Act of 2018,” sponsored by Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN), which would expand HSA eligibility to include Medicare eligible seniors who are still in the workforce.
H.R.6199, the “Restoring Access to Medication Act of 2018,” sponsored by Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) and Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY), which would reverse Obamacare’s prohibition on using tax-favored health accounts to purchase over-the-counter medical products and would add feminine products to the list of qualified medical expenses for the purposes of these tax-favored health accounts.
H.R. 6306, the “Improve the Rules with Respect to Health Savings Accounts,” sponsored by Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN), which would increase the contribution limits for HSAs and further enhances flexibility in plans by allowing both spouses to contribute to make catch-up contributions to the same account and creating a new grace period for medical expenses incurred before the HSA was established.
H.R. 6314, the “Health Savings Act of 2018,” sponsored by Rep. Burgess (R-TX) and Rep. Roskam (R-IL), would expand eligibility and access to HSAs by allowing plans categorized as “catastrophic” and “bronze” in the exchanges to qualify for HSA contributions.

Committee Considers Health Care Fraud Next Week

The Committee next week will turn its attention to health care fraud by holding two hearings on Tuesday.

Tuesday morning, the Ways and Means Committee Oversight Subcommittee plans to hold a Hearing on Combating Fraud in Medicare: A Strategy for Success beginning at 10:00 AM Eastern Time; and
Tuesday afternoon, the Ways and Means Committee Subcommittee plans to hold a Hearing on Modernizing Stark Law to Ensure the Successful Transition from Volume to Value in the Medicare Program beginning at 2:00 PM.

Both hearings are scheduled to take place in Room 1100 Longworth and their proceedings will be live streamed on YouTube.

The Committee’s health care reform focus this week and next are reflective of the continued emphasis of members of Congress in both parties on health care reform legislation as they prepare for the impending mid-term elections in November. As a part of these efforts, the House and Senate already over the past several months have held a wide range of hearings in various committees and key votes on a multitude of reform proposals. Numerous other hearings and votes are planned over the next several months as Congressional leaders from both parties work to advance their health care agendas in anticipation of the upcoming elections.

Key health care and health benefit reform proposals that the Republican Majority has designated for priority consideration include:

Prescription drug costs by checking perceived negative effects of health industry and health plan consolidations involving large health insurers, pharmacy benefit management companies (PBMs), pharmacy companies and other health industry and health insurance organizations on health care costs and patient, plan sponsor and plan sponsor choice and health care quality;
Oversight and reform of existing STARK, anti-kickback and other federal health care rules and exemptions relied upon by PBMs and other health industry organizations;
Efforts to understand and address health care treatment, health care and coverage costs and related social concerns associated with mental health and opioid and other substance abuse conditions and their treatment;
Efforts promote health benefit and health care choice, affordability and coverage; improve patient and employer choice; promote broader health care access and quality; reduce counterproductive regulation; and other health insurance and care improvements through expanded availability of health savings accounts, direct primary care and other consumer directed health care options, association health plan and other program options, streamlining quality reporting and regulation, billing and coding, physician and other health care provider electronic billing and recordkeeping, and other provider, payer, employer, individual and other health insurance mandates and other federal health care and health plan rules; and
More.

Health care providers, employers and other health plan sponsors, American taxpayers and their families and others will want to carefully monitor these reforms as the Summer progresses:

To provide timely input to Congress on proposed reforms of particular benefit or concern;
To help plan for and deal with rules changes that could impact their options and choices during the upcoming health plan renewal and enrollment season this Fall and going forward; and
To be prepared to make informed choices when voting in the upcoming mid-term Congressional elections in November.

About the Author

Recognized repeatedly 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 board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 30+ years of health industry, health and other benefit, workforce and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications.

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’s clients include employer, associations, government and other health benefit sponsors and administrators, public and private, domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and 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, insurance, technology, government and other management clients.

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, Ms. Stamer has been extensively involved in U.S. federal, state and local health care and other legislative and regulatory reform impacting these concerns throughout her career.

Beyond her public policy and regulatory affairs involvement, Ms. Stamer also has extensive experience helping these and other clients to design and reform programs and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government; accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. 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.

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 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 employer and association 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.

Ms. Stamer helps health industry, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients design, document and enforce plans, practices, policies, systems and solutions; manage regulatory, contractual and other legal and operational compliance; vendors and suppliers; Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other private payer and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, antikickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; 1557 and other Civil Rights; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns.

Author of leading works on a multitude of health care, health plan and other health industry matters, 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 and CLE and Marketing Committee Chair, 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’s health industry clients include public health organizations; public and private hospitals, healthcare systems, clinics and other health care facilities; physicians, physician practices, medical staff, and other provider organizations; skilled nursing, long term care, assisted living, home health, ambulatory surgery, dialysis, telemedicine, DME, Pharma, clinics, and other health care providers; billing, management and other administrative services organizations; insured, self-insured, association and other health plans; PPOs, HMOs and other managed care organizations, insurance, claims administration, utilization management, and other health care payers; public and private peer review, quality assurance, accreditation and licensing; technology and other outsourcing; healthcare clearinghouse and other data; research; public and private social and community organizations; real estate, technology, clinical pathways, and other developers; investors, banks and financial institutions; audit, accounting, law firm; consulting; document management and recordkeeping, business associates, vendors, and service providers and other professional and other health industry organizations; academic medicine; trade associations; legislative and other law making bodies and others.

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.

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.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Leave a Comment » | Affordable Care Act, Anti-KickBack, Antitrust, Child Care, Consumer Driven Health Care, Controlled Substances, Corporate Compliance, Direct Primary Care, E-Prescribing, Employee Benefits, Employment, Evidence Based Medicine, FDA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, health care reimbursement, Health Insurance, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, Health Policy, healthcare, HHS, Home Health, home health, Hospital, hospitals, managed care, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Health, Mental Heatlh, Patient Empowerment, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Preexisting Condition Insurance Plan, Prescription Drugs, Psychiatric, Public Policy, quality reporting, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, substance abuse treatment, Tax, Tax-Exemption, Uncategorized, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Administration, Veterans Health Care | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Christus Pays $12.24M Settlement Resolves False Claims Act Charges From “Donations” To New Mexico

September 11, 2017

CHRISTUS St. Vincent Regional Medical Center (St. Vincent) and its partner, CHRISTUS Health (CHRISTUS), have agreed to pay $12.24 million, plus interest to resolve charges by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) they violated the False Claims Act by making illegal donations to county governments that the counties used to fund the state share of Medicaid payments to the hospital. The settlement announced September 1, 2017 highlights the needs for States and private healthcare providers to use care to ensure that creative partnerships don’t violate federal Medicare or other program requirements as well as the risk that the False Claims Act or other whistleblower rules will incentivize disgruntled employees or other service providers to bring aggressive conduct to the attention of federal officials.

The settlement resolves allegations made in U.S. ex rel. Stepan v. Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center Corp. et al., Civil Action No. 11-cv-572 (D.N.M.) that St. Vincent and CHRISTUS allegedly caused the State of New Mexico to present false Medicaid claims in violation of the False Claims Act by making non-bona fide donations to the State of New Mexico that New Mexico improperly used to fulfill the requirement that the State pay 25% “matching” share to fund the New Mexico Sole Community Provider Program (SCP) between 2001 and 2009.

Under the now defunct SCP Program, federal law required that New Mexico fund 25% of the costs of the SCP program to qualify for reimbursement from the federal government for approximately 75 percent of its health care expenditures under the SCP program. Under federal law, New Mexico’s 25 percent “matching” share of SCP program payments had to consist of state or county funds, and not impermissible “donations” from private hospitals. Congress enacted this restriction on the use of private hospital funds to satisfy state Medicaid obligations to curb possible abuses and ensure that states have sufficient incentive to curb rising Medicaid costs.

The charges resolved by the settlement originally were brought in a qui tam lawsuit filed by a former Los Alamos County, New Mexico Indigent Healthcare Administrator . The whistleblower will receive $2.249 million as her share of the recovery in this case.

The prosecution and its settlement drive home both the importance for States receiving Medicaid funds and private health care partners providing services to patients reimbursed by these funds to use care to comply with all applicable program requirements, as well as the continuing risk of exposure and resulting liability from whistleblower claims brought by unhappy employees or others looking to use their knowledge of questionable conduct to realize profitable recoveries.

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 board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. Ms. Stamer works with health industry and related 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. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see here, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (214) 452-8297.

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.
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 your profile here.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

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

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Anti-KickBack, Conditions of Participation, Corporate Compliance, Employment, false claims act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, health care reimbursement, Hospital, Hospital, Medicaid, Uncategorized | Tagged: DOJ, false claims act, Health Care Fraud, HEAT, Medicaid, OIG, St. Vincent Christus, Whistleblower | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$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.

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.™

©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

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

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

July 6, 2014

Health care providers, health plans, heath care clearinghouses and their business associates heed both the lesson about properly protecting protected health information and the more subtle lesson about the role of employees and other whistleblowers in bringing these violations to the attention of regulators contained in the latest Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) resolution agreement.

Late last month, the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (HHS) announced that complaints of a retiring physician over the mishandling of her patient records by Parkview Health System, Inc. (Parkview) prompted the investigation that lead Parkview to agree to pay $800,000 to settle charges that it violated HIPAA’s Privacy Rule.

The resolution agreement settles charges lodged by HHS based on an OCR investigation into the retiring physician’s allegations that Parkview violated the HIPAA Privacy Rule by failing to properly safeguard the records when it returned them to the physician following her retirement.

As a covered entity under the HIPAA Privacy Rule, HIPAA requires that Parkview appropriately and reasonably safeguard all protected health information in its possession, from the time it is acquired through its disposition.

In an investigation prompted by the physician’s complaint, OCR found that Parkview breached this responsibility in its handling of certain physician patient records in helping the physician to transition to retirement.

According to OCR, in September 2008, Parkview took custody of medical records pertaining to approximately 5,000 to 8,000 patients while assisting the retiring physician to transition her patients to new providers, and while considering the possibility of purchasing some of the physician’s practice.

Subsequently on June 4, 2009, Parkview employees, with notice that the physician was not at home, left 71 cardboard boxes of these medical records unattended and accessible to unauthorized persons on the driveway of the physician’s home, within 20 feet of the public road and a short distance away from a heavily trafficked public shopping venue. OCR concluded this conduct violated the Privacy Rule.

To settle OCR’s charges that these actions violated HIPAA, OCR has agreed to pay the $800,000 resolution amount and to adopt and implement a corrective action plan requiring Parkview to revise their policies and procedures, train staff, and provide an implementation report to OCR.

The resolution agreement highlights the role that current or former physicians, employees or others can play in helping OCR to identify HIPAA violations. Health care providers and other covered entities and their business associates should take into account the likelihood that physicians on their own or other facility medical staffs, their employees and other participants in the care delivery system often may have and be motivated to report to government sensitive information about violations of HIPAA or other laws. Since HIPAA and most other laws prohibited covered entities from forbidding or retaliating against a person for objectiving to or reporting the concern and offer whistleblowers potential participation in the reporting and prosecution of violations, employees or other workforce members increasingly make the complaints bring violations to OCR and other regulators.

