Health Care Finance |

New CMS LTC Staffing Requirements Likely To Increase Workforce Competition, Costs Industry-Wide

May 12, 2024

Nursing homes and other health care facilities competing for staffing with these facilities should begin preparing to cope with expected wage costs and other pressures expected to result from new staffing and other changes to staffing requirements for Meficare and Medicaid participating long-term care favorites released by the Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“”CMS”) on April 22, 2024.

The Minimum Staffing Standards for Long-Term Care (LTC) Facilities and Medicaid Institutional Payment Transparency Reporting final rule (“Final Rule”) will require long-term care facilities participating in federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid are to have a licensed registered nurse (“RN”) on site at all times and to meet minimum nurse staffing (“TNS”) requirements imposed under the Final Rule. The Final Rule also will face enhanced facility assessment requirements under the Final Rule.

The mandates of the Final Rule and resulting increases in compensation and competition will impact both participating LTCs and other health care providers competing for staffing.

Total Nurse Staffing

CMS says its new minimum nurse staffing standards “will set a national and broadly applicable baseline that will significantly reduce the risk of unsafe and low-quality care for residents across all LTC facilities.”

Subject to certain limited temporary exceptions, the TNS requirements for long-term care (“LTC”) facilities aim to significantly reduce the risk of residents receiving unsafe and low-quality care within LTC facilities by specifying required minimum nurse staffing.

The Final Rule generally will require LTC facilities to meet a total nurse staffing standard of 3.48 hours per resident day (HPRD), which must include at least 0.55 HPRD of direct registered nurse (RN) care and 2.45 HPRD of direct nurse aide care. LTCs may use any combination of registered nurse (“RN”), licensed practical nurse (“LPN”), licensed vocational nurse (“LBN”), or nurse aide) to account for the additional 0.48 HPRD needed to comply with the total nurse staffing standard.

In addition, the Final Rule will require LTCs to have at least one RN on site 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to provide skilled nursing care.

Some “limited temporary exceptions” may apply to all the requirements for qualifying LTCs in areas with workforce shortages that meet other criteria. While an estimated 25% of nursing homes would be eligible for exceptions, these are “limited, temporary exceptions,” LTC must be in a workforce shortage area and report the amount of their income spent on wage and other information to prove their “good faith” efforts to hire by paying competitive wages.”

While these are minimum staffing standards, CMS expects LTC facilities to use the updated and newly strengthened facility assessment to determine whether their staffing needs to be set above these minimums, based on resident acuity and individual care needs. CMS is committed to continued examination of staffing thresholds, including work to review quality and safety data resulting from initial implementation of these finalized policies, as well as robust public engagement.

Additionally, to increase transparency related to compensation for workers, CMS will also require states to collect and report on the percent of Medicaid payments that are spent on compensation for direct care workers, and support staff, delivering care in nursing facilities and intermediate care facilities, for individuals with intellectual disabilities.

CMS Tightening LTC Assessments

LTC facilities are already required to conduct, document, and review, annually and as necessary, a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for residents competently during both day-to-day operations and emergencies. ensure that facilities are utilizing the assessment as intended by making thoughtful, person-centered staffing plans, and decisions focused on meeting resident needs, including staffing at levels above the finalized minimums as indicated by resident acuity, the Final Rule raises the assessment requirements as follows:

Facilities must use evidence-based methods when care planning for their residents, including consideration for those residents with behavioral health needs.
Facilities must use the facility assessment to assess the specific needs of each resident in the facility and to adjust as necessary based on any significant changes in the resident population.
Facilities must include the input of the nursing home leadership, including but not limited to, a member of the governing body and the medical director; management, including but not limited to, an administrator and the director of nursing; and direct care staff, including but not limited to, RNs, LPNs/LVNs, and NAs, and representatives of direct care staff as applicable. The LTC facility must also solicit and consider input received from residents, resident representatives, and family members.
Facilities are required to develop a staffing plan to maximize recruitment and retention of staff consistent with what was described in the President’s April Executive Order on Increasing Access to High-Quality Care and Supporting Caregivers.

Temporary Limited Exceptions

LTC facilities may qualify for a temporary hardship exemption from the minimum nurse staffing HPRD standards and the 24/7 RN requirement only if they meet the following criterion for geographic staffing unavailability, financial commitment to staffing, and good faith efforts to hire:

The facility is located in an area where the supply of RN, NA, or total nurse staff is not sufficient to meet area needs as evidenced by the applicable provider-to-population ratio for nursing workforce (RN, NA, or combined licensed nurse and nurse aide), which is a minimum of 20% below the national average, as calculated by CMS using data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau.
- The facility may receive an exemption from the total nurse staffing requirement of 3.48 HPRD if the combined licensed nurse and nurse aide to population ratio in its area is a minimum of 20% below the national average.
- The facility may receive an exemption from the 0.55 RN HPRD requirement, and an exemption of eight hours a day from the RN on-site 24 hours per day for seven days a week requirement, if the RN to population ratio in its area is a minimum of 20% below the national average.
- The facility may receive an exemption from the 2.45 NA HPRD requirement if the NA to population ratio in its area is a minimum of 20% below the national average.

Eligible LTC facilities that meet the criteria will receive a temporary hardship exemption by completing the following:

The facility provides documentation of good faith efforts to hire and retain staff, such as through job postings, the number and duration of vacancies, job offers made, and competitive wage offerings.
The facility provides documentation of the facility’s financial commitment to staffing, including the amount the facility expends on nurse staffing relative to revenue.

Before being considered, the LTC facility must be surveyed for compliance with the LTC participation requirements. CMS will coordinate with state survey agencies to determine if the facility meets the criteria for a hardship exemption noted above.

Facilities granted an exemption will be required to: 1) post a notice of its exemption status in a prominent and publicly viewable location in each resident facility; 2) provide notice of its exemption status, and the degree to which it is not in compliance with the HPRD requirements, to each current and prospective resident; and 3) send a copy of the notice to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman.

CMS will indicate if a facility has obtained an exemption on the Medicare.gov Care Comparewebsite.

Facilities are not eligible for an exemption if any one of the following is true:

They have failed to submit their data to the Payroll Based Journal System.
They have been identified as a special focus facility (SFF).
They have been identified within the preceding 12 months as having: widespread, or a pattern of, insufficient staffing that resulted in actual harm to a resident; or an incident of insufficient staffing that caused or is likely to cause serious harm or death to a resident.

Facilities that meet the hardship exemption criteria are eligible from the time at which the exemption is granted until the next standard recertification survey, unless the facility meets any of the above-mentioned criteria for not being eligible for the exemption during that time. The hardship exemption may be extended on each standard recertification survey, after the initial period, if the facility continues to meet the exemption criteria.

Implementation Deadlines

The Final Rule has staggered implementation timeframe for its minimum nurse staffing standards and 24/7 RN requirement based on geographic location as well as possible exemptions for qualifying facilities for some parts of these requirements based on workforce unavailability and other factors.

CMS is implementing the minimum nurse staffing requirements to occur in three phases over a three-year period for all non-rural facilities. The following deadlines apply for non-rural facilities:

Phase 1 — Within 90 days of the final rule publication, facilities must meet the facility assessment requirements.
Phase 2 — Within two years of the final rule publication, facilities must meet the 3.48 HPRD total nurse staffing requirement and the 24/7 RN requirement.
Phase 3 — Within three years of the final rule publication, facilities must meet the 0.55 RN and 2.45 NA HPRD requirements.

The Final Rule sets later deadlines for rural facilities in acknowledgment of the unique challenges that rural LTC facilities may face in staffing as follows:

Phase 1 — Within 90 days of the final rule publication, facilities must meet the facility assessment requirements.
Phase 2 — Within three years of the final rule publication, facilities must meet the 3.48 HPRD total nurse staffing requirement and the 24/7 RN requirement.
Phase 3 — Within five years of the final rule publication, facilities must meet the 0.55 RN and 2.45 NA HPRD requirements.

Qualification as a rural facility is determined by the Office of Management and Budget.

CMS Nursing Home Staffing Campaign

CMS continues efforts to encourage the availability to increase the number of nurses in nursing homes. As part of these efforts, CMS plans to promote awareness of the many career pathways in the nursing field that are available to help recruit all types of individuals, from NAs to LPNs/LVNs and RNs. It also plans to offer financial incentives like tuition assistance for nurses to work in the nursing home environment in qualifying facilities or state oversight roles and to make it easier for individuals to become nurse aides by streamlining the process for enrolling in training programs and finding placement in a nursing home.

Additionally, CMS plans to partner with states to bolster nurse recruitment.

CMS says more announcements are expected later this year and it anticipates beginning distribution of financial incentives in 2025.

Begin Preparing Now

All nursing homes and other health care facilities competing for staffing should begin preparing for these changes immediately. Obviously, LTC is participating in Medicare, Medicaid or other covered programs will face the most immediate and direct impact from these rules. Facility should begin documented efforts to meet the staffing requirements and where applicable, evidence and other materials needed to prepare for required surveys and to establish, other criteria necessary to qualify for exemption if needed.

It is not just the facilities directly covered by the rules that the new staffing requirements will impact.

While the new requirements technically apply only to LTCs participating in Medicare, Medicaid or other CMS regulated programs, their applicability likely will impact non-participating programs as well. the new minimum requirements will affect standards of care for negligence and other purposes.

Likewise, increases in compensation and other terms and conditions of employment at covered facilities will affect other types of providers. Non-participating nursing homes, home health, hospice, rehabilitation, hospitals, rehabilitation, facilities, assisted living facilities and other providers should expect greater scrutiny of their staffing and greater pressure to pay better wages and improve other work conditions and benefits in response to greater competition for workers.

Facilities that have used noncompetition agreements or other restraints on post employment eligibility to work are cautioned that these types of restraints could run afoul of the federal trade commissions new Non-Competition Clause Final Rule slated to take affect in September, 2024 if the current judicial stay against it is lifted by that time.

Likewise, long-term care another healthcare employers planning to increase wages, or other terms of employment are cautioned to use care to comply with any applicable duties to bargain or other requirements if subject to union organization or contracts.

Given the complicated maze of employment, benefits, and healthcare regulations that facilities working to deal with these new requirements must negotiate, healthcare providers working with these and other recruitment rules are encouraged to consult with qualified legal counsel with experience in both the healthcare and employment issues involved.

For Additional Information

We hope this update is helpful. Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to receive future updates by registering on 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 need have questions or need assistance with this or other cybersecurity, health, benefit, payroll, investment or other data, systems or other privacy or security related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters, contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

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 35 plus years of workforce, risk management, compliance, regulatory and government affairs and other work with health care, employee benefit, managed care and other insurance, education, workforce and other performance and data dependent organizations, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee and Vice-Chair Elect of its International Employment Law Committee, Chair 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, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading-edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on heath benefit and other healthcare and life science, managed care and insurance and other workforce and staffing, employee benefits, safety, contracting, quality assurance, compliance and risk management, and other legal, public policy and operational concerns in the healthcare and life sciences, employee benefits, managed care and insurance, technology and other related industries. She speaks and publishes extensively on these and other related compliance issues.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with government and private health care and managed care, life sciences, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services, education 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. Author of a multitude of highly regarded publications, her experience includes extensive involvement throughout her career advising and representing health care and life sciences and other clients about preventing, investigating and defending HHS CMS, OIG, CIICO, OCR; , DOL WHD, EEOC, EBSA, OSHA; DOJ, OFCCP; NLRB; DOE; ICE; state attorney general licensing, Department of Health, Aging, Disability, Insurance, and other federal and state, JCHO and other accreditation and quality, peer review, employment and other workforce, contract and other investigations, audits, and other enforcement actions as well as advocacy before Congress and regulators regarding federal and state laws.

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 Laws 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.

IMPORTANT NOTICE

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 » | Academic medicine, Accreditation, Ambulatory care, compensation, Conditions of Participation, Doctor, Emergency Care, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment law, ERISA, FLSA, FTC, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HHS, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Immigration, Indian Health, Labor Law, Medicaid, Medicaid Advantage, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, nursing home, OIG, Patients, Peer Review, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Skilled Nursing Facility | Tagged: Health Care, Health Care Provider, nursing home, Skilled Nursing | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR Updated Guidance Reminds HIPAA Entities Of HIPAA Online Tracking Duties

March 19, 2024

Health care providers, heath plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (covered entities) should verify that any online tracking technology used in their or their business partner websites or mobile applications comply with the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Civil Rights (OCR) updated guidance on “Use of Online Tracking Technologies by HIPAA Covered Entities and Business Associates” published March 18, 2024.

The Guidance reminds covered entities that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification Rules (HIPAA Rules) apply to their use of online tracking technologies like Google Analytics or Meta Pixel, collect and analyze information about how users are interacting with a regulated entity’s website or mobile application.

The HIPAA Rules apply when the information that regulated entities collect through tracking technologies or disclose to tracking technology vendors includes electronic protected health information (ePHI).

OCR’s information bulletin reminds covered entities that they can only use online tracking technologies provided that the entities comply with their obligations under the HIPAA Rules. Regulated entities are not permitted to use tracking technologies in a manner that would result in impermissible disclosures of ePHI to tracking technology vendors or any other violations of the HIPAA Rules.

OCR’s Bulletin provides a general overview of how the HIPAA Rules apply to covered entities use of tracking technologies. It also updates to the Bulletin include:

Additional examples of when visits to an unauthenticated webpage may or may not involve the disclosure of ePHI.
Additional tips for complying with the HIPAA Rules when using online tracking technologies.
Guidance about OCR’s enforcement priorities in investigations involving regulated entities’ use of online tracking technologies.

Covered entities need to understand that online tracking technologies commonly are included in Website, mobile application, and other Internet based tools. These tools frequently include online tracking even if not specifically requested by the covered entity.

Covered entities should conduct a documented inventory of all website, mobile app, and other Internet, based tools that they or their business associates use, which includes an assessment of whether those tools include online tracking, or other technologies, covered by the guidance. For any online tools using tracking capability, cupboard entities, must ensure that the tool is designed and administered to comply with the HIPAA requirements. Overed entities also should adopt a process for regularly reevaluating and monitoring compliance with this and other HIPAA security requirements in their Internet based in other electronic applications that collect, use, store, access, or disclose electronic, protected health information.

Along with specifically evaluating the existence and compliance of any online tracking technologies, covered entities, also should reevaluate and reconfirm the adequacy of their electronic security overall. The HIPAA Rules require healthcare providers and other covered entities to regularly conduct documented risk assessments to verify the adequacy of their security safeguards, and to make updates to guard against emerging threats based on these recurrent assessments. The importance of compliance with this ongoing recurrent risk assessment obligation is repeatedly reinforced in each HIPAA settlement announced by OCR. See, e.g., OCR Nails Second HIPAA Covered For Allowing Ransomware Breach.

Covered entities should ensure that they and their business associates maintain compliance with these other HIPAA obligations.

For 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 get in touch with 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, Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee and Vice-Chair Elect of its International Employment Law 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, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading-edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on heath benefit and other healthcare and life science, managed care and insurance and other workforce and staffing, employee benefits, safety, contracting, quality assurance, compliance and risk management, and other legal, public policy and operational concerns in the healthcare and life sciences, employee benefits, managed care and insurance, technology and other related industries. She speaks and publishes extensively on these and other related compliance issues.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, life sciences, 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. Author of a multitude of highly regarded publications on HIPAA and other medical record and data privacy and scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Meeting with the HHS Office of Civil Rights, her experience includes extensive involvement throughout her career in advising health care and life sciences and other clients about preventing, investigating and defending EEOC, DOJ, OFCCP and other Civil Rights Act, Section 1557 and other HHS, HUD, banking, and other federal and state discrimination investigations, audits, lawsuits and other enforcement actions as well as advocacy before Congress and regulators regarding federal and state equal opportunity, equity and other laws.

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 Laws Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, air ambulance, ASC, business associate, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Conditions of Participation, Electronic Medical Records, Emergency Care, Health Care, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HHS, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, home health, Hospital | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR Nails Second HIPAA Covered For Allowing Ransomware Breach

February 23, 2024

Health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (covered entities) that fail to appropriately safeguard their protected health information and systems against randomware and other malware threats as required by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) should expect to pay hefty amounts to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) if an attack occurs. That is the clear message sent by OCR’s February 22, 2022 announcement of its second ransomware settlement since October, 2023.

Duty To Guard Against Malware

OCR enforces the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification Rules, which sets forth the requirements that HIPAA covered entities (most health care providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses) and their business associates must follow to protect the privacy and security of protected health information.

Ransomware and hacking are the primary cyber-threats in health care. A type of malware (malicious software) designed to deny access to a user’s data, usually by encrypting the data with a key known only to the hacker who deployed the malware, until a ransom is paid, OCR has seen large breaches affecting more than 500 individuals reported to OCR involving hacking increase 256% and those from ransomware increase 264% increase over the past five years,

In 2023, hacking accounted for 79% of the large breaches reported to OCR. The large breaches reported in 2023 affected over 134 million individuals, a 141% increase from 2022.

In light of the growing threat, OCR is prioritizing enforcement, education and compliance outreach to HIPAA covered entities.

OCR’s February 22, 2024 announcement of its second ever and second settlement of a malware related enforcement action in less than five months demonstrates OCR’s readiness to hold covered entities accountable for failing to fulfill this responsibility.

Green Ridge Ransomeware Breach

OCR’s February 22, 2022 announcement of its second ever ransomware related resolution agreement and corrective action plan reaffirms OCR’s readiness to hold covered entities accountable for failing to guard against ransomware and other cyber risks.

Green Ridge Behavioral Health, LLC, (Green Ridge), a Maryland-based practice that provides psychiatric evaluations, medication management, and psychotherapy. This marks the second settlement that OCR has reached with a HIPAA regulated entity for potential violations identified during an investigation following a ransomware attack.

The settlement resolves an investigation following a ransomware attack that affected the protected health information of more than 14,000 individuals.

OCR learned of the breach after Green Ridge filed a breach report with OCR in February 2019 that stated that its network server had been infected with ransomware resulting in the encryption of company files and the electronic health records of all patients.

In keeping with its policy of investigating all breaches affecting more that 500 individuals (large breaches), OCR opened an investigation in April, 2019.

OCR’s investigation of the breach found evidence of potential violations of the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules leading up to and at the time of the breach. Other findings included that Green Ridge Behavioral Health failed to:

Have in place an accurate and through analysis to determine the potential risks and vulnerabilities to electronic protected health information;
Implement security measures to reduce risks and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level; and
Have sufficient monitoring of its health information systems’ activity to protect against a cyber-attack.

Under the terms of the settlement, Green Ridge agreed to pay $40,000 and implement a corrective action plan that will be monitored by OCR for three years to avoid exposure to potentially much greater HIPAA monetary penalties.

The plan also requires Green Ridge to take many actions to resolve potential HIPAA violations and to protect electronic protected health information, including:

Conducting a comprehensive and thorough analysis of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of electronic protected health information;
Designing a Risk Management Plan to address and mitigate security risks and vulnerabilities found in the Risk Analysis;
Reviewing, and as necessary, developing, or revising its written policies and procedures to comply with the HIPAA Rules;
Providing workforce training on HIPAA policies and procedures;
Conducting an audit of all third-party arrangements to ensure appropriate business associate agreements are in place, where applicable; and
Reporting to OCR when workforce members fail to comply with HIPAA.

First Malware Settlement

Prior to this week’s announcement of the Green Ridge resolution agreement, OCR already had announced its first ever malware related resolution agreement on October 31, 2023.

That $100,000 settlement resolved a potentially much greater HIPAA liability business associate Doctors’ Management Services (DMS) could have faced for alleged HIPAA violations OCR found investigating a large breach report DMS filed on April 22, 2019.

The DMS breach report disclosed that a ransomware attack affected DMS’ network server with GandCrab ransomware beginning with an initial unauthorized access to the network that occurred on April 1, 2017; however, DMS did not detect the intrusion until December 24, 2018, Once the DNS system was accessed, ransomware was used to encrypt their files. The attack affected the electronic protected health information of 206,695 individuals

OCR’s investigation of the DNS breach found evidence of potential failures by DMS to have in place an analysis to determine the potential risks and vulnerabilities to electronic protected health information across the organization. Other findings included insufficient monitoring of its health information systems’ activity to protect against a cyber-attack, and a lack of policies and procedures in place to implement the requirements of the HIPAA Security Rule to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of electronic protected health information.

Under the terms of the DMS settlement agreement paid $100,000 to OCR and agreed to implement a corrective action plan that requires:

DMS to submit to OCR monitoring for three years to ensure compliance with HIPAA
Review and update its Risk Analysis to identify the potential risks and vulnerabilities to Doctor’s Management Services data to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of electronic protected health information.
Update its enterprise-wide Risk Management Plan (strategy to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI) to address and mitigate any security risks and vulnerabilities found in the updated Risk Analysis.
Review and revise, if necessary, its written policies and procedures to comply with the Privacy and Security Rules.
Provide workforce training on HIPAA policies and procedures.

Warning To All Covered Entities

Along with announcing the two recent resolution agreements, OCR also is warning all covered entities to tighten their malware and ransomware safeguards.

OCR’s announcement of the Green Ridge resolution agreement, for instance, quotes OCR Director Melanie Fontes Rainer as stating, “Health care providers need to understand the seriousness of these attacks and must have practices in place to ensure patients’ protected health information is not subjected to cyber-attacks such as ransomware.”

To assist covered entities to meet this responsibility, OCR has developed Fact Sheet guidance that recommends covered entities to take at least the following steps to guard against breaches from ransomware and other malware attacks:

Review all vendor and contractor relationships to ensure business associate agreements are in place as appropriate and address breach/security incident obligations.
Risk analysis and risk management should be integrated into business processes; conducted regularly and when new technologies and business operations are planned.
Ensure audit controls are in place to record and examine information system activity.
Implement regular review of information system activity.
Utilize multi-factor authentication to ensure only authorized users are accessing ePHI.
Encrypt ePHI to guard against unauthorized access to ePHI.
Incorporate lessons learned from incidents into the overall security management process.
Provide training specific to organization and job responsibilities and on regular basis; reinforce workforce members’ critical role in protecting privacy and security.
two recent resolutions agreements and other guidance and enforcement actions make clear that all covered entities should ensure their ability to demonstrate their completion of these and other actions a risk analysis shows are needed to defend against a ransomware or other malware threats. This guidance also alerts covered entities to stay vigilant and update risk assessments and safeguards in response as to evolving threats.

Covered entities should not assume the relatively modest settlement amounts collected in the two new ransomware settlements compared to exponentially greater resolution settlements like the $4.75 million settlement payment New York based Montefiore Medical Center made last year reflect greater tolerance for ransomware related threats versus internal or external hacking. To the contrary, the Montefiore Medical Center resolution makes clear the randomware threat is one of a multitude of internal and external threats covered entities must defend their protected health information against to comply with HIPAA.

Moreover, covered entities and their leaders also should take steps to understand and fully address all other statutory, ethical, contractual or other privacy or confidentiality requirements beyond those imposed by HIPAA. For example, health care providers, health plans and their fiduciaries, brokers, administrators and insurers also may bear responsibilities under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act fiduciary responsibility rules, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, federal and state electronic crimes, privacy data security, artificial intelligence, workforce, tax, and other laws.

Publicly traded organizations and their leaders also may face responsibilities and liability under new Securities and Exchange Commission regulations, clawback rules and other laws arising from the occurrence or bungled response to a breach.

Likewise, got businesses sponsoring or administering employment-based health plans, Employee Benefit Security Administration considers managing cybersecurity risks a part of the fiduciary obligations of fiduciaries of employment-based health plans. Meanwhile, health care providers, insurance organizations and brokers, third party administrators, government contractors, attorneys and other advisors and others also may be subject to medical confidentiality and other data privacy and security obligations under federal and state electronic crimes, identity theft, ethics, professional licensure, contractual, common law privacy and other statutory and common laws. Since HIPAA and many of these other laws involve potential criminal as well as civil liability, organizations and leaders in covered entities generally should ensure their HIPAA and other cybersecurity compliance efforts are included in and administered according to their Federal Sentencing Guidelines Compliance program.

While it commonly is necessary or advisable to involve consulting or other technical support in the conduct of these activities, HIPAA entities should keep in mind the likelihood that their analysis and review is likely to uncover and prompt discussion of potentially legally or politically sensitive information. For this reason, HIPAA entities and their leaders generally will want to engage experienced legal counsel for assistance in structuring and executing these activities to maximize their ability to claim attorney-client privilege or other evidentiary protections against discovery or disclosure of certain aspects of these activities.

In planning for an implementing these procedures, Covered Entities also are reminded that the effectiveness of these efforts requires that the Covered Entities incorporate appropriate processes and policies for monitoring and investigating compliance with the policies and procedures implemented to comply with HIPAA. Conducting this monitoring and investigation by necessity is likely to involve surveillance, investigation and cooperation of employees, contractors, vendors and others for which Fair Credit Reporting Act background check notification and consent and other procedures are necessary or advisable.

Finally, HIPAA entities should keep in mind that HIPAA and other cybersecurity compliance and risk management is an ongoing process requiring constant awareness and diligence. Consequently, HIPAA entities should both monitor OCR and other regulatory and enforcement developments as well as exercise ongoing vigilance to monitor and maintain compliance within their organizations.

For More Informational

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.

About the Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee and Vice-Chair Elect of its International Employment Law 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, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading-edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on healthcare and life science, managed care and insurance and other workforce and staffing, employee benefits, safety, contracting, quality assurance, compliance and risk management, and other legal, public policy and operational concerns in the healthcare and life sciences, employee benefits, managed care and insurance, technology and other related industries. She speaks and publishes extensively on these and other related compliance issues.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, life sciences, 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. Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Meeting with the HHS Office of Civil Rights, her experience includes extensive involvement throughout her career in advising health care and life sciences and other clients about preventing, investigating and defending EEOC, DOJ, OFCCP and other Civil Rights Act, Section 1557 and other HHS, HUD, banking, and other federal and state discrimination investigations, audits, lawsuits and other enforcement actions as well as advocacy before Congress and regulators regarding federal and state equal opportunity, equity and other laws.

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.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Leave a Comment » | business associate, data breach, data security, Doctor, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Fiduciary Responsibility, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HHS, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, long-term care, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, NIST, nursing home, occupational health, OCR, Pharmacy, Physician, primary care, Self-Insured Group health Plans, Telemedicine | Tagged: Breach Notification, Data Breach, Data Security, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Provider, Health Plans, Health Policy, HHS, HIPAA, Hospital, Hospitals, Medical Privacy, OCR, pharmacy, PHI, Physician, Privacy, Security | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

FDA & CMS Partnering To Promote Accurate and Reliable Diagnostic Tests

January 18, 2024

The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA” and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) are joining forces to heighten scrutiny of diagnostic testing. As part of these efforts, the agencies are working together to expand FDA oversight of testing facilities to increase FDA regulation and oversight of tests run within a single laboratory, known as laboratory, developed tests or LDTs. The agencies claim this will promote more reliable and accurate diagnostic tests.

LDTs Defined

LDTs are in vitro diagnostic products (IVDs) that are intended for clinical use and are designed, manufactured, and used within a single clinical laboratory which meets certain laboratory requirements. Specifically, such laboratory must be certified under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) and meet the regulatory requirements under CLIA to perform high complexity testing.

IVDs are intended for use in the collection, preparation and examination of specimens taken from the human body, such as blood, saliva, or tissue. LDTs, like other IVDs, can be used to measure or detect a wide variety of substances, analytes, or markers in the human body, such as proteins, glucose, cholesterol, or DNA, to provide information about a patient’s health, including to diagnose, monitor, or determine treatment for diseases and conditions.

FDA Steps Up LDT Oversight

While LDTs generally are covered by the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) and required to meet the regulatory requirements under CLIA to perform high complexity testing, the FDA since the 1970s has not enforced applicable requirements with respect to most LDTs.

The FDA now is making clear LDTs are covered by the CLiA and the FDA now will require LDT CLIA compliance in response to their increasing use and the greater risks associated with most modern LDTs compared to those associated with LDTs used decades ago.

In furtherance of this effort, on September 29, 2023, the FDA announced a proposed rule aimed at helping to ensure the safety and effectiveness of these tests. The proposed rule seeks to amend the FDA’s regulations to make explicit that IVDs are devices under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, including when the manufacturer of the IVD is a laboratory. Along with this amendment, the FDA is proposing a policy under which the FDA intends to provide greater oversight of LDTs through a phaseout of its general enforcement discretion approach for most LDTs.

Today, the FDA announced it is moving forward to phase out its CLIA non enforcement policy for LDTs to provide increased FDA oversight of LDTs on January 18, 2024. See Laboratory Developed Tests (January 18, 2024).

Along with this announcement, the FDA and CNS also released the following joint statement released on January 18, 2024, attributed to Jeff Shuren, M.D., J.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) and Dora Hughes, M.D., M.P.H., acting chief medical officer and acting director of the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)

Physicians heavily rely on laboratory tests to make critical decisions about their patients’ care—roughly 70% of healthcare decisions depend on laboratory test results according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). For example, results from laboratory tests can be the sole determinant of whether a patient with cancer gets a particular therapy, potentially risking the patient’s life with an inaccurate test result. Because of the important role of laboratory tests in healthcare decisions, it is essential to ensure these tests work.

While the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) actively oversees tests made outside laboratories by test manufacturers, tests m and run within a single laboratory, known as laboratory, developed tests or LDTs, are often used without such oversight. The FDA’s approach was developed half a century ago when tests made and used in single labs were generally simple, often made to address local individual needs, and mostly manufactured in small volumes. Therefore, the FDA, as a policy approach, generally did not enforce requirements for LDTs. However, since then, LDTs have evolved. Due to the increased risk to patients, it is time to reconsider this approach.

In recent decades, the FDA has identified concerns with a number of LDTs. For example, the FDA is aware of tests offered as LDTs that could have led to patients being over- or under-treated for heart disease; patients with cancer being exposed to inappropriate therapies or not getting effective therapies; and incorrect diagnoses of rare diseases, autism and Alzheimer’s Disease.^1,2Other evidence, including published literature^3,4,5,6,7,8 and the FDA’s experience with tests to diagnose COVID-19,⁹ suggests that the situation is getting worse. Therefore, in October of this year, the FDA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to help ensure the safety and effectiveness of LDTs by phasing out the FDA’s current approach to LDTs. If finalized, LDTs would generally fall under the same enforcement approach as other tests. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) supports the FDA’s proposal.

Both CMS and the FDA believe that patients and their doctors need to know that LDTs are valid. The FDA and CMS both provide oversight to help assure the accuracy of test results, however, they have different roles. CMS regulates laboratories that perform testing on individuals in the U.S. through the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) by establishing quality standards for all laboratory testing to help ensure the accuracy, reliability and timeliness of patient test results. In 2013, CMS published a fact sheet on LDTs, outlining each agency’s authority and the complementary roles of the two regulatory schemes. That said, a decade later, in connection with the FDA’s notice of proposed rulemaking, we are – together – reiterating that CMS’s CLIA program is separate in scope and purpose from FDA oversight.

Some have suggested that concerns with LDTs should be addressed through expansion of CLIA. This is not the answer. As was stated in our 2015 testimony, CMS does not have the expertise to assure that tests work; the FDA does. Moreover, establishing a duplicative system for the oversight of tests by expanding CLIA would create more government bureaucracy and inconsistencies. That makes no sense.

The FDA and CMS have long stood together in mutual support of FDA oversight of the analytical and clinical validity of LDTs. LDTs play an important role in healthcare, but when they perform poorly or are not supported by science, they put patients at risk. The current approach has enabled some tests to enter the market with unfounded claims of innovation. These claims can mislead the public, undermine legitimate competition and disincentivize responsible, science-based innovation. Applying the same oversight approach to laboratories and non-laboratories that manufacture tests would better assure the safety and effectiveness of LDTs and would remove a disincentive for non-laboratory manufacturers to develop novel tests that can be available to and used by many laboratories for many patients.

We are now emerging from a global pandemic that has underscored the importance of accurate and reliable tests. Patients and providers need to have confidence that laboratory tests work. We believe the complementary FDA and CMS frameworks are both critical to assuring patients can rely on the clinical accuracy of their test results. “
See: Americans Deserve Accurate and Reliable Diagnostic Tests, Wherever They Are Made (January 18, 2024).

Affected LDT facilities and other interested parties should follow these efforts closely for relevant developments and opportunities for comment and other input. Additionally, LDTs should move quickly to come into compliance with all applicable CLIA requirements.

For More Information

About the Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee and Vice-Chair Elect of its International Employment Law 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, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading-edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on heath benefit and other healthcare and life science, managed care and insurance and other workforce and staffing, employee benefits, safety, contracting, quality assurance, compliance and risk management, and other legal, public policy and operational concerns in the healthcare and life sciences, employee benefits, managed care and insurance, technology and other related industries. She speaks and publishes extensively on these and other related compliance issues.

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.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

¹ See pages 68010- 68012 of FDA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

² See “Memorandum to File – Examples of IVDs Offered as LDTs that Raise Public Health Concerns RE: Medical Devices; Laboratory Developed Tests”

³ Pfeifer, J.D., R. Loberg, C. Lofton-Day, et al., “Reference Samples to Compare Next-Generation Sequencing Test Performance for Oncology Therapeutics and Diagnostics,” American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 157(4):628-638, 2022 External Link Disclaimer.

⁴Quy, P.N., K. Fukuyama, M. Kanai, et al., “Inter-Assay Variability of Next-Generation Sequencing-Based Gene Panels,” BMC Medical Genomics, 15: 86, 2022 External Link Disclaimer.

⁵ Vega, D.M., L.M. Yee, L.M. McShane, et al., “Aligning Tumor Mutational Burden (TMB) Quantification Across Diagnostic Platforms: Phase II of the Friends of Cancer Research TMB Harmonization Project,” Annals of Oncology, 32(12):1626-1636, 2021 External Link Disclaimer.

⁶ Offit, K., C.M. Sharkey, D. Green, et al., “Regulation of Laboratory-Developed Tests in Preventive Oncology: Emerging Needs and Opportunities,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, 41(1): 11-21, 2023 External Link Disclaimer.

⁷Coffey, D., “Blood Test Positive for Cancer, but Is There Really a Tumor?” Medscape, February 17, 2023 External Link Disclaimer.

⁸ Manrai, A.K., B.H. Funke, H.L. Rehm, et al., “Genetic Misdiagnoses and the Potential for Health Disparities,” New England Journal of Medicine, 375(7):655-665, 2016 External Link Disclaimer.

⁹ See “Memorandum from Elizabeth Hillebrenner to FDA CDRH”

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Centers For Disease Control, CLIA, diagnostic testing, drug treatment, FDA, Health Care, laboratory testing, Laboratory tests, Life Sciences, Medicaid, Medicare | Tagged: CLIA, Compliance, Credentialing, Doctor, FDA, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Provider, health care quality, Health Plans, healthcare, Hospital, Hospitals, lab tests, LDTs, licensure, Medical Licensure, Pandemic, Pharmaceudical, pharmacist, pharmacy, Physicians, public health | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

46th OCR HIPAA Right of Access Settlement With Optum Medical Care Warns All HIPAA Entities To Timely Deliver Required Medical Record Access

January 5, 2024

Health care providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses (“Covered Entities”) should ensure their compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) Right of Access Rule in light of the announcement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) that Optum Medical Care of New Jersey (“Optum”) has agreed to pay $160,000 to OCR and take other steps to settle OCR’s forty-sixth enforcement action under its Right of Access Rule enforcement initiative.