Whether from an internal employee complaint, a patient or competitor complaint or other source, HIPAA violations carry significant liability risks. The HITECH Act tightened certain rules applicable to the use, access or disclosure of protected health information by covered entities and their business associates. In addition, the HITECH Act added breach notification rules, extended direct responsibility for compliance with HIPAA to business associates, increased penalties for noncompliance with HIPAA and made other refinements to HIPAA’s medical privacy rules and made certain other changes. Furthermore, enforcement of HIPAA and the resulting penalties have increased since the HITECH Act took effect.

With OCR stepping up both audits and enforcement and penalties for violations higher than ever since the HITECH Act amended HIPAA, Covered Entities and business associates should act quickly to review and update their policies, practices and training to implement any adjustments needed to maintain compliance and manage other risks under these ever-evolving HIPAA standards.

When conducting these efforts, Covered Entities and business associates not only carefully watch for and react promptly to new OCR guidance and enforcement actions, but also document their commitment and ongoing compliance and risk management activities to help support their ability to show their organization maintains the necessary “culture of compliance” commitment needed to mitigate risks in the event of a breach or other HIPAA violation and take well-documented, reasonable steps to encourage their business associates to do the same. When carrying out these activities, most covered entities and business associates also will want to take steps to monitor potential responsibilities and exposures under other federal and state laws like the privacy and data security requirements that often apply to personal financial information, trade secrets or other sensitive data under applicable federal and state laws and judicial precedent.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Review & Updates Or Other Needs

If you need assistance in auditing or assessing, updating or defending your HIPAA, or other health or other employee benefit, labor and employment, compensation, privacy and data security, or other internal controls and practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at cstamer@solutionslawyer.net or at (469)767-8872.

The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on HIPAA and other privacy and data security, health plan, health care and other human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and related matters.

For more than 23 years, Ms. Stamer has counseled, represented and trained employers and other employee benefit plan sponsors, plan administrators and fiduciaries, insurers and financial services providers, third party administrators, human resources and employee benefit information technology vendors and others privacy and data security, fiduciary responsibility, plan design and administration and other compliance, risk management and operations matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on privacy and data security and other human resources, employee benefits and health care concerns. Her many highly regarded publications on privacy and data security concerns include “Privacy Invasions of Medical Care-An Emerging Perspective.” ERISA Litigation Manual. BNA, 2003-2009; “Privacy & Securities Standards-A Brief Nutshell.” BNA Tax Management and Compliance Journal. February 4, 2005; “Cybercrime and Identity Theft: Health Information Security beyond HIPAA.” ABA Health eSource. May, 2005 and many others. She also regularly conducts training on HIPAA and other privacy and data security compliance and other risk management matters for a broad range of organizations including the Association of State and Territorial Healthcare Organizations (ASTHO), the Los Angeles County Health Department, a multitude of health plans and their sponsors, health care providers, the American Bar Association, SHRM, the Society for Professional Benefits Administrators and many others. 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, 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 www.CynthiaStamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Doctor, Electronic Medical Records, Employment, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, OCR, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy, Rural Health Care | Tagged: Civil Monetary Penalties, HIPAA, Mass General, OCR, PHI, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

June 11, 2014

Health care providers, health plans and insurers, health care clearinghouses (collectively “Covered Entities”), their business associates, and others concerned about medical privacy regulations or protections should check out two new reports to Congress about breach notifications reported and other compliance data under the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Reviewing this data can help Covered Entities and their business associates identify potential areas of exposures and enforcement that can be helpful to minimize their HIPAA liability as well as to expect OCR enforcement and audit inquiries.

Required by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, the two new reports discuss various details about HIPAA compliance for calendar years 2011 and 2012. They include the following:

Report to Congress on Breach Notifications, discussing the breach notification requirements and reports OCR received as a result of these breach notification requirements; and
Report to Congress on Compliance with the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules, summarizing complaints received by OCR of alleged violations of the provisions of Subtitle D of the HITECH Act, as well as of the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules at 45 CFR Parts 160 and 164 .
Covered entities and their business associates should review the finding reported as part of their compliance practices. Others concerned about medical or other privacy or data security regulations or events also may find the information in the reports of interest.

Under HIPAA, covered entities generally are prohibited from using, accessing or disclosing protected health information about individuals except as specifically allowed by HIPAA, In addition, HIPAA also requires Covered Entities to establish safeguards to protect protected health information against improper access, use or destruction, to afford certain rights to individuals who are the subjects of protected information, to obtain certain written assurances from service providers who are business associates before allowing those service providers to use, access or disclose protected health information when carrying out covered functions for the Covered Entity, and meet other requirements.

The HITECH Act tightened certain rules applicable to the use, access or disclosure of protected health information by covered entities and their business associates. In addition, the HITECH Act added breach notification rules, extended direct responsibility for compliance with HIPAA to business associates, increased penalties for noncompliance with HIPAA and made other refinements to HIPAA’s medical privacy rules and made certain other changes.

Enforcement of HIPAA and the resulting penalties have increased since the HITECH Act took effect.

Covered Entities generally have been required to comply with most requirements the Omnibus Final Rule’s restated regulations restating OCR’s regulations implementing the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Rules to reflect HIPAA amendments enacted by the HITECH Act since March 26, 2013 and to have updated business associate agreements in place since September 23, 2013. Although these deadlines are long past, many Covered Entities and business associates have yet to complete the policy, process and training updates required to comply with the rule changes implemented in the Omnibus Final Rule.

Even if a Covered Entity or business associate completed the updates required to comply with the Omnibus Final Rule, however, recent supplemental guidance published by OCR means that most organizations now have even more work to do on HIPAA compliance. This includes the following supplemental guidance on its interpretation and enforcement of HIPAA against Covered Entities and business associates published by OCR since January 1, 2014 alone:

HIPAA Privacy Rule and Sharing Information Related to Mental Health published on
Spanish Language Model Notices of Privacy Practices published on 2/13/14
CLIA Program and HIPAA Privacy Rule; Patients’ Access to Test Reports published on 2/3/14; and
Proposed Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) published on 1/7/14.

Beyond this 2014 guidance, Covered Entities and their business associates also should look at enforcement actions and data as well as other guidance OCR issued during 2013 after publishing the Omnibus Final Rule such as:

For Help With Investigations, Policy Review & Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press

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

CMS To Host Provider Webinar To Celebrate National Health IT Week

September 13, 2013

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

Details of Webinar

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

Administrative Simplification
eRx Incentive Program
ICD-10
Quality Measurement

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

Registration Information

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

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

September 9, 2013

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

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

Health Care
Research and Innovation
Prevention and Wellness

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

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

August 21, 2013

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

About the Program

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

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

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

Registration & Meeting Details

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

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

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

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

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

About the NTHCPA

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

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

Thanks To Solutions Law Press, Inc. ™

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

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

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

HHS Continues Preparations For Health Care Marketplace By Awarding $32M Of Grants To Up CHIP & Medicaid Enrollment

July 2, 2013

As part of its continuing efforts to promote enrollment in the Health Insurance Marketplace slated to take effect January 1, 2014, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) today (July 2, 2013) announced the award of nearly $32 million in grants for efforts to identify and enroll children eligible for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The Connecting Kids to Coverage Outreach and Enrollment Grants were awarded to 41 state agencies, community health centers, school-based organizations and non-profit groups in 22 states; two grantees are multistate organizations. The announcement follows the recent rollout of online tools to aid consumers enroll in the new Health Care Marketplace scheduled to launch January 1, 2014 as part of the continuing implementation of reforms enacted as part of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act).

Announced Grants Target Increased CHIP & Medicaid Enrollment

In amounts ranging from $190,000 to $1 million out of the $140 million included in the Affordable Care Act and the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA) of 2009 for enrollment and renewal outreach, HHS Reports the grants awarded to the grantees listed here focus on 5 areas:

Engaging schools in outreach, enrollment and retention activities (9 awards);
Reducing health coverage disparities by reaching out to subgroups of children that are less likely to have health coverage (8 awards);
Streamlining enrollment for individuals participating in other public benefit programs such as nutritional or other assistance programs (3 awards);
Improving application assistance resources to provide high quality, reliable Medicaid and CHIP enrollment and renewal services in local communities (13 awards); and
Training communities to help families understand the new application and enrollment system and to deliver effective assistance to families with children eligible for Medicaid or CHIP (8 awards).

According to HHS, the grants will build on the Secretary’s Connecting Kids to Coverage Challenge to find and enroll all eligible children and support outreach strategies that have been shown to be successful.

According to HHS, Connecting Kids to Coverage Outreach and Enrollment Grant Awards (Cycle III) Efforts to streamline Medicaid and CHIP enrollment and renewal practices, combined with robust outreach activities, have helped reduce the number of uninsured children. Since 2008, HHS claims 1.7 million children have gained coverage and the rate of uninsured children has dropped to 6.6 percent in 2012

“Today’s grants will ensure that more children across the nation have access to the quality health care they need,” said Secretary Sebelius. “We are drawing from successful children’s health coverage outreach and enrollment efforts to help promote enrollment this fall in Medicaid and the new Health Insurance Marketplace.”

Continuing Preparations For New Health Care Marketplace

The grant awards are part of a much broader effort by HHS to prepare Americans to enroll in the newly reformed Health Insurance Marketplace that the Obama Administration is working to implement as part of the sweeping reforms enacted by the Affordable Care Act.

Enrollment is the Health Insurance Exchanges also to be included in the new federal health care marketplace is scheduled to begin October 1, 2013. In anticipation of this deadline, HHS recently also announced its rollout of new consumer health care education and decision-making tools on its newly designed www.healthcare.gov website.

In announcing its launch of its Health Insurance Marketplace educational tools here on June 24, 2013, the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) repeated recent claims that HHS and the states are on target to begin enrollment on October 1, 2013 in the federal and state health care exchanges now retitled “Health Insurance Marketplace” by the Administration, to meet other key milestones and to the beginning coverage under the newly created Health Insurance Marketplaces beginning January 1, 2014.

As part of these preparations, HHS kicked off an aggressive Health Insurance Marketplace education effort by announcing the deploying of with newly designed “consumer-focused” HealthCare.gov website and the 24-hours-a-day consumer call center that HHS claims provide all the necessary tools to prepare Americans for open enrollment and ultimately sign up for private health insurance.

While HHS says its tools and other preparations will get the Health Care Marketplaces and Americans ready for the conversion of the U.S. health care system slated to begin January 1, 2014, others are less confident. For instance, GAO officials recently found that major work that federal and state officials must complete to timely begin enrollment by October 1 remains unfinished, making it unclear if they will meet the impending October 1, 2013 enrollment kickoff deadline. See GAO Report and GAO Report.

Businesses concerned about impending “pay-or-play” and other mandates that require many employers that fail to provide minimum essential coverage also have been critical about delayed guidance on these and other Affordable Care Act mandates, which employers claim have left them confused and with inadequate time and guidance to prepare.

Despite these concerns, HHS is marching ahead on its efforts to implement the law by launching these and other enrollment and educational outreach.