HIPAA Right of Access Rule

The HIPAA Right of Access Rule guarantees individuals the right to access a broad array of health information about themselves maintained by or for health care providers and other Covered Entities. Under the Right of Access Rule, Covered Entities generally must provide individuals or their personal representatives copies or other acceptable access to the individual’s protected health information in a Covered Entity’s “designated record set” for a reasonable cost as soon as possible and within 30 days of receiving a request for a reasonable cost. However, the Right of Access Rule does not grant any right for an individual to access protected health information that is not part of a designated record set because the information is not used to make decisions about individuals.

The request for protected health information triggering the duty for a Covered Entity to provide access to the protected health information may come from the individual who is the subject of the protected health information or from the “personal representative” of that individual. When considering a request for protected health information from an individual other than the subject of the protected health information, health care providers and other Covered Entities also must use care to verify that the requesting party, in fact, qualifies as the individual’s “personal representative” as defined for purposes of HIPAA.

Once a health care provider or other Covered Entity receives a request protected health information from the individual or his personal representative, the Right of Access Rule requires the Covered Entity to provide access to all requested protected health information that is included within any “designated record set” within 30 days unless the requested information falls within one of two exceptions to the Rule. For this purpose, a “designated record set” generally is defined at 45 CFR 164.501 as any item, collection, or grouping of information that includes protected health information that is maintained, collected, used, or disseminated by or for a Covered Entity that comprises the:

Medical records and billing records about individuals maintained by or for a covered health care provider;
Enrollment, payment, claims adjudication, and case or medical management record systems maintained by or for a health plan; or
Other records that are used, in whole or in part, by or for the covered entity to make decisions about individuals. This last category includes records that are used to make decisions about any individuals, whether or not the records have been used to make a decision about the particular individual requesting access.

However, information is not considered part of the designated record set if it is not used by or for the Covered Entity to make decisions about the individual. Examples of such records might include certain quality assessment or improvement records, patient safety activity records, or business planning, development, and management records that are used for business decisions more generally rather than to make decisions about individuals.

Even where the information falls within the definition of a designated record set, however, HIPAA expressly excludes two categories of information from the Right of Access right:

Psychotherapy notes, which are the personal notes of a mental health care provider documenting or analyzing the contents of a counseling session maintained separately from the rest of the patient’s medical record as described in 45 CFR 164.524(a)(1)(i) and 164.501.
Information complied in reasonable anticipation of, or for use in, a civil, criminal, or administrative action or proceeding described under 45 CFR 164.524(a)(1)(ii).

However, it is critical that Covered Entities not overestimate the reach of either of these two exceptions. The exception only applies to the narrow range of records meeting the requirements of the exception. The underlying protected health information from the individual’s medical or payment records or other records used to generate the above types of excluded records or information remains part of the designated record set and is subject to access by the individual under the Right of Access Rule. Providers and other Covered Entities should use care to comply with the Right of Access Rule without providing more information than allowed as HIPAA liability can arise from failing to timely deliver access to all protected health information required by the Right of Access Rule or from sharing protected health information with an individual who is not either the individual or personal representative when the disclosure otherwise is not allowed by HIPAA To help negotiate these requirements, Covered Entities should become familiar with and process all requests for protected health information following the latest Right of Access Rule guidance. When in doubt, Covered Entities should seek the advice of experienced legal counsel within the scope of attorney-client privilege about proper fulfillment of their obligations under the Right of Access Rule in coordination with any other applicable responsibilities the Covered Entities has to provide access, disclose, or prevent disclosure of the requested information under otherwise applicable federal or states laws and regulations, ethical or other professional standards, contractual or other medical, insurance, financial, employee benefit or other rules relating to the requested records.

Optum Settlement 46^th Right Of Access Enforcement Settlement

The Optum settlement resulted from OCR’s investigation of six complaints in the Fall of 2021 that Optum violated the Right of Access Rule by failing to provide timely access to medical records when requested by an adult patient or by the parents of minor patients.

In February 2022, OCR initiated investigations of these Right of Access complaints. The investigation revealed that patients received their requested records between 84 and 231 days after submitting their respective requests. Since the Right of Access Rule requires that Covered Entities deliver the records no later than 30 days from receiving the individual’s requests, those timeframes fell well outside of the deadline for delivery required by the HIPAA Right of Access Rule. Accordingly, OCR concluded that Optum’s failure to provide timely access to the requested medical records was a potential violation of HIPAA.

Under the Resolution Agreement reached with Optum, Optum agreed to pay $160,000 to OCR as well as implement a corrective action plan that requires workforce training, reporting records requests to OCR, and reviewing and revising as necessary its right of access policies and procedures to provide timely responses to requests. Under the plan, OCR will monitor Optum Medical Care for one year.

Right Of Access Remains OCR Investigation & Enforcement Priority

The Optum enforcement action and settlement is the latest reminder to all Covered Entities that investigation and enforcement remains a top OCR priority. See e.g. OCR Sanction Of 44th Health Care Provider For Violating HIPAA Right of Access Rules Warning To Other Covered Entities. Because access to medical records empowers patients and their families to make decisions about their health care and improve their health overall, OCR views access to medical records “a fundamental right under HIPAA. For this reason, OCR believes it “critical that providers follow the law.” Accordingly, OCR Director Melanie Fontes Rainer has warned that health care providers “must proactively respond to record requests and ensure timely access” and “make responding to parents’ or patients’ request for access to their medical records in a timely manner a priority.” See e.g., HHS’ Office for Civil Rights Settles Multiple HIPAA Complaints with Optum Medical Care Over Patient Access to Records (January 4, 2024).

Despite the importance OCR has placed on compliance with the Right of Access Rule, OCR has and continues to receive thousands of Right of Access Rule complaints each year. In response to these persistent compliance issues, OCR continues to make enforcement of the Right of Access Rule a key enforcement priority through its Right Of Access Initiative.

In light of OCR’s commitment to continue to investigate and enforce compliance with the Right of Access Rule, health care providers and other Covered Entities and their business associates are urged to review their existing practices for receiving and processing patient record requests to confirm their own compliance with the Right of Access Rule and other applicable federal and state statutory regulatory and contractual requirements. To reduce risks of violations, all health care providers and other Covered Entities should seek assistance from experienced legal counsel within the scope of attorney-client privilege with auditing their past and current Right of Access Rule compliance for any necessary or advisable steps to prevent future violations and mitigate potential liabilities arising from potential past or future violations of the Right of Access Rule. Aside from confirming documented timely response to past requests for protected health information, among other things, most Covered Entities will want to consider:

Verifying that their current policies, privacy practices notices, training and other materials are updated to comply with all applicable policies and properly identify and provide current contact information for the Privacy Officer or other party responsible for receiving and responding to protected health information requests;
Appropriate procedures are in place to ensure that the Covered Entity can produce required documentation showing the individuals are appropriately notified of the Right of Access and other HIPAA rules, and that the Covered Entity captures the necessary documentation to show its receipt of all requests, and timely investigation and response to such requests;
Appropriate and documented processes for collecting, investigating or resolving any potential concerns, complaints, or other issues, their evaluation and resolution;
Appropriate workforce, business associates and other policies, training, oversight and enforcement to require and enforce compliance with applicable laws and policies; and
Appropriate processes, procedures, and training to ensure that staff fully understands and complies with both the specific processes and procedures of the Covered Entity for complying with the Right of Access Rule, as well as related procedures necessary to manage risks and responsibilities arising under verification of identity, personal representative, disclosure, recordkeeping or other HIPAA’ rules; medical, insurance, financial, or other data or privacy; licensure and market conduct; civil rights and nondiscrimination; fiduciary; licensure; marketing or other rules.

While involving outside consultants or other service providers generally is valuable if not required to conduct some of these tasks, Covered Entities are encouraged to use experienced outside legal counsel to help plan, conduct, evaluate and decide and implement responses to findings from these compliance and risk management activities both to benefit from legal counsel’s substantive legal expertise and experience and to take advantage of the opportunity to conduct sensitive discussions within the protection of attorney-client privilege or other evidentiary rules. Experienced outside legal counsel can guide Covered Entities about the best way to work with consulting and other vendors to maximize these benefits.

For More Information

About the Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee and Vice-Chair Elect of its International Employment Law 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, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading-edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on heath benefit and other healthcare and life science, managed care and insurance and other workforce and staffing, employee benefits, safety, contracting, quality assurance, compliance and risk management, and other legal, public policy and operational concerns in the healthcare and life sciences, employee benefits, managed care and insurance, technology and other related industries. She speaks and publishes extensively on these and other related compliance issues.

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.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Leave a Comment » | business associate, Electronic Medical Records, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Medical Records, OCR, Patient Empowerment, Patients, Physician, Physician Licensing, Right of Access, Self-Insured Group health Plans | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Fee Set for Providers & Plans Using No Surprises Act Independent Dispute Resolution To Resolve Post 2/20/24 Disputes

December 19, 2023

$115 is the fee that with health care providers, facilities, and providers of air ambulance services (“providers”) and health plans participating in the Independent Dispute Resolution (“IDR”) process required by the No Surprises Act (the “NSA”) to resolve disputes over the amount the health plan will pay the provider for out-of-network health care or items for because the health plan and provider cannot reach agreement about the appropriate amount outside the IDR process will be required to pay disputes initiated on or after February 21, 2023 under a new final rule scheduled for publication by the of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), Labor (“DOL”) and Treasury (“Treasury”) (collectively the “Departments”) on December 21, 2023.

The Departments establishment of the IDR fee for post-February 20, 2025 disputes and their previous December 15, 2023 announcement of the full reopening of the IDR portal for all dispute categories are part of the Departments’ ongoing response to the August 3, 2023 Federal District court ruling in Texas Medical Association, et al. v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, et al., No. 6:23-cv-00059-JDK (TMA IV), which vacated portions of the previous guidance that the Departments previously adopted to establish the IDR process and the administrative fee amount for the Federal IDR process for disputes initiated during the calendar year beginning January 1, 2023.

Post February 22, 2024 IDR Fees

On December 18, 2023, the Departments released an advance copy of the final rule (the “Rule”) setting the fees the NSA requires both the health plan or issuer and a health care provider, facility, or air ambulance services provider (the “parties”) when the parties must use the NSA Federal Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR) process to set the amount a health plan must pay the provider for out-of-network medical care or items because the plan and provider cannot agree on an appropriate payment amount for disputes initiated on or after the date the Rule is published in the Federal Register. Since the Rule is scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on December 21, 2023, the new fee will apply to disputes initiated after February 20, 2023.

In response to the TMA IV ruling, the Rule amends existing regulations to provide that the Departments going forward will determine the administrative fee charged by the Departments to participate in the Federal IDR process, and the ranges for certified IDR entity fees for single and batched determinations, through annual notice and comment rulemaking, rather than in guidance published annually. The preamble to the final rule also sets forth the methodology used to calculate the administrative fee and the considerations used to develop the certified IDR entity fee ranges.

Following this new process, the Rule also finalizes an administrative fee amount of $115 per party and finalizes a certified IDR entity fee range of $200-$840 for single determinations and $268-$1,173 for batched determinations for disputes initiated on or after February 21, 2023.

Interested parties can review the Rule here and the Departments Fact Sheet on the Rule here.

IDR Portal Reopened December 15, 2023

The Rule establishing the IDR fee for disputes initiated after February 20, 2024 follows the Departments’ December 15, 2023 announcement of their reopening of the IDR portal for processing all health benefit disputes covered by the NSA between providers and payers.

As part of its provisions to protect patients from “surprise bills” or out-of-network services covered by the NSA, the NSA establishes rules and procedures for providers and payers to determine the appropriate out-of-network payment rate for out-of-network services received by patients enrolled in covered payer programs. Where payers and providers cannot agree about the appropriate payment rate using other NSA procedures, the IDR portal is the online system established under the NSA for disputing payers and health care providers arrange for a certified IDR entity to resolve disagreements about the appropriate out-of-network payment rate for items and services subject to the surprise billing protections in the NSA through a process in which the certified IDR entity reviews offers made by each disputing party along with supporting information about the dispute. Once established under the NSA, payers are required to pay providers the appropriate payment rate for the covered out-of-network services provided to the member patient and the provider is prohibited from balance billing charges in excess of the appropriate payment rate for those services. The Departments previously suspended the operation of the IDR portal earlier this year after a federal court ruled that rules adopted by the Departments implementing the NSA violated the NSA.

In connection with the reopening of the IDR Portal, the Departments also announced the following extensions of the applicable IDR deadlines for the initiation of new batched disputes and new single disputes involving air ambulance services, resubmission of disputes determined by certified IDR entities to be improperly batched, and selection or reselection of a certified IDR entity.

Parties for whom the IDR initiation deadline under applicable regulations fell on any date between August 3, 2023 and December 15, 2023 will have until the 20th business day after the Federal IDR portal reopens, which is January 16, 2024, to initiate a new batched dispute or a new single dispute involving air ambulance services. Parties for whom the IDR initiation deadline falls between December 16, 2023 and January 15, 2024 will also have until January 16, 2024 to initiate a batched or air ambulance dispute. Parties whose initiation deadline falls on January 16, 2024 or after will have the usual 4 business days after the end of the Open Negotiation Period, or if the dispute is subject to the 90-calendar-day suspension period following a payment determination, the usual 30 business day period, to initiate a batched or air ambulance dispute in the Federal IDR portal.
For batched disputes and single disputes involving air ambulance services initiated under extensions of deadlines after the Federal IDR portal reopens, the deadline for the parties to jointly select a certified IDR entity will be 10 business days after initiation.
For disputing parties that were engaged in certified IDR entity selection for batched disputes when the Federal IDR portal temporarily closed, the deadline for parties to jointly select a certified IDR entity will be 10 business days after the Federal IDR portal reopens, which is December 29, 2023.
An initiating party that has received a notification from a certified IDR entity that a dispute initiated before August 3, 2023 was improperly batched will have one opportunity to resubmit the improperly batched items and services for reconsideration within 10 business days of being notified by the certified IDR entity, provided that the initiating party’s 4-business-day period to resubmit the batched dispute expired between August 3 and August 9, 2023.
The deadline to submit fees and offers will remain 10 business days after certified IDR entity selection.
Disputing parties with batched disputes that were impacted by the temporary suspension of use of the notice of offer form will be granted an additional 10 business days to submit offers, as communicated to impacted disputing parties by email from the Federal IDR Inbox.

The deadline extensions announced December 15, 2023 supplement extensions the Departments previously announced in November, 2023. On November 22, 2023, the Departments used their statutory authority (Internal Revenue Code Section 9816(c)(9), ERISA Section 716(c)(9), and PHS Act Section 2799A-1(c)(9)) to grant extensions in the following circumstances:

Disputing parties may request additional time, beyond the current business day deadline, to respond to the certified IDR entity’s requests for additional information. The Departments instructed certified IDR entities to grant such requests through January 16, 2024.
Certified IDR entities may provide parties, upon request, an additional 10 business days after the original offer deadline to submit an offer. Certified IDR entities may provide parties this additional time, as needed, through January 16, 2024.

On November 29, 2023, the Departments also announced another extension of the timeline for disputing parties to select a certified IDR entity. Under this extension, disputing parties will have 10 business days to select a certified IDR entity for all disputes through January 16, 2024. This extension will be provided automatically and does not require a request by disputing parties.

The Departments already announced the November 22, 2023 and November 29, 2023 extensions until January 16, 2023 for new single and bundled disputes and these extensions will persist for all disputes until January 16, 2023.

In connection with their full reopening of the IDR portal, the Departments renewed prior reminders to parties accessing or using the IDR portal to clear their computer’s cache or open the Federal IDR initiation web forms in a private or incognito window to see all the new features at least once a week to ensure access to the most up-to-date version of the initiation form as the Departments continue to implement Federal IDR web forms to accommodate guidance-related and system enhancements. Users failing to follow this recommendation risk additional follow-up with certified IDR entities or system errors. 

Users also are encouraged to review other previously published guidance, including No Surprises Act (NSA) Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR) Batching and Air Ambulance Policy Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), FAQs about Affordable Care Act and Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 Implementation Part 63 (FAQs Part 63), FAQs about Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 Implementation Part 62 (FAQs Part 62), and the August 2023 IDR Administrative Fees FAQs for further information.

Parties can also reference updated IDR system job aids and updated guidance documents for further information

For More Information

About the Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee and Vice-Chair Elect of its International Employment Law 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, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading-edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on heath benefit and other healthcare and life science, managed care and insurance and other workforce and staffing, employee benefits, safety, contracting, quality assurance, compliance and risk management, and other legal, public policy and operational concerns in the healthcare and life sciences, employee benefits, managed care and insurance, technology and other related industries. She speaks and publishes extensively on these and other related compliance issues.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, life sciences, 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. Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Meeting with the HHS Office of Civil Rights, her experience includes extensive involvement throughout her career in advising health care and life sciences and other clients about preventing, investigating and defending EEOC, DOJ, OFCCP and other Civil Rights Act, Section 1557 and other HHS, HUD, banking, and other federal and state discrimination investigations, audits, lawsuits and other enforcement actions as well as advocacy before Congress and regulators regarding federal and state equal opportunity, equity and other laws.

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.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Leave a Comment » | balance billing, Health Care, Health Care Finance, health care reimbursement, Health Plans, Reimbursement, Self-Insured Group health Plans | Tagged: air ambulance, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, health coverage, Health Plans, health-benefits, no surprises act, out-of-network, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New OCR/St. Joseph’s Medical Center Settlement Highlights HIPAA-Covered Entities’ Duty To Prevent Unauthorized PHI Access and Disclosure To Media & Other Third-Parties

November 21, 2023

A newly-announced settlement agreement and corrective action plan (the “Settlement”) between a prominent New York academic medical center and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) arising from disclosures and access allowed a reporter covering the COVID-19 pandemic warns health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses (“covered entities”), their business associates and workforce members (collectively, “HIPAA entities”) to prevent their organizations and workforce members not to share protected health information (“PHI”) or allow reporters or other media to access patients or PHI without first obtaining the legally required patient authorizations as well as evaluate their own organization’s potential exposure to OCR enforcement from known or suspected unauthorized disclosures of PHI by their own organizations or workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic or other events over the past two years.

HIPAA-Compliant Authorization Required Before Media Access To Patients Or Patient Information

The HIPAA Privacy Rule prohibits SJMC and other HIPAA entities from disclosing any patient’s PHI unless::

The individual who is the subject of the information (or the individual’s personal representative) authorizes the disclosure in writing in the form required by the Privacy Rule; or
The Privacy Rule otherwise expressly permits or requires the disclosure.

OCR guidance makes clear that these prohibitions continue to apply when health care providers or other HIPAA entities are dealing with have print, television, or other media reporters.

SJMC Settlement

The Settlement between OCR and St. Joseph’s Medical Center (“SJMC”) resolves potential OCR charges that SJMC violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) Privacy Rule by allowing an Associated Press (“AP”) reporter to access, photograph, and review clinical information of three COVID-19 patients without appropriate HIPAA authorization. Although the dated documents governing the Settlement reflect the parties reached the Settlement Agreement in August, OCR only made the Settlement public on November 20, 2023.

The OCR investigation that prompted the settlement began shortly an AP article about SJMC’s response to the COVID-19 public health emergency containing photographs and information about three COVID-19 patients came to OCR’s attention. The nationally distributed article included pictures of the three patients as well as details about the patients’ COVID-19 diagnoses, current medical statuses and medical prognoses, vital signs, treatment plans, and other PHI.

OCR determined from the investigation that SJMC allowed the AP reporter to observe and access clinical information of three patients receiving treatment for COVID on April 20, 2020 without first obtaining the necessary patient authorization required by HIPAA and that the disclosures were not otherwise allowed by any other exception to the Privacy Rule.

To avoid potentially much larger civil monetary penalties authorized by HIPAA, SHMC entered into the Settlement under which it agreed to pay $80,000 to OCR and agreed to develop written policies and procedures and train its workforce to comply with the HIPAA Privacy Rule. Under the Settlement, OCR also will monitor SHMC’s HIPAA compliance for two years.

Prior OCR Enforcement & Guidance Warned HIPAA Entities About Media Disclosures

OCR guidance and enforcement actions alerted SJMC and other HIPAA entities of their HIPAA responsibility not to disclose or allow access by the media or other third parties long before SJMC allowed the media access and disclosures that resulted in the new Settlement.

2013 Shasta Regional Medical Center Enforcement

Shasta Regional Medical Center (“SRMC”) holds the distinction of being the first covered entity punished for wrongfully disclosing PHI to the media. Under a resolution agreement OCR announced on June 14, 2013, OCR required SRMC to pay OCR $275,000 and implement a series of corrective actions for using and disclosing to the media PHI of a patient while trying to perform public relations damage control against accusations reported in the media that SRMC had engaged in fraud or other misconduct when dealing with the patient. That SRMC resolution Agreement followed an OCR investigating a January 4, 2012 Los Angeles Times article report that 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 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.

2016 NY-Presby Resolution Agreement & OCR Media Guidance

OCR’s next warnings to covered entities about their HIPAA responsibilities when dealing with the media came in 2016, when OCR concurrently announced a $2.2 million settlement with New York-Presbyterian Hospital and published its 2016 Frequently Asked Question (“Media FAQ”) addressing the obligation to comply with HI)PAA when dealing with the media.

According to the NY-Presby Resolution Agreement, OCR’s investigation revealed that NY-Presbyterian “blatantly” violated HIPAA when it allowed ABC film crews and staff virtually unfettered access to its health care facility. OCR says the access NY-Presbyterian allowed ABC effectively created an environment where patients PHI could not be protected from impermissible disclosure to the ABC film crew and staff filming the episode. While the Resolution Agreement reflects allowing the filming and other access to ABC without prior HIPAA-compliant authorization from patients in the facility itself violated HIPAA, OCR also particularly found “egregious” the facility allowing ABC film crews and staff to film a dying patient and another patient in significant distress without first obtaining a HIPAA-compliant authorization from each of those patients and even more so that NY-Presbyterian failed stop the filming even after a medical professional urged the crew to stop.

Based on its investigation, OCR charged NY-Presbyterian with violating 45 C.F.R. §§ 164.502(a) and 164.530(c) by:

Impermissibly disclosing the PHI of two identified patients to the film crew and other staff of “NY Med;”
Failing appropriately and reasonably to safeguard its patients’ PHI from disclosure during the filming of “NY Med” on its premises; and
Failing to implement policies, procedures, and practices to protect the privacy of the filming of the television show.

OCR collected $2.2 million from New York-Presbyterian Hospital as the required settlement payment under that resolution agreement.

2016 Media FAQ Guidance

Coincident with its announcement of the NYPH Settlement, OCR published the 2016 Media FAQ addressing HIPAA entities’ responsibilities when dealing with the media that outlined its interpretation of HIPAA as requiring HIPAA entities to protect patients and their PHI against unauthorized filming, photography, observation, and other access by news or other media or even other staff, patients or visitors.

Among other things, the Media FAQ states that HIPAA prohibits health care providers and other HIPAA entities from inviting or allowing media personnel into treatment or other areas where patients or patient PHI will be accessible in written, electronic, oral, or other visual or audio form, or otherwise making PHI accessible to the media without prior written authorization from each patient or other subject of the PHI who is or will be in the area or whose PHI otherwise will be accessible to the media except in a very limited set of circumstances set forth in the Media FAQ.

The Media FAQ also states, “It is not sufficient for a health care provider to request or require media personnel to mask the identities of patients (using techniques such as blurring, pixelation, or voice alteration software) for whom authorization was not obtained, because the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not allow media access to the patient’s PHI, absent an authorization, in the first place.

In addition, the Media FAQ states that a health care provider also must ensure that reasonable safeguards are in place to protect against impermissible disclosures or to limit incidental disclosures of other PHI that may be in the area but for which authorization has not been obtained.

Concerning the limited circumstances when a health care provider or other HIPAA entity or business associate may disclose to the media or allow unconsented filming, photographing or use of PHI to the media or other film crews, the Media FAQ also clarifies that the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not require health care providers to prevent members of the media from entering areas of their facilities that are otherwise generally accessible to the public like public waiting areas or areas where the public enters or exits the facility.

In addition, the Media FAQ states a health care provider or other HIPAA entity may:

Disclose limited PHI about the incapacitated patient to the media in accordance with the requirements of 45 C.F.R. 164.510(b)(1)(ii) when, in the hospital’s professional judgment, doing so is in the patient’s best interest; or
Disclose a patient’s location in the facility and condition in general terms that do not communicate specific medical information about the individual to any person, including the media, without obtaining a HIPAA authorization where the individual has not objected to his information being included in the facility directory, and the media representative or other person asks for the individual by name as specified in 45 C.F.R. 164.510(a).

The Media FAQ also discusses circumstances where a healthcare provider or other HIPAA entity may use the services of a contract film crew to produce training videos or public relations materials on the provider’s behalf if the provider ensures that the film crew acting as a business associate enters into a HIPAA compliant business associate agreement with the HIPAA entity which among other things ensures that the film crew will safeguard the PHI it obtains, only use or disclose the PHI for the purposes provided in the agreement, and return or destroy any PHI after the work for the health care provider has been completed as required by 45 C.F.R. 164.504(e)(2). The Media FAQ also states that as a business associate, the film crew must comply with the HIPAA Security Rule and a number of provisions in the Privacy Rule, including the Rule’s restrictions on the use and disclosure of PHI. In addition, the Media FAQ reminds HIPAA entities and business associates of the need to obtain prior authorizations from patients whose PHI is included in any materials before any of those materials are posted online, printed in brochures for the public, or otherwise publicly disseminated.

Finally, the Media FAQ states HIPAA entities can continue to inform the media of their treatment services and programs so that the media can better inform the public, provided that, in doing so, the covered entity does not share PHI with the media.

Memorial Herrman Health System Resolution Agreement

OCR’s next media coverage-related enforcement action involved the largest not-for-profit health system in Southeast Texas, Memorial Hermann Health System (MHHS). The 2017 MHHS Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan resulted from HHHS issuing a press release with the name and other PHI about a patient arrested and charged with fraudulently obtaining health care by presenting an allegedly fraudulent identification card to MHHS office staff without first obtaining authorization from the patient. MHHS paid OCR a $2.4 million resolution payment as well as agreed to implement a detailed corrective action plan. See $2.4M HIPAA Settlement Warns Providers About Media Disclosures Of PHI.

Three Resolution Agreements Following Disclosures ForBoston Trauma Reality Series

OCR followed up the next year with a concurrent announcement of resolution agreements against three unrelated hospitals for allowing ABC film crews to film in patient treatment and other areas for the ABC medical documentary “Save My Life: Boston Trauma” series. Under three separate settlement agreements, OCR collected a total of $999,000 from Boston Medical Center, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Massachusetts General Hospital for putting publicity before patient privacy by allowing ABC News documentary film crews to film patients and access other patient information for a news documentary without obtaining prior patient authorization under three separate settlement agreements with the hospitals.

The circumstances that resulted in the three resolution agreements announced on September 20, 2018 were strikingly similar to those underlying the NY-Presby Resolution Agreement. Notably, the investigations that resulted in the three settlement agreements all arose out of each of the respective hospital’s permitting an ABC documentary film crew filming a medical documentary to access patient areas of their hospitals.

OCR’s investigation of MGH arose in response to an announcement about the impending filming on its website while OCR’s investigations of BMC and BWH started in response to a January 12, 2015 Boston Globe article that reported the Hospitals each separately had allowed ABC film crews filming a documentary to access PHI and film patients without obtaining patient authorization. See Boston Medical Center Resolution Agreement (BMC Settlement Agreement); Brigham and Women’s Hospital Resolution Agreement (BWH Settlement Agreement); and Massachusetts General Hospital Resolution Agreement (MGH Resolution Agreement)

The MGH Resolution Agreement reflects that OCR’s investigations began with an investigation of MGH on December 17, 2014 based on a news story posted to MGH’s website on October 3, 2014, indicating that ABC News would be filming a medical documentary program at MGH. The MGH Resolution Reports that the investigation revealed that before allowing the filming between October 2014 to January 2015, MGH reviewed and assessed patient privacy issues related to the filming and implemented various protections regarding patient privacy, including providing the ABC film crew with the same HIPAA privacy training received by MGH’s workforce.

Information contained in the respective settlement agreements reflect that OCR’s investigations of BMC and BWH began about a month later on January 25 and 26, 2015 respectively in response to the Boston Globe article. The BWH Settlement Agreement states that the BWH investigation revealed that like MGH, BWH reviewed and assessed patient privacy issues related to the filming and implemented various protections regarding patient privacy, including providing the ABC film crew with the same HIPAA privacy training received by BWH’s workforce before allowing the filming by the ABC film crew that occurred between October 2014 to January 2015. The BMC Settlement Agreement does not state that OCR found BMC engaged in similar deliberations or undertook the same or other efforts to safeguard patients and their PHI.

The BMC Settlement Agreement reports that the OCR concluded based on the BMC investigation showed that BMC impermissibly disclosed PHI of patients to ABC employees during the production and filming of a television program at BMC in violation of HIPAA. Meanwhile, while acknowledging the privacy deliberations and efforts undertaken at MGH and BWH, OCR also concluded that each of those organizations also violated HIPAA because in allowing the film crew access and to film patients and patient areas:

The timing at which they obtained patient authorizations showed MGH and BWH impermissibly disclosed the PHI of patients to ABC employees during the production and filming of a television program at BWH; and
Despite the various patient privacy protections in place, MGH and BWH failed to safeguard its patients’ PHI appropriately and reasonably from disclosure during a filming project conducted by ABC on its premises in 2014 and January 2015.

To resolve potential HIPAA violations, BMC has paid OCR $100,000, BWH has paid OCR $384,000, and MGH has paid OCR $515,000. In addition, each Hospital agreed to provide workforce training as part of a corrective action plan that will include OCR’s guidance on disclosures to film and media in the 2016 Media FAQ.

Allergy Associates of Hartford, P.C. Resolution Agreement

Large institutional health care organizations are not the only HIPAA entities subjected to OCR investigation or enforcement for inappropriate sharing of PHI with the media. In its November 2018

On November 26, 2018, OCR announced that Allergy Associates, the three doctor health care practice Allergy Associates of Hartford, P.C. would pay OCR $125,000 and take corrective action under a Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan resolving charges stemming from comments a physician made to a reporter on a patient dispute with the practice in 2015 violated HIPAA.

According to OCR, the disclosure of patient information that prompted OCR’s HIPAA charges resulted from a physician associated with the practice commenting to a local television station reporter for a story about a disabled patient’s complaint to the station that Allergy Associates turned her away from a scheduled appointment because of her use of a service animal. After the patient contacted the television statement to complain about being turned away by the practice when accompanied by her service animal, the station contacted the doctor for comment about the dispute between the Allergy Associates’ doctor and the patient. Although OCR reports its investigation revealed that Allergy Associates’ Privacy Officer instructed the doctor to either not respond to the media or respond with “no comment,” the doctor nevertheless accepted the television station reporter’s invitation to comment and discussed the dispute with the reporter.

OCR learned of the physician’s unauthorized comments to the reporter when it received a copy of an October 6, 2015, HHS civil rights complaint filed on behalf of the patient with the Department of Justice, Connecticut, U.S. Attorney’s Office (DOJ) by the Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities (OPA). In response to this complaint, OCR initiated a joint investigation with DOJ into the civil rights allegations against Allergy Associates. The complaint also alleged that Allergy Associates impermissibly disclosed the patient’s PHI in violation of HIPAA.

OCR found the physician’s discussion of the patient’s complaint without first obtaining a HIPAA-complaint authorization from the patient both violated HIPAA and demonstrated a reckless disregard for the patient’s HIPAA privacy rights. Additionally, Resolution Agreement also states that OCR’s investigation revealed that Allergy Associates did not take any disciplinary or other corrective action against the doctor after learning of his impermissible disclosure to the media.

To resolve the HIPAA charges, Allergy Associates agrees in the Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan to pay $125,000 as well as to undertake a corrective action plan that includes two years of monitoring their compliance with the HIPAA Rules.

OCR COVID-19 HIPAA Guidance & Warnings About Media-Related HIPAA Responsibilities

With the COVID-19 pandemic fueling a torrent of media inquiries and coverage of patient, workforce and other aspects of the pandemic, OCR reminded health care providers and other HIPAA entities of HIPAA’s requirement of prior authorization before sharing PHI or allowing media to access patients or areas where media could observe patients or their PHI throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

In its May 5, 2020 Guidance on Covered Health Care Providers and Restrictions on Media Access to Protected Health Information about Individuals in Their Facilities (“5/5 Guidance”), OCR warned covered health care providers and other HIPAA entities that the Privacy Rule prohibits HIPAA entities from giving media or film crews access to PHI including access to facilities where patients’ PHI could be accessible without the patients’ prior authorization and cautioned testing facilities and other health care providers to prevent unauthorized use, access or disclosure of test results and other PHI except as specifically allowed in the applicable HIPAA Law. In this respect, the 5/5 Guidance quoted then OCR Director Roger Severino, as unequivocally stating “Hospitals and health care providers must get authorization from patients before giving the media access to their medical information; obscuring faces after the fact just doesn’t cut it.”

Consistent with this warning, the 5/5 Guidance described reasonable guidelines and safeguards that HIPAA entities should use to protect the privacy of patients whenever the media is granted access to facilities. Additionally, the 5/5 Guidance specifically warned HIPAA entities among other things that:

HIPAA does not permit covered health care providers to give the media, including film crews, access to any areas of their facilities where patients’ PHI will be accessible in any form (e.g., written, electronic, oral, or other visual or audio form), without first obtaining a written HIPAA authorization from each patient whose PHI would be accessible to the media;
Covered health care providers may not require a patient to sign a HIPAA authorization as a condition of receiving treatment; and
Masking or obscuring patients’ faces or identifying information before broadcasting a recording of a patient does not sufficiently deidentify patient information to allow unauthorized disclosure. A valid HIPAA authorization is still required before giving the media such access.

OCR emphasized that it expected health care providers and other HIPAA entities to continue to adhere to these Privacy Rule requirements throughout the COVID-10 pandemic even as it granted temporary enforcement relief from a narrow set of other HIPAA requirements during the COVID-19 health care emergency. See e.g., 5/5 Guidance; OCR Issues Guidance on How Health Care Providers Can Contact Former COVID-19 Patients About Blood and Plasma Donation Opportunities; OCR Announces Notification of Enforcement Discretion for Community-Based Testing Sites During the COVID-19 Nationwide Public Health Emergency; OCR Announces Notification of Enforcement Discretion to Allow Uses and Disclosures of Protected Health Information by Business Associates for Public Health and Health Oversight Activities During The COVID-19 Nationwide Public Health Emergency; OCR Issues Bulletin on Civil Rights Laws and HIPAA Flexibilities That Apply During the COVID-19 Emergency; OCR Issues Guidance to Help Ensure First Responders and Others Receive Protected Health Information about Individuals Exposed to COVID-19; OCR Issues Guidance on Telehealth Remote Communications Following Its Notification of Enforcement Discretion; OCR Announces Notification of Enforcement Discretion for Telehealth Remote Communications During the COVID-19 Nationwide Public Health Emergency. Also see generally HIPAA and COVID-19 | HHS.gov.

Despite these warnings, throughout the COVID-19 health care emergency videos and other media reports often incorporated videos or other images of patients and other descriptions or details about patients containing PHI reporters or media outlets obtained from accessing facilities, interviewing workforce members, or shared with the media or others allowed to access patients or facilities, often without a HIPAA-compliant patient authorization and often by workforce members without authorization or otherwise in violation of their employing HIPAA entity’s policies. See e.g. Ezekiel Elliott COVID-Test Disclosure Highlights Health Care Provider & Plan HIPAA & Other Privacy Risks From Medical Testing & Other Medical Information;, Health care workers express overwhelming fatigue as COVID-19 cases surge across the country; Pandemic takes its toll on health care workers; ABC News Special Coverage: Coronavirus Pandemic. Since the widespread media coverage makes clear SJMC was not the only health care provider or other HIPAA entity where the entity or members of its workforce allowed media access to facilities, shared or allowed the media or other third-parties to take patient photos, videos, or shared or allowed media access to other PHI, additional OCR enforcement actions or settlements arising from COVID-19 related media disclosures against other HIPAA-entities are likely.

To mitigate their own organizational exposure to potential HIPAA and other privacy-related exposures from known or as-of-yet unidentified past or future media-related HIPAA violations, all HIPAA entities should consult qualified legal counsel for advice and assistance within the scope of attorney-client privilege on investigating their organizations potential risks from any past media disclosures and opportunities for mitigating any known or uncovered HIPAA exposures by acting proactively as well as for guidance on best practices to prevent or mitigate liability from future dealings with the media.

To promote their compliance and the defensibility of their practices and efforts when compliance issues arise, HIPAA entities need conduct a well-documented assessment of their current and past compliance, policies, practices and workforce training on allowing media or others to enter, film, photograph or record within their facilities or otherwise disclosing or allowing media access to their facilities as well as their policies about when parties not involved in care of a particular patient can film, photograph, or otherwise record, observe or access areas where patients or patient PHI is or might be present without prior written consent of the patient.

Going forward, all HIPAA entities should ensure their policies clearly prohibit their entities, their business associates and their workforce from allowing film or media to film, photograph or even access areas where patients or their PHI are accessible or otherwise disclosing PHI to members of the media without first obtaining a HIPAA-compliant authorization from each patient whose presence or PHI could be observed, recorded or otherwise accessed. Adopting the policy alone is insufficient, however, HIPAA entities also need to implement and enforce appropriate procedures and training to promote compliance with those policies and processes to monitor and respond to any violations of HIPAA’s requirements.

When considering the adequacy of their current policies, practices and training concerning filming, photography and other access and disclosure to patients, patient treatment areas and other PHI, HIPAA entities should keep in mind that the obligation to prevent unauthorized filming, photography or any other PHI access or disclosure PHI extends to “any third party not involved in patient care,” not merely those to media or film crews. Consequently, HIPAA entities should address potential risks from filming, photographs or other access and disclosure to patients, patient treatment or recordkeeping areas, or PHI by all parties within or with access to their facilities or records including but not limited to staff, business associates, contractors, other patients as well as media or other visitors.

Recognizing that the NY-Presbyterian corrective action plan included a requirement that NY-Presbyterian require “all photography, video recording and audio recording conducted on NY-Presbyterian premises” be reviewed, preapproved and actively monitored for compliance with the Privacy Rule and NY-Presbyterian’s policies, HIPAA entities also should take steps to monitor and properly restrict and protect any filming, photography or other observations, records or other PHI by individuals within their workforce, as well as to regulate the access and activities of unrelated third parties. In this respect, HIPAA entities are cautioned about the need to prohibit and enforce suitable prohibitions against members of their workforce and others using their own personal devices or other equipment to film, photograph, and copy or disseminate photographs, film, recordings or other records or data that qualifies as or contains PHI without authorization in accordance with established protocols.

HIPAA entities also should take steps to ensure their policies and training make clear that these prohibitions apply whether or not the workforce member believes that identity of the patient or patient information is concealed or otherwise not discoverable.

Moreover, even with respect to photographs, films or other recordings or records legitimately created for treatment, payment or operations purposes, HIPAA entities generally need to take steps to restrict use, access and disclosure of the photographs or other recordings to individuals legitimately involved in patient treatment, operations, payment or other activities allowed by the Privacy Rule and to safeguard those materials against use, access or disclosure to others within or outside their workforce except as allowed by HIPAA and other applicable law. .

Since HIPAA entities also are likely to be subject to other statutory, ethical, contractual or other privacy or confidentiality requirements beyond those imposed by the Privacy Rule, most HIPAA entities also will want to consider and take steps to identify and address these other potential legal or ethical responsibilities such as medical confidentiality duties applicable to physicians and other health care providers under medical ethics, professional licensure or other similar rules, contractual responsibilities, as well as common law privacy or other related exposures when conducting this review. Additionally, most HIPAA entities also will want to take into account and manage their potential exposure to privacy, theft of likeness or other intellectual property, or other statutory or common law tort or contractual claims that might attached to the unauthorized filming, photographing, or surveillance of individuals under federal or state common or statutory laws.

Since this analysis and review in most cases will result in the uncovering or discussion of potentially legally or politically sensitive information, HIPAA entities should consider consulting with or engaging experienced legal counsel for assistance in structuring and executing these activities to maximize their ability to claim attorney-client privilege or other evidentiary protections against discovery or disclosure of certain aspects of these activities.

Finally, HIPAA entities should keep in mind that HIPAA compliance and risk management is an ongoing process requiring constant awareness and diligence. Consequently, HIPAA entities should both monitor OCR and other regulatory and enforcement developments as well as exercise ongoing vigilance to monitor and maintain compliance within their organizations.

For More Information

About the Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee and VIce-Chair Elect of its International Employment Law 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, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading-edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on healthcare and life science, managed care and insurance and other workforce and staffing, employee benefits, safety, contracting, quality assurance, compliance and risk management, and other legal, public policy and operational concerns in the healthcare and life sciences, employee benefits, managed care and insurance, technology and other related industries. She speaks and publishes extensively on these and other related compliance issues.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, life sciences, 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. Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Meeting with the HHS Office of Civil Rights, her experience includes extensive involvement throughout her career in advising health care and life sciences and other clients about preventing, investigating and defending EEOC, DOJ, OFCCP and other Civil Rights Act, Section 1557 and other HHS, HUD, banking, and other federal and state discrimination investigations, audits, lawsuits and other enforcement actions as well as advocacy before Congress and regulators regarding federal and state equal opportunity, equity and other laws.

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.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Leave a Comment » | Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Media, Media Relations, Medical Privacy, OCR, Patients, Privacy, Public Policy, Self-Insured Group health Plans | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Ex-Wife’s 56 Month Sentence For Using Ex-Husband’s Provider Number To Commit Medicaid Fraud Warning To Other Providers

November 17, 2023

The November 13th sentencing of a Katy, Texas woman to 56 months imprisonment for using her ex-husband’s provider number to defraud Medicaid of more than $600,000 reminds physicians and other health care providers of the need for careful oversight and diligence of all workers including family and friends.

Kay Le Farmer Farmer is the former office manager for her ex-husband – a therapist and Medicaid provider in the Houston area. Following their separation, Farmer pleaded guilty on March 22, 2023 to using her ex-husband’s provider number to submit fraudulent claims to Medicaid, unbeknownst to him, for counseling services that were never provided as well as to other frauds.

Hearing testimony revealed Farmer fraudulently obtained information of over 300 patients, her attempts to lie and cover-up her crimes and that she appeared to be searching for more employment opportunities to steal more information.

In 2017, Farmer admitted to using her employment at a pediatrician’s office to obtain patient information. She then submitted more fraudulent claims to Medicaid under her ex-husband’s provider number. In total, from 2013 until 2018, Farmer submitted, or caused the submission of, approximately $617,983.86 in claims for psychotherapy services that were not provided. Farmer admitted she was paid approximately $432,924.69 on those claims.

For these crimes, U.S. District Judge George C. Hanks ordered Farmer to serve 56 months in federal prison followed by two years of supervised release.

The conviction and sentencing warns other providers to remain vigilant in overseeing office managers and other workers with access to sensitive information and responsibilities including family or friends presumed trustworthy. Providers also should endure all staff including themselves, family and friends are included in required checks for status as disqualified persons and other credentials confirmations.

Providers that suspect or discover fraud or other suspicious conduct by members of their team should contact qualified legal counsel for assistance investigating and redressing concerns. Ideally, providers should seek to avoid making unprivileged statements or engaging in potentially sensitive discussions about these concerns or events until obtaining legal representation to minimize the risk those statements might undermine or complicate the defensibility of their actions.

For More Information

About the Author

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, life sciences, 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. Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Meeting with the HHS Office of Civil Rights, her experience includes extensive involvement throughout her career in advising health care and life sciences and other clients about preventing, investigating and defending EEOC, DOJ, OFCCP and other Civil Rights Act, Section 1557 and other HHS, HUD, banking, and other federal and state discrimination investigations, audits, lawsuits and other enforcement actions as well as advocacy before Congress and regulators regarding federal and state equal opportunity, equity and other laws.

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.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Leave a Comment » | Employer, Employment law, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HHS Fraud Enforcement Risk Tool Updated

October 25, 2023

The Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS-OIG”) just updated the 2023 Fraud Risk Indicator for the fourth quarter.

Based on information from False Claims Act settlements, HHS-OIG assesses the future trustworthiness of the settling parties to decide whether to exclude them from federal health care programs government’s primary civil tool for addressing health care fraud is the False Claims Act (“FCA”). Most FCA cases are resolved through settlement agreements in which the government alleges fraudulent conduct and typically the settling parties do not admit liability.

Depending on the facts and circumstances presented, OIG will usually pursue one of the following approaches when settling a health care fraud case: (1) exclusion; (2) heightened scrutiny; (3) integrity obligations; (4) take no further action; or (5) in the case of a good faith and cooperative self-disclosure, release 1128(b)(7) exclusion with no integrity obligations. OIG’s Risk Spectrum illustrates these approaches.

For more information on how OIG evaluates risk to the Federal health care programs and the criteria the OIG considers in evaluating exclusions in False Claims Act cases, see OIG’s April 18, 2016 notice.

For More Information

We hope this update is helpful. 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 Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy Group.

About the Author

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, life sciences, 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. Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Meeting with the HHS Office of Civil Rights, her experience includes extensive involvement throughout her career in advising health care and life sciences and other clients about preventing, investigating and defending EEOC, DOJ, OFCCP and other Civil Rights Act, Section 1557 and other HHS, HUD, banking, and other federal and state discrimination investigations, audits, lawsuits and other enforcement actions as well as advocacy before Congress and regulators regarding federal and state equal opportunity, equity and other laws.

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.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Leave a Comment » | Anti-KickBack, ASC, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Money Laundering | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Accommodating Patient Preferences No Defense To Prohibited Employment Discrimination

July 31, 2023

A new federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) lawsuit reminds health industry and other employers that patient or other customer preferences do not justify or excuse an employer’s discrimination against employees in violation of the Civil Rights Act or other federal employment discrimination laws.

Brooklyn-based home health company ACARE HHC Inc., doing business as Four Seasons Licensed Home Health Care Agency (“Four Seasons”) faces a race discrimination suit for allegedly removing home health aides from their work assignments due to their race and national origin to accommodate client preferences.

According to a lawsuit (EEOC v. ACARE HHC d/b/a Four Seasons Licensed Home Health Care, 23-cv-5760), filed by the EEOC in the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York on July 31, 2023, Four Seasons violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Civil Rights Act”) by routinely acceding to racial preferences of patients in making home health aide assignments. The EEOC claims Four Seasons routinely removed Black and Hispanic home health aides based on clients’ race and national origin-based requests. Four Seasons would transfer aides to a new assignment or, if no other assignment was available, the aides lost their employment completely. The EEOC charges this alleged conduct violates the Civil Rights Act, which among other things prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race and national origin. The EEOC seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages for the affected employees, and injunctive relief to remedy and prevent future discrimination based on employees’ race and national origin.

The lawsuit, warns employers against resigning or assigning workers to accommodate racial or other prohibited discriminatory preferences of customers, or business partners. “Making work assignment decisions based on an employee’s race or national origin is against the law, including when these decisions are grounded in preferences of the employer’s clients,” said Jeffrey Burstein, regional attorney for the EEOC’s New York District Office.

The lawsuit is one of a plethora of enforcement Civil Rights and other federal discrimination law actions by EEOC, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights, and other federal agencies under the Biden Administration’s prioritization of expansion and enforcement of discrimination and other discrimination and equal opportunity laws.

In light of these efforts, employers should take immediate steps to update policies, postings, training, and practices to ensure their ability to defend their compliance with race and other federal nondiscrimination laws.

For More Information

About the Author

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, life sciences, 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. Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Meeting with the HHS Office of Civil Rights, her experience includes extensive involvement throughout her career in advising health care and life sciences and other clients about preventing, investigating and defending EEOC, DOJ, OFCCP and other Civil Rights Act, Section 1557 and other HHS, HUD, banking, and other federal and state discrimination investigations, audits, lawsuits and other enforcement actions as well as advocacy before Congress and regulators regarding federal and state equal opportunity, equity and other laws.

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.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Leave a Comment » | Abortion, Academic medicine, air ambulance, Child Care, Childcare, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Civil Rights, Conditions of Participation, Corporate Compliance, Direct Primary Care, Discrimination, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, early childhood education, Emergency Care, Employer, exchange plans, Federal Health Center, Health Care, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Insurance, Health Plan, HHS, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Life Sciences, long-term care, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Health, Nonprofits, nursing home, OCR, OIG, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Provider contracting, Rehabilitation Act, Reproductive Rights, Section 1557, Sexual Abuse, Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HHS Recommits To LGBTQ Nondiscrimination Protections In Newly Proposed Rules; Religious Exemption Likely Limited By Pending HHS Changes In Religious Freedom Protections

July 11, 2023

Health care providers, health insurance issuers, health care professional associations, state and local government entities and other organizations and providers participating or receiving funds from the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) funded programs should evaluate their likely responsibilities and exposures for preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender under the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (“NPRM”) to the Health and Human Services Grants Regulation (the “Proposed HHS Grants Rule”) the HHS Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) and the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources (“ASFR”) released to the public today (July 11, 2023) and scheduled for joint publication the Federal Register on July 13, 2023.

Proposed HHS Grants Rule Overview

The NPRM builds on HHS’ efforts to ensure access to health and human services for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex (“LGBTQI”) individuals in furtherance of President Biden’s Executive Orders on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation and Advancing Equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Individuals by reaffirming the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in federal statutes administered by HHS while defining procedures through which HHS would permit organization with religious objections to seek an exemption from or modification of the otherwise applicable requirements.

The Proposed HHS Grants Rule clarifies and reaffirms HHS’ prohibition against LGBTQI discrimination by stating, “In statutes that HHS administers which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, the Department interprets those provisions to include a prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020), and other federal court precedent applying Bostock’s reasoning that sex discrimination includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”

The Proposed HHS Grants Rule represents the latest effort of HHS to finalize and implement prohibition against LGBTQI individuals in HHS first undertaken in 2016. Since HHS originally adding the prohibition against LGBTQI discrimination to its HHS Grants Rule, HHS faced various court challenges to its LGBTQI nondiscrimination provisions. These challenges included lawsuits challenging HHS’ interpretation of the sex discrimination prohibitions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1) (“Title VII”) as prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and identity, First Amendment religious freedom challenges and challenges based on alleged violations of the Administrative Procedures Act.

In the intervening years, HHS originally granted various waivers, then subsequently adopted a blanket non-enforcement policy to address First Amendment religious freedom concerns about the LGBTQI discrimination prohibition and attempted to resolve Administrative Procedures Act challenges in subsequently published versions of the rules. Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved objections to HHS’ expansive interpretation of Title VII as extending to LGBTQI when it affirmed Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).

As currently proposed, the HHS Grants Rule has a sweeping reach. In the Proposed HHS Grant Rule, HHS reaffirms that discrimination against LGBTQI individuals is prohibited in virtually all HHS-funded and administered programs while revising the existing HHS Grants Rule to address when and how a provider with faith-based objections to the rules can seek exemption or other religious accommodations from HHS.

As currently proposed the Proposed HHS Grants Rule would treat LGBTQI discrimination as prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex in most HHS regulated or funded programs. The LGBTQI discrimination prohibition would apply to authorizations for domestic resettlement of and assistance to refugees; assistance in transition from homelessness; Children with Serious Emotional Disturbances; Title VII Health Workforce Programs; Nursing Workforce Development; Preventive Health Services Block Grant; Substance Abuse Treatment and Prevention Block Grant; Community Mental Health Services Block Grant; Maternal and Child Health Block Grant; Disaster relief; Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program; Head Start; Community Services Block Grant Program; and Family Violence Prevention and Services programs.

HHS’ announcement of its plans to reaffirm its LGBTQI equal protection requirements in the HHS Grants Rule likely will prompt new attention and scrutiny from organizations and individuals with faith-based objections to its mandates, particularly given HHS’ release of the rule comes less than two weeks after the Supreme Court’s June 30, 2023 landmark ruling in 303 Creative LLC . v. Elenis, 600 U. S. ____ (2023), upholding the right of a website designer, who believes same-sex marriage contravenes her faith, to exemption from enforcement of a state law that prohibited a public business from communicating to patrons that service would be refused based on sexual orientation.

The Proposed HHS Grants Rule includes provisions requiring HHS to accommodate the religious rights of organizations or individuals with faith-based objections protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) or the First Amendment when administering and enforcing its provisions without specifically detailing the procedures for raising such objections or the standards HHS will apply to decide whether to approve a request for religious exemption or accommodation.

In this respect, the Proposed HHS Grants Rule provides that a recipient at any time may notify the HHS awarding agency, ASFR, or the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the recipient’s view that it is exempt from, or requires modified application of, certain provisions of the Rule due to the RFRA, the First Amendment or another religious freedom law. The Proposed HHS Grants Rule also directs that once the awarding agency receives notice of religious objection from a particular recipient, “any relevant ongoing compliance activity regarding the recipient shall be held in abeyance” until the applicable agencies in legal consultation with the HHS Office of the General Counsel determine whether the recipient is exempt from the application of certain provisions or entitled to modified application of the rules based on a federal religious freedom law.

While the Proposed HHS Grants Rule does not detail the procedures for requesting religious accommodation or the standards HHS will use to decide whether to approve requests, HHS does address those standards and procedures in other guidance, the current provision of which are highlighted on the HHS Conscience and Religious Freedom Webpage. It bears noting, however, that along with the Proposed HHS Grants Rule, HHS also currently is considering a separate proposal to narrow the availability of religious and conscience objections to its rules it announced in a January 5, 2023 Notice of Proposed Rule Making titled “Safeguarding the Rights of Conscience as Protected by Federal Statutes” (“Proposed Religion Rule”). While the official comment period for the Proposed Religion Rule closed on March 6, 2023, its provisions, if adopted as proposed, could materially affect the interpretation and enforcement of the HHS Grants Rule. Accordingly, organizations and other parties concerned about the likely interpretation and enforcement of the HHS Grants Rule with respect to parties claiming religious freedom objections should consider the likely implications of the Proposed Religion Rule in their evaluation of the HHS Grants Rule.

In response to the HHS Grants Rule, all health care providers, health plans and others expected to be impacted by the Proposed HHS Grants Rule should both begin preparing to adjust their existing policies and practices in anticipation of the finalization of the Proposed HHS Grants Rule as well as submit relevant concerns and other feedback on the Proposed Rule by the September 11, 2023 comment deadline established in the NPRM. Providers and other stakeholders with potential faith-based concerns about any of the requirements of the Proposed HHS Grants Rule should take particular note of the Rule’s proposed provisions regarding religious accommodation, taking into account the Proposed Religion Rule purposes of this planning as well as their timely submission of any comments by the applicable September 11, 2023 comment deadline.

For More Information

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.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Sibley Hospital & Johns Hopkins Health System Pay $5 Million To Settle Stark Violations

April 19, 2023

Sibley Hospital (“Sibley”) and its parent company, Johns Hopkins Health System (“Johns Hopkins”) will pay the United States $5 million to resolve Physician Self-Referral Law, (commonly known as the “Stark Law”) allegations arising from claims that Sibley submitted to the Medicare Program, the Justice Department announced today.

The Stark Law prohibits a hospital from billing Medicare for certain services referred by physicians with whom the hospital has a financial relationship, unless that relationship satisfies one of the law’s statutory or regulatory exceptions. It is intended to ensure that medical decision-making is not influenced by improper financial incentives and instead is based on the best interests of the patient.

The new settlement resolves allegations that, from 2008 through 2011, Sibley violated the Stark Law by billing Medicare for services referred by ten cardiologists to whom Sibley was paying compensation that exceeded the fair market value of the services provided. These allegations arose out of conduct that Sibley and Johns Hopkins self-disclosed to the United States.

“Improper financial arrangements between hospitals and physicians can influence the type and amount of health care that is provided,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “The department is committed to holding accountable those who violate prohibitions designed to protect the integrity of physician decision-making.”

The high dollar settlement reminds other health care providers to ensure their own relationships with other health care providers comply with Stark, anti-kickback and other federal and state health care fraud laws.

More Information

About the Author

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.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Anti-KickBack, ASC, billing, Child Care, Childcare, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Conditions of Participation, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, E-Prescribing, false claims act, Grants, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, home health, Hospital, Laws, Life Sciences, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, OIG, pharmaceutical, Prescription Drugs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

4/21 Deadline For Comments On Proposed HIPAA Administrative Simplification Adoption of Standards for Health Care Attachments Transactions and Electronic Signatures, and Modification To Referral Certification and Authorization Transaction Standard

April 19, 2023

April 21 is the deadline to comment on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) National Standards Group (NSG) proposed rule that, if finalized, would adopt standards for “health care attachments” transactions, a standard for electronic signatures to be used in conjunction with health care attachments transactions, and a modification to the standard for the referral certification and authorization transaction (X12 278) published last December.

The April 21, 2023 deadline reflects a 30-day extension from the original deadline date of March 21, 2023. Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. on April 21.

More Information

About the Author

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.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

FY 2022 Medicaid Fraud Conviction Increase, Other Data Shows Continued Robustness of Federal Medicaid Enforcement

March 10, 2023

Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) data showing a rise in Medicaid criminal convictions arising from fraud and patient abuse or neglect investigations and prosecutions during the 2022 fiscal year (“FY”) confirms the continued robustness of its Medicaid Fraud Control Units (MFCUs).

According to the just-released Medicaid Fraud Control Units Fiscal Year 2022 Annual Report convictions both for fraud and for patient abuse or neglect increased since FY 2020. In FY 2022, MFCUs achieved:

1,327 criminal convictions, an increase over the previous 2 years, but resulted in criminal recoveries of only $416 million; and
553 civil settlements and judgments resulting in civil recoveries of $641 million.

A Statistical Chart included in the Report provides a breakdown by state of the civil and criminal convictions and recoveries by nature of the offense.

While the Report reveals that civil and criminal recoveries from Medicaid criminal and civil enforcement dropped in FY 2022, the increase in convictions and other data sends a clear warning to health care providers and others that Medicaid fraud investigation and enforcement remains a key priority of the OIG and federal prosecutors.

Criminal Convictions

Total convictions resulting from MFCU cases continued to increase from the FY 2020 level but remained lower than in FY 2019. In FY 2022, MFCU cases resulted in 946 convictions for fraud and 381 convictions for patient abuse or neglect.
Exhibit 2 shows the total number of convictions during FYs 2018 through 2022. Although the proportion of patient abuse or neglect convictions to fraud convictions was similar to that in previous years, the total number of patient abuse or neglect
convictions also continued to increase from the FY 2020 level.

As in previous years, significantly more convictions for fraud involved Personal Care Services (PCS) attendants than any other provider type with fraud convictions of PCS attendants, accounting for 44 percent of the fraud convictions.

MFCU convictions related to the fraudulent billing of Medicaid, fraudulent activities of Medicaid providers involving drugs diverted from legal and medically necessary uses, regardless of whether Medicaid itself was billed and other “drug diversion” cases continued to increase from the FY 2020 level. Associated criminal recoveries from drug diversion cases totaled $18 million in FY 2022. Two States, Pennsylvania and Kentucky, accounted for 79 percent of the total convictions.

In FY 2022, convictions of nurse’s aides and of nurses or physician assistants accounted for 39 percent of the total 381 convictions for patient abuse or neglect.

Criminal and Civil Recoveries

While convictions rose, criminal recoveries decreased from $857 million in FY 2021 to $416 million in FY 2022. The Report attributes the drop in atypically large criminal recovery amounts realized in FY 2021 that resulted primarily from cases prosecuted by MFCUs in Virginia and Texas that produced a combined $714 million in criminal recoveries, 83 percent of the total reported criminal recoveries in FY 2021.

The Report points out that a single Texas criminal prosecution also significantly contributed to the total criminal recoveries in FY 2022. According to the Report, $82 million of the FY 2022 criminal recoveries resulted from the prosecution and conviction of the former head of Novus and Optimum Health Services, Bradley J. Harris and other defendants by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas for defrauding the Medicare and Medicaid programs by among other actions:

Billing Medicare and Medicaid for hospice services that were (1) not provided, (2) not directed by a medical professional, and (3) provided to patients not eligible for hospice care; and
Using blank, pre-signed controlled substance prescriptions to distribute drugs without
physician input.

Recoveries from civil settlements and judgments also decreased in FY 2022, as did the total number of civil settlements and judgments associated with pharmaceutical manufacturers. In FY 2022, $395 million (62 percent) of the $641 million in civil recoveries derived from nonglobal cases. The remaining $246 million derived from global cases.

Appendixes to the report include a list of “beneficial” practices implemented by the MFCUs to prevent and discover these and other Medicaid abuses in various regions. Reviewing the granular statistics and these findings set forth in the Report provide valuable insights for health care providers, their leaders and advisors about these and other enforcement priorities and practices.

More Information

About the Author

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.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Leave a Comment » | Anti-KickBack, ASC, Health Care, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, home health, Hospital, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, OIG | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Banner Health Pays $1.25 Million To Settle Cybersecurity Breach Impacting Nearly 3 Million Individuals

February 3, 2023

Phoenix-based nonprofit health system Banner Health and its affiliates (“Banner Health”) paid $1.25 million and agreed to take corrective actions to resolve its exposure to potentially much greater Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security Rule civil monetary penalty exposure for a 2016 cyber hacking breach that compromised the personal health information of 2.81 million consumers. OCR used its February 2 announcement of the Banner Health settlement to warn health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses (“covered entities”) and business associates covered by HIPAA to guard their own systems containing protected health information against breach by cyber hacking.

Banner Health Settlement

Banner Health is one of the largest non-profit health systems in the country, with over 50,000 employees and operating in six states. Banner Health is the largest employer in Arizona and one of the largest in northern Colorado.

In November 2016, OCR initiated an investigation of Banner Health following the receipt of a breach report stating that a threat actor had gained unauthorized access to electronic protected health information, potentially affecting millions. The hacker accessed protected health information that included patient names, physician names, dates of birth, addresses, Social Security numbers, clinical details, dates of service, claims information, lab results, medications, diagnoses and conditions, and health insurance information.

OCR’s investigation found evidence of long-term, pervasive noncompliance with the HIPAA Security Rule across Banner Health’s organization, a serious concern given the size of this covered entity. Organizations must be proactive in their efforts to regularly monitor system activity for hacking incidents and have measures in place to sufficiently safeguard patient information from risk across their entire network.

The potential violations OCR identified specifically included:

A lack of an analysis to determine risks and vulnerabilities of electronic protected health information across the organization;
Insufficient monitoring of its health information systems’ activity to protect against a cyber-attack;
Failure to implement an authentication process to safeguard its electronic protected health information; and
Failure to have security measures in place to protect electronic protected health information from unauthorized access when it was being transmitted electronically.

Under the Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan negotiated to resolve these potential violations, Banner Health paid $1,250,000 to OCR. Banner Health also agreed to implement a corrective action plan, which identifies steps Banner Health will take to resolve these potential violations of the HIPAA Security Rule and protect the security of electronic patient health information that will be monitored for two years by OCR to ensure compliance with the HIPAA Security Rule. Under the corrective action plan, Banner has agreed to take the following steps:

Conduct an accurate and thorough risk analysis to determine risks and vulnerabilities to electronic patient/system data across the organization
Develop and implement a risk management plan to address identified risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI
Develop, implement, and distribute policies and procedures for a risk analysis and risk management plan, the regular review of activity within their information systems, an authentication process to provide safeguards to data and records, and security measures to protect electronic protected health information from unauthorized access when it is being transmitted electronically, and
Report to HHS within thirty (30) days when workforce members fail to comply with the HIPAA Security Rule.

OCR Warns Other HIPAA-Covered Entities

In the health care sector, hacking is now the greatest threat to the privacy and security of protected health information. OCR’s announcement of the settlement reports 74 percent (74%) of the breaches reported to OCR in 2021 involved hacking/IT incidents.

The announcement also notes OCR offers an array of resources to help health care organizations bolster their cybersecurity posture and comply with the HIPAA Rules,

The settlement and OCR’s announcement warn other covered entities and business associates to use these and other necessary resources to protect their systems with protected health information from cyber hacking and other breaches.

In conjunction with reminding other covered entities of these resources, the settlement announcement quotes OCR Director Melanie Fontes Rainer as a warning, “Hackers continue to threaten the privacy and security of patient information held by health care organizations, including our nation’s hospitals, … It is imperative that hospitals and other covered entities and business associates be vigilant in taking robust steps to protect their systems, data, and records, and this begins with understanding their risks, and taking action to prevent, respond to and combat such cyber-attacks. … Cyber security is on all of us, and we must take steps to protect our health care systems from these attacks.”

OCR’s enforcement record confirms these are not idyl threats. Breaches of the Security or Breach Notification Rules often result in significant civil monetary penalty assessments or negotiated settlements to mitigate civil liability exposures arising out of such breaches. See e.g., Clinical Laboratory Pays $25,000 To Settle Potential HIPAA Security Rule Violations (May 25, 2021); Health Insurer Pays $5.1 Million to Settle Data Breach Affecting Over 9.3 Million People (January 15, 2021); Aetna Pays $1,000,000 to Settle Three HIPAA Breaches(October 28, 2020); Health Insurer Pays $6.85 Million to Settle Data Breach Affecting Over 10.4 Million People (September 25, 2020); HIPAA Business Associate Pays $2.3 Million to Settle Breach Affecting Protected Health Information of Over 6 million Individual – (September 23, 2020); Lifespan Pays $1,040,000 to OCR to Settle Unencrypted Stolen Laptop Breach (July 27, 2020); Small Health Care Provider Fails to Implement Multiple HIPAA Security Rule Requirements (July 23, 2020).

Alerts issued by OCR regarding heightened security risks in recent months and a growing tide of highly publicized breaches send a strong warning to other covered entities and their business associates to reconfirm the adequacy of their own HIPAA privacy, security, breach notification and other procedures and protections by among other things:

Reviewing and monitoring on a documented, ongoing basis the adequacy and susceptibilities of existing practices, policies, safeguards of their own organizations, as well as their business associates and their vendors within the scope of attorney-client privilege taking into consideration data available from OCR, data regarding known or potential susceptibilities within their own operations as well as in the media, and other developments to determine if additional steps are necessary or advisable.
Updating policies, privacy and other notices, practices, procedures, training and other practices as needed to promote compliance and defensibility.
Renegotiating and enhancing service provider agreements to detail the specific compliance, audit, oversight and reporting rights, workforce and vendor credentialing and access control, indemnification, insurance, cooperation and other rights and responsibilities of all entities and individuals that use, access or disclose, or provide systems, software or other services or tools that could impact on security; to clarify the respective rights, procedures and responsibilities of each party in regards to compliance audits, investigation, breach reporting, and mitigation; and other relevant matters.
Verifying and tightening technological and other tracking, documentation and safeguards and controls to the use, access and disclosure of protected health information and systems.
Conducting well-documented training as necessary to ensure that members of the workforce of each covered entity and business associate understand and are prepared to comply with the expanded requirements of HIPAA, understand their responsibilities and appropriate procedures for reporting and investigating potential breaches or other compliance concerns, and understand as well as are prepared to follow appropriate procedures for reporting and responding to suspected
violations or other indicia of potential security concerns.
Tracking and reviewing on a systemized, well-documented basis actual and near-miss security threats to evaluate, document decision-making and make timely adjustments to policies, practices, training, safeguards and other compliance components as necessary to identify and resolve risks.
Establishing and providing well-documented monitoring of compliance that includes board-level oversight and reporting at least quarterly and sooner in response to potential threat indicators.
Establishing and providing well-documented timely investigation and redress of reported
violations or other compliance concerns.
Establishing contingency plans for responding in the event of a breach.
Establishing a well-documented process for monitoring and updating policies, practices and other efforts in response to changes in risks, practices and requirements.
Preparing and maintaining a well-documented record of compliance, risk, investigation and other security activities.
Pursuing other appropriate strategies to enhance the covered entity’s ability to demonstrate its compliance commitment both on paper and in operation.

Because of susceptibilities in systems, software and other vendors of business associates, suppliers and other third parties, covered entities and their business associates should use care to assess and manage business associate and other vendor-associated risks and compliance as well as tighten business associate and other service agreements to promote the improved cooperation, coordination, management and oversight required to comply with the new breach notification and other HIPAA requirements by specifically mapping out these details.

Beyond these HIPAA exposures, breaches and other HIPAA noncompliance carries other liability risks. Leaders of covered entities or their business associates also are cautioned that while HIPAA itself does not generally create any private right of action for victims of breach under HIPAA, breaches may create substantial liability for their organizations or increasingly, organizational leaders. For instance, the Department of Health & Human Services has warned health care providers participating in Medicare or other federal programs and Medicare Advantage health plans that HIPAA compliance is a program term of participation.

Health care providers and health insurers can face liability under state data privacy and breach, negligence or other statutory or common laws. In addition, physicians and other licensed parties may face professional discipline or other professional liability for breaches violating statutory or ethical standards.

Health plans also face a myriad of other exposures from failing to use appropriate cyber safeguards. Plan fiduciaries of employment-based health plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) risk liability under ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility rules. The Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (“EBSA”) now audits the adequacy of the cybersecurity and other HIPAA compliance of health plans and their third-party administrators and other business associates as part of EBSA’s oversight and enforcement of ERISA. Department of Labor Assistant Secretary for EBSA Lisa Gomez confirmed audit and enforcement of cybersecurity obligations is a key priority in EBSA’s current work plan in her February 4, 2023 comments to the American Bar Association.

Meanwhile, the Securities and Exchange Commission has indicated that it plans to pursue enforcement against leaders of public health care or other public companies that fail to use appropriate care to ensure their organizations comply with privacy and data security obligations.

Furthermore, appropriate cyber security practices also may be advisable elements for organizations to include in their Federal Sentencing Guideline Compliance Programs to mitigate potential organization liability risks under federal electronic crime and related laws.

In the face of these risks and warnings, all covered entities and their business associates should reassess and confirm the adequacy of their and their business associates’ cyber security defenses and breach response preparations.