For Representation, Training & Other Resources

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

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

The scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits agency meeting with OCR, Ms. Stamer also regularly advises and represents clients in dealings with, and monitoring and responding to developments of HHS, IRS, DOL, Departments of Health & Insurance and other agencies, Congress and other legislators, and advises clients, publishes and speaks extensively on health care reform, 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 health care reform and a broad range of other 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 ask about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

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

If you need help investigating or responding to a known or suspected compliance, litigation or enforcement or other risk management concern, assistance with reviewing, updating, administering or defending a current or proposed employment, employee benefit, compensation or other management practice, wish to ask 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.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Electronic Health Records, Employee Benefits, Employment, Health Care, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, OCR, Physician | Tagged: ACA, Affordable Care Act, Health Care Marketplace, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance Exchange, Health Insurance MArketplace | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Hospital Pay $275K To Settle HIPAA Charges After Sharing PHI With Press, Workforce In Response To Fraud Reports

June 14, 2013

Health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates should confirm their existing policies, practices and training for communicating with the media and others comply with the Privacy Rule requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule in light of a Resolution Agreement with Shasta Regional Medical Center (SRMC) announced by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights today (June 14, 2013).

Under the Resolution Agreement, SRMC agrees to pay $275,000 and implement a comprehensive corrective action plan (CAP) to settle an investigation that resulted when SRMC used and disclosed protected health information (PHI) of a patient to members of the media and its workforce while trying to do damage control against fraud or other allegations of misconduct involving individual patient information or circumstances. The Resolution Agreement shows how efforts to respond to press or media reports, patient or other complaints, physician or employee disputes, high profile accidents, or other events that may involve communications not typically run by privacy officers can create big exposures.

Talking Out Of Turn To Media & Others Violated HIPAA

OCR investigated SRMC after a January 4, 2012 Los Angeles Times article reported two SRMC senior leaders had met with media to discuss medical services provided to a patient. OCR’s investigation indicated that SRMC failed to safeguard the patient’s protected health information (PHI) from impermissible disclosure by intentionally disclosing PHI to multiple media outlets on at least three separate occasions, without a valid written authorization. OCR’s review also revealed senior management at SRMC impermissibly shared details about the patient’s medical condition, diagnosis and treatment in an email to the entire workforce. Further, SRMC failed to sanction its workforce members for impermissibly disclosing the patient’s records pursuant to its internal sanctions policy.

Among other things, the specific misconduct uncovered by HHS’s investigation indicated that from December 13 – 20, 2011, SRMC failed to safeguard the patient’s PHI from any impermissible intentional or unintentional disclosure on multiple occasions in connection with its response to media coverage arising from a Medicare fraud story including:

On December 13, 2011, for instance, OCR reports SRMC’s parent company sent a letter to California Watch, responding to a story about Medicare fraud. The letter described the patient’s medical treatment and provided specifics about her lab results even though SRMC did not have a written authorization from the patient to disclose this information to this news outlet.
On December 16, 2011, two of SRMC’s senior leaders also met with The Record Searchlight’s editor to discuss the patient’s medical record in detail even though SRMC did not have a written authorization from the patient to disclose this information to this newspaper.
On December 20, 2011, SRMC sent a letter to The Los Angeles Times, which contained detailed information about the treatment the patient received when, again, SRMC did not have a written authorization from the patient to disclose this information to this newspaper.

In addition, OCR found SRMC impermissibly used the affected party’s PHI when on December 20, 2011, SRMC sent an email to its entire workforce and medical staff, approximately 785-900 individuals, describing, in detail, the patient’s medical condition, diagnosis and treatment. SRMC did not have a written authorization from the patient to share this information with SRMC’s entire workforce and medical staff.

SRMC Must Correct & Pay $$275K Penalty

Under the Resolution Agreement, SRMC pays a $275,000 monetary settlement and agrees to comply with a CAP for the next year.

The CAP requires SRMC to update its policies and procedures on safeguarding PHI from impermissible uses and disclosures and to train its workforce members. The CAP also requires fifteen other hospitals or medical centers under the same ownership or operational control as SRMC to attest to their understanding of permissible uses and disclosures of PHI, including disclosures to the media.

The Resolution Agreement specifically requires that Shasta Regional Medical Center, among other things:

To update policies to include specific policies about sharing PHI with the media, members of the workforce not involved in an individual patient’s care and others to comply with HIPAA;.
To provide updated policies to OCR for approval;
To provide training documented with certification of all workforce members before allowing them to access PHI;

SRMC is one of several Prime Healthcare Services facilities under common ownership and control. The Resolution Agreement also requires corrective action at these commonly owned facilities including California-based Alvarado Hospital Medical Center in San Diego, Centinela Hospital Medical Center in Inglewood, Chino Valley Medical Center in Chino, Desert Valley Hospital in Victorville, Garden Grove Hospital Medical Center in Garden Grove, La Palma Intercommunity Hospital in La Palma, Paradise Valley Hospital in National City, San Dimas Community Hospital in San Dimas, Shasta Regional Medical Center in Redding, and West Anaheim Medical Center in Anaheim; Saint Mary’s Regional Medical Center in Reno, Nevada; Pennsylvania based Lower Bucks Hospital in Bristol and Roxborough Memorial Hospital in Philadelphia;and Texas-based Dallas Medical Center in Dallas, Harlingen Medical Center in Harlingen, Pampa Regional Medical Center in Pampa. Among other things, the Resolution Agreement requires that for each of these related facilities:

The CEO and Privacy Officer of each facility must give OCR a signed affidavit stating that they understand that the Privacy Rule protects an individual’s PHI is protected by Privacy Rule even if such information is already in the public domain or even though it has been disclosed by the individual; and that disclosures of PHI in response to media inquiries are only permissible pursuant to a signed HIPAA authorization; and
Ensure all members of their respective workforce are informed of this policy.

The Resolution Agreement highlights the difficulty that health care providers and other covered entities often face in properly recognizing and handling PHI in the case of fraud or other disputes. While health care providers have an understandable desire to defend themselves in the media and elsewhere in response to charges of misconduct, today’s settlement shows that improperly sharing PHI of each patient in the process will make matters much worse. It’s important to keep in mind that just omitting to mention the name or other common identifying information may not overcome this concern because information about a patient can be considered individually identifiable and to enjoy protection under HIPAA where the facts and circumstances would allow another person to know or determine who the individual is, even if the specific name, address or more common identifying information is not shared.

Furthermore, the settlement also makes clear that merely because the patient or some other party has shared the same information with the media or others does not excuse the health care provider or other covered entity or business associate from the obligation to keep confidential the PHI unless it gets proper consent or otherwise can show that an exception to HIPAA applies.

While this means that health care providers or other covered entities and business associates may find themselves in the uncomfortable situation of facing unsavory reports and rumors without the ability to respond, the significant civil and even criminal penalties that can arise from violation of HIPAA make it critical that covered entities exercise discipline in responding to avoid sharing PHI improperly.

Enforcement Actions Highlight Growing HIPAA Exposures For Covered Entities

The SRMC Resolution Agreement again shows the growing risk of enforcement that health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates face as OCR continues its audits and enforcement, new Omnibus HIPAA Regulations implementing the HITECH Act amendments to HIPAA and state and federal liability grows.. See e.g., $1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report; HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website.

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

As part of this process, covered entities should ensure they look outside the four corners of their Privacy Policies to ensure that appropriate training and clarification is provided to address media, practice transition, workforce communication and other policies and practices that may be covered by pre-existing or other policies of other departments or operational elements not typically under the direct oversight and management of the Privacy Officer such as media relations. Media relations, physician and patients affairs, outside legal counsel, media relations, marketing and other internal and external departments and consultants dealing with the media, the public or other inquiries or disputes should carefully include and coordinate with the privacy officer both to ensure appropriate policies and procedures are followed and proper documentation created and retained to show authorization, account, or meet other requirements.

For more information about the PCS Resolution Agreement and HIPAA compliance and risk management tips, see here.

For Representation, Training & Other Resources

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

Scheduled to serve as the scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits agency meeting with OCR, Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance 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 HIPAA and other experience 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.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Electronic Health Records, Employee Benefits, Employment, Health Care, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, OCR, Physician | Tagged: covered entity, Health Care, Health Plan, HIPAA, Hospital, Media, OCR, PHI, Physician, Press, Privacy, Protected Health Information | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Hospital’s Disability Discrimination Settlement 4th In 5 Weeks For Justice Department

March 13, 2013

Health Care Providers Must Strengthen Disability Compliance & Risk Management

Health care providers beware! The Obama Administration is targeting health care providers that violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehab Act) and other federal disability discrimination laws.

On March 13, 2013, the Justice Department announced that Glenbeigh Hospital (Glenbeigh) of Rock Creek, Ohio is the fourth health care provider in five weeks to agree to a settlement with the Justice Department resolving disability discrimination charges brought under its Barrier Free Health Care Initiative (Initiative). The Glenbeigh settlement is one of a growing list of disability discrimination settlements and judgements against health care providers brought by the Justice Department, the Department of Health & Human Resources Office of Civil Rights and other federal agencies.

Barrier Free Health Care Initiative Targets Health Care Providers For Disability Discrimination

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.

Glenbeigh ADA Disability Discrimination Settlement

According to the Justice Department, Glenbeigh has agreed to a settlement resolving charges it violated the ADA by denying admission to someone because of HIV. The fourth ADA disability discrimination settlement addressing HIV discrimination by a medical provider reached by the Justice Department in six weeks, the settlement requires Glenbeigh to pay $32,500 to the complainant, $5,000 in civil penalties, train its staff on the ADA and develop and implement an anti-discrimination policy.

The settlement resolves Justice Department charges that engaged in prohibited disability discrimination in violation of the ADA by unlawfully refusing to admit someone with HIV into its alcohol treatment program because of the side effects of his HIV medication. Glenbeigh’s alcohol treatment program consists of helping patients through the physical aspects of recovery, as well as providing counseling and incorporating spiritual healing. The Justice Department determined Glenbeigh cannot show that treating the complainant would have posed a direct threat to the health or safety of others.

In announcing the Glenbeigh settlement, the Justice Department warned other providers against illegal disability discrimination against individuals with HIV or other disabilities.

“Ensuring access to medical care for people with HIV requires that those in the medical field make medical decisions that are not based on fears or stereotypes,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “The ADA does not tolerate HIV discrimination and neither will the Justice Department.”

Glenbeigh Settlement Part of Larger Disability Enforcement Trend

Settlements like Glenbeigh’s are growing increasingly common as the Initiative picks up steam. As part of a broader emphasis on the enforcement of disability and other federal discrimination laws by the Obama Administration, Federal agencies are making investigation and prosecution of suspected disability discrimination by health industry and other organizations a priority.

In the past five weeks, the Justice Department announced similar agreements with Woodlawn Family Dentistry, the Castlewood Treatment Center, and the Fayetteville Pain Center to address HIV discrimination. These new settlements add to a growing list of Justice Department disability discrimination enforcement actions against health care providers. Along side a growing list of disability discrimination settlements and prosections, the Justice Department has a website dedicated to disabilities law enforcement, which includes links to settlements, briefs, findings letters, and other materials.

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.

Providers Should Act To Manage Patient-Related Disability Discrimination Risks

Prosecutions and settlements like the Glenbeigh settlements 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 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (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.

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Electronic Health Records, Employee Benefits, Employment, Health Care, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, OCR, Physician | Tagged: Health Care, HIPAA, OCR, Physician, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Genesis Healthcare Disability HHS OCR Discrimination Settlement Reminder To Use Interpreters, Other Needed Accommodations For Disabled

March 5, 2013

Health care providers dealing with patients with hearing, language, cognitive, or other disabilities are reminded to use care to provide interpreters or other accommodations when necessary to care for disabled or other language limited patients by a settlement announced with Genesis HealthCare (Genesis).