More Information

About the Author

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.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Leave a Comment » | Cyber crime, data breach, data security, DME, Doctor, Employer, ERISA, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HHS, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, home health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Licensing, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, Medicaid Advantage, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, OCR, Peer Review, Physician Licensing, retaliation, Technology, Telemedicine, Whistleblower | Tagged: ARRA, Breach Notification, CMS, Compliance, Corporate Compliance, Data Breach, Data Security, Doctor, DOJ, EHR, Electronic Health Records, Employer, false claims act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reimbursement, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HHS, HIPAA, HIPAA Privacy, HITECH Act, Hospital, Hospitals, licensure, Medicaid, Medical Privacy, Medicare, OCR, Office of Civil Rights, OIG, PHI, Physician, Physicians, Privacy, Protected Health Information | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Lab Nailed For HIPAA Right Of Access Violation; Other Covered Entities Warned

January 3, 2023

A medical laboratory is the latest health care provider nailed under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) Right of Access Initiative for violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule’s right of access requirements.

OCR announced the 43rd access rule settlement with Life Hope Labs, LLC (“Life Hope Labs”), a full-service diagnostic laboratory in Sandy Springs, Georgia Tuesday.

In August 2021, a complaint was filed with OCR alleging that Life Hope Labs would not provide a personal representative with a copy of her deceased father’s medical records. The personal representative first requested access to her father’s records on July 7, 2021, but did not receive them until February 16, 2022, over seven months later. OCR’s investigation determined that Life Hope Labs’ failure to provide timely access to the requested medical records was a potential violation of the HIPAA right of access provision.

The access rule requires that patients be able to access their health information in a timely manner.

In its Resolution Agreement, Life Hope Labs agreed to pay $16,500 to resolve this investigation. In addition to the monetary settlement, Life Hope Labs also agreed to implement a corrective action plan that includes two years of monitoring by OCR.

In announcing its filing of the settlement, OCR warned other labs and health care providers to ensure their right of access compliance.

“Access to medical records, including lab results, empowers patients to better manage their health, communicate with their treatment teams, and adhere to their treatment plans. The HIPAA Privacy Rule gives individuals and personal representatives a right to timely access their medical records from all covered entities, including laboratories,” said OCR Director Melanie Fontes Rainer in OCR’s announcement of the settlement. “Laboratories covered by HIPAA must follow the law and ensure that they are responding timely to records access requests.”

More Information

About the Author

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.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Leave a Comment » | ambulance, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, Electronic Health Records, Emergency Care, EMTALA, English as A Second Language, Health Care, Health Care, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, home health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, medical devices, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Chiropractor, Modern Vascular Office-Based Labs and Modern Vascular Corporate Entities Face False Claims Act Prosecution

December 19, 2022

Three consolidated False Claims Act (“FCA”) lawsuits against chiropractor Yury Gampel (“Gampel”), 15 Modern Vascular office-based labs owned primarily by Gampel located across the United States, and five Modern Vascular-affiliated companies owned by Gampel alert other chiropractic, physician and other medical providers using office-based labs send a clear warning to other health care providers and suppliers for services covered or billed to Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE or other federal health care programs about the necessity to ensure their arrangements don’t involve illegal financial relationships or transactions.

False Claims Act Liability Arising From Participation In Or Filing Claims Involving Improper Inducements

The Justice Department suit against the defendants alleges the defendants both arose from the defendants participation in arrangements involving the offering and payment of illegal remuneration in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) and that the claims for benefits made to Medicare and other federal programs for care provided involving the arrangement violated the FCA.

The AKS generally prohibits any person or entity from soliciting, receiving, offering, or paying any direct or indirect prohibited remuneration as an inducement or reward for referring, recommending, ordering, or arranging for the purchase of any item or service for which payment may be made in whole or in part by a federal health care program. Parties violating the AKS commit a felony punishable with a fine of up to $100,000, imprisonment for up to 10 years or both.

In addition to any criminal liability arising under the AKS, filing claims derived or involving transactions prohibited by the AKS also can trigger liability for violation of the FCA. The FCA makes it unlawful for any person to submit, directly or indirectly, false or fraudulent claims for payment to the Government by among other things:

Knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A) (the “presentment provision”); or
Knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B).

The FCA defines the term “knowingly” under the FCA very broadly. As defined, “knowingly” means that a person, with respect to information, (i) has actual knowledge of the information, (ii) acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information, or (iii) acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b). No proof of specific intent to defraud is required to show that a person acted knowingly under the FCA.

Violations of the FCA subject the defendant to mandatory civil penalties per FCA violation, plus three times the amount of damages that the Government sustains as a result of the defendant’s actions. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a). Under 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(b)(7), health care providers submitting claims to Medicare or other federal health care programs also can face exclusion from participation in federal health care programs for FCA violations.

Health care providers filing claims for Medicare or other federal health plans can violate the FCA by knowingly presenting or causing to be presented claims for items or services that the person knew or should have known were not medically necessary, or were false or fraudulent. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1320a-7a(a)(1).

Moreover, health care providers under the Medicare statute have an affirmative duty to familiarize themselves with the statutes, regulations, and guidelines regarding coverage for the Medicare services. As a condition of program participation, Medicare regulations require providers and suppliers to certify that:

The provider or supplier meets, and will continue to meet, the requirements of the Medicare statute and regulations, 42 C.F.R. § 424.516(a)(1), including that any claims and underlying transactions made in a claim for Medicare comply with the Federal anti-kickback statute and the Stark law), and on the supplier’s compliance with all otherwise applicable conditions of participation in Medicare; and
The provider or supplier will not knowingly to present or cause to be presented a false or fraudulent claim for payment by Medicare, or to submit claims with deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard of their truth or falsity.

Additional certifications of continued compliance with these requirements also are required when claims are filed. Accordingly, since health care providers and suppliers are responsible for taking appropriate steps to familiarize themselves with the rules and regulations applicable to their claim and the transactions underlying it and certify in connection with the filing of the claim that the claim and its underlying transactions comply with the law, health care providers filing claims involving prohibited financial incentives or other transactions prohibited by law risk FCA liability.

Gampel, Modern Vascular FCA Complaint

Derived from the Justice Department’s assumption and consolidation of various qui tam lawsuits separately brought by various physicians, the United States filed its complaint in three consolidated lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733 (“FCA”) which allow a private citizen to sue on behalf of the government and share in any recovery. The United States is also entitled to intervene in the lawsuits, as it did in these cases.

The resulting consolidated three consolidated Justice Department lawsuits seek to recover treble damages and civil penalties, and under common law and equitable theories of recovery from defendants for their billing of Medicare, TRICARE and other federal health care programs for claims resulting from transactions involving prohibited remuneration offered and provided in violation of the AKS under Gampel’s alleged schemes Nobility Management LLC; Modern Vascular LLC; Modern Vascular of South Florida LLC; Modern Vascular Management LLC; Modern Vascular Management – East LLC; Modern Vascular Management – West LLC; Modern Vascular Institute LLC; Modern Vascular of Mesa LLC; Modern Vascular of Glendale LLC; Modern Vascular of Sun City LLC; Modern Vascular of Tucson LLC; San Antonio Vascular Specialists Corp. dba Modern Vascular; Fort Worth Vascular Specialists Corp. dba Modern Vascular; Modern Vascular of Denver LLC; Modern Vascular – Navajo LLC; Modern Vascular of Fairfax LLC; Modern Vascular of Houston LLC; Modern Vascular of Indianapolis LLC; Modern Vascular of Southaven LLC; Modern Vascular of St. Louis LLC; and Modern Vascular of Kansas LLC.

The Justice Department complaint alleges Defendant Yury Gampel, a chiropractor, is the founder and former Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of a franchise of office-based labs (“OBL”) located in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Texas, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, and Virginia operating under the name Modern Vascular (collectively, the “Modern Vascular OBLs”). The Modern Vascular OBLs – each its own separate legal entity – focus on the treatment of peripheral arterial disease (“PAD”), particularly through an aggressive use of vascular intervention procedures, such as angioplasty and atherectomy. The complaint claims Gampel and the Modern Vascular defendants designed and promoted the franchises that incorporated a package of management and other services provided by various Modern Vascular defendant companies.

Defendant Nobility Management, LLC, provides management services to the Modern Vascular OBLs. Defendants Modern Vascular Management, LLC; Modern Vascular Management – East, LLC; and Modern Vascular Management – West, LLC, offer
IT and management support to Modern Vascular OBLs. Defendants Modern Vascular, LLC, and Modern Vascular of South Florida, LLC, are corporations controlled by Gampel that have various ownership interests in Modern Vascular OBLs. Through Modern Vascular, LLC, and Modern Vascular of South Florida, LLC, and in his own capacity, Gampel is the majority owner of the Modern Vascular OBLs. (These entities that own and manage the Modern Vascular OBLs are referred to collectively below as “Modern Vascular Corporate.”)

The complaint alleges that Gampel and Modern Vascular Corporate designed and implemented a fraud scheme at Modern Vascular OBLs at the expense of patients and federal payors from at least January 1, 2018 through June 30, 2022. Among other things, the complaint charges Gampel and the Modern Vascular defendants offered physicians the opportunity to invest in Modern Vascular office-based labs to induce them to refer their Medicare and TRICARE patients to Modern Vascular for the treatment of peripheral arterial disease. More specifically, Gampel and Modern Vascular Corporate opened Modern Vascular OBLs in new markets where referring physicians and vascular surgeons had established relationships. Prior to opening an OBL in a particular location, Gampel sought out up to 20 local physicians – usually podiatrists and pain management physicians – who traditionally referred to vascular surgeons and offered each up to a two percent ownership interest in the OBL in order to induce the physicians to refer to the OBL. Gampel and Modern Vascular Corporate selected these particular physicians (hereinafter “physician investors”) to offer ownership investment because Gampel and Modern Vascular Corporate identified them as potential high-referral sources. Once they invested in an OBL, Gampel and Modern Vascular Corporate further required the physician-investors to make referrals to Modern Vascular OBLs as a condition for remaining as a physician-investor. The complaint also alleges that Gampel pressured vascular surgeons and interventional radiologists employed at the Modern Vascular office-based labs to increase the number of invasive surgical procedures performed by tracking procedures and setting aggressive weekly and monthly goals for such procedures. In particular, Gampel and Modern Vascular Corporate provided remuneration to physician investors in Modern Vascular OBLs to induce those investors to refer patients to the Modern Vascular OBL.

The Justice Department charges that using this scheme, Defendants between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2022 submitted, and caused to be submitted, tens of millions of dollars in false or fraudulent claims to Medicare, TRICARE and other federal health care programs by offering and providing illegal remuneration to health care providers to induce referrals to the Modern Vascular OBLs in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”), 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b. To induce referrals, Gampel and Modern Vascular Corporate provided remuneration to physician-investors in the form of equity ownership interests in an OBL, which also included distributions, the prospect of future distributions, and/or the prospect of a cash-out of the equity ownership amounts when
the Modern Vascular OBLs were sold. During the relevant time period, the Justice Department also claims Modern Vascular
OBLs received over $50 million from Medicare Part B alone for claims submitted for patients referred by physician-investors in violation of the FCA.

Warning To Other Heath Care Providers & Suppliers

In announcing its filing of the Gambrel FCA lawsuit, the Justice Department warned other federal health program providers and suppliers and their business partners, investors, employees and agents from violating the AKS, FCA or both in the provision of or billing of health care services or supplies. “As part of our mission to protect the American people, the FBI remains committed to safeguarding patients who rely on our healthcare systems,” said Deputy Assistant Director Aaron Tapp of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division. “The FBI and our law enforcement partners will continue to investigate those who abuse our healthcare systems, place patients at risk, and waste taxpayer dollars.”

This warning, along with the ever-lengthening list of federal criminal and civil prosecutions, convictions and settlements by the Justice Department, the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General and other agencies provide a strong warning to health care providers, suppliers and others involved in creating or administering transactions and other arrangements for the delivery and billing for health are to be billed to Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE and other health care arrangements covered by the AKS, the FCA or other federal or state health care fraud laws to take well documented care to ensure the care delivery arrangement does not involve transactions prohibited under the AKS or other federal or state health care fraud transactions and the care billed qualifies for reimbursement before submitting the claim. Parties who know or suspect that they may have participated in an arrangement prohibited under these laws or submitted prohibited claims should contact experienced legal counsel within the scope of attorney-client privilege for assistance in reviewing those concerns and exploring options for correction or mitigation.

For More Information

If your organization would like to learn more about the concerns discussed in this update or seeks assistance auditing, updating, administering or defending its human resources, compensation, benefits, corporate ethics and compliance practices, or other performance related concerns, contact management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

An attorney Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer is recognized for work helping organizations management people, operations and risk as a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, a “Top Woman Lawyer,” “Top Rated Lawyer,” and “LEGAL LEADER™” in Labor and Employment Law and Health Care Law; a “Best Lawyers” in “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law.”

For 35 years, Ms. Stamer’s work has focused on advising and assisting businesses and business leaders with these and other employment and other staffing, employee benefit, compensation, risk, performance and compliance management and other operational solutions and concerns. Her experience includes helping management both manage performance and manage legal risk and compliance. While helping businesses define and manage the conduct and performance of their employees, contractors and vendors, she also assists employers and others about compliance with federal and state equal employment opportunity, compensation, health and other employee benefit, workplace safety, leave, and other labor and employment laws, advises and defends businesses against labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, fraud and other regulatory compliance and other related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations by the IRS, Department of Labor, Department of Justice, SEC, Federal Trade Commission, HUD, HHS, DOD, Departments of Insurance, and other federal and state regulators. Ms. Stamer also speaks, coaches management and publishes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see hereor contact Ms. Stamer directly.

Other Helpful Resources & Information

If you found this article of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other Breaking News, articles and other resources available including:

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. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, unsubscribe by updating your profile here.

NOTICE: Terms. These materials are for general informational and educational purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice, a substitute for legal advice, an offer or commitment to provide legal advice or an admission. The information and statements in these materials may not address all relevant issues or apply to any situation or circumstances. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law evolves and in ways that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author disclaims and has 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 are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any time. 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. 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. ©2022 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Nonexclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. All other rights reserved.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Anti-KickBack, ASC, billing, compensation, Conditions of Participation, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, Health IT, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Laboratory tests, Laws, long-term care, Medicaid, Medicaid Advantage, Medicare, Mergers and Acquisitions, nursing home, Outpatient, pain management, Pharmaceudical, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Reimbursement | Tagged: Anti-Kickback, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Reimbursement, Medicaid, Medicare, Office-based labs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

FTC-HHS Seek To Help Mobile Health App Developers Assess When Certain Federal Rules Apply

December 8, 2022

Developers of mobile applications for healthcare and fitness must identify and negotiate a diverse array of federal and state laws, regulations and rulings when designing and deploying their apps.

Since figuring out which federal rules apply often proves challenging, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in conjunction with the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the HHS Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintain and have just updated the Mobile Health App Interactive Tool intended to help developers of health-related mobile apps understand when and federal laws and regulations might apply.

While not covering all relevant legal risks, the guidance tool does highlight certain key regulatory concerns by asking developers a series of high-level questions about the nature of their app, including about its function, the data it collects, and the services it provides to users. Based on the developer’s answers to those questions, the guidance tool points the app developer toward detailed information about certain federal laws that might apply to the app. These include the FTC Act, the FTC’s Health Breach Notification Rule, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FD&C Act), and the 21st Century Cures Act and ONC Information Blocking Regulations.

Using the tool can help to clarify the potential applicability of these rules to a proposed app and help focus the developer on issues to consider regarding these laws as they design in administer their apps. Running through the tool also could help reduce legal fees and other consulting anniversary costs by helping developers of these apps gather helpful information and be more prepared to participate in informed manner when working with the legal team on their compliance. Additionally documented use of the tool could prove helpful in the event of a compliance audit or investigation by capturing evidence helpful to establish a culture of compliance or mitigate other potential liability concerns.

Of course app developers using these tools need to keep in mind that they are not legal advice or a substitute for legal advice. The tools only are intended to provide guidance regarding the potential likely application of the rules covered by the tool. They do not cover broad range of other federal and state Laws, regulations, rulings, and contractual commitments that also can impact the use and design of these apps and their defensibility and a broad range of circumstances. Moreover developers also should keep in mind that the use of the tools and their discussion may uncover existing or past compliance concerns, which might best be conducted within the protection of attorney-client privilege. Consequently, developers and users should consult and closely worked with experienced, qualified legal counsel to address these and other legal risks and compliance.

For Help With Comments, Investigations Or Other Needs

Other Helpful Resources & Information

If you found this article of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other Breaking News, articles and other resources available including:

Leave a Comment » | Health Care, HIPAA, Medical Privacy, Mental Health, Privacy, Substance Abuse, substance abuse treatment | Tagged: fitness pp, Health Care, Health IT, mobile health app, Wellness | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HHS’ Proposed Changes Broadening Substance Use Confidentiality Rules, Consistency With HIPAA Requirements Raise Compliance Concerns For Health Care, Insurance & Other Businesses

November 28, 2022

Mental health and other healthcare providers, health plans and issuers, employers, health care professional associations, consumer advocates, community organizations, state and local government entities, patients and caregivers and others concerned with mental health and substance abuse treatment and management should review and comment by January 30, 2023 on proposed changes to rules on unauthorized disclosures the Confidentiality of Substance Use Disorder (SUD) Patient Records under 42 CFR part 2 (“Part 2”) proposed by the U.S. Health and Human Services Department Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) made public November 28, 2022 here and scheduled for publication in the December 2, 2022 Federal Register. If adopted as proposed, mental health and substance abuse providers, as well as other health care providers and insurers should prepare to meet new responsibilities and manage new liabilities under the revised rules.

On November 28, 2022, OCR and SAMHSA issued the NPRM to revise the Confidentiality of Substance Use Disorder Patient Records regulations at 42 CFR part 2 (“Part 2”), which seek to address concerns that concerns about discrimination or prosecution might deter people from entering treatment for SUD by protecting “records of the identity, diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment of any patient which are maintained in connection with the performance of any program or activity relating to substance abuse education prevention, training, treatment, rehabilitation, or research, which is conducted, regulated, or directly or indirectly assisted by any department or agency of the United States.”(“SUD Records”).

Currently, the Part 2 protections of patient privacy and records concerning treatment related to substance use challenges from unauthorized disclosures differ from the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy, Breach Notification, and Enforcement Rules (“HIPAA”) rules. These distinctions create barriers to information sharing by patients and among health care providers and create dual obligations and compliance challenges for regulated entities. To address this concern, Congress mandated in Section 3221 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) that HHS to bring Part 2 into greater alignment with certain aspects of the HIPAA Privacy rule.

The NPRM seeks to address the CARES Act mandate as Americans and their leaders struggle to continue to provide pathways for victims of substance abuse and other mental health challenges to pursue treatment and maximize their participation and enjoyment in our communities while addressing safety concerns about a growing series of rare but notorious acts of violence committed by certain inadequately diagnosed or managed victims of mental health or substance abuse. See, e.g., Fact Sheet: President Biden To Announce Strategy To Address Our National Mental Health Crisis, As Part Of Unity Agenda In His First State Of The Union; President Biden Releases National Drug Control Strategy to Save Lives, Expand Treatment, and Disrupt Trafficking; Actions Taken by the Biden-⁠Harris Administration to Address Addiction and the Overdose Epidemic; Colorado Springs LGBT Nightclub Shooting Leaves Five Dead and 25 Injured; Virginia Walmart Shooting Gunman “Was Picking People Out,” Witness Says; Opinion: Leaders Blamed the Uvalde Shooting on a Mental Health Crisis. Gun Violence Is Making That Crisis Worse; Nancy Pelosi Husband Attack Suspect David Depape Pleads Not Guilty To Federal Charges.

Amid these challenges, the NPRM proposes to implement this CARES Act mandate through the following changes to Part 2 that HHS says will help safeguard the health and outcomes of individuals with SUD while creating greater flexibility for information sharing envisioned by Congress in its passage of Section 3221 of the CARES Act:

Permit Part 2 programs to use and disclose Part 2 records based on a single prior consent signed by the patient for all future uses and disclosures for treatment, payment, and health care operations;
Permit the redisclosure of Part 2 records as permitted by the HIPAA Privacy Rule by recipients that are Part 2 programs, HIPAA covered entities, and business associates, with certain exceptions;
Expand prohibitions on the use and disclosure of Part 2 records in civil, criminal, administrative, or legislative proceedings conducted by a federal, state, or local authority against a patient, absent a court order or the consent of the patient;
Create two patient rights under Part 2 that align with individual rights under the HIPAA Privacy Rule:
- Right to an accounting of disclosures; and
- Right to request restrictions on disclosures for treatment, payment, and health care operations;
Require disclosures to the Secretary for enforcement;
Apply HIPAA and HITECH Act civil and criminal penalties to Part 2 violations;
Require Part 2 programs to establish a process to receive complaints of Part 2 violations;
Prohibit Part 2 programs from taking adverse action against patients who file complaints;
Prohibit Part 2 programs from requiring patients to waive the right to file a complaint as a condition of providing treatment, enrollment, payment, or eligibility for services;
Apply the standards in the HITECH Act and the HIPAA Breach Notification Rule to breaches of Part 2 records by Part 2 programs;
Modify the Part 2 confidentiality notice requirements (“Patient Notice”) to align with the HIPAA Notice of Privacy Practices;
Modify the HIPAA Notice of Privacy Practices requirements for covered entities who receive or maintain Part 2 records to include a provision limiting redisclosure of Part 2 records for legal proceedings according to the Part 2 standards; and
Permit investigative agencies to apply for a court order to use or disclose Part 2 records after they unknowingly receive Part 2 records while investigating or prosecuting a Part 2 program, when certain preconditions are met.

While the Department is undertaking this rulemaking, the current Part 2 regulations remain in effect. However, once the comment period ends, the Biden Administration-led HHS is expected to finalize the proposed changes quickly. Consequently, in addition to sharing any concerns or other input about the proposed changes during the comment period, health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, employers, community agencies, state and local governments, patients and other caregivers and other concerned parties also should begin planning and preparing to respond to the anticipated changes in the requirements.

Implications For Health Care Providers, Health Insurers & Other Businesses

The NPRM’s extension of HIPAA and HIPAA-like requirements to the Part 2 substance abuse confidentiality provides clarification by adding new obligations for health care providers and others involved in substance abuse treatment or recordkeeping. Health care providers, health insurance, and others involved with these activities will need to assess and plan to meet these new responsibilities and the steps they can be expected to take to fulfill them.

Beyond these more obvious burdens, mental health and substance abuse and other health care providers and businesses also should carefully assess the potential implications of the proposed changes on their worker and vendor credentialing and workplace safety practices as well as their health and other benefit programs. Assuming the changes are adopted in their current form, businesses sponsoring health benefit programs, and health care organizations and providers specifically should prepare to modify their HIPAA required notices of privacy practices and associated practices to comply with the proposed updates.

Businesses required to comply with Department of Transportation Drug Free Workplace or other alcohol and substance abuse requirements also should consider the potential implications of the proposed changes on their ability to secure relevant substance abuse treatment and related history. In assessing these implications, businesses also should be cognizant of a new proactivity on behalf of certain uses of drugs by workers in the workplace under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”). For instance, the EEOC recently has sued Eagle Marine Services Electrical & Refrigeration, LLC for allegedly violating the ADA by refusing to hire or accommodate a worker because he used medication prescribed by his doctor to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”) without making any individual assessment of the worker’s medication use or whether it would affect his ability to safely perform the marine electrician position, and instead relied on general stereotypes about disability and medication use to justify its decision not to hire him. Businesses seeking to investigate or deny employment opportunities to workers based on the worker’s past or current medication use will want to use care to ensure that their practices are tailored to defend against similar challenges.

Health plan sponsors and insurers also should assure their mental health and substance abuse treatment coverage documents and practices are defensible under the latest mental health and substance abuse parity mandates of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) and coverage requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). Along with a host of statutory changes since the original parity mandates took effect, implementing regulations and guidance about non-qualitative limitations and exclusions and heightened agency enforcement are ramping up enforcement and liability risks. In addition to exposing the health plan administrators and other fiduciaries to potential claims denial or fiduciary responsibility claims brought by participants or beneficiaries, the Department of Labor or both, administrative penalties by the EBSA, or both, the MHPAEA mental health and substance abuse parity rules are among 40 federal mandates that when violated can trigger the automatic $100 per violation per day employer excise tax penalty under Internal Revenue Code Section 6039D. Consequently, violations of the MHPAEA are particularly risky and potentially expensive for private employers, their health plans and the plan administrators and fiduciaries that administer it.

For Help With Comments, Investigations Or Other Needs

If your organization would like to learn more about the concerns discussed in this update or seeks assistance auditing, updating, administering or defending its human resources, compensation, benefits, corporate ethics and compliance practices, or other performance related concerns, please contact management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

Other Helpful Resources & Information

If you found this article of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other Breaking News, articles and other resources available including:

Leave a Comment » | Health Care, Health Care, HIPAA, Medical Privacy, Mental Health, Privacy, Substance Abuse, Substance Abuse, substance abuse treatment | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Act Promptly To Comment On ONC’s Proposed Electronic Clinical Quality Measure Draft Changes

September 14, 2022

Health care providers, health plans and insurers and other stakeholders concerned about the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the National Coordinator for Healthcare Information (“ONC”) electronic clinical quality measures (“eCQMs”) have the opportunity to review and comment on draft changes to the eCQM specifications and supporting resources under consideration by ONC as part of ONC’s 2022 Change Review Process (CRP) for the ONC Project Tracking System. Interested stakeholders must monitor the posting of issues and act quickly to share their feedback, however, as stakeholders have only two weeks to comment after a ONC posts a new proposed eCQm change.

eCQMs As Measure of Health Care Quality

Electronic clinical quality measures or “eCQMs” are tools that ONC develops with stakeholder input to help Medicare and Medicaid measure and track the quality of health care services that eligible hospitals and critical access hospitals (CAHs) provide, as generated by a provider’s electronic health record (EHR). CMS Measuring and reporting eCQMs helps to ensure that our health care system is delivering effective, safe, efficient, patient-centered, equitable, and timely care. CMS’ eCQMs measure many aspects of patient care, including:

Patient and Family Engagement
Patient Safety
Care Coordination
Population/Public Health
Efficient Use of Healthcare Resources
Clinical Process/Effectiveness

To successfully participate in the Medicare and Medicaid Promoting Interoperability Programs, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) requires eligible providers, eligible hospitals, critical access hospitals and dual-eligible hospitals electronically to report on eCQMs determined by CMS that require the use of data from the provider’s certified electronic health record (“EHR”) technology (CEHRT) or other health information technology systems to measure and report quality measures in a standardized manner. For calendar year (CY) 2022, Medicare Promoting Interoperability Program participants are required to report on three self-selected eCQMs and the Safe Use of Opioids – Concurrent Prescribing eCQM from the set of nine available for at least three self-selected quarters of CY 2022 data. To report eCQMs successfully, health care providers must use an EHR and adhere to the requirements identified by the CMS quality program. Failing to meet these eCQM reporting requirements can prevent the provider from meeting meaningful use requirements and trigger reductions in reimbursements for care.

Health care quality, credentialing, accreditation, and other provider, health plan and other organizations also use the eCQMs data alone or with other quality measures and tools to set standards and assess and enforce quality goals and performances.

As the proposed changes on a relevant eCQM could materially impact the reporting responsibilities of the reporting providers, the quality and meaning of a proposed data measure, or both, impacted stakeholders should monitor the system for possible changes impacting the eCQMs used or applicable to their organizations and its activities and if appropriate, comment promptly.

2022 eCQMs Updates

Each year, CMS makes updates to the eCQMs approved for CMS programs to reflect changes in:

Evidence-based Medicine
Code Sets
Measure Logic

Conducted annually as part of OCN’s eCQM Issue Tracker project, the CRP provides eCQM users the opportunity to review and comment on draft changes to the eCQM specifications and supporting resources under consideration by the measure stewards. The goal of the CRP is for eCQM implementers to comment on the potential impact of draft changes to eCQMs so CMS and measure stewards can make improvements to meet CMS’s intent of minimizing provider and vendor burden in the collection, capture, calculation, and reporting of eCQMs.

Stakeholders with an account on the ONC Project Tracking System can monitor, review and comment on proposed eCQM changes through the eCQM Issue Tracker project during the two week period following the date the issue is posted in the eCQM Issue Tracker. To participate in the CRP, users must have an ONC Project Tracking System account. New users can create an account via the ONC Project Tracking System website.

The following table reflects the eCQM issues open on the eCQM Issue Tracker as of September 14, 2022 and their scheduled comment closing dates

Issues Open for Public Comment As of 9/14/2022

CMS eCQM Identifier and Measure Title	CRP Issue Title	Issue Number and Link	Issue Type	Goal of Review	Public Comment Open Date	Public Comment Close Date
Multiple measures	Incorporate ‘Diagnosis’ datatype to capture Hospice Care	CQM-5561	Logic; Value Set	Obtain clinical and technical feedback	09/07/2022	09/21/2022
CMS128: Anti-depressant Medication Management; CMS136: Follow-Up Care for Children Prescribed ADHD Medication (ADD); CMS156: Use of High-Risk Medications in Older Adults	Update Cumulative Medication Duration function to calculate maximum daily frequency	CQM-5562	Logic	Obtain technical feedback	09/07/2022	09/21/2022
Multiple measures	Expand codes using ‘Diagnosis’ datatype to capture Palliative Care	CQM-5563	Logic; Value Set	Obtain clinical and technical feedback	09/07/2022	09/21/2022
Multiple measures	Require 2 indications of frailty to meet exclusion	CQM-5564	Header; Logic; Measure Intent Clarification	Obtain clinical feedback	09/07/2022	09/21/2022
CMS127: Pneumococcal Vaccination Status for Older Adults	Expand numerator to allow for pneumococcal vaccination since 19 years of age	CQM-5565	Header; Logic; Measure Intent Clarification	Obtain clinical feedback	09/07/2022	09/21/2022

eCQM Issue Tracker Open Issues As Of September 14, 2022

As proposed eCQM changes are posted for public comment as CRP issues. ONC informs eCQM accountholders of the proposed change or eCQM issue by posting for review in the ONC Project Tracking System. Accountholders only have two weeks after ONC posts a proposed eCQM to comment on the posted issue. Stakeholders interested in commenting on a particular issue must submit their comment in accordance with the directions within this two week period.

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

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Vice Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health 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 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 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.

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

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.

Learn About DOJ Federal Antitrust Health Industry Market Competition Enforcement & Latest On $2.67 Billion BCBS Class Action Antitrust Settlement In 9/8 JCEB Webex

September 2, 2022

As qualifying individuals and companies that purchased or received health insurance await instructions on how to claim their share of the $2.67 billion In re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation private federal class action civil antitrust lawsuit settlement (“Settlement”) finally approved August 9, 2022 against the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (“BCBSA”) and other settling individual Blue Cross Plans, employers and other plan sponsors, health care systems and providers, health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers, brokerages, and other health and health insurance market participants need to keep in mind that the private antitrust judgements are not their only exposure under federal antitrust laws. Health insurance and health industry market participants that engage in anticompetitive conduct or business transactions also risk investigation and prosecution under federal antitrust laws by the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission and state regulators or attorneys general.

Market participants and others with health or health insurance industry market competitiveness concerns or interests should register and attend the September 8, 2022 Justice Department Health Industry Antitrust Enforcement Update to learn about key federal antitrust statutes regulating or prohibiting anticompetitive conduct and business transactions and hear how the Department of Justice uses these laws to promote market competition in the health care and health insurance marketplaces.

Hosted by the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, the webinar will feature a discussion by U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Healthcare and Consumer Products Section Antitrust Attorney Natalie Melada of basic federal antitrust rules and principles the Justice Department relies upon to safeguard market competitiveness and discusses selected Justice Department antitrust litigation and other compliance and enforcement initiatives the Department of Justice has undertaken to protect competition in the healthcare industry. Attorney and Solutions Law Press, Inc. editor and author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer also will provide an update on the In re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation and resulting $2.67 billion settlement approved August 9.

For more details and to register for the program, see here.

More Information

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and following 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

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 » | Academic medicine, Anethesiology, Antitrust, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Conditions of Participation, Cyber crime, data breach, Direct Primary Care, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Apps, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Insurance, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HHS, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, managed care, Medical Licensure, Medical Records, Medicare, Mental Health, Mental Heatlh, nursing home, occupational health, OCR, Outpatient, participating provider, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Physician Licensing, physician licensure, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Psychiatric, public health, Reproductive Rights, Rural Health Care, Self-Insured Group health Plans, Skilled Nursing Facility, substance abuse treatment | Tagged: Antitrust, Association, competition, Department of Justice, Employers, Group Purchasing Organizations, Health Care, Health Insurance, Health Plans, PBMs, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Protected Health Information | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HIPAA Covered Entity Nailed With $300,000+ HIPAA Settlement For Improper PHI Disposal

August 23, 2022

A Massachusetts dermatology practice’s Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) $300,000 plus settlement with the Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) reminds health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (“Covered Entities”) to use proper practices and safeguards when disposing of protected health information (“PHI”).

Following up on other OCR enforcement involving improper protection and disposal of paper and electronic PHI, the settlement with New England Dermatology P.C., d/b/a New England Dermatology and Laser Center (“NDELC”) OCR announced today (August 23, 2022) resolves charges that NDELC violated the HIPAA Privacy Rules when it placed specimen containers with patient identifying PHI in its parking lot garbage bin.

OCR interprets HIPAA as requiring Covered Entities to appropriate steps to ensure that safeguards are in place when disposing of patient information to keep it from being accessible by the public. ”Improper disposal of protected health information creates an unnecessary risk to patient privacy,” said Acting OCR Director Melanie Fontes Rainer.

On May 11, 2021, NEDLC filed a breach report with OCR that reported empty specimen containers with the PHI on labels were placed in a garbage bin in their parking lot. The containers’ labels included patient names and dates of birth, dates of sample collection, and name of the provider who took the specimen. On March 31, 2021, a third-party security guard found one specimen container bearing a label containing patient names, dates of birth, dates of sample collection, and name of the provider who took the specimen. During the investigation, NEDLC stated that from February 4, 2011 until March 31, 2021, it regularly discarded specimen containers with an attached label that contained PHI as regular waste, bagged and placed in an exterior dumpster accessible via the parking lot, without alteration to the PHI containing label.

OCR’s New England Regional Office found the practice of disposing of specimen containers with their labels containing PHI violated the HIPAA Privacy Rule including the impermissible use and disclosure of PHI and failure to maintain appropriate safeguards to protect the privacy of PHI.

Under the NEDLC Resolution Agreement negotiated to settle the alleged violations, NEDLC paid $300,640 to OCR and agreed to implement a “robust” corrective action plan that includes two years of OCR monitoring. Among other things, the corrective action plan requires NEDLC to:

Within 60 days, develop, maintain, and revise, as needed and present for OCR review its written policies and procedures to comply with the physical safeguard and disposal of PHI created, received or maintained by or on behalf of NEDLC and all other HIPAA Privacy, Security and Breach Notification and training protocols to ensure workforce member compliance with these policies; and sanctions for workforce members violating these requirements;
Implement the updated policies and procedures within 30 days of receipt of HHS approval;
Distribute the policies to existing members of its workforce within 30 days of receipt of HHS approval of the policies and subsequently to new members of the workforce within 30 days of their beginning of service and obtain a signed written or electronic initial compliance certification from all members of the workforce and relevant business associates stating that the workforce members have read, understand, and shall abide by such policies and procedures;
Assess, update, and revise, as necessary, the policies and procedures at least annually or as needed, provide the revised policies and procedures to HHS for review and approval, and redistribute to and obtained new compliance certifications from workforce members and business associates within 30 days of HHS approval;
If it receives information during the Compliance Term that a workforce member or business associate may have failed to comply with its policies and procedures for safeguarding PHI, promptly investigate and it the investigation finds a violation, notify HHS within 30 days of the violation and corrective action taken;
Comply with specified breach investigation and notification requirements;
Provide reports certified by a designated leader of the organization its implementation of the corrective action plan, annually and upon the occurrence of certain other events during the two-year monitoring period.

The NEDLC Resolution Agreement is not the first time OCR has nailed a Covered Entity for improper disposal of PHI. In 2015 Cornell Prescription Pharmacy paid OCR $125,000 and implemented a correction action plan to correct alleged HIPAA violations after an OCR investigation of a local news report confirmed unsecured paper documents containing PHI of more than 1600 patients were disposed of in an unlocked, open container on Cornell’s premises. The documents were not shredded and contained identifiable information regarding specific patients. See Cornell Prescription Pharmacy Resolution Agreement. See also $800,000 HIPAA Settlement in Medical Records Dumping Case.

To reduce their own exposure to potential HIPAA liability arising from improper disposal of PHI, covered entities should evaluate the adequacy of the PHI handling, security and disposal policies, procedures, training and compliance for potential weaknesses and take appropriate, timely documented corrective action to tighten their compliance with OCR’s regulations, OCR’s Frequently Asked Questions About the Disposal and other OCR enforcement actions and guidance on PHI disposal.

Since these evaluations could uncover past or ongoing compliance concerns, Covered Entities and business associates should consider engaging legal counsel experienced with HIPAA compliance to advise and aid the Covered Entity to structure, conduct, evaluate findings and determine and implement any corrective actions that the review reveals as required or advisable within the scope of attorney client privilege.

Effective protection and disposal of PHI requires that Covered Entities recognize and keep track of all PHI in the various phases of its lifecycle in the organization including when it is being disposed or or migrating through various systems. Sanctions for disposal of specimen bottles containing PHI labels should raise the need for awareness of disposal practices for other patient labeled items including identification bracelets, medication containers and labels, meal trays and the plethora of other items containing patient specific information. PHI disposal issues also can arise out of the disposal of files, storage containers, computers, copiers or other devices. For instance, under the Affinity Health Plan, Inc. Resolution Agreement, Affinity Health paid OCR $1,215,780 to settle potential HIPAA Civil Monetary Sanctions after OCR found it exposed the PHI of up to 344,579 individuals by returning photocopiers to a leasing agent without erasing the data contained on the copier hard drives.

Because HIPAA obligations continue even when a Covered Entity or business associate goes out of business, Covered Entities also need to take appropriate steps to provide for ongoing management, protection and disposal of PHI when they or a business associate ceases business. Thus, in the FileFax Resolution Agreement, for instance the receiver appointed to liquidate the assets of Filefax, Inc. agreed to pay $ 100,000 out of the receivership estate to OCR to settle potential HIPAA violations after Filefax shut its doors during the course of OCR’s investigation into alleged HIPAA violations.

Covered Entities must understand that these responsibilities generally cannot be met merely through adoption of a standard set of policies and procedures from a third-party. The HIPAA Privacy Rule requires all Covered Entities to prepare and document risk assessments and develop and enforce appropriate privacy and security policies and procedures. Security and disposal practices and procedures are among the elements of HIPAA compliance that OCR expects Covered Entities to address in the documented risk assessments the regulations require Covered Entities to prepare and maintain. See $750,000 HIPAA Settlement Underscores the Need for Organization Wide Risk Analysis. As with other HIPAA compliance responsibilities, OCR regulations require that Covered Entities include their documented assessment and decision-making about the adequacy and reasonableness of their PHI protection and destruction practices under HIPAA as part of their overall HIPAA risk assessment plan and practices.

While OCR guidance provides some examples of several practices that a Covered Entity might use that could or could not meet the destruction standards, these examples are not safe harbors. The regulations and guidance expect Covered Entities to conduct a documented review and assessment “of their own circumstances to determine what steps are reasonable to safeguard PHI through disposal and develop and implement policies and procedures to carry out those steps.” OCR guidance directs that Covered Entities should assess potential risks to patient privacy, as well as consider such issues as the form, type, and amount of PHI to be disposed. Covered entities are responsible for conducting and documenting their analysis as well as their adoption, implementation and enforcement of the resulting policies and procedures.

If circumstances come to light that indicate a breach of the standards in the course of the disposal compliance assessment or otherwise, Covered Entities also promptly should work with legal counsel timely to investigate, determine and provide any required notifications or other corrective action and document their actions to meet applicable HIPAA and other legal obligations and mitigate liability.

Of course, Covered Entities and their leaders always must keep in mind that their responsibilities and potential liability for mishandling PHI could extend well beyond HIPAA. In addition to the civil monetary penalties HIPAA authorizes, mishandling the collection, protection or disposal of PHI or other sensitive data also can trigger other legal exposures. For instance, as HIPAA compliance is part of the Conditions of Participation that Medicare participating Covered Entities and Medicare Advantage Plans must meet to qualify for program participation, noncompliance could trigger program exclusion, False Claims Act or related exposures. Deficiencies in security or destruction of credit card, banking or other PHI that also qualifies as personal financial information could trigger exposure under Federal Trade Commission, state identity theft and privacy or other laws. Public companies and their leaders also may need to evaluate if deficiencies in their security or destruction protocols trigger investor disclosure obligations under Securities and Exchange Commission rules or other federal or state laws. Considering these and other exposures, documented, compliance and defensibility of PHI and other sensitive information use, protection, disclosure and destruction should rank high among the priorities of all Covered Entities and their leaders.

More Information

About the Author

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 » | Academic medicine, Anethesiology, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Conditions of Participation, Cyber crime, data breach, Direct Primary Care, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Health Apps, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Insurance, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HHS, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, managed care, Medical Licensure, Medical Records, Medicare, Mental Health, Mental Heatlh, nursing home, occupational health, OCR, Outpatient, participating provider, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Physician Licensing, physician licensure, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Psychiatric, public health, Reproductive Rights, Rural Health Care, Self-Insured Group health Plans, Skilled Nursing Facility, substance abuse treatment | Tagged: Abortion, dobbs, Health Care, HIPAA, Physician, Protected Health Information, Reproductive Rights | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

6 Texas Physicians Face Federal Health Care Fraud Charges For Alleged Improper Kickbacks & Lab Testing Claims

May 29, 2022

The Department of Justice sent another strong warning to physicians and other health care provides not to violate the False Claims Act by making improper patient referrals in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law, billing federal health care programs for medically unnecessary laboratory testing or other services or both when charged six Texas physicians with federal health care fraud this week. The prosecution of the physicians for laboratory tests arranged and billed through management services organizations also reminds physicians and other providers that reliance upon management services or other third-party service providers generally does not protect a physician participating in prohibited laboratory or other testing, durable medical equipment, facility, physical therapy or other health care billing or referral arrangements from liability.

Charges Against Texas Physicians

This week, the Justice Department added the following six physicians as defendants to criminal charges filed in a False Claims Act complaint filed in January 2022 against former True Health Diagnostics LLC (THD) CEO Christopher Grottenthaler, former Boston Heart Diagnostics Corporation (BHD) CEO Susan Hertzberg, former LRH CEO Jeffrey Madison, and others:

Doyce Cartrett, Jr., M.D., of Silsbee, Texas, allegedly received over $320,000 from LRH and two management services organizations or “MSOs,” Ascend MSO of TX LLC (Ascend) and Eridanus MG LLC (Eridanus), in return for his referrals.
Elizabeth Seymour, M.D., of Corinth, Texas, allegedly received over $280,000 from two MSOs, Ascend and Eridanus, in return for her referrals.
Emanuel Paul “E.P.” Descant, II, M.D., of Spring, Texas, allegedly received over $125,000 from two MSOs, North Houston MSO and Tomball Medical Management Inc., in return for his referrals.
Frederick Brown, M.D., of Missouri City, Texas, allegedly received over $190,000 from two MSOs, Ascend and Indus MG LLC (Indus), in return for his referrals.
Heriberto Salinas, M.D., of Cleburne, Texas, allegedly received over $75,000 from two MSOs, Ascend and Herculis MG LLC (Herculis), in return for his referrals.
Hong Davis, M.D., of Lewisville, Texas, allegedly received over $70,000 from two MSOs, Ascend and Herculis, in return for her referrals.

The complaint in United States, et al. ex rel. STF, LLC v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, et al., No. 4:16-cv-547 (E.D. Tex.) charges that small Texas hospitals including Rockdale Hospital dba Little River Healthcare (LRH), THD, BHD, the six physicians and others conspired to pay physicians to induce referrals to the hospitals for laboratory testing performed by THD or BHD. The charges stem from allegations made under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act by STF LLC by Felice Gersh, M.D. and Chris Riedel. The United States intervened in the qui tam action in December 2021.

The complaint alleges the charged hospitals paid a portion of their laboratory profits to recruiters, who in turn kicked back those funds to the referring physicians through MSOs allegedly set up by the recruiters to make payments to referring physicians. The Justice Department charges the alleged kickbacks were disguised as investment returns but actually were based on, and offered in exchange for, the physicians’ referrals. The complaint alleges that laboratory tests resulting from this referral scheme were billed to various federal health care programs, and that the claims not only were tainted by improper inducements but, in many cases, also involved tests that were not reasonable and necessary.

The Justice Department reports that before adding charges against the six physicians to the complaint this week, the Justice Department recovered more than $31 million relating to conduct involving BHD, THD and LRH, including False Claims Act settlements with 29 physicians, two health care executives and a laboratory company.

Health Care Fraud Liability Under False Claims Act, Anti-Kickback Statute, Stark Law

The Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to induce referrals of items or services covered by Medicare, Medicaid and other federally-funded programs. The Stark Law forbids a hospital or laboratory from billing Medicare for certain services referred by physicians that have a financial relationship with the hospital or laboratory. The Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law seek to ensure that medical providers’ judgments are not compromised by improper financial incentives and are instead based on the best interests of their patients.

The False Claims Act prohibits health care providers from billing federal health care programs for services resulting from referrals prohibited by the Anti-Kickback Statute or the Stark law.

Under the False Claims Act, a private party can file an action on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of the recovery. The False Claims Act also allows the Justice Department to intervene in such lawsuits and add claims and defendants, as happened in this litigation. The qui tam case is captioned United States, et al. ex rel. STF, LLC v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, et al., No. 4:16-cv-547 (E.D. Tex.). If a defendant is found liable for violating the act, the United States may recover three times the amount of its losses plus applicable penalties.

The United States’ pursuit of this lawsuit illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud generally with a special emphasis on physicians. For instance, U.S. Attorney Brit Featherston is quoted as saying, “Schemes that funnel health care referrals do not work without the participation of physicians. … They are not merely passive players in these elaborate schemes, but an integral part, without which the scheme could not exist. Our office is committed to rooting out health care fraud by pursuing all players involved the scheme, from the laboratories and their leaders to the marketers and the physicians who make it all possible. Naming these physicians in the complaint is evidence of that commitment.”

Given this clear warning, physicians and other prescribers, as well as recruiting, billing and management services organizations, laboratories and others involved in recruiting and marketing, providing or billing for laboratory or other services to double check the appropriateness of their referral and other practices keeping in mind that the Anti-Kickback Statute and Stark Law prohibitions against direct and indirect compensation can reach to a wide range of subtle value and benefits in addition to the obvious payment of cash or gifts delivered in a multitude of ways. The prosecution of these physicians for referrals made and compensation delivered under management services contracts also clearly warns physicians and other providers against expecting their reliance upon billing, management services or other staff or management service providers to shield them from liability if an improper referral or payment happens.

More Information

About the Author

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 » | Anti-KickBack, billing, Centers For Disease Control, Conditions of Participation, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, false claims act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, healthcare, HHS, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Laboratory tests, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Money Laundering, nursing home, OIG, Opiates, Pharmaceudical, Physician, Physician Licensing, Reimbursement, Stark, Substance Abuse | Tagged: Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Opiate, pain management, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Federal Convictions Of Physicians Highlight Need For Care In Opiate & Other Pain Management Prescribing & Billing

March 4, 2022

Physicians and other health care prescribers must remain hyper vigilant when prescribing, documenting, billing and managing opiate and other pain management prescriptions and patients. That’s the clear message sent by the ever-growing wave of federal prosecutions and convictions like the March 2, 2022 federal conviction of Tennessee physician Mark Murphy and his wife, Jennifer Murphy and his wife for unlawfully distributing opioids, providing unnecessary services and defrauding insurers from their now-shuttered North Alabama Pain Services clinics (“NAPS”) and March 1, 2022 sentencing of former physician Patrick Titus to 20 years in prison for his conviction of unlawful distribution of opioid drug outside the usual scope of professional practice and not for legitimate medical purposes as part of the his internal medicine practice.

Tennessee Doctor & Wife Convicted of Pain Management Related Unlawful Opioid Distribution, Health Care Fraud & Other Criminal Charges

The March 2 federal jury conviction of Dr. and Ms. Murphy stemmed from their ownership and operation of their now-defunct pain management clinics resulted from evidence gathered through a joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Drug Enforcement Agency.

During the resulting jury trial, federal prosecutors presented evidence that during the five-year period leading up to the clinic closing its Alabama locations in 2017, Dr. Murphy and Ms. Murphy, who was the office manager, caused over $50 million in fraudulent or unnecessary medical services to be charged to Medicare, TRICARE, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama and others. Evidence at trial showed that NAPS provided pre-signed prescriptions to thousands of patients a month, including prescriptions written outside the usual course of professional practice without a legitimate medical purpose. Federal prosecutors also introduced evidence that the Murphys also solicited and received unlawful payments for referring fraudulent or unnecessary services to patients.

Based on the evidence, the jury found both Dr. and Ms. Murphy guilty on numerous criminal charges including:

Conspiracy to unlawfully distribute and unlawful distribution of controlled substances;
Conspiracy to commit and commission of health care fraud;
Conspiracy to defraud the United States; and
Receiving illegal kickbacks in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute.

Ms. Murphy also was convicted of tax-related charges for underreporting clinic income.

Currently scheduled for sentencing in June, the Murphys each face a maximum of 20 years in prison for the drug charges and a maximum of 10 years in prison for the health care fraud charges. Both defendants also face a maximum of five years in prison for charges stemming from violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute, and Ms. Murphy faces up to three years in prison for the tax charges.

Former Delaware Doctor Sentenced to 20 Years in Prison for Unlawful Opioid Distribution

The Murphy’s jury conviction came one day after the sentencing of former to 20 years in prison for his July 2021 federal jury conviction on 13 counts of unlawfully distributing and dispensing controlled substances and one count of maintaining a drug-involved premises.

Federal prosecutors presented evidence in court documents and trial that Dr. Titus unlawfully distributed or dispensed opioid drugs including fentanyl, morphine, methadone, OxyContin and oxycodone outside the usual scope of professional practice and not for legitimate medical purposes as part of the his internal medicine practice. The Justice Department charged Dr. Titus frequently prescribed these dangerous controlled substances in high dosages, sometimes in combination with each other or in other dangerous combinations, mostly in exchange for cash. Evidence at trial showed he distributed over 1 million opioid pills without providing any meaningful medical care and to patients he knew were suffering from substance use disorder and/or who demonstrated clear signs that the prescribed drugs were being abused, diverted or sold on the street.

Health Care Fraud Task Force Targeting Opioid Distribution, Billing, & Related Misconduct

Both the Murphy and Titus prosecutions and convictions are two of a growing series of convictions resulted from investigations into opioid and other pain management prescribing conducted as part of efforts targeting physicians and other health care providers involved in prohibited the federal Health Care Fraud Strike Force Program. See e.g., Medical Director Convicted in $110 Million Addiction Treatment Fraud Scheme.

The Federal agencies made a point of warning to other physicians not to overprescribe, bill or engage in other prohibited dealings involving opioids or other controlled substances when announcing the Titus sentencing.

“As we continue the fight against the opioid crisis, this case serves as an important reminder that health care professionals have a duty to prescribe medication responsibly to ensure the well-being of individuals under their care. Failing to do so can endanger patients and undermines critical, ongoing public health measures,” said Special Agent in Charge Maureen Dixon of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General (HHS-OIG). “HHS-OIG will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to hold bad actors accountable.”

“This sentence is a reminder that the Department of Justice will hold accountable those doctors who are illegitimately prescribing opioids and fueling the country’s opioid crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr. of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “Doctors who commit these unlawful acts exploit their roles as stewards of their patients’ care for their own profit.”

“DEA-registered medical practitioners have an important role in our communities to treat patients compassionately and responsibly,” said DEA Administrator Anne Milgram. “Today’s sentencing makes clear that medical professionals who recklessly prescribe opioids and endanger the safety and health of patients will be held accountable.”

More Information

About the Author

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 » | billing, Centers For Disease Control, Conditions of Participation, Controlled Substances, Corporate Compliance, DEA, Doctor, drug treatment, E-Prescribing, Evidence Based Medicine, false claims act, FDA, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, hemp, HHS, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Licensing, managed care, marijuana, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medical Records, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, Monopoly, OIG, Opiates, pain management, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Reimbursement, Substance Abuse | Tagged: Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Opiate, pain management, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Justice Department Antitrust Suit Seeks To Block UnitedHealth Acquisition Of Change Healthcare As Anticompetitive

March 3, 2022

The U.S. Department of Justice along with the Minnesota and New York Attorneys General (collectively “Justice Department”) are suing to stop UnitedHealth Group Incorporated (“United”) from acquiring Change Healthcare Inc. (“Change”) on February 24, 2022 in an announced $13 billion transaction as prohibited by antitrust laws. The suit is the latest in a series of Justice Department suits that seek to prevent continued consolidation of the health industry giants following decades of industry consolidation.

United, headquartered in Minnetonka, Minnesota, is an integrated health care enterprise that includes, among other subsidiaries, UnitedHealthcare, the largest health insurer in the United States; Optum Health, a large network of health care providers located throughout the country; OptumRx, a large pharmacy benefit manager; and OptumInsight, a health care technology business. United’s revenues were $288 billion in 2021.

Change Healthcare Inc. headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee, is a leading independent health care technology company providing health care analytics, software, services and data to health care providers, health insurers and other software and services firms in the health care industry. Today, Change markets itself as a partner to a wide variety of other health care ecosystem organizations including United’s major health insurance competitors as providing vital software and services need for innovation and problem solving. These services include electronic data interchange (EDI) clearinghouse services, which transmit claims and payment information between insurers and providers, and first-pass claims editing solutions, which review claims under the health insurer’s policies and relevant treatment protocols. Change’s revenues were $3.4 billion in 2021.

In the civil antitrust complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on February 24, 2022, the Justice Department charges United’s acquisition of this neutral player would allow United to tilt the playing field in its favor, harming current competition and allowing United to control and distort the course of innovation in this industry for the foreseeable future.

Among other things, the Justice Department alleges allowing United to eliminate a significant independent and innovative competitor firm by acquiring Change will undermine competition in the commercial health insurance market, stifle innovation in the employer health insurance markets and suppress competition in the market for a vital technology used by health insurers to process health insurance claims and reduce health care costs by giving United control of a critical data highway through which about half of all Americans’ health insurance claims pass each year.

As alleged in the complaint, the proposed transaction would give United, a massive company that owns the largest health insurer in the United States, access to a vast amount of its rival health insurers’ competitively sensitive information. Post-acquisition, United would be able to use its rivals’ information to gain an unfair advantage and harm competition in health insurance markets. The Justice Department also claims the proposed transaction would eliminate United’s only major rival for first-pass claims editing technology — a critical product used to efficiently process health insurance claims and save health insurers billions of dollars each year — and give United a monopoly share in the market.

A Justice Department press release about the lawsuit quotes Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Doha Mekki of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division as saying, “Unless the deal is blocked, United stands to see and potentially use its health insurance rivals’ competitively sensitive information for its own business purposes and control these competitors’ access to innovations in vital health care technology. The department’s lawsuit makes clear that we will not hesitate to challenge transactions that harm competition by placing so much control of data and innovation in the hands of a single firm.”

The suit is the latest in a series of civil antitrust lawsuits challenging proposed mergers or acquisitions of between health insurance industry giants as anticompetitive in recent years. Stay tuned for more details.

More Information

About the Author

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 » | Antitrust, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Quality, Health Industry Consolidation, Health IT, managed care, Mergers and Acquisitions, Monopoly, Monopoly, Self-Insured Group health Plans | 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

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.

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 Hosts Virtual Forum On Quality Initiative Updates

September 16, 2021

Learn more about recent changes to the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) Quality Measurement and Value-Based Incentives Group (“QMVIG”) quality initiatives during its upcoming Bi-Monthly Forum on Tuesday, September 28 from 1:30 – 2:30 p.m. ET.

During this webinar, CMS says attendees will learn about and have opportunities to ask CMS questions about quality reporting programs and initiatives that directly impact their organizations.

CMS says forum will include updates on the following topics:

Medicare Promoting Interoperability Program
Electronic Clinical Quality Improvement (eCQI) Resource Center
Clinical Quality Language Libraries
Annual Change Review Process
Quality Payment Program (QPP)
Alternative Payment Models (APMs) and the APM Performance Pathway

CMS requires persons desiring to participate to register using the filling link and information:

Registration URL: https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/744915146676315659
Webinar ID: 556-206-925

If you have questions regarding registration, want to receive future communications regarding the forum, email CMS at CMSQualityTeam@ketchum.com.

More Information

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.

More Information

This article is republished by permission of the author, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. 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 Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Evidence Based Medicine, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health IT, Hospital, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, Medicaid Advantage, Medicare, Medicare Advantage | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

QHP Exchange Administrators Review 2021 QRS Reports By 9/3

August 24, 2021

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is encouraging QHP issuers and Exchange administrators to review their 2021 Quality Rating System (QRS) preview reports, QRS proof sheets, and QHP Enrollee Survey Quality Improvement Reports on the CMS Marketplace Quality Initiative (MQI) website by September 3.

CMS created the QRS to help consumers, their families, and caregivers compare and more easily investigate quality. The 2021 QRS quality ratings and QHP Enrollee Survey results are available for preview from August 23^rd at 9am ET through September 3^rd at 5pm ET.

QHP issuers and Exchange administrators may review the QRS preview reports, QRS proof sheets, and QHP Enrollee Survey Quality Improvement Reports for their respective reporting units in CMS’ Health Insurance Oversight System Marketplace Quality Module (HIOS-MQM).

Access to HIOS-MQM is required to preview the QRS rating information. See the HIOS-MQM Quick Reference Guide for details about registering and accessing the HIOS-MQM.

Inquiries regarding the preview results should be submitted to the CMS help desk, CMS_FEPS@cms.gov, by September 3, 2021.

More Information

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

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 » | exchange plans, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Quality, Medicaid Advantage, Medicare Advantage | 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.

About the Author

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:

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. ©2021 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

CMS Updates COVID-19 Accelerated and Advance Payments FAQs

July 8, 2021

Providers that received COVID-19 accelerated and advance payments should read the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) updated FAQs (PDF) about repayment of COVID-19 accelerated and advance payments to learn how recoupment works and how it affects the provider’s Medicare claims payment amounts.

The new FAQ updates the Repayment of COVID-19 Accelerated and Advance Payments Began on March 30, 2021 (PDF) guidance.

For more information and to follow future updates, see the COVID-19 Accelerated and Advance Payments webpage or contact the author of this update.

More Information

If you are interested in a more detailed description of this or other developments discussed in this article, see here.

About the Author

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, American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, Anti-KickBack, billing, Centers For Disease Control, compensation, Conditions of Participation, Coronavirus, Corporate Compliance, COVID-19, Doctor, E-Prescribing, Emergency Care, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HHS, Home Health, home health, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, OIG, Pandemic, Physician, public health, Reimbursement, Uncategorized | Tagged: COVID-19, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Medicare, Physician, recoupment, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Care Employers Should Brace For Increased Workforce Costs & Risks Under American Rescue Plan Act Of 2021 Minimum Wage Amendments

March 2, 2021

Health care organizations should brace for sharp increases in their wage and other workforce costs and risks if Senate Democrats succeed as expected in their plan to pass as early as this week the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (the “Act”) passed by the House of Representatives on Friday, February 24, 2021.

The Act’s amendments to the minimum wage rates and other provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”) upon enactment immediately increase the federal minimum wage for non-exempt employees by $2.25 per hour and subsequently will continue to annually increase the federal minimum wage. The Act also phases out current rules allowing employers to pay tipped employees, new employees under age 20 and handicapped employees less than the regular minimum wage over the next five years. Furthermore, the reach and exposure resulting from these amendments are heightened further by the Biden-Harris Administration’s move to return to the proemployee Obama-era worker classification, joint-employer and other FLSA interpretation and enforcement policies and practices abandoned during the Trump Administration.

Senate Majority Leaders Chuck Schumer has announced plans to schedule a vote in the Senate on the Act the first week in March. With Congressional Democrats currently holding the majority of seats in the Senate by a narrow margin, the Act stands an excellent chance of enactment when put to the vote.

Given their heavy reliance on nonexempt employees and contract staffing, these changes obviously will hit health care and other workforce dependent industries hard.

Consequently, U.S. businesses should prepare to deal with these impending requirements. In response to these developments, most U.S. businesses should both prepare to implement anticipated changes in the federal minimum wage for their recognized employees as well assess their likely exposure to added costs and liabilities arising from workers rendering services to their businesses directly or indirectly as independent contractors, through subcontractor relationships or in other capacities that the business dues not view as an employment relationship.

Act’s Federal Minimum Wage Amendments

Introduced and promoted by House Democrats as their latest COVID-19 relief package, Section 2101 of the Act amends the FLSA to immediately increase the federal minimum wage for all employees as well as phases out special FLSA minimum wage rates for tipped employees, new employees under 20 years of age and handicapped workers covered by Labor Department FLSA certificates.

Aside from the direct impact of these increases to the base minimum wage, the significance and cost of these increases for U.S. businesses will be further heightened by the Biden-Harris Administration’s plan to reimplement Obama-era FLSA worker classification rules that treat as employees workers providing services under contract labor relationships historically characterized as independent contractor, subcontractor and other non-employee capacities as well as narrow other requirements for treating workers as exempt from the FLSA minimum wage and overtime requirements as well as step up enforcement of FLSA rules.

Regulatory & Enforcement Changes Heighten Health Industry Risks

Health industry leaders and organizations assessing their costs and exposures from the Act’s amendments to the FLSA should take into account the likely impact of the implications of the Biden-Harris Administration’s policies expanding the scope of the FLSA and other federal laws through revisions and enforcement of rules for characterizing workers as employees rather than independent contractors and enforcing expansive joint employer liability rules as well as other announced or expected Biden-Harris Administration proworker regulatory and enforcement changes expected to expand the potential reach and cost of the Act’s increases to federal minimum wage rates.

Even before the Biden-Harris Administration took office, health care industry employers were the subject of heightened attention and enforcement by WHD. Consistent with this high attention to health industry compliance and oversight, WHD already has sanctioned several health industry employers since the first of the year. See, e.g., Ohio Health Care Service Provider For Individuals With Developmental Disabilities Pays $92K In Overtime Back Wages To 61 Employees (February 5, 2021)(Failure to pay overtime.); Modesto Residential Care Facilities To Pay Employees $135K In Back Wages After US Department Of Labor Finds Minimum Wage, Overtime Violations (February 5, 2021) (Owner of eight residential care facilities in Modesto will pay $135,092 in back wages to 56 employees and $27,872 in civil penalties); U.S. Labor Department Recovers $35,492 in Overtime Back Wages For 12 Employees of Pittsburgh Area Ambulance Service (January 4, 2021) (Jefferson Hills Area Ambulance Association – a private ambulance service operating as Southeast Regional EMS in Clairton and Elizabeth, Pennsylvania paid $35,492 in back wages to 12 first responder employees for FLSA overtime violations); U.S. Department Of Labor Recovers $81,399 In Back Wages For 45 Employees Of Columbus, Ohio, Nursing Home (December 30, 2020) (Chelsea Health Care LLC paid $81,399 in back wages to 45 employees for FLSA overtime violations).

These historical exposures have been heighted as the COVID-19 crisis has taxed the staffing resources of many health care organizations and forced others to implement remote work and other COVID-19 driven adjustments disrupting typical staffing, timekeeping and other resources.

Amid these continuing challenges, policy and enforcement challenges by the Biden-Harris Administration are raising health industry exposures. Shortly after the Biden-Harris Administration took over in January, the WHD ended a Trump Administration Payroll Audit Independent Determination Program that offered noncompliance employers a pathway to voluntary compliance. See US Department Of Labor Ends Program That Allowed Employers To Self-Report Federal Minimum Wage And Overtime Violations.

Since taking office, the Biden-Harris Administration also has made clear it plans to review and challenge workers as exempt from the FLSA minimum wage and overtime rules based upon independent contractor or other characterizations of workers rendering services critical to operations as non-employees. In furtherance of these goals, the Biden-Harris Administration’s January 20, 2021 Memorandum on Regulatory Freeze Pending Review suspended the implementation of the Trump Administration led Labor Department’s Final Rule: Independent Contractor Status under the Fair Labor Standards Act slated to take effect on March 8, 2021, which sought to reinstitute and clarify historical policies for distinguishing employee versus independent contractor relationships and for determining the existence of joint employer status for purposes of the FLSA established by judicial precedent prior to the Obama Administration.

Subsequently, the Biden-Harris Administration led Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) also has acted aggressively to reimplement and enforce Obama Administration-era standards and practices for distinguishing employees from independent contractors. Among other things, it has withdrawn Trump Ear WHD opinions which applied the more expansive view of independent contractor status contemplated by the now suspended Trump Administration-issued Final Regulations as compared to the more narrow standards applied for administration and enforcement during the Obama Administration.

Proactively Manage Compliance & Risks

Given these signals, health care and other organizations should prepare to defend against WHD and private plaintiffs efforts to use the Biden-Harris Administration’s more employee friendly interpretation and enforcement policies to attack employer characterizations of workers as contractors relied upon by the employing organization to justify nonpayment of minimum wage and overtime to those workers.

In making these preparations, health care organizations should scrutinize and tighten both their own wage and hour practices as well as their contracts, recordkeeping and retention and compliance auditing of any staffing, contract labor, subcontractors and other third-party service providers to reduce potential liability. Advance planning and efforts for work provided by contractors or other third parties is particularly critical as FLSA liabilities arising from misclassification of workers as independent contractors or joint employer liability claims can be both hard to defend and expensive because the organization charged often lacks sufficient management oversight, involvement or records to launch an effective defense. The Biden-Harris Administration has made clear that it plans to move quickly to reinstitute the regulatory and enforcement practices used during the Obama Administration to aggressively challenge employers’ characterization of workers as exempt from the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime rules as independent contractors. Health care and other organizations receiving services from contractors or other third parties often can reduce reclassification or joint employer exposures by strengthening contractual, data reporting and collection, processes and other practices.

More Information

If you are interested in a more detailed description of the Act’s FLSA provisions and other developments discussed in this article, see here. The FLSA reforms are only one of a number of provisions of the Act impacting employers and their employee benefit plans.

About the Author

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 » | American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, compensation, Corporate Compliance, COVID-19, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Pandemic, Uncategorized, Wage and Hour, Worker Classification | Tagged: COVID relief, Health Care, health care human resources, Minimum Wage, Overtime, Worker Classification | 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

CMS Relief Allows Pharmacies, Other Medicare Immunizers To Bill For LTC Patient Immunizations

October 16, 2020

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced today it will allow Medicare-enrolled pharmacies and other immunizers to bill directly and receive direct reimbursement from the Medicare program for vaccinating skilled nursing facility residents under its COVID-19 discretionary enforcement. See CMS Special Edition 10/16/2020).

Typically, skilled nursing facilities are required to include and bill for the immunizations under Medicare rules but CMS is waiving this requirement temporarily as part of its effort to get residents immunized. CMS, the Centers for Disease Control, the Federal Drug Administration and other health care leaders view immunization against the flu a critical component of their effort to protect elderly nursing home patients against another surge of COVID-19 outbreaks this Fall.

More Information

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 legal and operational management work, coaching, public policy and regulatory affairs leadership and advocacy, training and public speaking and publications. As a significant part of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively domestically and internationally on an demand, special project and ongoing basis with health industry, health plan and insurance and other business, government and community organizations and their leaders, spoken and published extensively on HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns, as well as other health care and health benefits; human resources, employee benefits and other workforce and services; insurance; workers’ compensation and occupational disease; business reengineering, disaster and distress; and many other management concerns.

REPORT THIS AD

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law By the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, and the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group 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 has extensive experience advising, representing, defending and training health care providers, health plans and insurers, employers, community organizations and others about HIPAA and other privacy concerns and has published and spoken extensively on these concerns.

Her involvement with HIPAA and other privacy and data concerns has taken place as part of her more than 30 years involvement working with with public and private health industry, health insurance and other employers and organizations of all sizes, employee benefit plans, insurance and financial services, health industry and a broad range of public and private domestic and international business, community and government organizations and leaders on pandemic and other health and safety, workforce and performance preparedness, risks and change management, disaster preparedness and response and other operational and tactical concerns throughout her adult life. 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 business, community and government leaders on crisis preparedness and response, privacy and data security, workforce, health care and other policy and enforcement, as well as regularly advises and defends organizations about the design, administration and defense of their organizations workforce, employee benefit and compensation, safety, discipline and other management practices and actions.

REPORT THIS AD

Ms. Stamer also serves in leadership of a broad range of professional and civic organizations and shares insights and thought leadership through her extensive publications and public speaking. 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 such as:

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. ©2020 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.

Leave a Comment » | 1335 Waiver, Centers For Disease Control, Conditions of Participation, Coronavirus, COVID-19, Disaster Relief, FDA, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, health care reimbursement, healthcare, home health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Licensing, Life Sciences, long-term care, Medicaid, Medicaid Advantage, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, nursing home, Pandemic, participating provider, Pharmacy, public health, Reimbursement, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CMS Steps Up Nursing Home Inspections & Tightens Inspections In Response To Continuing COVID-19 Outbreaks & Deaths

April 3, 2020

Skilled nursing and other long term care facilities commonly known as “nursing homes” (“LTC facilities”),[i] rehabilitation, assisted living, retirement and other facilities and communities caring for elderly, disabled, aged or other infirm patients or residents should use recently released tools to confirm the adequacy of and update their current COVID-19 and other infectious disease prevention and control and other key policies and practices with the latest Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) requirements and guidelines in light of recently announced changes to CMS nursing home inspection policies (the “Targeted Inspection Policy”)[iii] that target nursing homes with COVID-19 outbreaks or death for likely inspection announced March 23, 2020 including all existing requirements including new “recommendations” on nursing homes on COVID-19 preparedness and response announced April 2, 2020 (the “April Recommendations”).[iii]

Prompted by the continuing explosive growth in COVID-19 infection and deaths among nursing home residents and widespread deficiencies found during recent inspections at the Kirkland, Washington Life Care Center nursing homes (the “Kirkland Facilities”) made notorious by the death of 23 people and other nursing homes with COVID-19 inspections, the Targeted Inspection Policy and April Recommendations supplement and give more teeth to the CMS Guidance for Infection Control and Prevention of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Nursing Homes (the “3/3 Directive”)[iv] previously released by CMS released in conjunction with President Trump’s Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak (“COVID Emergency Declaration”) in response to concerns raised by reports of 19 COVID-19 related deaths at the Kirkland Facilities[v] on March 13, 2020.