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced today that Genesis has reached an agreement to settle OCR charges that it violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Act) by failing to provide an interpreter for a language impaired patient. The latest in a growing list of enforcement actions by OCR against health care providers for failing to provide interpreters or other accommodations for disabled, English-as-a-second-language, or other language impaired patients, it reminds health care providers of the importance of providing appropriate interpreter or other accommodations needed to enable patients to properly understand and participate in their care. The announcement comes as HHS is releasing new resources reminding health care providers and others of the need to provide appropriate language access resources to these and other patients and their caregivers with language challenges.

Genesis Settlement

As interpreted by OCR, the Act requires that health care and other facilities covered by the Act take appropriate steps to ensure effective communications with patients when delivering health care or other services.

The settlement follows an OCR investigation of a complaint that Genesis, one of the largest providers of senior care violated the Act by failing to provide a qualified interpreter to a resident at its skilled nursing facility in its Randallstown, Maryland. Genesis operates more than 400 skilled nursing centers and assisted/senior living communities across 29 states.

According to OCR, an OCR investigation conducted under the Act found Genesis center staff at the facility harmed the health care and overall health status of the patient by not providing 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. OCR charged the Genesis staff improperly relied on written notes and gestures to communicate with the resident—even while conducting a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation of him. OCR concluded that a qualified sign language interpreter was necessary for the patient and staff to be able to communicate effectively with each other regarding treatment.

Under the settlement terms, all 400 Genesis skilled nursing facilities must comply with the terms and conditions of the settlement. The settlement also requires Genesis to 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 get 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 pay monetary penalties for noncompliance with any terms of the agreement.

In announcing the settlement, OCR Director emphasized OCR’s commitment to enforcing the Act’s nondiscrimination provisions. “This patient’s care was unnecessarily and significantly compromised by the stark absence of interpreter services,” said Rodriguez. “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 settlement follows two enforcement actions by OCR in early February to ensure deaf and hard of hearing individuals living in New York and Washington, D.C., have equal access to programs and services provided by local government agencies. Like the settlement announced today, both of those actions arose from complaints that individuals were denied interpreters. In those cases, the needed interpreters were sign language interpreters in Cattaraugus County Department of Aging (CCDOA) in New York and the District of Columbia Children and Family Services Agency (DCCFSA). OCR conducted investigations under the Actand Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which require that covered entities ensure effective communication for persons with disabilities. Those actions resulted in the CCDOA voluntary resolution agreement, and the DCCFSA settlement agreement.

HHS Shares Language Access Resources

HHS views the availability of appropriate langauge accommodations as key to providing quality of care. The effort includes persons facing not only disabilities impacting communications, but others with language barriers. In support of its efforts to promote the availability and use of appropriate langauge accommodations, HSS recently shared its 2013 Language Access Plan (HHS LAP) for ensuring access to the Department’s programs and activities to people with limited English proficiency (LEP). The LEP reflects HHS’ awareness that America’s population reflects diverse communications needs. Nearly 20 percent of the population (55 million people) speaks a language other than English at home, 63 percent of hospitals treat LEP patients daily or weekly and more than 15 languages are frequently encountered by at least 20 percent of hospitals.

In accordance with Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, the HHS LAP establishes the Department’s policy and strategy for serving persons with LEP and its commitment to the language access principals which state that people with LEP should have meaningful access to federally funded programs, activities, services and benefits. The plan available here urther serves as a blueprint for HHS Divisions to develop their own agency-specific language access plans. The HHS LAP is organized into ten cross-cutting elements with specific actions steps for HHS agencies to include in their respective agency-specific plans. The ten elements include:

ELEMENT 1: Assessment: Needs and Capacity
ELEMENT 2: Oral Language Assistance Services
ELEMENT 3: Written Translations
ELEMENT 4: Policies and Procedures
ELEMENT 5: Notification of the Availability of Language Assistance at no Cost
ELEMENT 6: Staff Training
ELEMENT 7: Assessment: Access and Quality
ELEMENT 8: Stakeholder Consultation (New Element)
ELEMENT 9: Digital Information (New Element)
ELEMENT 10: Grant Assurance and Compliance (New Element)

Hospitals and other health care providers should use these elements as guidelines for meeting the needs for language limited populations and patients, as well as to help structure the elements for assessment and accommodation of persons with disabilities impacting the abiity to communicate.

Enforcement Exposures Rising

The settlement and Director Rodriguez’s statements should alert health care providers and other public and private organizations of the need to strengthen their disability discrimination compliance and 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.

As part of a broader emphasis on the enforcement of disability and other federal discrimination laws by the Obama Administration, Federal agencies are making investigation and prosecution of suspected disability discrimination by health industry and other 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 ADA well as various other federal nondiscrimination and civil rights laws.

Most health care and other U.S. businesses fully appreciate the growing disability discrimination exposures in employment but often are less aware of or ready to manage their responsibilities under the ADA public accommodation rules or other laws.

Employment Discrimination Under ADA

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 over broad 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 end 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. 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).

ADA Public Accommodation & Other Federal Discrimination

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 almost 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 ready 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.

Enforcement of Discrimination & Other Civil Rights Laws Obama Administration Priority Putting Public & Private Providers At Risk

A growing list of ADA and other disability discrimination law enforcement actions against private and public health care and housing providers, state and local governments and other businesses under the Obama Administration make it increasingly critical that health care organizations and other businesses manage disability discrimination risk both in their employment practices and their other business operations.

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.

When considering these potential exposures, many private health care organizations mistakenly 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 in the past have been the target of OCR discrimination charges. As demonstrated by the ADA exposures are high for both public and private providers, however. OCR , the Department of Justice and other federal and state agencies can and do investigate and prosecute a lot of public and private physicians, hospitals, insurers and other private health care and other federal program participants.

Consequently, disability discrimination management requires more than employment discrimination management. 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.

Invest in Prevention To Minimize Liability Risks

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Electronic Health Records, Employee Benefits, Employment, Health Care, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, OCR, Physician | Tagged: Disability, Discrimination, Health Care, Interpreter, OCR, Rehabilitation Act | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR, FTC Enforcement & Guidance Signals Need To Tighten Mobile Device & Application Security

February 23, 2013

Thinking about or using mobile devices and applications in your heath care, health plan, or related operations or struggling to meet the demands of employees, patients, plan members or others to allow use of these tools? Be sure that you’ve taken appropriate steps to design, implement and manage legal responsibilities and risks associated with the development and use of these tools.

While the popularity, accessibility and cost-effectiveness of mobile devices and applications provides a strong incentive for health plans, health care providers, their business associates, workforce members and customers to use mobile devices and applications, the use of these technologies and applications to collect, access, or use personal health care, financial, or other sensitive information presents special challenges and risks. Unfortunately, as the use of these tools proliferates, federal officials are increasingly concerned that the data security protections afforded by many of the devices and applications in use on these highly popular smart phone, tablet and other mobile devices and applications is highly lacking. See FTC Settlement With Mobile Device & App Developer Shows Developers & Businesses Need To Manage Mobile App & Data Security.

As federal regulators and law enforcement responds to growing concerns about cyber security and other risks, heath care, health plan and other businesses, their employees, customers, and other business partners jumping on the mobile device and application bandwagon, health, application bandwagon, and the device and application developers developing and offering these tools must take appropriate steps to manage the personal health, financial, and other sensitive information and data that these tools use, create, access or disclose.

The Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) generally requires that health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their businesses associates safeguard personal health care information or “PHI” and restrict its use, access and disclosure in accordance with the extensive and highly detailed requirements of the Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Regulations of the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR).

OCR’s collection of several multi-million dollar settlements as well as its statements in its recent restated HIPAA regulations and other OCR guidance make clear that OCR views HIPAA as imposing significant responsibilities upon covered entities and their business associates to safeguard and restrict access to PHI on mobile devices and applications. OCR’s Long-Anticipated Omnibus HIPAA Privacy, Security, Breach Notification & Enforcement Rule Tightens Privacy Requirements, Require Action; Breaches resulting from the loss or theft of unencrypted ePHI on mobile or other computer devices or systems has been a common basis of investigation and sanctions since that time, particularly since the Breach Notification rules took effect. OCR Pops Idaho Hospice In 1st HIPAA Breach Settlement Affecting < 500 Patients; Providence To Pay $100000 & Implement Other Safeguards; OCR Hits Alaska Medicaid For $1.7M+ For HIPAA Security Breach; OCR Audit Program Kickoff Further Heats HIPAA Privacy Risks; $1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report; HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website. These actions and statements of OCR provide a clear warning to HIPAA-covered entities and their business associates to expect significant consequences for failing to properly encrypt and safeguard ePHI used, accessed or disclosed on mobile devices and applications.

Of course, HIPAA shouldn’t be the only standard considered when health care providers, health plans or their business partners and vendors design and use mobile applications. In addition to HIPAA’s requirements on PHI, health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, and their business partners also generally can expect that mobile devices and applications used in connection with their operations by patients, customers, employees or others also may use access, collect or disclose credit card, financial and a broad range of other sensitive information required to be protected under federal laws like the Fair & Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) or other Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Rules, state data security, data breach, identity theft or other privacy rules or both. Depending on the nature of the data and the circumstances of the unanticipated use or disclosure, invasion of privacy or other common or statutory laws also may come into play.

With the use of these applications by consumers and business proliferates, Congress, OCR, the FTC, state regulators and others are upping the responsibilities and the liability of businesses that fail to appropriately consider and implement security in their mobile devices and applications. Following on OCR’s restatement of its HIPAA regulations, the Obama Administration’s announcement of new cyber security initiatives, and a plethora of other federal and state regulatory and enforcement actions against businesses for data security missteps, the FTC recently launched a campaign to ensure that companies secure the software and devices mobile device and application providers provide consumers.

Earlier this month, the FTC introduced Mobile App Developers: Start with Security, a new business guide that encourages app developers to aim for reasonable data security.

On June 4, 2013, the FTC also plans to host a public forum on malware and other mobile security threats in order to examine the security of existing and developing mobile technologies and the roles that various members of the mobile ecosystem can play in protecting consumers.

Along side this educational outreach, the FTC also is moving to punish businesses that fail to act responsibly to protect sensitive data. This trend is illustrated by the FTC’s announcement this week of its first settlement with a mobile device manufacturer.

FTC Charges Against HTC America

This week, the FTC announced that mobile device giant HTC American, Inc. will to settle FTC charges that the company failed to take reasonable steps to secure the software it developed for its smart phones and tablet computers and introduced security flaws that placed sensitive information about millions of consumers at risk.

A leading mobile device manufacturer in the United States, HTC America develops and manufactures mobile devices based on the Android, Windows Mobile, and Windows Phone operating systems. HTC America has customized the software on these devices in order to differentiate itself from competitors and to comply with the requirements of mobile network operators.

In its first-ever complaint against a mobile device or application developer, the FTC charged HTC America failed to incorporate and administer appropriate safeguards for personal financial and other sensitive data accessed and used in these applications when designing or customizing the software on its mobile devices. Among other things, the complaint alleged that HTC America failed to provide its engineering staff with adequate security training, failed to review or test the software on its mobile devices for potential security vulnerabilities, failed to follow well-known and commonly accepted secure coding practices, and failed to establish a process for receiving and addressing vulnerability reports from third parties.