Despite CMS and CDC’s efforts to reign in nursing home based COVID-19 infections and deaths by ordering nursing homes in the Nursing Home Directive to limit outside visitors and take other precautions outlined in the Nursing Home Directive and release of other guidance and tools, nursing home based COVID-19 infections and deaths have continued to soar since March 13, 2020.[vi] Meanwhile, onsite audits at the Kirkland Facilities and other facilities during March uncovered concerning deficiencies in the compliance at the Kirkland Facilities and many other nursing homes across the nation, as well as the need to address other weaknesses in current CMS and CDC practices and guidelines that the agencies determined were perpetuating practices that left nursing home residents exposed to COVID-19.

The new Targeted Inspection Policy and April Recommendations attempt to address these compliance and other concerns by updating, clarifying and supplementing previously established requirements and guidance, providing new tools for nursing homes and their inspectors to use to assess nursing home compliance with the latest standards and stepping up inspections and enforcement of nursing homes that experience COVID-19 outbreaks.[vii]

April Recommendations Send Warnings, Share New Tools

To this end, the just announced April Recommendations urge nursing homes to move quickly to clean up their practices by:

Urging nursing homes to immediately ensure that they are complying with all CMS and CDC guidance related to COVID-19 and other infection control and other requirements;
Urging nursing homes immediately to implement symptom screening for all staff, residents, and visitors – including temperature checks; [viii]
Urging nursing homes to ensure all staff are using appropriate PPE when interacting with patients and residents, to the extent PPE is available and per CDC guidance on conservation of PPE;
Confirming the availability of Medicare coverage of Medicare enrolled residents performed by laboratories and that facilities can allow laboratory personnel into facilities to perform the tests;
Urging State and local leaders to consider the needs of long term care facilities with respect to supplies of PPE and COVID-19 tests as nursing homes are a critical part of the healthcare system, and because of the ease of spread in long term care facilities and the severity of illness that occurs in residents with COVID-19,
Recommending facilities use separate staffing teams for residents to the best of their ability to avoid transmission within nursing homes in response to evidence that using staff shared between multiple facilities helped to fuel the COVID-19 outbreak in the Kirkland Facilities;
Consistent previously published guidance and resources on the CDC Isolation Sites and Alternative Care Sites webpage,[ix] urging nursing homes to work with State and local leaders to designate separate facilities or units within a facility to separate COVID-19 negative residents from COVID-19 positive residents and individuals with unknown COVID-19 status; and
Encouraging facilities to use new targeted survey assessment tools adopted by CMS to guide inspections under the Targeted Inspection Program to self-assess and make appropriate adjustments to tighten their facility compliance with applicable requirements and guidelines promptly.

While characterized as “recommendations,” the reaffirmation in the April Recommendations that CMS intends to continue to follow the new Targeted Inspection Policy announced March 23, 2020 sends a strong message to all nursing homes that CMS does not view compliance with the recommendations as optional.

Under the Targeted Inspection Policy, CMS intends to conduct targeted inspections giving prioritization for Immediate Jeopardy investigations over recertification surveys for Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment (CLIA) laboratories.

According to CMS’ announcement regarding the Targeted Inspection Policy, only the following types of federal inspections will be prioritized and conducted over the next few weeks:

Complaint inspections: State survey agencies will continue to conduct inspections related to complaints and facility-reported incidents that are triaged at the Immediate Jeopardy level. Inspectors will use a streamlined Infection Control review tool, regardless of the Immediate Jeopardy allegation.
Targeted Infection Control inspections: Federal and state inspectors will conduct targeted infection control inspections of providers identified through CMS collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). These inspectors will use a streamlined targeted review checklist to minimize the impact on provider activities, while ensuring providers are implementing actions to protect health and safety. This will consist of both onsite and offsite inspections.
Self-Assessments: The Infection Control checklist referenced above will also be shared with providers and suppliers, to allow for self-assessment of their Infection Control plans. This may be the best solution in some cases when there is a lack of personal protective equipment or state surveyors available.

During this time frame, CMS has indicated it will not conduct the following inspections:

Standard inspections for nursing homes, hospitals, home health agencies, intermediate care facilities for individuals with intellectual disabilities, and hospices; and

Revisit inspections not associated with Immediate Jeopardy.

In addition to redefining the priorities and scope for conducting inspections in the new Targeted Inspection Policy, CMS also refocused the inspection process that surveyors are expected to use when conducting inspections under the Targeted Inspection Policy which includes existing components of CMS’s infection control inspection process updated to include the latest CDC and CMS guidance. Under the Targeted Inspection Policy CMS and state inspectors will be guided by a newly developed and updated targeted assessment tool in assessing if certain facilities are prepared to meet CMS’s expectations for preventing the spread of COVID-19. When gaps are identified, CMS warns that facilities will be required to take corrective actions to close the gaps.

Facilities are well advised to follow the recommendation of CMS to use the new surveyor tools to self-assess their own ability to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in accordance with applicable CMS requirements both to mitigate potential exposures to CMS sanctions and because CMS also is encouraging residents and families to be proactive about nursing home safety by among other things asking facility staff how the facility performed on its self-assessment. Facilities and their leaders at all times should keep in mind the significant risks that they are likely to incur if significant deficiencies are found from an inspection. While the March 23, 2020 announcement of the Targeted Inspection Policy states that CMS is not seeking to be punitive, but rather to respond to urgent issues while proactively ensuring providers are compliant with federal health and safety standards. Accordingly, CMS has indicated that CMS intends to exercise enforcement discretion, unless Immediate Jeopardy situations arise. Given the conclusions announced regarding Immediate Jeopardy findings found from the inspection at the Kirkland Facility, however, nursing homes are well advised to assume that the occurrence of COVID-19 related deaths or infections at their facilities might create a significant risk of Immediate Jeopardy findings with regard to their facilities which could result in significant sanctions.

CMS and other agencies continue to tailor their response to the COVID-19 outbreak. In addition to verifying and maintaining their compliance with current COVID-19 and other CMS, CDC and state and local requirements and guidelines, nursing homes and their leaders also should continue to monitor emerging developments and guidance from CMS, CDC, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) and their state and local regulatory bodies.

[i] Nursing homes (also known as “skilled nursing facilities” under the Medicare program and “nursing facilities” under Medicaid; or “long-term care facilities”).

[ii] Press release Trump Administration Issues Key Recommendations to Nursing Homes, State and Local Governments, CMS (2020), https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/trump-administration-issues-key-recommendations-nursing-homes-state-and-local-governments (last visited Apr 2, 2020).

[iii] Fact sheet Kirkland, Washington Update and Survey Prioritization Fact Sheet, CMS (2020), https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/kirkland-washington-update-and-survey-prioritization-fact-sheet (last visited Mar 31, 2020).

[iv] Guidance For Infection Control and Prevention of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Nursing Homes, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES (2020), https://www.cms.gov/files/document/3-13-2020-nursing-home-guidance-covid-19.pdf (last visited Mar 30, 2020).

[iv] Nursing home with the biggest cluster of covid-19 deaths to date in the U.S. thought it was facing an influenza outbreak, a spokesman says, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/nursing-home-with-the-biggest-cluster-of-covid-19-deaths-to-date-in-the-us-thought-it-was-facing-an-influenza-outbreak-a-spokesman-says/ar-BB11fvgj (last visited Mar 30, 2020).

[vi] See e.g., Guidance for Infection Control and Prevention of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Nursing Homes (REVISED), CMS (2020), https://www.cms.gov/files/document/qso-20-14-nh-revised.pdf (last visited Apr 2, 2020).

[vii] In the initial wave of surveys during the week of March 30, CMS reports finding 36 percent of facilities inspected in recent days did not follow proper hand washing guidelines and 25 percent failed to demonstrate proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) required by longstanding federal regulations. Press release Trump Administration Issues Key Recommendations to Nursing Homes, State and Local Governments, CMS (2020), https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/trump-administration-issues-key-recommendations-nursing-homes-state-and-local-governments (last visited Apr 3, 2020).

[viii] Facilities that have not already done so should consult with experienced legal counsel for assistance about the advisability of providing or posting notifications and/or securing consents to these screening procedures, advisable or recommended procedures regarding the collection, use, or disclosure of screenings or their results, or other safeguards to manage relevant privacy or other legal rights or risks.

[ix] See Alternate Care Sites and Isolation Sites (March 25, 2020) https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/healthcare-facilities/alternative-care-sites.html. Also see Topic Collection: Alternate Care Sites (including shelter medical care) https://asprtracie.hhs.gov/technical-resources/48/alternate-care-sites-including-shelter-medical-care/47.

More Information

We hope this update is helpful. In addition to this update, the author also has prepared a more comprehensive discussion of these concerns scheduled for publication by the American Bar Association Health Publication in April, 2020. To request access for a prepublication unofficial manuscript of that upcoming publication or of 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.

About the Author

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, 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 “Privacy and the Pandemic Workshop” for the Association of State and Territorial Health Plans, as well as a multitude of other health industry matters, workforce and health care change and crisis management 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 such as:

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. ©2020 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Limited non-exclusive license to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ All other rights reserved.

Leave a Comment » | 1335 Waiver, Biological Warfare, Centers For Disease Control, Conditions of Participation, Coronavirus, Corporate Compliance, COVID-19, Disaster Relief, Disease Management, drug treatment, Durable Medical Equipment, Federal Health Center, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, HHS, home health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Laboratory tests, Licensing, long-term care, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, nursing home, Pandemic, Patient Empowerment, Physician, public health, Public Policy, quality reporting, Reimbursement, Skilled Nursing Facility, Uncategorized, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Care | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

COVID-19 Telehealth Relief; CMS ESRD, General Practitioner Telehealth Toolkits Released

March 24, 2020

The U.S Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act Privacy Rule 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) emergency enforcement relief for certain covered health care providers and their business associates participating in the operation of mobile, drive-through, or walk-up COVID-19 specimen collection and testing sites that only provide COVID-19 specimen collection or testing services to the public (Community-Based Testing Sites, or CBTS). The Notification of Enforcement Discretion ON CBTS During The COVID-19 Nationwide Public Health Emergency (“Notice”) expands upon the series of HIPAA enforcement relief and other flexibility OCR has granted to health care providers and other HIPAA-covered entities and business associates when dealing with the COVID-19 National Health Emergency declared by President Trump on March 13, 2020.

While welcome relief for those health care providers and business associates that qualify for this relief, it is critical that all health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates do not overlook the importance of ensuring their HIPAA obligations are fulfilled amid the frenzy of coping with the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. Like OCR’s previously announced March 30, 2020 Notification of Enforcement Discretion for Telehealth Remote Communications During the COVID-19 Nationwide Public Health Emergency (“Telehealth Relief”) and the COVID-19 related flexibilities granted by OCR in its February 2020 Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services BULLETIN: HIPAA Privacy and Novel Coronavirus (“OCR COVID-19 HIPAA Bulletin”), the CBTS Notice provides valuable flexibility and relief for HIPAA covered entities and business associates that qualify for the granted relief. While welcoming this relief, all covered entities and business associates need to keep in mind that the shifting of care locations, systems, affiliations and other arrangements to deal with the COVID-19 national health emergency generally are accompanied by changes in the collection, use, access, disclosure, storage and transmission of protected health information generally and electronic protected health information and its associated devices and systems. Except to the extent protected by COVID-19 or other specific disaster relief from OCR, covered entities and business associates need to use care to conduct appropriately documented risk assessments and take other necessary steps to maintain HIPAA compliance in these operations and systems throughout the emergency. See also COVID-19 Telehealth Relief; CMS ESRD, General Practitioner Telehealth Toolkits Released; OCR Grants HIPAA Telemedic ine Relief During COVID-19 Crisis.

April 9 HIPAA Enforcement Relief For Certain COVID-19 Testing Related Activities

According to Director Roger Severino, the limited enforcement relief in the Notice is intended “to encourage the growth of mobile testing sites so more people can get tested quickly and safely.” Under the April 9, 2020 Notice, OCR will not impose penalties for violations of HIPAA regulatory requirements committed by covered entities or business associates in connection with their good faith participation in the operation of COVID-19 testing sites during the COVID-19 nationwide public health emergency. The enforcement relief provided by the s retroactive to violations committed on or after March 13, 2020 even though just announced on April 9.

The enforcement relief applies to all HIPAA covered health care providers and their business associates when such entities are, in good faith, participating in the operation of a CBTS. According to the Notice, operation of a CBTS includes all activities that support the collection of specimens from individuals for COVID-19 testing. Covered entities and business associates intending to rely upon the enforcement relief need to understand its limited scope. The relief only applies to health care providers or their business associates when participating in CBTS related activities. It does not apply to non-CBTS related activities of health care providers or their business associates including the handling of PHI outside of the operation of a CBTS or to health plans, health care clearinghouses, or their business associates performing health plan and clearinghouse functions. To the extent that an entity performs both plan and provider functions, the Notice says the relief only applies to the entity in its role as a covered health care provider and only to the extent that it participates in a CBTS. Covered entities and business associates not covered by the CBTS relief provided by the Notice generally remain subject to all otherwise applicable HIPAA requirements except as otherwise provided in the Telehealth Relief or other COVID-19 related flexibilities granted by OCR in the OCR COVID-19 HIPAA Bulletin or other previously issued HIPAA guidance for dealing with public emergencies,

While committing that OCR will not take HIPAA enforcement action against covered entities or business associates for violating HIPAA’s regulatory requirements during the COVID-19 emergency, the Notice nevertheless encourages covered entities and business associates participating in the good faith operation of a CBTS to implement reasonable safeguards to protect the privacy and security of individuals’ PHI including:

Using and disclosing only the minimum PHI necessary except when disclosing PHI for treatment.
Setting up canopies or similar opaque barriers at a CBTS to provide some privacy to individuals during the collection of samples.
Controlling foot and car traffic to create adequate distancing at the point of service to minimize the ability of persons to see or overhear screening interactions at a CBTS. (A six foot distance would serve this purpose as well as supporting recommended social distancing measures to minimize the risk of spreading COVID-19.)
Establishing a “buffer zone” to prevent members of the media or public from observing or filming individuals who approach a CBTS, and posting signs prohibiting filming.
Using secure technology at a CBTS to record and transmit electronic PHI.
Posting a Notice of Privacy Practices (NPP), or information about how to find the NPP online, if applicable, in a place that is readily viewable by individuals who approach a CBTS.

While OCR says the Notice’s enforcement relief for CBTS related activity is not conditional upon adherence to these recommendations, CBTS involved covered entities and business associations should keep in mind that the OCR relief does not necessarily affect their otherwise applicable requirements, if any, to comply to these and other health or medical privacy, data security, confidentiality or other similar requirements applicable under otherwise applicable state statutory or common laws, regulations, accreditation or credentialing, contractual or other legally relevant requirements or standards.

Today, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released two comprehensive toolkits on telehealth:

The Telehealth Toolkit for General Practitioners available here;
The End-Stage Renal Disease Providers Toolkit available here .

The Toolkits’ release follows up on last week’s Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services (“CMS”) loosening of requirements for Medicare coverage of telehealth services and privacy and data security requirements so that beneficiaries can receive a wider range of services from their doctors without having to travel to a healthcare facility on a temporary and emergency basis under the 1135 waiver authority and Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act.

COVID-19 Emergency TeleHealth Waivers & Rules

Under this temporary new waiver, Medicare can pay for office, hospital, and other visits furnished via telehealth across the country and including in patient’s places of residence starting March 6, 2020. The waiver applies to a range of providers, such as doctors, nurse practitioners, clinical psychologists, and licensed clinical social workers, will be able to offer telehealth to their patients.

New TeleHealth Toolkits

Each of the telehealth toolkits released today contains electronic links to reliable sources of information on telehealth and telemedicine, which will reduce the amount of time providers spend searching for answers and increase their time with patients. HHS intends these links to help providers choose learn about the general concept of telehealth, choose telemedicine vendors, initiate a telemedicine program, monitor patients remotely, and develop documentation tools. Additionally, the information contained within each toolkit also outlines temporary virtual services that could be used to treat patients during this specific period of time.

COVID-19 Temporary Limited Scope HIPAA Privacy Telehealth Relief

The HHS COVID-19 emergency teleheath waivers follow up on the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) March 20, 2020 Notification of Enforcement Discretion on Telehealth Remote Communications (the “Notice”) announcing temporary, limited scope enforcement relief from some, but not all of the requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Rules for health care providers using “non-public facing” communication technologies to provide telemedicine services during the COVID-19 health care emergency

Intended to allow health care providers greater latitude under HIPAA to communicate with patients and provide telehealth services through remote communications technologies during the COVID-19 national emergency, the Notice allows covered health care providers wishing to use audio or video communication technology to provide telehealth to patients during the COVID-19 nationwide public health emergency the option to any availabe “non-public facing” remote communication product to communicate with patients if the platform by verifying the platform is HIPAA compliant and securing the necessary business associate agreement (“BAA”) with the communication provider.

Specifically the Notice announces OCR is exercising its enforcement discretion not to impose penalties for noncompliance with the HIPAA Rules in connection with the good faith provision of telehealth using non-public facing audio or video communication products during the COVID-19 nationwide public health emergency in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Notice. The non-enforcement policy applies to telehealth provided for any reason, regardless of whether the telehealth service is related to the diagnosis and treatment of health conditions related to COVID-19. During the COVID-19 emergency, this relief for non-public facing remote communications allows a health care providers the flexibility when it determines appropriate in his or her professional judgement to request to examine a patient using a video chat application connecting the provider’s or patient’s phone or desktop computer in order to assess a greater number of patients while limiting the risk of infection of other persons who would be exposed from an in-person consultation.

The relief does not apply to “public facing” remote communications however, Facebook Live, Twitch, TikTok, and similar video communication applications are considered “public facing.” The OCR bulletin states health care providers should not use any of these or other public facing remote communications to provide telehealth services under the Bulletin.

The Notice also alerts health care providers providing telemedicine services under the Notice need to ensure they have in place appropriate business associate agreements {“BAAs”) with each technology vendors used to conduct these communications and that the vendor is otherwise HIPAA compliant. The Notice lists the following as some vendors that have represented to OCR that they provide HIPAA-compliant video communication products and that they will enter into a HIPAA BAA include:

Skype for Business
Updox
VSee
Zoom for Healthcare
me
Google G Suite Hangouts Meet

Providers should note that the Notice also states that OCR does not endorse, recommend or certify any of these vendors or the adequacy of their BAAs. Consequently, providers intending to use any of thes platforms should conduct their own documented due diligence to confirm that the necessary HIPAA requirements are met. Providers also should keep in mind that the OCR Notice does not modify any otherwise applicable federal or state law, contractual or ethical requirements that may apply to their use of these telemedicine platforms. As many provider’s HIPAA notices may have included statements inconsistent with the use of these technologies, the provider should consider providing notification of the change of its practices that includes disclosures about potentially lower privacy protections. Because the relief is limited in scope and duration, providers relying on the relief also will need to closely monitor developments and adjust practices as necessary when the emergency waivers expire or are modified.

Covered Entities & Business Associates Should Conduct Documented Risk Assessment To Verify Compliance Taking Into Account COVID-19 Operational Changes & Relief

Health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates hoping to rely upon the relief in the CBTS Notice, the Telehealth Relief, the OCR COVID-19 HIPAA Bulletin or other previously issued HIPAA guidance for dealing with public emergencies, need to verify their qualification and compliance with that guidance. In the meantime, all HIPAA covered entities and business associates also should be cognizant of the advisability of also conducting timely, documented risk assessments and taking other necessary steps to ensure that they can demonstrate that their ongoing operations, taking into account any COVID-19 specific changes in operations, systems, locations, business associates or other HIPAA relevant arrangements or operations, comply with all remaining relevant requirements of HIPAA or other relevant federal or state statutory, regulatory, common law, ethical, contractual or other requirements. This is particularly important with respect to modification locations, equipment, or other COVID-19 related changes may impact or disrupt usual operations or involve the use, access, disclosure, retention or transmission of protected health information or other sensitive data outside of processes, systems or location previously subject to a risk assessment to confirm and document adequate compliance with HIPAA or other relevant requirements. To the extent that any deficiencies may have occurred, timely action should be taken to conduct an appropriate documented investigation and risk assessment, and provide any necessary breach notification or other corrective action necessary to correct or mitigate those events. Because of the potential sensitivity of these activities, health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associations should consider contacting experienced legal counsel to arrange for those activities to be structured to preserve the possibility of using attorney-client privilege or other legal privileges to help defend sensitive communications or evaluations against discovery in the event of a future litigation or administrative investigation.

More Information & Resources

We hope this update is helpful. 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. To learn more about Ms. Stamer, her services, experience, publications or involvements; to review or request other developments, publications, resources and tools; or to register for future updates, see www.cynthiastamer.com, see www.cynthiastamer.com; connect on LinkedIn or Facebook; or contact us via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297

About The Author

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney, management and regulatory affairs consultant, author and lecturer, who has worked extensively on pandemic and other crisis planning, preparedness and response and other business change, risk, compliance and operation management throughout her 30 plus year career.

Her experience includes extensive work domestically and internationally with hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing and other long term care, rehabilitation and other health care facilities; physicians, medical staff and other health care providers and organizations; accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; health care management and technology and other health and managed care industry clients; self-insured and insured health and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, insurers and service providers and other payers; employers; billing, utilization management, quality, 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; 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.

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and the author of “Privacy and the Pandemic Workshop” for the Association of State and Territorial Health Plans and a multitude of other publications and workshops on health and other disaster and other crisis preparedness, risk management and response, as well as a multitude of other health care, workforce and other management and regulatory affairs publications and presentations, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership through her extensive and diverse involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. Examples of these involvements include her service as the current American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former JCEB Council Representative; past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group; former ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group Chair and Past Chair and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefits Committee; 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; former technical advisor to the National Physicians Council on Health Care Policy; former member of the Stem Cell Advisory Committee; and in a multitude of other professional, trade, civic and community service organizations.

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Centers For Disease Control, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Conditions of Participation, Coronavirus, COVID-19, Disease Management, Doctor, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Emergency Care, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plan, HIPAA, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Licensing, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Mental Health, Pandemic, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Prohibited Transaction, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Uncategorized, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Care | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

ONC Adds Reducing Provider EHR Burdens & Promoting Electronic Health Data Use In Research To Health IT Priorities

February 25, 2020

Reducing health care providers burdens from using electronic health records (“EHRs”) and promoting the better uses of electronic medical data in medical research are the focus of two new health information technology (“health IT”) policy documents released this week by the Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”) Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (“ONC”). Health care providers, health researchers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and other health data collectors or users, as well as health IT providers and other interested persons will want to evaluate carefully these new ONC releases for insights about policy and other efforts ONC is promoting to shape the use of health IT and data.

Reducing Health IT and EHR Burdens On Providers

On February 21, 2020, ONC moved forward on its efforts to implement “a comprehensive strategy to reduce the regulatory and administrative burden related to the use of health IT, including EHRs” by publishing its “Strategy on Reducing Regulatory and Administrative Burdens Relating to the Use of Health IT and EHRs” (the “EHR Report”) targets burdens tied to regulatory and administrative requirements that HHS can directly impact through the rulemaking process. A collaborative effort between ONC and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the report’s strategies was developed in response to a Congressional mandate in the 21^st Century Cures Act, which directed HHS to develop a plan of action to reduce regulatory and administrative burden relating to the use of health IT and EHRs and finalizes the draft version of this strategy ONC released in November 2018. Based on stakeholder input, the final HER Report outlines three overarching goals designed to reduce clinician burden:

Reduce the effort and time required to record health information in EHRs for clinicians;
Reduce the effort and time required to meet regulatory reporting requirements for clinicians, hospitals, and healthcare organizations; and
Improve the functionality and ease of use of EHRs.

ONC says reducing unnecessary regulatory burden will alleviate time spent on administrative tasks. For example, during listening sessions with clinicians, we heard criticism that the documentation guidelines for Evaluation and Management (E/M) visits were a source of EHR-related burden and overly complicated. They told us these requirements result in “pajama time,” where physicians spend hours after clinic sessions and on weekends entering data to satisfy billing and quality reporting requirements. Poor usability features within EHRs can further exacerbate this issue, as clinicians find it difficult to navigate long records within the EHR interface. Based on this feedback, the report covers four key areas:

Clinical documentation
Health IT usability (or ease of use of health IT tools and systems)
Federal health IT and EHR reporting requirements
Public health reporting (including coordination with prescription drug reporting programs and electronic prescribing of controlled substances).

In addition to responding to the direction included in the EHR Report, health care and health IT providers also will want to continue to monitor and communicate with ONC. While moving forward on the implementation of the objectives identified in the EHR Report, ONC says it plans to continue to reach out and engage the clinician community and other key stakeholder communities and to monitor emerging and ongoing burdens related to the use of EHRs, such as burdens related to EHR inbox management and other efforts to enable further automation in health care, with a focus on prior authorization, quality reporting, and other aspects of our current system that can reduce time spent using health IT.

Leveraging Health IT For Research

On February 24, 2020, ONC followed up by releasing its National Health IT Priorities for Research: A Policy and Development Agenda. The Agenda articulates its latest vision of a health information technology infrastructure that supports alignment between the clinical and research ecosystems in research.

The Agenda identifies two overarching goals along with nine associated priority areas ONC believes stakeholders can take to achieve the respective visions more quickly and effectively:

Read the Agenda here.

More Information

The Agenda is the latest in a series of priorities, agendas and other initiatives adopted by ONC since its establishment in furtherance of its legislative mandate under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act) of 2009 to improve the health and well-being of individuals and communities through the use of technology and health information.

Health care providers, plans, technology vendors and providers and other stakeholders impacted by ONC and other electronic medical record or health IT systems should take into account the likely implications of these and other ONC pronouncements on their programs and practices when planning and updating them.

About the Author

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 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 such as:

Comments Off on ONC Adds Reducing Provider EHR Burdens & Promoting Electronic Health Data Use In Research To Health IT Priorities | Academic medicine, ambulance, Conditions of Participation, Consumer Driven Health Care, Corporate Compliance, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Evidence Based Medicine, FDA, 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 IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, Health Policy, healthcare, HHS, HITECH Act, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Human Subjects Research, Meaningful Use, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Health, NIOSH, occupational health, OCR, ONC, Outcomes Data, pain management, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Prospective Payment, public health, Public Policy, quality reporting, Reimbursement, research, Technology, Telemedicine, Uncategorized, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Care, Wellness | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Court Ruling Gives Health Care & Other HIPAA Covered Entities Option To Reduce Costs of Responding To 3rd Party PHI Record Requests

January 29, 2020

Health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their records providers and other business associates should review and update their existing policies and practices on the charge and other procedures for responding to third party requests for records containing protected health information (“PHI”) in response to newly allowed flexibility created by the January 23, 2020 federal district court order (the “Coix Order”) in Coix Health, LLC v. Azar, et al, No 18 –CV-0040 (D>D.C. January 23, 2020) that bars enforcement of certain requirements of the Department of Health & Human Service (“HHS”) Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) rules implementing patient rights to access to PHI created by the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) from health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses (“”Covered Entities”) and their business associates (“HIPAA entities”). Utilizing the flexibility resulting from the Coix Order could help reduce health plan costs of compliance with the HIPAA right of access rule by allowing the health plan and its records providers more freedom to determine the charges and format for delivering PHI in response to records requests received from other insurers, lawyers and other third parties.

Coix Order Invalidates Pieces of OCR HIPAA Rules On PHI Record Rules

The new flexibility results from a January 23, 2020 Coix Order in response to a lawsuit brought by Coix Health, LLC (“”Coix”) challenging the “Patient Rate” and other provisions of OCR’s regulation implementing HIPAA’s right of access requirements under 45 C.F.R. §164.524 as adopted by OCR as part of its final rule entitled “Modifications to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Enforcement Rules Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act; Other Modifications to the HIPAA Rules.” (The “2013 Omnibus Rule”) on January 25, 2013. In particular, the 2013 Omnibus Rule includes a “Patient Rate” rule that limits the charges that Covered Entities can make for delivering PHI requested by patients and third parties to prevent patient access to PHI from being thwarted by excessive fees. As part of the Patient Rate rule, OCR restricted what Covered Entities and their records providers can charge to provide copies of protected health information. The Patient Rate rule restricts charges that can be imposed to provide protected health information, restricts the methods for calculating these charges and limits the type and amount of labor costs that can be included when calculating the Patient Rate. The Patient Rate rule in the 201 Omnibus Rule also requires that Covered Entities and their records companies provide the requested PHI directly to the patient or to a third party designed by the patient and in the format requested by the patient regardless of the format in which the Covered Entity or its medical provider maintains the PHI within its record.

When originally implemented, the medical records industry generally understood that the Patient Rate limitations applied only to requests for PHI made by the patient for use by the patient. Before 2016, however, Covered Entities and their medical records providers generally understood that this Patient Rate rule did not apply to or limit fees that Covered Entities or their medical records providers could charge commercial entities or other third parties like insurance companies and law firms to fill requests for PHI. That understanding changed, in 2016, however, when HHS issued guidance that stated that the Patient Rate applies even to requests to deliver PHI to third parties.

A specialized medical-records provider that contracts with healthcare suppliers nationwide to maintain, retrieve, and produce individuals’ PHI, Cox handles tens of millions of requests for records containing PHI annually including demands by healthcare providers for treatment purposes, patients asking for their own PHI, and third parties, such as life insurance companies and law firms, seeking a patient’s PHI for commercial or legal reasons. According to Cox, OCR’s interpretation of the Patient Rate rule as applicable to third party requests as well as direct patient requests cost it and other medical records companies millions of dollars in revenue. Accordingly, Coix filed the Coix Health, LLC v. Azar, et al lawsuit challenging OCR’s 2016 application of the Patient Rate to third party requests as violating the procedural and substantive protections of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). In addition to this challenge to the scope of the Patient Rate, Coix also contested OCR pronouncements in the 2016 guidance document on (1) the types of labor costs that are recoverable under the Patient Rate; and (2) the three alternative methods identified for calculating the Patient Rate as violating the APA’s procedural and substantive provisions. Finally, Coix also challenged the requirement in the Patient Rate rule that records companies to send PHI to third parties regardless of the format in which the PHI is contained and in the format specified by the patient. According to Coix, Congress required only that certain types of electronic health records be delivered to third parties, not all records regardless of their format, as HHS’s regulations now command.

In its January 23, 2020 ruling on HHS’s motion to dismiss and the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the D.C. District Court agreed with OCR that OCR’s rule requiring the use of one of three methods for calculating the Patient Rate was unreviewable as a final agency action and dismissed Coix’ challenge to that requirement. Concerning Coax’s other challenges, the Court sided with Coix. It ruled that:

OCR’s 2013 rule compelling delivery of PHI to third parties regardless of the records’ format is arbitrary and capricious insofar as it goes beyond the statutory requirements set by Congress;
OCR’s broadening of the Patient 3 Rate in 2016 is a legislative rule that the agency failed to subject to notice and comment in violation of the APA; and
OCR’s 2016 explanation concerning what labor costs can be recovered under the Patient Rate is an interpretative rule that OCR was not required to subject to notice and comment.

Accordingly, District Court in the Coix Order declares unlawful and vacates (1) the 2016 Patient Rate expansion and (2) the 2013 mandate broadening PHI delivery to third parties regardless of format within the individual right of access” set forth in the provisions of 45 C.F.R. §164.524 of the 2013 Omnibus Rule insofar as it expands the HITECH Act’s third-party directive beyond requests for a copy of an electronic health record with respect to protected health information of an individual in an electronic format.” Additionally, the federal court ordered that the fee limitation set forth at 45 C.F.R. § 164.524(c)(4) only apply to an individual’s request for access to their own records, and does not apply to an individual’s request to transmit records to a third party.

OCR Plans To Comply With Coix Order In Applying Patient Record Rule

In an “Important Notice Regarding Individuals’ Right of Access to Health Records” released January 28, 2020, OCR announced that that it will comply with the Coix Order vacating the “third-party directive” within the individual right of access “insofar as it expands the HITECH Act’s third-party directive beyond requests for a copy of an electronic health record with respect to [protected health information] of an individual . . . in an electronic format.” Additionally, OCR stated that the fee limitation set forth at 45 C.F.R. § 164.524(c)(4) will apply only to an individual’s request for access to their own records, and not apply to an individual’s request to transmit records to a third party. However, OCR also added that the right of individuals to access their own records and the fee limitations that apply when exercising this right are undisturbed and remain in effect. OCR will continue to enforce the right of access provisions in 45 C.F.R. § 164.524 that are not restricted by the court order.

Update Patient Rate & Access Provisions Of HIPAA Policies & Notices

As a result of the Coix Order, Covered Entities and their medical records providers still must calculate the Patient Rate in accordance with one of the three allowed methodologies when providing a patient with records containing PHI in response to a patient request. However, Covered Entities and their medical records provider now may exercise greater flexibility when determining the format and charges when responding to requests from third parties other than the patient for records containing PHI. Before doing so, however, most Covered Entities and business associates will want to update their HIPAA policies and procedures to reflect the new practices consistent with the new HIPAA and other relevant requirements. Updating the policies first is important because the 2013 Omnibus Rule states Covered Entities violate HIPAA by failing to follow their own HIPAA privacy and security policies when those practices are more restrictive than those mandated by OCR’s 2013 Omnibus Rule. Consequently however, Covered Entities and their medical records companies desiring to exercise this newly available flexibility should revise their existing policies and procedures to authorize their exercise of this new flexibility consistent with the Coix Order and associated OCR guidance.

More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the Coix Order or other health or other employee benefits, human resources, or health care developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

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, 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.

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:

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 considering 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 constantly and often rapidly evolves, subsequent developments that could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion are likely. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any fact or law specific nuance, 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.

©2020 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, Electronic Health Records, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, home health, Hospital, Indian Health, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare, Medicare Fee Schedule, Rural Health Care, Uncategorized, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Care | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Omnicare & CVS Accused Of Health Care Fraud In Long Term Care Pharmacies

December 17, 2019

The Department of Justice today sued the nation’s largest long term care pharmacy provider, Omnicare, and its parent company, CVS Healthcare Corporation seeking seeks damages and civil penalties under the False Claims Act for fraudulently billing federal healthcare programs for hundreds of thousands of non-controlled prescription drugs DOJ says Omnicare illegally dispensed to elderly and disabled individuals in assisted living facilities, group homes, independent living communities, and other non-skilled residential long-term care facilities (“LTC facilities”).

In the civil health care fraud complaint the DOJ filed a New York Federal District Court, the Omnicare illegally dispensed and billed the federal government and patients for antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, and antidepressants to elderly and disabled residents in LTC facilities without proper prescriptions. DOJ’s lawsuit alleges that instead of obtaining new prescriptions from patients’ doctors after the old ones had expired or run out of refills, Omnicare just assigned a new number to the old prescription and kept on dispensing drugs for months, and sometimes years, after the prescriptions expired. DOJ’s complaint alleges that Omnicare internally referred to these renumbered expired prescriptions as “rollover” prescriptions. The DOJ complaint also charges that Omnicare also submitted, or caused to be submitted false claims for payment for medications dispensed based on invalid prescriptions it internally referred to as “rollover” prescriptions” to Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE in violation of the False Claims Act.

Omnicare is the country’s largest provider of pharmacy services to LTC facilities. It currently operates approximately 160 pharmacies in 47 states across the United States, which dispense tens of millions of prescription drugs to LTC facilities that serve elderly and disabled individuals. CVS acquired Omnicare in May 2015, and shortly thereafter assumed an active role in overseeing Omnicare’s operations, including pharmacy dispensing practices and systems.

According to the DOJ complaint failed today, from 2010 until 2018, Omnicare and CVS allowed Omnicare pharmacies to dispense non-controlled prescription drugs to tens of thousands of elderly and disabled individuals living in LTC facilities based on prescriptions that had expired, were out of refills, or were otherwise invalid. Omnicare repeatedly disregarded prescription refill limitations and expiration dates that required doctor visits to reevaluate whether the drug should be renewed. Instead of requesting new prescriptions when old ones expired, Omnicare allowed prescriptions to “roll over.” At Omnicare, “rolling over” a prescription meant that when a prescription expired, Omnicare’s computer systems would assign the old prescription a new number and the pharmacy would continue to dispense the drug indefinitely without the need for a prescription renewal. Depending on the computer system used, Omnicare also sometimes assigned a fake number of authorized refills to a prescription – usually 99 allowable refills for Medicare patients – to allow for continuous refilling. DOJ claims that Omnicare pharmacies “rolled over” prescriptions for elderly and disabled individuals living in more than 3,000 residential long-term care facilities, including assisted living facilities operated by the largest long-term care providers in the country, such as Brookdale Senior Living, Atria Senior Living, Sunrise Senior Living Services, and Five Star Senior Living. DOJ also claims Omnicare managers exerted pressure on overwhelmed pharmacy staff to fill prescriptions quickly so that Omnicare could submit claims and collect payments.

According to the DOJ, Senior management at Omnicare and CVS knew of the practices. The DOJ complaint charges among other things that the Omnicare’s Compliance Department succinctly acknowledged the problem in an internal April 2015 email in which one Regional Compliance Officer stated: “An issue that I am running into more and more in multiple states concerns the ability of our systems to allow prescriptions to continue to roll after a year to a new prescription number without any documentation or pharmacist intervention.” A compliance officer then forwarded the email to the head of Omnicare’s Third Party Audit group, who responded that she had a “potential solution (programmed last year) but no one is rolling it out now.”

DOJ says Omnicare’s practice of illegally dispensing drugs to elderly and disabled individuals living in LTC facilities exposed these vulnerable individuals to a significant risk of harm. In contrast to traditional skilled nursing homes, where residents have access to 24-hour medical care supervised by doctors, assisted living and other non-skilled residential facilities offer more limited medical care, or none at all. In particular, these LTC facilities generally do not have doctors on staff to oversee and monitor residents’ drug therapy.

Many of the prescription drugs dispensed by Omnicare without valid prescriptions treat serious, chronic conditions, such as dementia, depression, and heart disease. They include antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, cardiovascular medications, anti-depressants, and other drugs that can have dangerous side effects and need to be closely monitored by doctors, particularly when taken in combination with other drugs by elderly patients. By repeatedly dispensing potent drugs without current and valid prescriptions, Omnicare jeopardized the health and safety of tens of thousands of individuals who continued to take the same drugs for months, and sometimes years, without consulting their doctors to determine whether the medications were still clinically appropriate.

A large percentage of the long-term care residents served by Omnicare are beneficiaries of federal healthcare programs. By dispensing drugs without valid prescriptions, Omnicare presented, or caused to be presented, hundreds of thousands of false claims to Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE. These claims were ineligible for payment. In addition, Omnicare knowingly transmitted false information to these federal healthcare programs that made it appear that drug dispensations were supported by current, valid prescriptions from physicians when in fact they were not.

The DOJ lawsuit resulted from the DOJ’s intervention in whistleblower lawsuits filed by former employees.

In today’s announcement of the lawsuit, Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As alleged, Omnicare put at risk the health of tens of thousands of elderly and disabled individuals living in assisted living and other residential long-term care facilities by dispensing drugs for months, and sometimes years, without obtaining current, valid prescriptions from doctors. A pharmacy’s fundamental obligation is to ensure that drugs are dispensed only under the supervision of treating doctors who monitor patients’ drug therapies. Omnicare blatantly ignored this obligation in favor of pushing drugs out the door as quickly as possible to make more money. This Office will continue to hold accountable those who put at risk people’s health and safety just to turn a profit.”

Meanwhile, HHS-OIG Special Agent in Charge Scott J. Lampert said: “Failing to consult doctors as to whether prescriptions should be refilled places patients’ health and medical care at serious risk. These automatic rollover refills could have significant consequences for vulnerable people in long term-care facilities. We will continue working with law enforcement partners to protect people depending on these taxpayer-funded government health programs.”

More information is expected to be forthcoming.

For More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about this or other labor and employment developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized 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 fraud, substandard quality, safety, unprofessional conduct, 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.

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:

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 » | Conditions of Participation, Controlled Substances, Corporate Compliance, DEA, Doctor, drug treatment, E-Prescribing, false claims act, FDA, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, Health Insurance, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HHS, Hospice, long-term care, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, OIG, Patient Empowerment, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Prescription Drugs, Reimbursement, Uncategorized, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Administration, Veterans Health Care | Tagged: controlled substance, cvs, DEA, drugs, false claims act, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, HEAT, Medicaid, omnicare, pharmacist, pharmacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$1.6M HIPAA Penalty Mostly Due To Inadequate Security Assessment & Oversight

December 16, 2019

The $1.6 million civil monetary penalty (“CMP”) assessed against the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (“TX HHSC”) for violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) Privacy and Security Rules between 2013 and 2017 committed by a predecessor agency, the Department of Aging and Disability Services (“DADS”) illustrates the critical need for all HIPAA covered entities and business associates to confirm the adequacy of their enterprise wide security assessment, oversight, and other HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance and risk management including documentation of the reassessment and updating of these materials and assessments in connection with any update or change in software, systems or other system and security relevant developments.

OCR imposed the CMPs against TX HHSC for violations of HIPAA OCR found DADS committed from 2015 to 2017, before it was reorganized into TX HHSC in September 2017. Like most other large HIPAA CMPs and settlements paid to avoid CMPs, a review of the TX HSSC CMP events makes clear that the large penalty resulted mostly because of inadequate assessment and oversight of security, rather than the actual breach itself that prompted the investigation leading to the CMP assessment.

Before its merger into TX HHSC, DADS was the Texas agency primarily responsible for providing and administering the state’s long-term care services for aging and intellectually and physically disabled people. TX HHSC now administers and provides the services previously provided by DADS as part of its broader operation of state supported living centers; provision of mental health and substance use services; regulation of child care and nursing facilities; and administration of hundreds of other programs for people needing supplemental nutrition benefits, Medicaid and certain other assistance including those previously provided by DADS.

DADS Breaches & Violations

The $1.6 million CMPs assessment against TX HHSC resulted after OCR investigated a 2015 breach report made by DADS. On June 11, 2015, DADS submitted a Breach Notification Report (“Report”) notifying OCR that on April 21, 2015 names, addresses, social security numbers, treatment information and other electronic protected health information (“ePHI”) of 6,617 individuals was viewable over the internet when a software coding flaw allowed prohibited access to ePHI with access credentials when DADS moved an internal application from a private, secure server to a public server. OCR’s investigation determined that, in addition to that impermissible disclosure, DADS violated the HIPAA Security Rule by failing to conduct an enterprise-wide risk analysis and implement access and audit controls on Community Living Assistance and Support Services and Deaf Blind with Multiple Disabilities (“CLASS/DBMD”) program information systems and applications intended to collect and report information about “Utilization Management and Review” activities to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) for the CLASS/DBMD waiver programs.. The CMS waiver programs required DADS to collect and report to CMS applicant and enrollee community and institutional service choice, Level of Care, Plan of Care, waiver provider choice and other waiver program performance data for CLASS and DBMD as part of a required evidentiary report on all §1915(c) waiver programs. The CLASS/DBMD application glitch compromised the ePHI by allowing an undetermined number of unauthorized users to view the ePHI without verifying user credentials. TX HHSC learned of the breach from an unauthorized user who accessed ePHI in the application without being required to input user credentials. Because of inadequate audit controls, DADS was unable to determine how many unauthorized persons accessed individuals’ ePHI.

OCR initiated a compliance review of DADS on June 23, 2015 in response to the breach notification. As HIPAA Security Rule at 45 C.F.R. ·§ 164.312(a)(l) requires a covered entity to implement technical policies and procedures for electronic information systems that maintain ePHI to allow access only to those persons or software programs properly granted access rights under HIPAA Security Rule § 164.308(a)(4), OCR found that by placing the CLASS/DBMD application on their public server without requiring users to provide access credentials, TX HHSC violated HIPAA by failing to implement access controls on all of its systems and applications throughout its enterprise in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.312(a)(l).

The HIPAA Security Rule at 45 C.F.R. § 164.312(b) requires a covered entity to implement hardware, software, and/or procedural mechanisms that record and examine activity in information systems that contain or use ePHI. In the course of its investigation, OCR requested in its June 23, 2015 Data Request that DADS provide a copy of its current HIPAA administrative and technical policies and procedures. As DADS provided no evidence that the application was capable of auditing user access after it was moved to the unsecure public server as required by 45 C.F.R. § 164.312(b) with its response, OCR also concluded from its investigation that TX HHSC failed to implement audit controls to all of its systems and applications, like the application involved in the breach, as required by 45 C.F.R. § 164.312(b).

Beyond these violations, OCR also found that DADS also violated the HIPAA Security Rule by failing to conduct the required accurate and thorough enterprise wised risk analysis required by the HIPAA Security Rule. In this respect, the HIPAA Security Rule at 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A) requires a covered entity to conduct an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI it holds. In its August 31, 2015 response to OCR’s Data Request dated July 23, 2015, DADS acknowledged that, while it had performed ”risk assessment activities” on individual applications and servers, it never performed an “agency-wide” security risk analysis. On July 28, 2017, OCR received the documentation that DADS represented to be the documentation of its risk analysis. After reviewing this evidence, OCR additionally found DADS violated the HIPAA Security Rule by failing to conduct an enterprise-wide risk analysis and implement access and audit controls.

Calculation & Assessment CMPs Totaling $1.6 Million

On May 23, 2018, OCR issued a Letter of Opportunity and informed TX HHSC that OCR’s investigation indicated that TX HHSC failed to comply with the Privacy and Security Rules, which remained unresolved despite OCR’s attempts to do so. The letter stated that pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 160.312(a)(3), OCR was informing TX HHSC of the preliminary indications of non-compliance and providing TX HHSC with an opportunity to submit written evidence of mitigating factors under 45 C.F.R. § 160.408 or affirmative defenses under 45 C.F.R. § 160.410 for OCR’s consideration in making a CMP determination under 45 C.F.R. § 160.404. The letter identified each area of noncompliance. It also stated that TX HHSC also could submit written evidence to support a waiver of a CMP for the indicated areas of non-compliance.

Although the designated representative for TX HHSC as DADS successor received the Letter of Opportunity on May 24, 2018, . TX HHSC did not provide any written evidence of mitigating factors under 45 C.F.R. § 160.408 or affirmative defenses under 4S C.F.R. § 160.410 for OCR’s consideration in making the CMP determination or submit any written evidence to support a waiver of a CMP for the indicated areas of non-compliance. Accordingly, after securing the requisite approval from the Justice Department, OCR issued a Notice of Proposed Determination of Civil Monetary Penalties (“Proposed CMP”) on July 29, 2019.

As explained by the Proposed CMP, as amended by the HITECH Act, Section 13410, 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-5(a)(3), HIPAA authorizes OCR as the designated representative of the Secretary of HHS to impose CMPs against a covered entity for post-February 18, 2009 HIPAA Privacy or Security Rule violations. These current CMP provisions provide the following rules for the assessment of CMPs for such violations:

A minimum of$100 for each violation where the covered entity or business associate did not know and, by exercising reasonable diligence, would not have known that the covered entity or business associate violated such provision, except that the total amount imposed on the covered entity or business associate for all violations of an identical requirement or prohibition during a calendar year may not exceed $25,000.
A minimum of$1,000 for each violation due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect, except that the total amount imposed on the covered entity or business associate for all violations of an identical requirement or prohibition during a calendar year may not exceed $100,000. Reasonable cause means an act or omission in which a covered. entity or business associate knew, or by exercising reasonable diligence would have known, that the act or omission violated an administrative simplification provision, but in which the covered entity or business associate did not act with willful neglect.
A minimum of $10,000 for each violation due to willful neglect and corrected within 30 days, except that the total amount imposed on the covered entity or business associate for all violations of an identical requirement or prohibition during a calendar year may not exceed $250,000.
A minimum of$50,000 for each violation due to willful neglect and uncorrected within 30 days, except that the total amount imposed on the covered entity or business associate for all violations of an identical requirement or prohibition during a calendar year may not exceed $1,500,000.

By law, OCR adjusts the CMP ranges and calendar year cap for each penalty tier for inflation. The adjusted amounts are applicable only to CMPs whose violations occurred after November 2, 2015.

The Proposed CMP included notice of the CMPs OCR intended to impose CMPs totaling $1.6 million for the violations. Characterizing each of the violations as due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect, the Proposed CMP Notice made note that OCR was authorized by statute to assess penalties of up to $50,000 per day for each day of the identified violations due for reasonable cause, rather than willful neglect, but authorized OCR to adjust the penalties in light of aggravating and mitigating factors. The Proposed CMP stated that in arriving at the lesser daily penalty amount, OCR considered as mitigating factors that:

The violations did not result in any known physical, financial, or reputational harm to any individuals nor did it hinder any individual’s ability to obtain health care; and
TX HHSC immediately removed the application once it received a report that unauthorized users could access the ePHI of individual beneficiaries.

However, OCR also took note that it viewed DADS failure to act promptly to remediate the breach and to keep a commitment made to OCR in August, 2015 timely to conduct and complete the agency wide risk analysis by August 31, 2016 as an aggravating factor. Considering these factors, the Proposed CMP notified TX HHSC that OCR intended to assess a daily penalty amount of$1,000 per day ($1,141 after November 2, 2015) per violation capped at $100,000 per calendar year per violation. Applying these amounts, the CMP notified TX HHSC that OCR intended to impose CMPs totaling $1.6 million, as follows:

Impermissible disclosures in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.502(a), a $100,000 CMP
Inadequate access controls in violation of 45 C.F .R. § 164.312(a)(l), a $500,000 CMP
Inadequate audit controls in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.312(b), a $500,000 CMP
Failure to perform required enterprise wide risk analysis in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(l)(ii)(a), a $500,000.

After TX HHSC , as successor to DADS, did not file a request for hearing before an administrative law judge within the 90 days, OCR imposed the $1.6 million CMP in dated October 25, 2019 made public on November 7, 2019.

Lessons For Other Health Care Providers, Health Plans, Clearinghouses & Business Associates

The latest in a growing series of multimillion dollar CMPs and Resolution Payments assessed and collected by OCR, the TX HHSC CMP illustrates the critical necessity for all covered entities and business both to take appropriate, well-documented action to prevent, timely discover and redress, and report ePHI breaches and otherwise comply with the otherwise applicable requirements of the HIPAA Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Rules including the conduct and continuous maintenance of appropriate enterprise wide security assessments, audits, and oversight. With OCR promising to continue its enforcement, all covered entities and business associates should verify the existence and adequacy of their existing enterprise wide risk assessments and safeguards and procedures for monitoring, investigating potential security risks and other breaches and other HIPAA compliance oversight. Beyond these compliance efforts, the TX HHSC and other CMP actions also drive home the strong advisability for covered entities or business associates that experience a known or potential breach or other violation promptly to investigate and mitigate potential breaches and other violations. As part of these efforts, covered entities and business associates should seek assistance in conducting their assessments as well as responding to any preexisting and emergent breach or other compliance concerns within the scope of attorney-client privilege from qualified legal counsel with the necessary knowledge and experience of HIPAA and other federal and state laws, regulations and administrative and judicial decisions that define and shape their exposure. In the event of a breach or other compliance concern, timely guidance and representation by legal counsel with both experience of these requirements and with dealing with OCR and other agencies may help mitigate exposures by expediting timely and appropriate response.

For More Information

Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized 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.

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:

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.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Electronic Health Records, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Policy, healthcare, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, Home Health, home health, Hospital, Indian Health, Medical Privacy, Medicare, Medicare Fee Schedule, Mental Health, occupational health, Privacy, public health, Rural Health Care, Uncategorized, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Administration, Veterans Health Care | Tagged: Data Breach, Data Security, HIPAA, OCR, Privacy | 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.

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

IRS Proposes Easing Disclosure Requirements For Certain Tax-Exempt Entities

October 9, 2019

December 10, 2019 is the deadline for charitable and other tax-exempt organizations to comment on proposed regulations the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) intends to use to implement clarify the reporting requirements generally applicable to tax-exempt organizations as they apply to returns filed after September 6, 2019.

The proposed regulations officially published by the IRS in the September 10, 2019 Federal Register implement changes in response to various statutory amendments and certain grants of reporting relief announced by the Treasury Department and the IRS in prior guidance to help many tax-exempt organizations generally find the reporting requirements in one place. Among other provisions, the proposed regulations incorporate the existing exception from having to file an annual return for certain organizations that normally have gross receipts of $50,000 or less, which is found in Revenue Procedure 2011-15.

In addition, the proposed regulations also reissue relief for certain tax-exempt entities from requirements to report contributor names and addresses on annual returns filed by certain tax-exempt organizations. Originally announced last year in Revenue Procedure 2018-38, the relief was invalidated by a district court ruling that the Treasury Department and the IRS failed to follow required notice and comment procedures. Under the proposed regulations, filing requirements for Section 501(c)(3) organizations and Section 527 political organizations remain unchanged, and all organizations are required to keep the contributor information and make it available to the IRS upon request.

Additionally, the IRS issued Notice 2019-47 (PDF) providing penalty relief for certain exempt organizations that, consistent with the 2018 guidance from the IRS, do not report the names and addresses of contributors on annual returns for tax years ending on or after December 31, 2018, but on or before July 30, 2019.

Need more information or help evaluating or responding to this or developments? Contact the author licensed attorney experienced in FDA and other health care and other regulatory affairs matters.

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 of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications including extensive experience advising and representing health care systems and providers about sexual abuse, assault, harassment, discrimination and other personal and professional misconduct policies, training and other prevention and investigation, peer review and other discipline, mitigation and charges defense, as well extensively published and conducted workshops on “Sex, Drugs & Rock ‘N Role: Preventing and Addressing Personal Misconduct In Healthcare,” “What To Do When Your Employee’s Life Becomes Your Business,” and other educational training and publications for health industry clients and others on these concerns.

In these and other legal, management, governmental affairs work and speaking and publications, Ms. Stamer When working with these and other clients, Ms. Stamer merges a talent for creative problem solving with her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience to help her clients develop and use legally defensible, pragmatic, client-centric law, performance and risk management tools and processes to manage people, performance, quality, compliance, risk and other operational needs on a real-time, “on demand” basis as well as outsourced general, operations, regulatory affairs or other special counsel capacity on an interim, special project, or ongoing basis. Her clients have included 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 clients.

Her 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, discipline and defend 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.

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:

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 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 » | Academic medicine, Conditions of Participation, continuing medical education (CME), Corporate Compliance, Cultural diversity, Discrimination, Doctor, Employer, Employment law, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Form 990, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Home Health, Hospital, hospitals, Immigration, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Labor Law, Laws, Life Sciences, Medical Privacy, Patient Empowerment, Peer Review, Psychiatric, Rural Health Care, Section 1557, Sexual Abuse, Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, Tax, Tax-Exemption, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Air Ambulance Bills Drawing Congressional “Surprise Billing” Scrutiny

July 31, 2019

Congress is looking into air ambulance rates. The top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee Kevin Brady (R-TX) and Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-MA) sent a letter to Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary Elaine Chao, urging her to comply with congressional requirements and promptly convene the Air Ambulance and Patient Billing (AAPB) Advisory Committee.

Part of continuing Congressional concern about reports that patients and their families suffer financial hardship from “surprise bills” for emergency care, Congress directed DOT to establish this task force within 60 days of enactment of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, but 10 months have passed since the President signed the bill into law and the advisory committee still has not met. The task force’s purpose is to inform Congress on air ambulance medical patient billing as Ways and Means Committee leaders work to address the issue of balance billing.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report this year that found that nearly 70 percent of analyzed air ambulance transports conducted in 2017 for privately insured patients were out-of-network, a significantly higher rate than other emergency services. The cost of these out-of-network air ambulance services are leaving patients exposed to unexpectedly high out-of-pocket bills.

The AAPB Advisory Committee is required to provide Congress, DOT, and the Department of Health and Human Services with recommendations to protect consumers from balance billing for air ambulance transports, requirements for the disclosure of charges and fees for these services, and consumer protection and enforcement authorities of both the DOT and states. “This information is critical as Congress considers appropriate steps to find the best solution to protect consumers from surprise bills,” wrote Brady and Neal. “However, the committee has failed to convene, let alone produce a report. Additionally, Congress mandated the Secretary of DOT to submit a report to the appropriate committees of Congress on air ambulance oversight, which has also yet to be provided.”

Brady and Neal requested that, within 14 days, DOT provide updated deadlines for the appointment of individuals to the task force, along with a timeline for convening the advisory committee and providing recommendations and a final report.

Patients using air ambulance and other services used in emergency circumstances generally don’t have the option of choosing network participating providers and often their health plans may not cover or only provide limited coverage for that transportation. On the other hand, air ambulance operators point out that the services are costly to own and operate requiring substantial investment in equipment, staff, regulations and other operating costs on standby and ready to respond on demand. They also point out that limited coverage for their services already creates a high uncollectible debt load. Because of these and other challenges many cities, counties and other governmental entities assume or subsidize these operating costs to help preserve the availability of services. They caution that increased regulation likely would adversely impact the availability of these services in rural or other areas where prompt transportation can mean the difference between life and death for critical patients.

About the Author

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.

As core components of this work, Ms. Stamer helps health industry, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients manage regulatory, contractual and other 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.

Her clients include 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 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.

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.

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and group and other health benefit programs and coverages including but not limited to advising public and private payers about coverage and program design and documentation, advising and defending providers, payers and systems and billing services entities about systems and process design, audits, and other processes; provider credentialing, and contracting; providers and payer billing, reimbursement, claims audits, denials and appeals, coverage coordination, reporting, direct contracting, False Claims Act, Medicare & Medicaid, ERISA, state Prompt Pay, out-of-network and other nonpar insured, and other health care claims, prepayment, post-payment and other coverage, claims denials, appeals, billing and fraud investigations and actions and other reimbursement and payment related investigation, enforcement, litigation and actions.

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

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

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

A 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, privacy and data security, 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.

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.™

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.

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 » | air ambulance, ambulance, balance billing, Emergency Care, Employee Benefits, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, health care reimbursement, Health Plan, HHS, Hospital, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Providers, Other HIPAA-Covered Entities Must Provide PHI to Patient-Designated Apps; Liable For Security On Covered Entity Supplied Or Sponsored Apps

May 6, 2019

Health care providers, health plans and other entities (“covered entities”) subject to the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) Privacy and Security Rules must deliver electronic protected health information (“ePHI”) to electronic applications or software (“apps”) used by plan members, and are responsible under HIPAA for the security of electronic PHI (“ePHI”) on apps the covered entity sponsors or provides, according to new guidance from the Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”) Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”). With health care providers and other covered entities increasingly offering or promoting the use of apps to patients or plan plan members to access, maintain and use their health information, covered entities and their business associates must understand and be prepared meet their HIPAA responsibilities to provide and protect ePHI to and on these apps, but may want to rethink sponsoring or providing a particular app for that purpose.

New HIPAA FAQ guidance (the “FAQs”) from OCR that addresses the implications of HIPAA on covered entities responsibility when asked to share or for ePHI shared or stored on apps or application programming interfaces (“APIs”) systems, covered entities have a legal obligation to disclose ePHI to an app when subjects of the ePHI or their personal representatives request such disclosures. However, the FAQs also state a covered entity or its business associates won’t be responsible for the security of the data shared to the app unless it sponsors or provides it. The FAQs state that the liability of the covered entity for the security once delivered to the app depends upon whether the AP or API interface provider is a business associate of the covered entity versus just a third-party provider whose involvement and receipt of the PHI is requested and arranged by the subject of the PHI.

Covered Entities Obligated To Disclose ePHI to Apps Chosen By Individuals

The FAQs make crystal clear that covered entities do not have the option of refusing to share ePHI to an app when requested to do so by the subject of the ePHI or its personal representative. The FAQs states that covered entities cannot refuse to disclose ePHI to an app chosen by an individual because of concerns about how the app will use or disclose the ePHI it receives. In this regard, the FAQs state that the HIPAA Privacy Rule generally prohibits a covered entity from refusing to disclose ePHI to a third-party app designated by the individual if the ePHI is readily producible in the form and format used by the app. See 45 CFR 164.524(a)(1), (c)(2)(ii), (c)(3)(ii).According to the FAQ, the HIPAA Rules do not impose any restrictions on how an individual or the individual’s designee, such as an app, may use the health information that has been disclosed pursuant to the individual’s right of access. For instance, a covered entity is not permitted to deny an individual’s right of access to their ePHI where the individual directs the information to a third-party app because the app will share the individual’s ePHI for research or because the app does not encrypt the individual’s data when at rest.According to the FAQs, the liability a covered entity or business associate bears for sharing ePHI to an App under the HIPAA Privacy, Security, or Breach Notification Rules (HIPAA Rules) depends on the relationship between the covered entity and the app.

Breaches of Health Information Disclosed To An App

If an app that is neither a covered entity nor a business associate of the covered entity under HIPAA receives ePHI at the request of the subject or its personal representative, the FAQ states that the shared ePHI is no longer subject to the protections of the HIPAA Rules. Thus if the individual’s app – chosen by an individual to receive the individual’s requested ePHI – was not provided by or on behalf of the covered entity (and, thus, does not create, receive, transmit, or maintain ePHI on its behalf), the covered entity would not be liable under the HIPAA Rules for any subsequent use or disclosure of the requested ePHI received by the app. For example, the covered entity would have no HIPAA responsibilities or liability if such an app that the individual designated to receive their ePHI later experiences a breach. See also, See also OCR FAQ 2039, “What is the liability of a covered entity in responding to an individual’s access request to send the individual’s PHI to a third party.In contrast, however, the FAQ states that if the app was developed for, or provided by or on behalf of the covered entity – and, thus, creates, receives, maintains, or transmits ePHI on behalf of the covered entity – the covered entity could be liable under the HIPAA Rules for a subsequent impermissible disclosure because of the business associate relationship between the covered entity and the app developer. For example, if the individual selects an app that the covered health care provider uses to provide services to individuals involving ePHI, the FAQs state that the health care provider may be subject to liability under the HIPAA Rules if the app impermissibly discloses the ePHI received.

Transmission of ePHI to App Using Unsecured Method

The FAQs also address the potential exposures of covered entities and their business associates arising from the transmission of ePHI to an App using an unsecure method. According to the FAQs, the access rights HIPAA guarantees to individuals allows an individual to request that a covered entity to direct their ePHI to a third-party app in an unsecure manner or through an unsecure channel. See 45 CFR 164.524(a)(1), (c)(2)(ii), (c)(3)(ii). For instance, an individual may request that their unencrypted ePHI be transmitted to an app as a matter of convenience. The FAQ states that a covered entity that transmits ePHI through an unsecured means under such circumstances would not be responsible for unauthorized access to the individual’s ePHI while in transmission to the app. With respect to such apps, however, the FAQs also suggest that the covered entity may want to consider informing the individual of the potential risks involved the first time that the individual makes the request.

Post Transmission Exposure of Covered Entity’s EHR Systems Developer

The FAQ also discusses the potential exposure of a covered entity’s electronic health record (EHR) system developer under HIPAA after completing the transmission on behalf of a covered entity of ePHI to an app designated by the subject of the ePHI. According to the FAQs, the exposure of the HER system developer depends on the relationship, if any, between the covered entity, the EHR system developer, and the app chosen by the individual to receive the individual’s ePHI. A business associate relationship exists if an entity creates, receives, maintains, or transmits ePHI on behalf of a covered entity (directly or through another business associate) to carry out the covered functions of the covered entity. A business associate relationship exists between an EHR system developer and a covered entity. If the EHR system developer does not own the app, or if it owns the app but does not provide the app to, through, or on behalf of, the covered entity – e.g., if it creates the app and makes it available in an app store as part of a different line of business (and not as part of its business associate relationship with any covered entity) – the EHR system developer would not be liable under the HIPAA Rules for any subsequent use or disclosure of the requested ePHI received by the app.If the EHR system developer owns the app or has a business associate relationship with the app developer, and provides the app to, through or on behalf of, the covered entity (directly or through another business associate), however, the FAQs state the EHR system developer then potentially could face HIPAA liability (as a business associate of a HIPAA covered entity) for any impermissible uses and disclosures of the health information received by the app. For example, if an EHR system developer contracts with the app developer to create the app on behalf of a covered entity and the individual later identifies that app to receive ePHI, then the EHR system developer could be subject to HIPAA liability if the app impermissibly uses or discloses the ePHI received.

Covered Entity’s Duty To Enter Into Business Associate Agreement Depends Upon Relationship

Likewise, the FAQs also state that whether HIPAA requires a a covered entity or its EHR system developer to enter into a business associate agreement with an app designated by the individual in order to transmit ePHI to the app depends upon the relationship between the app developer and the covered entity and/or its EHR system developer. A business associate is a person or entity who creates, receives, maintains or transmits PHI on behalf of (or for the benefit of) a covered entity (directly or through another business associate) to carry out covered functions of the covered entity. An app’s facilitation of access to the individual’s ePHI at the individual’s request alone does not create a business associate relationship. Such facilitation may include API terms of use agreed to by the third-party app (i.e., interoperability arrangements).HIPAA does not require a covered entity or its business associate (e.g., EHR system developer) to enter into a business associate agreement with an app developer that does not create, receive, maintain, or transmit ePHI on behalf of or for the benefit of the covered entity (whether directly or through another business associate). However if the app was developed to create, receive, maintain, or transmit ePHI on behalf of the covered entity, or was provided by or on behalf of the covered entity (directly or through its EHR system developer as the covered entity’s business associate), then a business associate agreement would be required.

Health Plan & Other Covered Entity Take Aways

The new FAQ raises several action items for health care providers and other covered entities and their business associates. Among other things, covered entities must recognize and be prepared currently to provide PHI on the apps of the requesting individual’s preference within the time frames dictated by HIPAA. Covered entities must recognize that the FAQs reflect this is a current, not future responsibility.

Second, covered entities that have or are considering providing apps or other tools to atients for use in accessing or using PHI also generally need to recognize that covered entity’s provision or sponsorship of the app generally makes the covered entity responsible under HIPAA for the adequacy of the security of the apps provided by or on behalf of the health plan or health care provider including any updates to the apps. Given the general responsibility to provide PHI to any apps designated by a subject of PHI, many covered entities may want to rethink whether providing or endorsing a particular app continues to make sense taking into account the HIPAA data privacy and security responsibilities and risks attendent to maintaining the security of PHI stored and accessed using those tools. Those electing to provide apps or other tools need to take steps to ensure the current and future adequacy of the data security of the app and its associated storage and other components including any future modifications to those tools.

Furthermore, covered entities also should consider the advisability of revising existing notices and authorizations in response to the new FAQs. For instance, health plans, health care providers and others supplying PHI to an app designated by the requesting individual may want to consider revising forms to document the direction and consent of the requestor to the electronic delivery of the PHI to the designated app to better position themselves to claim the protection against liability for breaches on these subject designate apps described in the FAQs. Meanwhile, covered entities providing apps also may wish to weigh options for supplementing disclosures to mitigate potential risks from use or failure to upgrade apps that might be viewed as covered entity provided or sponsored.

Certainly, before sponsoring or allowing a business associate to offer or provide an app or other similar solution, health care providers and other covered entities must ensure that the business associate agreement requirements of HIPAA are met from the app developer and others providing services or the app as business associates to the covered entity. Covered entities also should take steps to ensure that the interfaces between the apps and other systems are properly security at the point of implementation and during any subsequent upgrades keeping in mind that OCR guidance expects covered entities to reconfirm security for any system, software or app upgrades. Meeting this expectation for apps within the possession of patients or plan members can present special challenges requiring careful planning.

Beyond complying with the specific requirements of the FAQs concerning the obligation of health care providers and other covered entities to deliver PHI to apps in formats specified by patients, providers also need to take to heart OCR’s broader requirement that providers and other covered entities deliver and provide timely access to OHI as required by HIPAA generally. Recognizing that noncompliance with this rule remains a top violation, OCR has targeted enforcement of the access rules for increase enforcement. In addition, violations also expose providers to medical licensure and other discipline.

Have questions about the new FAQs or other health care regulatory developments or their implications on your organization, contact the author. You also are invited to stay abreast of these and other health care developments by participating in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Linkedin SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group or COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment Group or Project COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment Facebook Page.

About the Author

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 employers and other workforce management organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers and their management; 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, health care accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; managed care organizations, insurers, third party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations; group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; claims, billing and other health care and insurance technology and data service organizations; other health, employee benefit, insurance and financial services product and solutions consultants, developers and vendors; and other health, employee benefit, 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. Her public policy and regulatory affairs experience encompassess advising and representing domestic and multinational private sector health, insurance, employee benefit, employer, staffing and other outsourced service providers, and other clients in dealings with Congress, state legislatures, and federal, state and local regulators and government entities, as well as providing advice and input to U.S. and foreign government leaders on these and other policy concerns.

Beyond her public policy and regulatory affairs involvement, Ms. Stamer also has extensive experience helping these and other clients to design, implement, document, administer and defend workforce, employee benefit, insurance and risk management, health and safety, and other programs, products and solutions, 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. Ms. Stamer’s experience in these matters includes supporting these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis with crisis preparedness, intervention and response as well as consulting and representing clients on ongoing compliance and risk management; plan and program design; vendor and employee credentialing, selection, contracting, performance management and other dealings; strategic planning; policy, program, product and services development and innovation; mergers, acquisitions, and change management; workforce and operations management, and other opportunities and challenges arising in the course of their 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, heavily involved in health benefit, health care, health, financial and other information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations throughout her career, and scribe of the ABA JCEB annual Office of Civil Rights agency meeting, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive work and leadership on leading edge health care and benefit policy and operational issues. She regularly helps employer and other health benefit plan sponsors and vendors, health industry, insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health and insurance industry clients design, document and enforce plans, practices, policies, systems and solutions; manage regulatory, contractual and other legal and operational compliance; vendors and suppliers; deal with Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA, state insurance law and other private payer rules and requirements; contracting; licensing; terms of participation; medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, and other provider-payer relations; reporting and disclosure, government investigations and enforcement, privacy and data security; and other 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; HIPAA administrative simplification, 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, HEDIS 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.