To illustrate the consequences of these alleged failures, the FTC’s complaint details several vulnerabilities found on HTC America’s devices, including the insecure implementation of two logging applications – Carrier IQ and HTC Loggers – as well as programming flaws that would allow third-party applications to bypass Android’s permission-based security model.

Due to these vulnerabilities, the FTC charged, millions of HTC devices compromised sensitive device functionality, potentially permitting malicious applications to send text messages, record audio, and even install additional malware onto a consumer’s device, all without the user’s knowledge or consent. The FTC alleged that malware placed on consumers’ devices without their permission could be used to record and transmit information entered into or stored on the device, including, for example, financial account numbers and related access codes or medical information such as text messages received from healthcare providers and calendar entries about doctor’s appointments. In addition, malicious applications could exploit the vulnerabilities on HTC devices to gain unauthorized access to a variety of other sensitive information, such as the user’s geolocation information and the contents of the user’s text messages.

Moreover, the FTC complaint alleged that the user manuals for HTC Android-based devices contained deceptive representations, and that the user interface for the company’s Tell HTC application was also deceptive. In both cases, the security vulnerabilities in HTC Android-based devices undermined consent mechanisms that would have otherwise prevented unauthorized access or transmission of sensitive information.

HTC America Settlement

The settlement not only requires the establishment of a comprehensive security program, but also prohibits HTC America from making any false or misleading statements about the security and privacy of consumers’ data on HTC devices. Under the settlement agreement, HTC American must:

Fix vulnerabilities found in millions of HTC devices;
Establish a comprehensive security program designed to address security risks during the development of HTC devices; and
Undergo independent security assessments every other year for the next 20 years.

HTC America and its network operator partners are also in the process of deploying the security patches required by the settlement to consumers’ devices. Many consumers have already received the required security updates. The FTC is encouraging consumers using HTC America applications to apply the updates as soon as possible.

The FTC Commission vote to accept the consent agreement package containing the proposed consent order for public comment was 3-0-2, with Chairman Jon Leibowitz not participating and Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen recused. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register shortly.

In accordance with FTC procedures, the settlement agreement will be subject to public comment through March 22, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Interested parties can submit comments electronically or in paper form using instructions in the “Invitation To Comment” part of the “Supplementary Information” section. Comments in paper form should be mailed or delivered to: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form near the end of the public comment period be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions.

Act To Manage Mobile Application Device & Security

Given the expanding awareness, expectations and enforcement of OCR, FTC and others, health care, health plan and other industry participants deciding whether and when to use, or allow others to use mobile devices or applications to access data or carry out other activities and the mobile device or other technology developers and providers offering products or services to these organizations must get serious about security.

These and other related activities send a clear message that health care, health insurance mobile device and application users and developers must incorporate and administer appropriate processes and safeguards to protect PHI, personal financial and other sensitive data. In response to these developments, industry mobile device and application developers and the health care, health insurance and other businesses must consider carefully before deploying or allowing others to deploy or use these tools in relation to data within their operations or systems. Before and when using or permitting customers, business partners, employees or others to use tools, these organizations must ensure the adequacy of the design and security safeguards for their devices, software and applications, as well as their disclaimers and associated consumer disclosures and consents. Because of the special legal and operational expectations for these organizations, health care, health insurance and other industry provides must resist pressure to allow the use of these tools unless and until they can verify that these legal and operational requisites are fulfilled.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you found this article of interest, you also may be interested in other recent Solutions Law Press, Inc. articles by Ms. Stamer including:

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Electronic Health Records, Employee Benefits, Employment, Health Care, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, OCR, Physician | Tagged: EHRhealth-care, HIPAA, OCR, Physician, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Unfair Labor Practice Settlements Reminds Hospitals To Handle Union Activities Carefully

February 7, 2013

The National Labor Relations Board’s announcement of its approval of settlement agreements between two UPMC hospitals and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) reminds hospital and other health industry employers to exercise care when dealing with union organizing and other activities protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and other federal labor laws.

The settlements relate to unfair labor practices charges the SEIU filed with the NLRB in response to actions taken by the hospital during the early stages of an organizing campaign before the union even had filed a petition for an election. Among other things, the SEIU complained that the hospitals violated the NLRB by terminating or otherwise punishing workers for supporting the union. The union also charged that the hospitals overly broad solcial medial, solicitation and code of conduct rules improperly interfered with the organizing rights of workers protected by the NLRA.

In the settlement agreements, UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside agreed to offer reinstatement and backpay to two employees who were discharged after supporting the union, and to reimburse two other employees who lost wages due to a suspension and other actions. The employer also agreed to rescind overly-broad policies related to social media, solicitation rules and a code of conduct at all UPMC facilities, to post Notices to Employees in multiple break rooms in four Pittsburgh hospitals, and to train supervisors to avoid future unlawful behavior.One remaining charge related to the use of company e-mail by employees to communicate about the union was not resolved and will proceed to trial before an Administrative Law Judge. The trial date is tentatively set for February 20.

Under the Obama Administration, the NLRB in recent years has shown aggressive support for unions and their organizing and collective bargaining activities. As part of these activities and in response to the emergence of social media and other electronic communications, the NLRA increasingly has challenged the use of broad policies restricting the use of Facebook or other social media, e-mail or other similar communications by workers when it is perceived these policies punish or chill worker’s ability to communicate or organized concerning terms and conditions of employment. As these and other commonly challenged practices are widely used within the health care industry, health industry employers are urged to take proper steps to review their policies and their administration to minimize exposure to these and other unfair labor practice challenges.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance managing your workforce, 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 and Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer has more than 25 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Her experience includes advising hospitals, nursing home, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to Board of Medicine, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns.

If you found this article of interest, you also may be interested in other recent Solutions Law Press, Inc. articles by Ms. Stamer including:

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Electronic Health Records, Employee Benefits, Employment, Health Care, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, OCR, Physician | Tagged: Health Care, Hospital, Labor, NLRA, NLRB, unfair labor practice | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New Children’s Electronic Health Record Format Shared

February 7, 2013

The Department of Health and Human Service (HHS) hopes a new electronic health record (EHR) format for documenting medical care for children developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)with support from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will help developers create better EHRs for use by health care providers caring for children.

According to AHRQ, the children’s EHR format establishes a” blueprint” for EHRs to better meet the needs of health care providers and pediatric patients by combining what CMS and AHRQ consider the “best-practices in clinical care, information technology, and insights from experts in children’s health.” Developed to address commonly occuring problems in functionality, data elements and other challenges arising when traditional EHRs have been used to document pediatric care, AHRQ hopes the new format will guides EHR developers in understanding the requirements for functionality, data standards, usability and interoperability of an EHR system to more optimally support the provision of health care to children – especially those enrolled in Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) as well as provide guidance for EHR system purchasers and policy makers in assessing functionality of EHRs. For more information or to access the format, see here.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you found this article of interest, you also may be interested in other recent Solutions Law Press, Inc. articles by Ms. Stamer including:

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Electronic Health Records, Employee Benefits, Employment, Health Care, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, OCR, Physician | Tagged: EHRhealth-care, HIPAA, OCR, Physician, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Justice Department Disability Discrimination With Pain Clinic Shows Provider ADA Exposures

January 31, 2013

Hospitals, health care clinics, physicians and other health care providers should heed the settlement announced by the Justice Department announced today (January 31, 2013) with the Fayetteville Pain Center as a reminder of the importance of ensuring that their organizations can prove their care and other operations fulfill the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) nondiscrimination and accommodation requirements.

The public accommodation provisions of the ADA 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.

The Fayetteville Pain Center settlement arose as part of the Justice Department’s ADA enforcement effort as part of its Barrier-Free Health Care Initiative. The settlement resolves allegations that the Fayetteville Pain Center violated the ADA by refusing to treat a woman because she has HIV.

The complainant, a woman with HIV who was suffering from back pain as a result of a car accident, visited the Fayetteville Pain Center in Fayetteville, North Carolina seeking treatment. According to the complaint, the woman was unable to get medical treatment because the doctor at the Fayetteville Pain Center refused to treat a person with HIV.

Under the settlement, the Fayetteville Pain Center must pay $10,000 to the complainant and $5,000 to the United States in civil penalties, train its staff on the ADA, and develop and implement an anti-discrimination policy. To read more about the Settlement, see here.

Enforcement Exposures Rising

The Justice Department’s Fayetteville Pain Center prosecution and settlement should remind health care providers and other public and private organizations of the need to strengthen their disability discrimination compliance and 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.

Employment Discrimination Under ADA

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 end 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.

ADA Public Accommodation & Other Federal Discrimination

Enforcement of Discrimination & Other Civil Rights Laws Obama Administration Priority Putting Public & Private Providers At Risk

When considering these potential exposures, many private health care organizations mistakenly 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 in the past have been the target of OCR discrimination charges. As demonstrated by the ADA exposures are high for both public and private providers, however. OCR , the Department of Justice and other federal and state agencies can and do investigate and prosecute a wide variety of public and private physicians, hospitals, insurers and other private health care and other federal program participants.

Invest in Prevention To Minimize Liability Risks

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Electronic Health Records, Employee Benefits, Employment, Health Care, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, OCR, Physician | Tagged: Health Care, HIPAA, OCR, Physician, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR’s Long-Anticipated Omnibus HIPAA Privacy, Security, Breach Notification & Enforcement Rule Tightens Privacy Requirements, Require Action

January 17, 2013

Health care providers and their business associates have work to do. Health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates will need to review and update their policies and practices for handling and disclosing personally identifiable health care information (“PHI”) in response to the omnibus restatement of the Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”) Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) of its of its regulations (the “2013 Regulations”) implementing the Privacy and Security Rules under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The Rulemaking announced January 17, 2013 may be viewed here.

Since 2003, HIPAA generally has required that health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (“Covered Entities”) restrict and safeguard individually identifiable health care information (“PHI”) of individuals and afford other protections to individuals that are the subject of that information. The 2013 Regulations published today complete the implementation of changes to HIPAA that Congress enacted when it passed the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act in 2009 as well as make other changes to the prior regulations that OCR found desirable based on its experience administering and enforcing the law over the past decade.

Since passage of the HITECH Act, OCR officials have warned Covered Entities to expect an omnibus restatement of its original regulations. While OCR had issued certain regulations implementing some of the HITECH Act changes, it waited to publish certain regulations necessary to implement other HITECH Act changes until it could complete a more comprehensive restatement of its previously published HIPAA regulations to reflect both the HITECH Act amendments and other refinements to its HIPAA Rules. The 2013 Regulations published today fulfill that promise by restating OCR’s HIPAA Regulations to reflect the HITECH Act Amendments and other changes and clarifications to OCR’s interpretation and enforcement of HIPAA.

Among other things, the 2013 Regulations:

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

Enforcement Risks Signal Neeed To Review & Update Policies & Practices Promptly

The restated rules in the 2013 Regulations make it imperative that Covered Entities review the revised rules carefully and updated their policies, practices, business associate agreements, training and documentation to comply with the updated requirements and other enforcement and liability risks. OCR even prior to the regulations has aggressively investigated and enforced the HIPAA requirements.

The commitment of OCR to enforcement most recently was demonstrated by its recent settlement with Hospice of North Idaho (HONI). On January 2, 2013, OCR announced HONI will pay OCR $50,000 to settle potential HIPAA violations that occurred in connection with the theft of an unencrypted laptop computer containing ePHI. The HONI settlement is the first settlement involving a breach of ePHI affecting fewer than 500 individuals.

While the HONI settlement marks the first settlement on a small breach, this is not the first time OCR has sought sanctions against a covered entity for data breaches involving the loss or theft of unencrypted data on a Laptop, storage device or other computer device. Rather, OCR continues to rollout a growing list of enforcement actions demonstrating the potential risks of HIPAA violations are significant and growing. OCR Hits Alaska Medicaid For $1.7M+ For HIPAA Security Breach; OCR Audit Program Kickoff Further Heats HIPAA Privacy Risks; $1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report; HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website; Providence To Pay $100000 & Implement Other Safeguards.

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

In response to the 2013 Regulations and these expanding exposures, all Covered Entities should review critically and carefully the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration OCR’s investigation and enforcement actions, emerging litigation and other enforcement data; their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses; and other developments to decide if additional steps are necessary or advisable. In response to these expanding exposures, all covered entities and their business associates should review critically and carefully the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration OCR’s investigation and enforcement actions, emerging litigation and other enforcement data; their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses, and other developments to decide if tightening their policies, practices, documentation or training is necessary or advisable.

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

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

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

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

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Electronic Health Records, Employee Benefits, Employment, Health Care, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, OCR, Physician | Tagged: Health Care, HIPAA, OCR, Physician, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Justice Department Settles FACE Act Lawsuit Against Abortion Protester

January 12, 2013

The Justice Department yesterday announced it settled claims against protestor David Hamilton for violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinical Entrances (FACE) Act. Under the terms of the agreement Hamilton will pay $2,500 in compensatory damages to the victim of Hamilton’s use of force outside the EMW Women’s Surgical Center in Louisville, Kentucky. The United States and Hamilton came to the agreement at a settlement conference held January 7, 2013, in Louisville. Yesterday, the United States sent Hamilton’s attorney a joint stipulation of dismissal to be filed with the court as soon as Hamilton tenders payment.

The agreement settles a lawsuit the United States filed against Hamilton for his alleged violation of the FACE Act, which makes it unlawful for any person to use force to intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with, or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with, anyone because that person is or has been obtaining or providing reproductive health services. The United States’ complaint alleged that on Jan. 30, 2010, Hamilton, a regular protester, grabbed and pushed a volunteer escort at the center. At the time of the incident, the victim was attempting to escort a patient to the front entrance of the center. The complaint alleged that Hamilton’s actions constituted a use of force that intimidated and interfered with individuals who were attempting to obtain and provide reproductive health services at the center.

The FACE Act limits statutory compensatory damages to $5,000. The $2,500 Hamilton agreed to pay will go to the victim in accordance with the terms of the statute. Hamilton no longer resides in the Louisville area.

The prosecution and settlement reflects the Obama Administration’s interest in protecting and promoting abortion and other reproductive rights. “It is absolutely crucial that those individuals who desire reproductive health services be able to obtain them in an environment that is free of interference, intimidation and fear,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “By continuing to enforce the Freedom of Access to Clinical Entrances Act, we are helping to ensure that they are able to do so.”

For Representation, Training & Other Resources

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

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

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Electronic Health Records, Employee Benefits, Employment, Health Care, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, OCR, Physician, Reproductive Rights | Tagged: Health Care, HIPAA, OCR, Physician, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR Pops Idaho Hospice In 1st HIPAA Breach Settlement Affecting < 500 Patients

January 3, 2013

$50K Settlement Shows Small Breach Reports Carry Enforcement Risk

Properly encrypt and protected electronic protected health information (ePHI) on laptops and in other mediums! That’s the clear message of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in its announcement of its first settlement under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Security Rule involving a breach of ePHI of fewer than 500 individuals by a HIPAA-covered entity, Hospice of North Idaho (HONI).

In announcing the settlement against HONI, OCR sent a clear message that OCR stands ready to penalize these health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and their businesses associates (covered entities) when their failure to properly secure and protect ePHI on laptops or in other systems results in a breach of ePHI even when the breach affects fewer than 500 individuals.

OCR Director Leon Rodriguez reiterated OCR’s expectation that covered entities will properly encrypt ePHI on mobile or other devices in OCR’s announcement of the HONI settlement. “This action sends a strong message to the health care industry that, regardless of size, covered entities must take action and will be held accountable for safeguarding their patients’ health information.” said OCR Director Leon Rodriguez. “Encryption is an easy method for making lost information unusable, unreadable and undecipherable.”

HONI Settlement For Small Breach Notification

On January 2, 2013, OCR announced HONI will pay OCR $50,000 to settle potential HIPAA violations that occurred in connection with the theft of an unencrypted laptop computer containing ePHI. The HONI settlement is the first settlement involving a breach of ePHI affecting fewer than 500 individuals. Read the full HONI Resolution Agreement here.

OCR opened an investigation after HONI reported to HHS that an unencrypted laptop computer containing ePHI of 441 patients had been stolen in June 2010. HONI team members regularly use Laptops containing ePHI their field work. Over the course of the investigation, OCR discovered that HONI had not conducted a risk analysis to safeguard ePHI or have in place policies or procedures to address mobile device security as required by the HIPAA Security Rule. Since the June 2010 theft, HONI has taken extensive additional steps to improve their HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance program.

HIPAA Security & Breach Notification For ePHI

The HONI settlement is notable because it marks the first time OCR has sanctioned a covered entity as a result of an OCR investigation stemming from the covered entity’s report of a breach of unsecured protected health information involving fewer than 500 individuals under new breach notification rules added to HIPAA in 2009.

Under the originally enacted requirements of HIPAA, covered entities and their business associates are required to restrict the use, access and disclosure of protected health information and establish and administer various other policies and safeguards in relation to protected health information. Additionally, the Security Rules require specific encryption and other safeguards when covered entities collect, create, use, access, retain or disclose ePHI.

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act amended HIPAA, among other things to tighten certain HIPAA requirements, expand its provisions to directly apply to business associates, as well as covered entities and to impose specific breach notification requirements. The HITECH Act Breach Notification Rule requires covered entities to report an impermissible use or disclosure of protected health information, or a “breach,” of 500 individuals or more (Large Breach) to the Secretary of HHS and the media within 60 days after the discovery of the breach. Smaller breaches affecting less than 500 individuals (Small Breach) must be reported to the Secretary on an annual basis. Since the Breach Notification Rule took effect, OCR’s announced policy has been to investigate all Large Breaches and such investigations have resulted in settlements or other corrective action in relation to various Large Breaches. Until now, however, OCR has not made public any resolution agreements requiring settlement payments involving any Small Breaches.

Enforcement Actions Highlight Growing HIPAA Exposures For Covered Entities

While the HONI settlement marks the first settlement on a small breach, this is not the first time OCR has sought sanctions against a covered entity for data breaches involving the loss or theft of unencrypted data on a Laptop, storage device or other computer device. In fact, OCR’s first resolution agreement – reached before Congress added the HIPAA Breach Notification Rules to HIPAA – stemmed from such a breach. Providence To Pay $100000 & Implement Other Safeguards. Breaches resulting from the loss or theft of unencrypted ePHI on mobile or other computer devices or systems has been a common basis of investigation and sanctions since that time, particularly since the Breach Notification rules took effect. See, e.g., OCR Hits Alaska Medicaid For $1.7M+ For HIPAA Security Breach. Coupled with statements by OCR about its intolerance, the HONI and other settlements provide a strong warning to covered entities to properly encrypt ePHI on mobile and other devices.

Furthermore, the HONI settlement also adds to growing 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 encryption and other Privacy and Security responsibilities. See OCR Audit Program Kickoff Further Heats HIPAA Privacy Risks; $1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report; HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website. Covered entities are urged to heed these warning by strengthening their HIPAA compliance and adopting other suitable safeguards to minimize HIPAA exposures.

In the face of rising enforcement and fines, OCR’s initiation of HIPAA audits and other recent developments, covered entities and their business associates should tighten privacy policies, breach and other monitoring, training and other practices to reduce potential HIPAA exposures in light of recently tightened requirements and new enforcement risks.

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

New OCR HIPAA Mobile Device Educational Tool

While OCR enforcement of HIPAA has significantly increased, compliance and enforcement of the encryption and other Security Rule requirements of HIPAA are a special focus of OCR.

To further promote compliance with the Breach Notification Rule as it relates to ePHI on mobile devices, OCR and the HHS Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) recently kicked off a new educational initiative, Mobile Devices: Know the RISKS. Take the STEPS. PROTECT and SECURE Health Information. The program offers health care providers and organizations practical tips on ways to protect their patients’ health information when using mobile devices such as laptops, tablets, and smartphones. For more information, see here. For more information on HIPAA compliance and risk management tips, see here.

For Representation, Training & Other Resources

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

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Electronic Health Records, Employee Benefits, Employment, Health Care, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, OCR, Physician | Tagged: Health Care, HIPAA, OCR, Physician, 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.

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

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

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.”

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

OCR’s Shares HIPAA Audit Program Protocols As Announces $1.7M Resolution Agreement Against Alaska Medicaid

June 27, 2012

Health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates should review the Department of Heath & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) HIPAA audit protocol used by OCR to conduct the audits required by the HITECH Act to identify potential areas where they may need to tighten existing practices to withstand a possible audit and reduce exposures under the Privacy, Security and Breach Notification rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act. OCR posted the audit protocols on its on its website on June 26, 2012, the same day it announced that the Alaska Medicaid program would pay more than $1.7 million to settle potential HIPAA liabilities arising from OCR’s investigation of circumstances resulting a large data breach reported under the HITECH Act breach notification rules. Covered entities should use these resources both to prepare for potential audits and to review and adjust their practices to help prevent violations and defend against potential HIPAA enforcement actionsl.

HIPAA Audit Protoco

The OCR HIPAA Audit program analyzes key processes, controls, and policies of selected covered entities pursuant to the HITECH Act audit requirement. OCR established a comprehensive audit protocol that contains the requirements to be assessed through these performance audits. The entire audit protocol is organized around modules, representing separate elements of privacy, security, and breach notification. The combination of these multiple requirements may vary based on the type of covered entity selected for review. These include:

Privacy Rule requirements for (1) notice of privacy practices for PHI, (2) rights to request privacy protection for PHI, (3) access of individuals to PHI, (4) administrative requirements, (5) uses and disclosures of PHI, (6) amendment of PHI, and (7) accounting of disclosures
Security Rule requirements for administrative, physical, and technical safeguards;
Requirements for the Breach Notification Rule.

Presently OCR says that HIPAA audits primarily seek to tighten compliance and aid OCR to identify areas where guidance should be revised or supplemented to enhance compliance. Where an audit identifies a significant compliance concern, however, OCR officials say OCR officials may open an enforcement investigation in response to evidence uncovered in connection with an audit. Beyond this risk, however, the audit protocols also provide additional guidance for covered entities about expected practices and procedures that could help mitigate risks to enforcement under the OCR’s ongoing investigation and enforcement activities of HIPAA. As reflected by a growing series of resolution agreements, these enforcement risks and their associated liability exposures are significant and growing. OCR’s announcement of its latest Resolution Agreement with Alaska Medicaid concurrent the posting of the audit protocol.

Alaska 1.7 Million Resolution Agreement

OCR also announced June 26 that the Alaska State Medicaid Agency, the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) will pay the $1,700,000 to settle possible violations of the HIPAA Security Rule. Alaska DHSS also has agreed to take corrective action to properly safeguard the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of their Medicaid beneficiaries.

The first HIPAA Resolution Agreement that the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has reached a state agency, the Alaska Medicaid Resolution Agreement second announced Resolution Agreement stemming from a unsecured protected health information breach report filed in response to the breach notification rules of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act. Earlier this year, OCR announced its first Resolution Agreement involving a health plan resulted from a breach notification report it had filed under the HITECH Act. See $1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report.

OCR opened the investigation leading to the Resolution Agreement after Alaska DHSS filed a breach report that indicated that a portable electronic storage device (USB hard drive) possibly containing ePHI was stolen from the vehicle of a DHSS employee. Over the course of the investigation, OCR found evidence that DHSS did not have adequate policies and procedures in place to safeguard ePHI. Further, the evidence indicated that DHSS had not completed a risk analysis, implemented sufficient risk management measures, completed security training for its workforce members, implemented device and media controls, or addressed device and media encryption as required by the HIPAA Security Rule. Inadequacies by covered entities in safeguarding protected health information and laptops and other devices containing ePHI is a common compliance concern according to OCR statistics.

In addition to the $1,700,000 settlement, the agreement includes a corrective action plan that requires Alaska DHSS to review, revise, and maintain policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the HIPAA Security Rule. A monitor will report back to OCR regularly on the state’s ongoing compliance efforts.

OCR’s announcement highlights the need for covered entities not only to take proper steps to establish and administer appropriate policies and safeguards to protect protected health information and EHI, but also to prepare, update as needed and be prepared to produce documentation showing their oganizations actions to evaluate, monitor and maintain appropriate safeguards of ePHI and the operating systems and devices that contain this information.

“Covered entities must perform a full and comprehensive risk assessment and have in place meaningful access controls to safeguard hardware and portable devices,” said OCR Director Leon Rodriguez. “This is OCR’s first HIPAA enforcement action against a state agency and we expect organizations to comply with their obligations under these rules regardless of whether they are private or public entities.”

The HHS Resolution Agreement can be viewed here.

Enforcement Actions Highlight Growing HIPAA Exposures For Covered Entities

The Alaska Medicaid Resolution Agreement is the latest in a growing list of Resolutions Agreements highlighting the mounting exposures that health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghousesand their business associates face if required to file a large breach notification or otherwise charged with failing to appropriately manage their HIPAA responsibilities. See Arizona Physician Group Pays $100K To Settle HIPAA Charges; $1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report; HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website. As OCR leaders have indicated that OCR investigates all large breach notification filings made under the HITECH Act Breach Notification Rules and with more than 450 large breach notifications reported on its website, additional Resolution Agreements are expected in coming months even as covered entities and their business associates are awaiting the impending issuance of updated HIPAA regulations.

In light of these and other developments and risks, covered entities and their business associates should move to audit and strengthen their HIPAA compliance and documentaiton and adopt other suitable safeguards to minimize HIPAA exposures.

For more information about the PCS Resolution Agreement and HIPAA compliance and risk management tips, see here.

For Representation, Training & Other Resources

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

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

If you need 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.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Electronic Health Records, Employee Benefits, Employment, Health Care, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, OCR, Physician | Tagged: Health Care, HIPAA, OCR, Physician, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR Nails Alaska Medicaid For $1,700,000 To Settle HIPAA Security Charges

June 26, 2012

The Alaska State Medicaid Agency, the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) will pay the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) $1,700,000 to settle possible violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Security Rule. Alaska DHSS also has agreed to take corrective action to properly safeguard the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of their Medicaid beneficiaries.

The first HIPAA Resolution Agreement that the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has reached a state agency, the Resolution Agreement second announced Resolution Agreement stemming from a unsecured protected health information breach report filed in response to the breach notification rules of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act. Earlier this year, OCR announced its first Resolution Agreement involving a health plan resulted from a breach notification report it had filed under the HITECH Act. See $1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report.

The HHS Resolution Agreement can be viewed here.

Enforcement Actions Highlight Growing HIPAA Exposures For Covered Entities

For more information about the PCS Resolution Agreement and HIPAA compliance and risk management tips, see here.

For Representation, Training & Other Resources

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

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

If you need help 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.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Electronic Health Records, Employee Benefits, Employment, Health Care, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, OCR, Physician | Tagged: Health Care, HIPAA, OCR, Physician, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Arizona Physician Group Pays $100K To Settle HIPAA Charges

April 17, 2012

The $100,000 settlement with an Arizona-based physician group announced today by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) under the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) demonstrates the need for all health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses (covered entities) and their business associates to maintain appropriate HIPAA compliance and risk management procedures and documentation.

Arizona-based Phoenix Cardiac Surgery, P.C. (PCS) will pay the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) a $100,000 settlement and take corrective action to implement policies and procedures to safeguard the protected health information of its patients to settle OCR charges PCS violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules. Health care providers and other HIPAA-covered entities should heed the 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 proper HIPAA compliance practices.

The PCS settlement follows an extensive OCR investigation of a report that PCS posted clinical and surgical appointments for its patients on a publically accessible Internet-based calendar. Among other things, the Resolution Agreement documenting the PCS settlement states that OCR’s investigation found that the persistent failure by PCS to adopt HIPAA required policies and safeguards, maintain required business associate agreements, and conduct necessary workforce training resulted in the prohibited posting of more than 1,000 separate entries of ePHI on a publicly accessible, Internet-based calendar and business associates improperly receiving and maintaining PHI and ePHI without the protection of required business associate agreements.

Under the PCS HHS Resolution Agreement available here, PCS will pay a $100,000 settlement amount and a corrective action plan that includes a review of recently developed policies and other actions taken to come into full compliance with the Privacy and Security Rules. Like the $1,500,000 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee (BCBST) Resolution Agreement announced last month, the PCS shows OCR’s readiness to sanction health care providers and other covered entities of all sizes for violations of HIPAA.

Enforcement Actions Highlight Growing HIPAA Exposures For Covered Entities

Like the BCBST Resolution Agreement and other previously announced OCR Resolution Agreements, the PCS 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 $1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report; HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website. Covered entities are urged to heed these warning by strengthening their HIPAA compliance and adopting other suitable safeguards to minimize HIPAA exposures.

For more information about the PCS Resolution Agreement and HIPAA compliance and risk management tips, see here.

For Representation, Training & Other Resources

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

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

DC Court Enjoins Implementation of NLRB Poster Rule

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.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Electronic Health Records, Employee Benefits, Employment, Health Care, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, OCR, Physician | Tagged: Health Care, HIPAA, OCR, Physician, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Texas Physicians Get New Option For Resolving Some Medical Board Complaints

January 19, 2012

A new non-disciplinary “Remedial Plan” option enacted by the Texas Legislature last session may allow some Texas physicians to resolve charges of professional misconduct pending before the Texas Medical Board without the National Practitioner Data Bank report that normally results when a physician is formally disciplined by the Texas Medical Board.

Previously, Texas law only allowed the Texas Medical Board to resolve complaints against a physician through either:

Dismissal; or
Imposing public discipline.

A public discipline order typically results in a report to the National Practitioner Data Bank in addition to any sanctions and public reporting of the disciplinary action.

Under reforms enacted in Senate Bill 227/House Bill 680 last session, however, the Texas Medical Board now also may resolve some complaints by offering a “Remedial Plan” rather than imposing formal discipline. The primary advantage to a physician of having a complaint resolved by a Remedial Plan rather than formal disciplinary actions is that the Remedial Plan will not result in a misconduct and discipline report to the National Practitioner Data Bank because of the “non-disciplinary” nature of the Remedial Plan remedy.

Under the Remedial Plan option, the physician typically will be required to agree to certain remedial actions dictated by the Texas Medical Board in a public document that will appear on a physician’s public profile. The written Remedial Plan generally will state that the physician is subject to a “non-disciplinary” action for a specified violation. While the basis of the charge leading to the Remedial Plan and agreed to corrective action generally will be included in the posted Remedial Plan, a physician generally will not be required to admit guilt. Since the physician will avoid disciplinary action, resolution by the Remedial Plan avoids the obligation for a report of disciplinary action to the National Practitioner Data Bank. In addition to avoiding a report to the National Practitioner Data Bank, resolution of a complaint by a Remedial Plan also allows a physician to avoid having his name listed in the Board’s newsletter or in the Board’s press releases like would result in the case of a disciplinary action.

Remedial Plans are not available for all charges. Rather, Remedial Plans generally are an option only for a limited number of situations in which the Texas Medical Board decides to offer the option for resolution of a complaint through a Remedial Plan based on its decision that fulfillment of the specified conditions sufficiently corrects the concerns raised by the charge that it is appropriate to forgo formal disciplinary action. Most typically, this could happen when the Texas Medical Board is addressing administrative violations after receiving a complaint or in other instances where the Texas Medical Board decides the nature and circumstances of a charged violation can be adequately addressed through the Remedial Plan without formal discipline. When offered, Remedial Plan resolution is a take it or leave it propositions. The Texas Medical Board decides the required terms of the Remedial Plan and these terms are non-negotiable. Also physicians offered the option of resolution under a Remedial Plan generally must accept the offered Remedial Plan terms by a specific deadline.

While a physician generally cannot insist upon the option for resolution through a Remedial Plan or dictate the terms of a Remedial Plan, a physician facing charges before the Texas Medical Board often can can improve his odds for avoiding discipline by the Texas Medical Board or qualifying for resolution of charges under a Remedial Plan by acting quickly with the assistance of experienced legal counsel to gather and present to the Texas Medical Board factual evidence and documentation that negate or mitigate charges of misconduct as well as signaling his interest and willingness to take action to mitigate the risks reflected by the charges and improve performance whether or not the action resulting in the charge in fact resulted in misconduct.

For Help With Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

If you need help dealing with licensing, peer review, or other quality assurance, compliance 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 and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other quality and performance concerns, and to address 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 » | Doctor, Employment, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Hospital, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Mental Heatlh, Peer Review, Physician, Physician Licensing | Tagged: discipline, Health Care, Medical Licensure, Physician, Sexual Misconduct | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Texas Medical Board Suspends Child Psychiatrist For Sexual Misconduct

November 22, 2011

Personal Misconduct By Physicians Or Other Health Care Workers Common Cause of Discipline

On November 22, 2011, a disciplinary panel of the Texas Medical Board temporarily suspended, without notice, the medical license of Charles Henry Fischer, M.D., after determining that Dr. Fischer, a child psychiatrist at the Austin State Hospital in Austin, has demonstrated a pattern of sexually abusing teenage boys in his care for inpatient psychiatric treatment over a period of nearly 20 years. The discipline highlights again that personal misconduct remains a key reason for discipline of medical professionals.

Dr. Fischer, 59, was employed at Austin State Hospital from December 1990 until his termination on November 14, 2011. He also was employed as a psychiatrist at the Waco Center for Youth, the Southwest Neuropsychiatric Institute in San Antonio, Lutheran Social Services Residential Treatment Center for Girls and Central Counties Mental Health and Mental Retardation. The Board imposed the suspension based on information that as many as nine patients had alleged sexual abuse by Dr. Fischer since the first patient report in 1992.

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

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 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

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

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.

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 Providers Brace For New HIPAA Enforcement As OCR Announces Hospital Resolution Agreement Requiring $1 Million Settlement Payment

February 25, 2011

Announcement Made 2 Days After OCR Announces $4.3 Million HIPAA Civil Penalty Against Cignet

General Hospital Corporation and Massachusetts General Physicians Organization Inc. (Mass General) has agreed to pay the U.S. government $1,000,000 to settle potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy Rule. The incident giving rise to the agreement involved the loss of protected health information (PHI) of 192 patients of Mass General’s Infectious Disease Associates outpatient practice The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) announced the Resolution Agreement two days after announcing that its first official assessment of a civil monetary penalty CMP under HIPAA – a $4.3 million against Cignet Health of Prince George’s County, Md., (Cignet). Read more details here

HIPAA Privacy Rule restricts the use, access and disclosure by covered entities of PHI and other individually identifiable health care information to those outlined within the Rules. Under HIPAA covered entities also are responsible for establishing and enforcing policies and procedures that safeguard PHI against improper use, access or disclosure by employees, business associates, and other third parties. Noncompliance with the Privacy and Security Rules exposes a covered entity to criminal prosecution and penalties, civil penalties or both. The Privacy Rule requires health plans, health care clearinghouses and most health care providers (covered entities) to safeguard the privacy of patient information, including such information during its disposal. Under amendments to HIPAA enacted under the HITECH Act, business associates now also are accountable and subject to direct liability for failing to comply with HIPAA’s requirements. Amendments to HIPAA under the HITECH Act, further expand the risks and responsibilities of health care providers and other covered entities.

Announced just two days before the Mass General Resolution Agreement, the Cignet CMP announced February 22, 2011 is the first CMP ever assessed by OCR under the HIPAA Privacy Rule. The assessment resulted after OCR found Cignet violated 41 patients’ HIPAA rights and committed other HIPAA violations. The $4.3 million CMP against Cignet applies the expanded HIPAA violation categories and increased HIPAA civil monetary penalty amounts authorized by HIPAA amendments made by Section 13410(d) of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act. Read more details.

Even before the Mass General Resolution Agreement and Cignet CMP announcements, HIPAA Privacy exposures of covered entities for failing to comply with HIPAA already had risen significantly. While OCR had not assessed any civil monetary penalties against any covered entity for violation of HIPAA before Cignet, OCR’s collection of $1 Million from Rite Aid in a 2010 Resolution Agreement, $2.25 million from CVS Pharmacy, Inc. under a 2009 Resolution Agreement and $100,000 from Providence Health & Services under a 2008 Resolution Agreement demonstrated that covered entities could face significant civil liability for willful violations of the Privacy Rules. In addition to these civil enforcement actions by OCR, the Department of Justice has secured several criminal convictions or pleas under HIPAA’s criminal provisions. OCR data confirms that the covered entities involved in these actions included health care providers, health plans, and others. Coupled with the HITECH Act changes, these and other enforcement actions signal growing potential hazards for covered entities and their business associates that fail to properly manage their HIPAA compliance obligations and risks.

The Mass General and Cignet announcements and other enforcement actions demonstrate that OCR is moving forward on its announced plans to hold health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses (covered entities) and their business associates that violate HIPAA accountable. Added to other recent developments, the Mass General and Cignet enforcement actions demonstrate that OCR’s commitment to enforcing HIPAA and illustrate the significant exposures that covered entities and business associates risk by disregarding their HIPAA obligations.

As stated by OCR Director Georgina Verdugo when announcing the Mass General Resolution Agreement, stating, “We hope the health care industry will take a close look at this agreement and recognize that OCR is serious about HIPAA enforcement. It is a covered entity’s responsibility to protect its patients’ health information.”

“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.”

Covered entities are urged to heed these warning by strengthening their HIPAA compliance and adopting other suitable safeguards to minimize HIPAA exposures. Health plans and other covered entities as well as their business associates should tighten privacy policies, breach and other monitoring, training and other practices to mitigate against exposures in light of recently tightened requirements and new enforcement risks. To minimize the potential that the health plan’s sharing of information with the employer will create or spread HIPAA or other privacy risks to the employer or members of its workforce, employers and other plan sponsors and members of their workforce also should take steps to ensure not only that their health plan documents, policies and procedures, as well as those policies and practices applicable to the employer, its human resources, and benefits advisors when accessing or handling health plan or other medical information on behalf of the employer, rather than the plan, are appropriately designed and administered.

Act To Manage HIPAA Exposures

In response to these expanding exposures, covered entities and their business associates should review the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration the Cignet, Rite Aid, Provident and CVS enforcement actions, emerging litigation and other enforcement data; their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses, and other developments to determine if additional steps are necessary or advisable. As part of these compliance and risk management efforts, most covered entities and their business associates will find it advisable to devote significant attention to the business associate relationship and its associated business associate agreements.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Review & Updates Or Other Needs

About Solutions Law Press

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

Supreme Court Ruling Medical Resident Stipend Are Wages Highlights Advisability of Compliance Review

January 12, 2011

Stipends paid to medical residents to provide on patient care and other medical services for 40 or more hours per week as part of an accredited graduate medical education program are wages paid to employees for Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) payroll taxes purposes and do not qualify as exempt from FICA tax or withholding as student stipends according to January 11, 201 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Mayo Foundation v. U.S. Joining a growing series of rulings enforcing changing treatment of doctors and other healthcare workers, the decision is the latest reminder to health care providers and others of the need to critically review and update as necessary their organizations existing worker and wage characterization in light of evolving interpretations and the growing success of regulators and private plaintiffs in challenging these classifications.

In Mayo Foundation, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the plea of Mayo Foundation For Medical Education And Research (Mayo) that it overrule an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Regulation that provides that medical students or others providing full-time services as part of their course of instruction do not qualify as “students” for purposes of the “student” exemption of Code § 3121(b)(10) regardless of whether “the services performed . . . may have an educational, instructional, or training aspect.” See Treas. Reg. §31.3121(b)(10)–2(d)(3)(iii). Mayo Foundation, the Supreme Court ruled against Mayo Foundation. It ruled the IRS’ regulation construing Code § 3121(b)(1) as inapplicable to medical students or other workers providing full-time services as part of a residency or other educational program should stand as Congress has not directly spoken to foreclose that interpretation and because the Treasury Department’s rule is a reasonable construction of what Congress has said.

Beyond its specific holding, the Mayo Foundation decision also serves as another reminder that health industry and other employers should not take the defensibility of their worker classification and associated income and payroll tax, employee benefit, employment and other practices for granted.

Recent developments send a clear message that health industry and other employers must remain constantly diligent about confirming and documenting the defensibility of their worker classifications and other associated practices in light of evolving rules and standards, enforcement, the growing frequency and success of regulators and private plaintiff challenges, and changing workforce practices of workers generally, and health care employers specifically. See e.g. Review of Worker Classification Needed As Classification Scrutiny Rises;Minimum Wage, Overtime Risks Highlighted By Labor Department Strike Force Targeting Residential Care & Group Homes; Review & Strengthen Defensibility of Existing Worker Classification Practices In Light of Rising Congressional & Regulatory Scrutiny; 250 New Investigators, Renewed DOL Enforcement Emphasis Signal Rising Wage & Hour Risks For Employers; Quest Diagnostics, Inc. To Pay $688,000 In Overtime Backpay.

The IRS, Department of Labor and other federal and state regulators are stepping up scrutiny of and enforcement of worker classifications and claims of exemption from applicable employment, tax and other requirements. In light of these and other developments, health industry and other employers should take reasonable steps to guard against these and other growing risks of worker misclassification and associated non-compliance. Health industry practices have been specifically targeted as part of many of these regulatory initiatives.

To minimize their potential exposure, health industry and other employers should consult with qualified legal counsel for advice within the scope of attorney-client privilege concerning the need to audit or otherwise act to strengthen the defensibility of their existing worker classification, employee benefit, fringe benefit, employment, wage and hour, and other workforce policies to mitigate exposures to potential IRS, Labor Department or other risks of worker misclassification or the handling of associated payroll, employment or other responsibilities.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

If you need assistance in conducting a risk assessment of or responding to IRS, Labor Department or other legal challenges to your health care organization’s existing workforce classification or other health care related risk management or compliance concerns, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

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 Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and Board Certified In Labor & Employment Law, 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 compliance and risk management policies and to respond 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. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Corporate Compliance, Doctor, Employment, Health Care, Hospital, Hospital, Laws, Physician, Tax | Tagged: academic medicine, Doctor, fica, graduate medical education, Hospital, income taxes, payroll tax, residency programs, stipend, student, Worker Classification | 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

Stamer Speaks On “Sex, Drugs & Rock ‘N Role: Personal Misconduct In Health Care” July 21, 2010 In Dallas

July 5, 2010

From substance abuse to stress, medical staff and other health care workforce personal misconduct creates major liability and management challenges for health care organizations and their licensed providers. Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will speak about “Sex Drugs & Rock ‘N Role: Personal Misconduct in Health Care” at the Wednesday, July 21, 2010 monthly meeting of the Dallas Bar Association Health Law Section.

Former Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, attorney and author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for her legal work, publications and programs, and advocacy on health industry performance management and other health industry matters. Ms. Stamer works extensively with health care organizations, managed care and health insurance organizations, governments and others to manage performance and legal risks. Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer combines her more than 23 years of health industry regulatory and risk management experience with an in-depth knowledge of workforce management and regulation to help clients manage performance and legal and operational risks. Her experience includes advising public and private health industry clients domestically and internationally on a wide range of matters. A widely published author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer’s insights on health industry matters also are quoted in HealthLeaders, Managed Care Executive, the Wall Street Journal and many other national popular, business and industry publications. She also conducts continuing medical education and other health industry compliance and risk management training for many organizations on a wide range of topics.

The program will be held from Noon to 1:00 p.m. Central Time at the Dallas Bar Association Belo Mansion located at 2101 Ross Avenue, Dallas Texas. For additional information, visit www.dallasbar.org.

For additional information, call the Dallas Bar Association at 214-220-7400 or see http://www.dallasbar.org.

Other Recent Developments

If you are interested in this health industry development, you also may be interested in reviewing some of our other recent updates available at https://slphealthcareupdate.wordpress.com including:

For More Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you need assistance with medical staff credentialing or discipline, employment, benefits and compensation, reimbursement, health care fraud or other health care compliance, risk management, transaction or operations concerns, please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail to here.

You can review other recent health care and internal controls resources and get additional information about the health industry and other experience of Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, register or update your profile – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information to here.

Leave a Comment » | Employment, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Hospital, Medical Malpractice, Peer Review, Physician, Physician Licensing, Substance Abuse | Tagged: Credentialing, Disruptive Physician, Drug Testing, Employment, Medical Staff, Peer Review | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Share this:

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Important Information About This Communication

Share this:

Visitation

Vaccination

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

$50K Settlement Shows Small Breach Reports Carry Enforcement Risk

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:

Recent Posts

Archives

About Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Share this blog

Archives

Solutions Law Press Health Care Update