Ms. Stamer has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending plan sponsors, administrators, insurance and managed care organizations, 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. Scribe for the ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with HHS OCR, she also has worked extensively on health and health benefit coding, billing and claims, meaningful use and EMR, billing and reimbursement, quality measurement and reimbursement, HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical, workforce, consumer financial and other data confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security, data breach and mitigation, and other information privacy and data security concerns.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here 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 here such as:

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.

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.

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.

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

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 » | E-Prescribing, Employee Benefits, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, home health, Hospital, Indian Health, Medicaid, Medicaid Advantage, Medical Licensure, Medicare Advantage, OCR, Physician, Uncategorized | Tagged: Data Breach, Health Care, Health Plan, HIPAA | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Provider Pays $3 Million For Breach With Delayed Investigation & Notice

May 6, 2019

A Franklin, Tennessee-based diagnostic medical imaging services provider Touchstone Medical Imaging (“Touchstone”) will pay $3,000,000 to the Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), and adopt a corrective action plan to settle potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security and Breach Notification Rules. The Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan announced May 6, 2019 illustrates for other health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and their business associates (“Covered Entities”) the perils both of failing to properly secure and protect protected health information and the necessity for timely investigation and disclosure within the short time frames required by HIPAA.

The Resolution Agreement between Touchstone and OCR stems from Touchstone’s mishandling of a 2014 breach. In May 2014, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and OCR notified Touchstone that one of its FTP servers allowed uncontrolled access to protected health information (“PHI”). This uncontrolled access permitted search engines to index the PHI of Touchstone’s patients, which remained visible on the Internet even after the server was taken offline. While Touchstone initially claimed that no patient PHI was exposed, in the course of OCR’s investigation, Touchstone subsequently admitted PHI of more than 300,000 patients was exposed including, names, birth dates, social security numbers, and addresses. As a result of its delayed acknowledgement of the occurrence of the breach on May 9, 2014, Touchstone did not provide notice of the breach until October, 2014, months after OCR and FBI notified it of the breach. See here.

OCR’s investigation found that Touchstone did not thoroughly investigate the security incident until several months after notice of the breach from both the FBI and OCR. Consequently, Touchstone’s notification to individuals affected by the breach also was untimely. OCR’s investigation further found that Touchstone failed to conduct an accurate and thorough risk analysis of potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all of its electronic PHI (ePHI), and failed to have business associate agreements in place with its vendors, including their IT support vendor and a third-party data center provider as required by HIPAA.

In addition to the monetary settlement, Touchstone will undertake a robust corrective action plan that includes the adoption of business associate agreements, completion of an enterprise-wide risk analysis, and comprehensive policies and procedures to comply with the HIPAA Rules.

The Resolution Agreement illustrates the expensive price Covered Entities risk from failing to conduct risk assessments, obtain business associate agreements and fulfill other HIPAA requirements before a breach, then failing to promptly investigate, provide notification and redress a breach when discovered. Covered Entities should learn from the painful lesson learned by Touchstone by reconfirming the adequacy of their current HIPAA compliance and using care to timely and adequately investigate and provide notification if and when a breach occurs.

About the Author

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.

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.

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

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.

CMS Finalizes 2020 Medicare Advantage & Prescription Drug Program Rule Updates & Implements Other Integrity Rule Changes

April 8, 2019

Health care providers, health plans, and Medicare and Medicare Advantage Program beneficiaries should note the program changes the Centers for Medicare & Medicare (“CMS”) is implementing through the Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Final Rule (“Final Rule”) that updates CMS’ governing regulations regarding the Medicare Advantage (MA or Part C) and Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit (Part D) programs for 2020.

Scheduled for official publication in the Federal Register on April 16, 2019, the advance copy of the 600 plus page Final Rule unofficially released last Friday, April 6, 2019 indicates that the Final Rule will:

Revise the Medicare Advantage (MA) program (Part C) regulations and Prescription Drug Benefit program (Part D) regulations to modify the appeals and grievances requirements for certain Medicaid managed care and MA special needs plans for dual eligible individuals to implement certain provisions of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018;
Implements certain other provisions of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018;
Makes changes to improve quality and accessibility;
Clarifies certain program integrity policies for MA, Part D, and cost plans and PACE organizations;
Seeks to reduce burden on providers, MA plans, and Part D sponsors through providing additional policy clarification;
Implement other technical changes regarding quality improvement; and

Contract Year 2020 Medicare Advantage and Part D Flexibility Final Rule
(CMS-4185-F)

After expanding the MA plan choices for the 2019 plan year, CMS now also plans to continue to expanding patient options to provide patients more choice of MA plans to meet their unique health needs. In continuing the efforts to increase plan flexibility and plan choices for patients, CMS reports it is finalizing additional flexibilities to allow patients more MA options and new benefits. Interested persons should watch for further guidance.

Implementing the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 Provisions

The Final Rule also implements the following provisions of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, Public Law 115-123:

Section 50323 allows MA plans to offer “additional telehealth benefits” as part of the government-funded “basic benefits”;
Section 50311 requires increased integration of Medicare and Medicaid benefits and appeals and grievance processes for MA Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs); and
Section 50354 requires the Secretary to establish a process to allow Part D plan sponsors to request standard extracts of Medicare Parts A and B claims data regarding their enrollees.

Medicare Advantage Plans Offering Additional Telehealth Benefits

MA plans always could offer patients in MA plans more telehealth services than those in Original Medicare. With the Final Rule implementing the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018’s provisions allowing MA plans to include “additional telehealth benefits” (telehealth benefits beyond what Original Medicare allows) in their bids for the basic Medicare benefits beginning plan year 2020, the Final Rule gives MA plans more flexibility than currently available in how they pay for coverage of telehealth benefits after 2019. As these changes allow MA plans more options to offer expanded telehealth coverage to meet the needs of their patients within the parameters of the Final Rule, MA patients are even more likely post 2019 to have access to telehealth services from more providers and in more parts of the country than before, whether they live in rural or urban areas.

Integration Requirements for D-SNPs

CMS is finalizing new minimum criteria for Medicare and Medicaid integration in D-SNPs for contract year 2021 and subsequent years. Pursuant to the requirements in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, CMS plans to require that D-SNPs meet the integration criteria either by, at a minimum:

Covering Medicaid long-term services and supports and/or behavioral health services through a capitated payment from a state Medicaid agency; or
Notifying the state Medicaid agency (or its designee) of hospital and skilled nursing facility admissions for at least one group of high-risk full-benefit dual eligible individuals, as determined by the state Medicaid agency.

Unified Grievance and Appeals Procedures for D-SNPs

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 requires compliance with unified grievance and appeal procedures beginning in contract year 2021. CMS is finalizing rules to unify Medicare and Medicaid grievance and appeals processes for certain D-SNPs and affiliated Medicaid managed care plans. The processes will apply to D-SNPs with fully aligned enrollment and the affiliated Medicaid managed care organization, where one organization is responsible for managing Medicare and Medicaid benefits for all enrollees. In such D-SNPs, enrollees will have simpler, more straightforward grievance and appeals processes.

Improving Program Quality and Accessibility

As part of CMS efforts to continually improve the Star Ratings methodology, the Final Rules finalize several measure updates, an enhanced methodology for determining cut points, and a policy to adjust the methodology for Star Ratings for affected MA and Part D plans in the event of extreme and uncontrollable circumstances, such as hurricanes.

The final policy for extreme and uncontrollable circumstances is similar to the one implemented for the 2019 Star Ratings.

Based on stakeholder feedback to the Contract Year 2019 Medicare Advantage and Part D proposed rule (CMS-4182-P) and analyses of the data, the Final Rule also provides an enhanced cut point methodology for data collected during the 2020 measurement year and associated 2022 Star Ratings that CMS intends to improve stability and predictability and reduce the influence of outliers by implementing a guardrail, so that cut points do not increase or decrease more than a 5 percent cap from one year to the next.

Clarifying Program Integrity Policies

The Final Rule also clarifies and tightens various program integrity policies.

Preclusion List Requirements for Prescribers in Part D and Individuals and Entities in MA, Cost Plans, and Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE)
CMS announced in April 2018 that the agency would prohibit payment for Part D drugs and MA items or services prescribed or furnished by prescribers and providers on a “preclusion list.” The Final Rule revises the preclusion list process to clarify the expectations for stakeholders through the following changes:

Length of time on the preclusion list for providers or prescribers with a felony conviction
Consolidation of the appeals process
Timeframe for additions to the preclusion list
Beneficiary “hold harmless” provisions
Beneficiary notification

Medicare Advantage Risk Adjustment Data Validation Provisions

CMS conducts contract-level Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) audits to verify the accuracy of payments made to MA organizations and recover improper payments. In 2012, CMS released a white paper informing MA and Part D sponsors of its intention to extrapolate audit recovery findings starting with payment year 2011 contract-level audits. The proposed provision in CMS-4185-P updated stakeholders on our plans to use various sampling and extrapolation methodologies in these and subsequent RADV audits. The comment period for the RADV proposals was extended beyond the initial December 31, 2018 deadline to April 30, 2019 in order to maximize the opportunity for the public to provide meaningful input to CMS. Because the comment period was extended to April 30, 2019, the final rule does not address the RADV proposals. CMS says it intend to address the RADV provisions in a final rule at a later time.

Effective Dates

The provisions of the Final Regulations generally take effect January 1, 2020. However, amendments to §§ 422.107(c)(9), (d), (e)(2), 422.560(a)(4) and (b)(5), 422.566(a), 422.629 through 422.634, 422.752(d), 438.210, 438.400, and 438.402 take effect January 1, 2021 and amendments to §§ 422.222(a)(2), 423.120(c)(6)(iv), and 498.5(n)(1) take effect in June, 60 days after publication of the Final Regulation.

Have questions about the Final Regulations or other health care regulatory developments or their implications on your organization, contract the author. You als are invited to stay abreast of these and other health care developments by participating in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Linkedin SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group or COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment Group or Project COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment Facebook Page.

About the Author

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.

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.

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

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 » | air ambulance, ambulance, balance billing, Consumer Driven Health Care, Corporate Compliance, Emergency Care, Employee Benefits, Health Care, Health Care Finance, health care reimbursement, Health Insurance, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, Hospital, hospitals, managed care, Medicaid Advantage, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, participating provider, Physician, Provider contracting, Reimbursement, surprise billing, Telemedicine, Uncategorized | Tagged: Health Care, Medicaid, Medicaid Advantage, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Part D, Prescription Drug Benefit Program, Prescription Drugs, Telemedicine | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Beef Up Patient Education & Management Tools With Diabetes Alert Day Resources

March 26, 2019

Physicians and other health care providers concerned about helping patients and others prevent and deal with Type 2 Diabetes should use today’s annual Diabetes Awareness Day observances and resources to beef up their Diabetes screening and management efforts and toolkits.

With 1 in 3 adult Americans at risk for Type 2 diabetes, the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) and other public and private organizations partnering in The National Diabetes Prevention Program are urging all physicians and other health care providers to partner in their efforts to prevent, delay and manage Type 2 diabetes.

Celebrated every year on the fourth Tuesday in March, Diabetes Alert Day promotes awareness of the prevalence and risks of undiagnosed or unmanaged Type 2 Diabetes to Americans, American taxpayers, health benefit programs and their communities.

More than 30 million people in the United States have diabetes and an additional 84 million adults—over a third—have prediabetes, and 90% of them don’t know they have it.
Diabetes is the 7th leading cause of death in the United States (and may be underreported).
Type 2 diabetes accounts for about 90% to 95% of all diagnosed cases of diabetes; type 1 diabetes accounts for about 5%.
In the last 20 years, the number of adults diagnosed with diabetes has more than tripled as the American population has aged and become more overweight or obese
Undiagnosed or unmanaged Type 2 diabetes threatens serious and disabling medical risks for afflicted individuals that also are financially costly for patients and their families, their health plans, taxpayers and communities.

While Type 2 Diabetes and its costs often can be prevented or minimized through appropriate diagnosis and treatment, Type 2 diabetes symptoms often develop over several years and go on for a long time without being noticed. Health care providers generally recognize the need to screen patients for Type 2 Diabetes as well as educating patients to recognize the factors for Type 2 Diabetes and to contact their physician promptly when experiencing these symptoms, but often have limited time and resources to help educate patients and their families.

To start with, the CDC and its partners are encouraging all health care providers to urge their patients to take the online Type 2 Diabetes Risk, screen and educate patients and promote use of CDC-recognized lifestyle change programs to individuals suffering or at risk for Type 2 diabetes.

To help health care providers participate more effectively in the fight to prevent, detect and manage Type 2 Diabetes, the CDC and its partners provide a number of Diabetes screening and management resources for physicians and other health care providers. These resources include a variety of patient education and screening tools, resources on Medicare and other coverage for diabetes screening and management, a list of

Physicians and other health care providers should check out the resources available from the CDC and take advantage of some of these resources to beef up their Type 2 and other Diabetes patient education, prevention, screening and management efforts, a directory of CDC-recognized lifestyle change programs and more

Learn more about Type 2 Diabetes cost modeling, screening, prevention and other health care resources Project Cope: Coalition for Patient Empowerment Newsletter and share your own resources and ideas on diabetes and management and other health care best practices, challenges, policies and concerns by participating in our Linkedin SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group or COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment Group or Project COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment Facebook Page

About the Author

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.

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.

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

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 » | ambulance, Centers For Disease Control, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Clinical pathway, Conditions of Participation, Consumer Driven Health Care, Corporate Compliance, Diabetes, Disease Management, Doctor, drug treatment, Emergency Care, Employee Benefits, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, health care reimbursement, Health Insurance, Health Plan, Health Plans, Health Policy, healthcare, home health, Hospital, hospitals, Human Subjects Research, Joint Commission, Life Sciences, managed care, Medicare Fee Schedule, participating provider, Patient Empowerment, Pharmacy, Physician, Provider contracting, public health, Reimbursement, surprise billing, Uncategorized | Tagged: Diabetes, Disease Management, Health Care, Patient Empowerment, Physicians, Wellness | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New GAO Report Likely To Fuel Scrutiny Of Air Ambulance Charges

March 21, 2019

Expect greater Congressional, regulatory and payer scrutiny of air ambulance coverage and services in response to a new US Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report entitled Air Ambulance: Available Data Show Privately-Insured Patients Are at Financial Risk released yesterday.

The report raises the alarm that out-of-network air ambulance transport costs and the risk of its balance billing poses a risk to patients.

The report analyzed FAIR Health data to show that about two-thirds (69 percent) of air ambulance transports for privately insured patients in 2017 were out of network, and that the proportion was similar (75 percent) in 2012. The report noted that the proportion is higher than the rate research shows for ground ambulance transports and other types of emergency services.

Further analyzing FAIR Health data, the GAO found that the median prices charged for air ambulance transport rose in recent years. Prices for helicopter transport and fixed-wing transport increased over 60 percent from 2012 to 2017.

The GAO turned to FAIR Health because our data repository was determined to be “the most complete data source we identified with data on prices charged for and the network status of air ambulance transports for privately-insured patients.” The GAO determined the reliability of FAIR Health data by “reviewing related documentation, interviewing relevant officials, checking for internal consistency, and comparing our results across data sets and to published sources.”

The release of the report comes as insurers and other payers are pushing Federal and state legislators and regulators to clamp down on out of network emergency and other charges.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) sought to protect patients from “surprise bills” for out-of-network services incurred when the need for emergency care denied the patient the option of choosing a in-network provider contracted with the patient’s health plan to provide care at discounted rates.

Insurers are complaining to legislators and regulators that this emergency coverage provision is Driving up healthcare costs by incentivizing the growth of out-of- network emergency care. Payers accuse healthcare providers that are out of network of driving up healthcare costs by overcharging for their services. payers are lobbying to obtain controls on these out of network services through federal and state legislation limiting coverage and balance billing for these services.

Meanwhile, air ambulance and other emergency transportation services generally contend that high operating costs and unreasonable coverage practices by payers are the problem. These providers argue their rates are driven by high operating costs to provide these services, the high number of uninsured or underinsured patients needing the services, and the exclusion or limitation of coverage for the services and refusal to reimburse providers at adequate rates. They also point out that aside from limiting reimbursement rates, many insurers exclude air ambulance services from coverage in their entirety. Accordingly, patient is transported by air ambulance generally incur substantial uncovered charges whether or not the ambulance happens to be contracted as an in network provider. Many out of network and other air ambulance providers argue that payers seek to exercise and do market pressure to try to compel providers to deliver care and services at prices that are not financially viable and to restrict care in a manner that is inconsistent with patient needs. They caution that cutbacks in reimbursement will further endanger patients needing immediate transportation by limiting the availability of the services in what often are life and death situations.

With the debate over “surprise billing” versus “surprise denials” heating up and emergency services and their costs, look for heightened scrutiny of charges and a slew of new regulatory proposals ahead.

About the Author

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.

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.

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

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.

Tax Exemption Determination Procedures Changing

March 15, 2019

Tax exempt organizations and employee benefit plans take note. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) exempt organization determination procedures are changing.

Revenue Procedure 2019-5 updates the Exempt Organization determination letters procedures. Changes include:

Adding references to “new” Form 1024-A, Application for Recognition of Exemption Under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code
Clarifying that the IRS won’t rule on a request under IRC Section 501(c)(6) for an organization whose purpose relates to a controlled substance that is illegal under federal law
Increasing user fees for certain miscellaneous determinations from $1,000 to $2,000
Changing the name of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel, Tax Exempt and Government Entities, to the Office of Associate Chief Counsel, Employee Benefits, Exempt Organizations and Employment Taxes.

These changes will impact processes for submitting approval applications and other exempt organization, VEBA, fraternal benefit association and qualified employee plan dealings with the IRS. Impacted organizations, their leaders and advisors will want to adjust accordingly.

About the Author

Ms. Stamer’s legal, management, governmental affairs work and speaking and publications have 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. 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.

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.

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

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 » | Academic medicine, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, Health Insurance, Health Insurance Exchange, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, Nonprofits, Tax, Tax-Exemption, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Year-End $3 Million HIPAA Settlement Pushes 2018 OCR HIPAA Recoveries Over $28 Million; Act Promptly To Strengthen Compliance & Share Ideas For Simplification

February 7, 2019

Health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouse and their business associates (“Covered Entities”) should reconfirm the adequacy of their organization’s Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) compliance in light the U.S Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) February 7, 2019 announcement that OCR reached a 2018 year-end $3 Million Resolution Agreement with California-based Cottage Health that pushed OCR’s already record-setting 2018 enforcement HIPAA recoveries to more than $28.7 million in a year already distinguished by OCR’s record-setting $16 million resolution payment collection from Anthem.

Along with acting to ensure their own organization’s ability to defend their HIPAA compliance, Covered Entities and their leaders also should take advantage of the opportunity to provide input to OCR on opportunities for simplifying and improving OCR’s HIPAA regulations and enforcement by submitting relevant comments by February 12, 2019 in response to a Request for Information published by OCR in December that invites public input.

Learn more de

2018 Cottage Health Resolution Agreement

According to OCR’s February 7, 2019 announcement, Cottage Health agreed in OCR’s final settlement of 2017 to pay OCR $3 million and to adopt a substantial corrective action plan to settle charges of HIPAA violations resulting from OCR’s investigations into two HIPAA Breach notifications Cottage Health filed regarding breaches of unsecured electronic protected health information (ePHI) affecting over 62,500 individuals.

A December 2, 2013 breach notification that the removal of electronic security protections by a Cottage Health contractor rendered ePHI such as patient names, addresses, dates of birth, diagnoses/conditions, lab results and other treatment information of 33,349 individuals on a Cottage Health server accessible for download without a username or password from the internet to anyone outside Cottage Health. In an update to its original report filed on July 2, 2014, Cottage Health increased the number of individuals affected by this breach to 50,917. OCR’s investigation determined that security configuration settings of the Windows operating system permitted access to files containing ePHI without requiring a username and password. As a result, patient names, addresses, dates of birth, diagnoses, conditions, lab results and other treatment information were available to anyone with access to Cottage Health’s server.
A December 1, 2015, that the misconfiguration of a server following an IT response to a troubleshooting ticket, exposed unsecured ePHI including patient names, addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, diagnoses, conditions, and other treatment information of 11,608 individuals over the internet.

Based upon its investigation into the two breach reports, OCR concluded Cottage Health violated HIPAA by failing to conduct an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the ePHI; failed to implement security measures sufficient to reduce risks and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level; failed to perform periodic technical and non-technical evaluations in response to environmental or operational changes affecting the security of ePHI; and failed to obtain a written business associate agreement with a contractor that maintained ePHI on its behalf.

To resolve its exposure to potentially must greater civil monetary sanctions that OCR might seek for such potential violations under HIPAA’s civil monetary sanction rules, Cottage Health entered into December, 2018 Resolution Agreement to pay the $3 million settlement and undertake what OCR characterizes as “a robust corrective action plan to comply with the HIPAA Rules.” Among other things, the corrective action plan requires Cottage Health to:

Conduct an enterprise-wide risk analysis of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI held by Cottage Health (“Risk Analysis”) that OCR views as satisfactory to meet the requirements of 45 CFR 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A);
Develop and implement a risk management plan to address and mitigate any security risks and vulnerabilities identified in the Risk Analysis acceptable to OCR;
Implement a process for regularly evaluating environmental and operational changes that affect the security of Cottage Health’s ePHI;
Develop, maintain, and revise, as necessary, written policies and procedures to comply with the Federal standards that govern the privacy and security of individually identifiable health information under 45 C.F.R. Part 160 and Subparts A, C, and E of Part 164 (the “Privacy Rule” and “Security Rule”).
Distribute to and conduct training on the HIPAA policies and procedures from all existing and new members of the Cottage Health workforce with access to PHI. Additionally, Cottage Health require all workforce members that have access to PHI to certify their receipt of, understanding and commitment to comply with the HIPAA Policies before allowing access to PHI and must deny access to PHI to any workforce member that has not provided the required certification.
Submit to ongoing notification and reporting requirements to keep OCR informed about its compliance efforts.

2018 Record Setting HIPAA Enforcement Year

The final Resolution Agreement negotiated by OCR in 2018, the $3 million Cottage Health Resolution Agreement signed on December 11, 2018 added to an already record-setting year of HIPAA enforcement recoveries by OCR. In addition to recovering the single largest individual HIPAA settlement in history of $16 million with Anthem, Inc. OCR’s recovery of the following HIPAA settlements and fines totaling nearly $28.7 million surpassed its previous 2016 record of $23.5 million by 22 percent.

Date	Name	Amount
Jan. 2018	Filefax, Inc (settlement)	$ 100,000
Jan. 2018	Fresenius Medical Care North America (settlement)	$ 3,500,000
June 2018	MD Anderson (judgment)	$ 4,348,000
Aug. 2018	Boston Medical Center (settlement)	$ 100,000
Sep. 2018	Brigham and Women’s Hospital (settlement)	$ 384,000
Sep. 2018	Massachusetts General Hospital (settlement)	$ 515,000
Sep. 2018	Advanced Care Hospitalists (settlement)	$ 500,000
Oct. 2018	Allergy Associates of Hartford (settlement)	$ 125,000
Oct. 2018	Anthem, Inc (settlement)	$ 16,000,000
Nov. 2018	Pagosa Springs (settlement)	$ 111,400
Dec. 2018	Cottage Health (settlement)	$ 3,000,000
Total (settlements and judgment)		$ 28,683,400

Aside from the previously discussed Cottage Health Resolution Agreement OCR announced on February 7, 2019, these OCR 2018 enforcement recoveries included:

FileFax Resolution Agreement. In January 2018, OCR settled for $100,000 with Filefax, Inc., a medical records maintenance, storage, and delivery services provider. OCR’s investigation found that Filefax impermissibly disclosed protected health information (PHI) by leaving the PHI in an unlocked truck in the Filefax parking lot, or by granting permission to an unauthorized person to remove the PHI from Filefax, and leaving the PHI unsecured outside the Filefax facility.
Fresenius Medical Care North America Resolution Agreement. In January 2018, OCR also settled for $3.5 million with Fresenius Medical Care North America (FMCNA), a provider of products and services for people with chronic kidney failure. FMCNA filed five breach reports for separate incidents occurring between February 23, 2012 and July 18, 2012, implicating the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of five FMCNA owned covered entities. OCR’s investigation revealed that FMCNA failed to conduct an accurate and thorough risk analysis of potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all of its ePHI. Additional potential violations included failure to implement policies and procedures and failure to implement a mechanism to encrypt and decrypt ePHI, when it was reasonable and appropriate to do so under the circumstances.
MD Anderson ALJ Ruling. In June 2018, an HHS Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of OCR and required The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (MD Anderson), a Texas cancer center, to pay $4.3 million in civil money penalties for HIPAA violations. OCR investigated MD Anderson following three separate data breach reports in 2012 and 2013 involving the theft of an unencrypted laptop from the residence of an MD Anderson employee and the loss of two unencrypted universal serial bus (USB) thumb drives containing the unencrypted ePHI of over 33,500 individuals. OCR’s investigation found that MD Anderson had written encryption policies going back to 2006 and that MD Anderson’s own risk analyses had found that the lack of device-level encryption posed a high risk to the security of ePHI. Despite the encryption policies and high risk findings, MD Anderson did not begin to adopt an enterprise-wide solution to encrypt ePHI until 2011, and even then it failed to encrypt its inventory of electronic devices containing ePHI between March 24, 2011 and January 25, 2013. This matter is under appeal with the HHS Departmental Appeals Board.
MMC/BWH/MGH Resolution Agreements. In September 2018, OCR announced that it has reached separate settlements totaling $999,000, with Boston Medical Center (BMC), Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) for compromising the privacy of patients’ PHI by inviting film crews on premises to film an ABC television network documentary series, without first obtaining authorization from patients.
ACH Resolution Agreement. In September 2018, OCR also settled with Advanced Care Hospitalists (ACH), a contractor physician group, for $500,000. ACH filed a breach report confirming that ACH patient information was viewable on a medical billing services’ website. OCR’s investigation revealed that ACH never had a business associate agreement with the individual providing medical billing services to ACH, and failed to adopt any policy requiring business associate agreements until April 2014. Although ACH had been in operation since 2005, it had not conducted a risk analysis or implemented security measures or any other written HIPAA policies or procedures before 2014.
Allergy Associates Resolution Agreement. In October 2018, OCR settled with Allergy Associates, a health care practice that specializes in treating individuals with allergies, for $125,000. In February 2015, a patient of Allergy Associates contacted a local television station to speak about a dispute that had occurred between the patient and an Allergy Associates’ doctor. OCR’s investigation found that the reporter subsequently contacted the doctor for comment and the doctor impermissibly disclosed the patient’s PHI to the reporter.
Anthem Resolution Agreement. In October 2018, Anthem, Inc. also paid $16 million to OCR and agreed to take substantial corrective action to settle potential violations of the HIPAA Rules after a series of cyberattacks led to the largest U.S. health data breach in history. Anthem filed a breach report after discovering cyber-attackers had gained access to their IT system via an undetected continuous and targeted cyberattack for the apparent purpose of extracting data, otherwise known as an advanced persistent threat attack. After filing their breach report, Anthem discovered cyber-attackers had infiltrated their system through spear phishing emails sent to an Anthem subsidiary after at least one employee responded to the malicious email and opened the door to further attacks. OCR’s investigation revealed that between December 2, 2014 and January 27, 2015, the cyber-attackers stole the ePHI of almost 79 million individuals, including names, social security numbers, medical identification numbers, addresses, dates of birth, email addresses, and employment information.
Pegosa Springs Medical Center. In November 2018, Pagosa Springs Medical Center (PSMC), a critical access hospital, paid $111,400 to OCR to resolve potential violations concerning a former PSMC employee that continued to have remote access to PSMC’s web-based scheduling calendar, which contained patients’ ePHI, after separation of employment. OCR’s investigation revealed that PSMC impermissibly disclosed the ePHI of 557 individuals to its former employee and to the web-based scheduling calendar vendor without a business associate agreement in place.

These 2018 Resolution Agreements reaffirm the growing risks that Covered Entities and their business associates run by failing to take adequate steps to prevent and respond to breaches of ePHI and otherwise to maintain their compliance with HIPAA. Covered entities and business associates and their leaders should recognize and respond to these growing risks by reevaluating and strengthening their HIPAA compliance and risk management efforts to minimize the likelihood of violations and enhance their ability to mitigate potential liability that can result from breaches of HIPAA by responding efficiently and effectively.

Other Regulatory & Enforcement Developments

In addition to reaffirming their ongoing compliance with the longstanding requirements of HIPAA and other related federal and state laws, Covered Entities also should use care to carefully monitor and respond to new regulatory and other developments that might create new responsibilities or new opportunities to simplify their HIPAA compliance. In this respect, Covered Entities should take note of the 2018 and ongoing efforts by OCR to develop and publish new rules and other guidance intended to help health care providers and other Covered Entities, patients and caregivers and others understand their rights and responsibilities when dealing with protected health information in relation to patients afflicted with substance abuse and mental illness. Undertaken as part of the Trump Administration’s broader effort to combat opiate and other substance abuse within the United States, OCR in October published a package of guidance on How HIPAA Allows Doctors To Respond To The Opioid Crisis. Covered Entities and others concerned with the management of patients afflicted with substance abuse and mental illness should evaluate this guidance to understand and tailor their practices to respond to OCR’s perspectives of how HIPAA impacts the use, access and disclosure of protected health information as part of these efforts.

Covered Entities and others concerned about HIPAA compliance and interpretation also should carefully monitor and provide appropriate and timely input on developing HIPAA guidance that could impact their operations. In this regard, Covered Entities with ideas about opportunities for improving existing HIPAA guidance are encouraged to submit comments to OCR by February 12, 2019 in response to its Request for Information on improving care coordination and reducing the regulatory burdens of the HIPAA Rules published on December 12, 2018. In that RFI, OCR invites input from the public on how the HIPAA Privacy Rule, could be modified to:

Encourage information-sharing for treatment and care coordination;
Facilitate parental involvement in care;
Address the opioid crisis and serious mental illness;
Account for disclosures of PHI for treatment, payment, and health care operations as required by the HITECH Act;
Change the current requirement for certain providers to make a good faith effort to obtain an acknowledgment of receipt of the Notice of Privacy Practices; and/or
Otherwise simplify or improve the existing HIPAA rules.

As a part of these efforts, Covered Entities and other concerned parties also should anticipate that OCR will be focusing heavily in the upcoming year on the potential HIPAA privacy and security implications of efforts by its sister agency, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (“ONC”), to promote greater interoperability of electronic medical records discussed in ONC’s recent 2018 Report to Congress: Annual Update on the Adoption of a Nationwide System for the Electronic Use and Exchange of Health Information (“Report”).

Under the 21st Century Cures Act, Congress gave ONC authority to enhance innovation, scientific discovery, and expand the access and use of health information through provisions related to:

The development and use of upgraded health IT capabilities;
Transparent expectations for data sharing, including through open application programming interfaces (APIs); and
Improvement of the health IT end-user experience, including by reducing administrative burden.

These priorities seek to increase nationwide interoperability of health information and reduce clinician burden. The Report says increases in the adoption of health IT means most Americans receiving health care services now have their health data recorded electronically. However, this information is not always accessible across systems and by all end users—such as patients, health care providers, and payers—in the market in productive ways. While the Report states ONC intends to move forward to promote efforts to help ensure that electronic health information can be shared safely and securely where appropriate to improve the health and care of all Americans, these activities inherently will raise many HIPAA concerns and challenges. Covered Entities and others concerned with these activities will want to carefully monitor the concurrent activities of OCR and ONC as these efforts progress, both to help tailor their planning and compliance efforts to respond to the anticipated demand for greater interoperability as required by ONC and to help shape these rules by providing timely input as appropriate in response to these developments.

About the Author

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 been continuously involved the design, regulation, administration and defense of managed care and other health and employee benefit, health care, human resources and other staffing and workforce arrangements, contracts, systems, and processes. As a continuous component of this work, Ms. Stamer has worked closely with these and other clients on the design, development, administration, defense, and breach and data recovery of health care, workforce, insurance and financial services, trade secret and other information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations throughout her career.

Scribe of the ABA JCEB annual Office of Civil Rights agency meeting, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive work and leadership on leading edge health care and benefit policy and operational issues.

Ms. Stamer’s clients include 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, health care accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; employers and other workforce management organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers and their management; managed care organizations, insurers, third-party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations; group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; claims, billing and other health care and insurance technology and data service organizations; other health, employee benefit, insurance and financial services product and solutions consultants, developers and vendors; and other health, employee benefit, 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. Her public policy and regulatory affairs experience encompasses advising and representing domestic and multinational private sector health, insurance, employee benefit, employer, staffing and other outsourced service providers, and other clients in dealings with Congress, state legislatures, and federal, state and local regulators and government entities, as well as providing advice and input to U.S. and foreign government leaders on these and other policy concerns.

Ms. Stamer also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending plan sponsors, administrators, insurance and managed care organizations, 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. Scribe for the ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with HHS OCR, she also has worked extensively on health and health benefit coding, billing and claims, meaningful use and EMR, billing and reimbursement, quality measurement and reimbursement, HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical, workforce, consumer financial and other data confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security, data breach and mitigation, and other information privacy and data security 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 popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about contracting, credentialing and quality assurance, compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, privacy and data security, and other risk management and operational matters. Author of works on Payer and Provider Contracting and many other managed care concerns, Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns.

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; an 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 (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 here such as:

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.

©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, ADA, ASC, Consumer Driven Health Care, Controlled Substances, Corporate Compliance, Cyber crime, data breach, Direct Primary Care, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, ERISA, Evidence Based Medicine, FACTA, FDA, Federal Health Center, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, Health Insurance, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HHS, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Human Subjects Research, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Joint Commission, Laws, legal epidemiology, managed care, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, medical devices, Medical Licensure, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Mental Health, Mental Heatlh, NIOSH, NIST, OCR, Opiates, Outpatient, participating provider, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Prospective Payment, Provider contracting, public health, Public Policy, quality reporting, quality repoting, Reimbursement, research, Skilled Nursing Facility, Substance Abuse, Technology, Telemedicine, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Care, Wellness | Tagged: Health Care, Health IT, Medicare, ONC, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Total Nurse Staffing

CMS Tightening LTC Assessments

Temporary Limited Exceptions

Implementation Deadlines

CMS Nursing Home Staffing Campaign

Begin Preparing Now

For Additional Information

About the Author

About Solutions Laws Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE

Share this:

For More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Laws Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Share this:

Duty To Guard Against Malware

Green Ridge Ransomeware Breach

First Malware Settlement

Warning To All Covered Entities

For More Informational

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Share this:

LDTs Defined

FDA Steps Up LDT Oversight

For More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Share this:

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Share this:

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Share this:

SJMC Settlement

For More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Share this:

For More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Share this:

For More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Share this:

For More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Share this:

Proposed HHS Grants Rule Overview

For More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Share this:

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Share this:

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Share this:

Criminal Convictions

Criminal and Civil Recoveries

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Share this: