Health Care Provider |

Renal Dialysis Faculties Encouraged to Review Current Protocols for Administering Erthropoiesis-Stimulating Agents

November 6, 2009

Renal Dialysis Facilities are encouraged to review and consider the advisability for further tightening of their current practices in light of the Renal Dialysis Facilities’ Dosage Protocols for Administering Erthropoiesis-Stimulating Agents, (OEI-03-09-00010), posted by the OIG this week.

According to the report, OIG conducted the report in response to a request from Chairman Fortney Pete Stark of the Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives in response to reported concerns by some members of Congress that dialysis facilities’ protocols for administering ESAs may not be consistent with the current boxed warning for these drugs.

OIG found that 93 percent of Medicare-certified dialysis facilities had protocols in place for administering erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA), but only 56 percent of the facilities’ protocols explicitly state a target hemoglobin range. OIG could not determine whether the remaining 44 percent of protocols were consistent with the boxed warning and Medicare’s benefit policy because they do not specify a target hemoglobin range. Of the protocols that state a target hemoglobin range, 94 percent are consistent with the boxed warning on FDA-approved labeling and the Medicare benefit policy for ESAs.

While noting they are not required to do so, OIG commented that dialysis facilities may develop their own protocols for administering ESAs to patients with chronic kidney failure. The protocols may define target hemoglobin levels and dosage instructions for administering ESAs. According to the boxed warning on ESAs’ labels, maintaining higher rather than lower hemoglobin levels in a patient with chronic kidney failure can adversely affect the patient’s health and increase the risk of death. Specifically, the boxed warning states that providers should administer ESAs “to achieve and maintain hemoglobin levels within the range of 10 to 12 g/dL.” The Medicare benefit policy for ESAs reflects the target hemoglobin range specified in the boxed warning. A separate Medicare policy for monitoring ESA payments states that CMS will reduce reported dosages upon which ESA claims are paid when patients’ hemoglobin levels exceed 13g/dL.

OIG reported its review of protocols to determine whether they are consistent with selected guidelines on ESAs’ labels revealed that some protocols contain information that differs from labeling guidelines regarding starting doses, dose adjustments, and withholding ESA doses. OIG also found that all of the protocols that include a target hemoglobin range or level at which to increase ESA doses conform with CMS’s monitoring policy.

OIG concluded that although its review does not address the amount of ESAs that providers actually administer to patients at their dialysis facilities, it does demonstrate that just over half of facilities’ protocols for administering ESAs are consistent with the boxed warning and Medicare’s benefit policy for ESAs. However, since almost half of the dialysis facilities either did not have protocols or did not specify a target hemoglobin range in their protocols, OIG reported it could not determine whether these facilities’ policies target the hemoglobin range outlined in the boxed warning that FDA requires on ESA labels.

For More Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you need assistance with these or other health care public policy, regulatory, compliance, risk management, workforce and other staffing, transactional or operational concerns, please contact the author of this update, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Health Practice Group Chair, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, at (214) 270‑2402, cstamer@cttlegal.com. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising clients and writes and speaks extensively on these and other health industry and other reimbursement, operations, internal controls and risk management matters. You can review other recent health care and related resources and additional information about the health industry and other experience of Ms. Stamer here.

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here, by subscribing to receive these updates in blog form here and/or by participating in the SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group on LinkedIn. To unsubscribe, e-mail here.

Leave a Comment » | Evidence Based Medicine, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare, OIG, Reimbursement, Stark | Tagged: Dialysis, Health Care, HHS, Kidney, OCR, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professional Association Meets Nov. 10 At Medical City

November 6, 2009

Note New Meeting Time And Change Of Room Location!!!

November 10, 2009 Meeting Announcement & Agenda

3:00 – 5:00 p.m.

Medical City Hospital Cafetorium in Building A next to the Cafeteria

7777 Forrest Lane, Dallas, Texas

The North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professional Association invites members and other interested health industry compliance professionals to its November 10, 2009 meeting to be held from 3:00 – 5:00 p.m. in the Cafetorium located in Building A next to the cafeteria at Medical City, 7777 Forrest Lane, Dallas, Texas. Please note the adjusted time and room location for this meeting!

Topics to be discussed include:

An update on modifications/upgrades in Group One’s Compliance Check and the ability to use the Data Initiative to pull RAC specific indicators and a dashboard in development for Compliance Officer use from Kristin Jenkins of the Dallas/Hospital Council; and
An update on “Emerging Issues & Trends in Medical Practice Valuations” by Don Barbo, Health Care Valuation Services Director, MidAmerica, Deloitte Financial Advisory Services, LLP.

Complementary participation in the meeting is open to all NTHCPA members and other interested health care compliance professionals. Please feel free to share this invitation with others who may be interested.

NTHCPA thanks Texas Health Resources for hosting the October 13, 2009 Meeting and Medical City for hosting the November 10, 2009 meeting.

If you are interested in hosting one of the upcoming meetings, wish to suggest topics or speakers, or wish to obtain or share other information, please contact NTHCPA Vice-President Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (214) 270-2402 or by e-mail at cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.

We look forward to seeing you at the meeting!

About the NTHCPA

NTHCPA exists to champion ethical practice and compliance standards and to provide the necessary resources for ethics and compliance Professionals and others in North Texas who share these principles.

The vision of NTHCPA is to be a pre-eminent compliance and ethics group promoting lasting success and integrity of organizations within North Texas.

To register or update your registration or to receive notice of future meetings, e-mail here.

This communication may be considered a marketing communication for certain purposes. If you wish to update your e-mail for purposes of or would prefer not to receive future e-mail concerning meetings or other activities of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association or other marketing and promotional mailings from it, please send an email with the word “unsubscribe” in its subject heading here.

Leave a Comment » | Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider | Tagged: Health Care, Health Care Compliance | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

2010 Medicare Hospital (Part A) Premiums, Inpatient Deductibles & Copays Announced

October 27, 2009

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently announced that the Medicare Hospital Insurance (Part A) premium for uninsured enrollees in calendar year (CY) 2010 for the 12-month period beginning January 1, 2010 will be $461. This premium is paid by enrollees age 65 and over who are not otherwise eligible for benefits under Medicare Part A (hereafter known as the “uninsured aged”) and by certain disabled individuals who have exhausted other entitlement. In some instances, certain of these individuals may qualify for a reduced premium of $254. You can read more about the uninsured enrollee premium here.

Concurrently, CMS also announced that the inpatient hospital deductible and the hospital and extended care services coinsurance amounts for services furnished in calendar year (CY) 2010 under Medicare’s Hospital Insurance Program (Medicare Part A). For CY 2010, these amounts are as follows:

The inpatient hospital deductible will be $1,100.
The daily coinsurance amounts for CY 2010 will be:

ü $275 for the 61st through 90th day of hospitalization in a benefit period;

ü 550 for lifetime reserve days; and

ü 137.50 for the 21st through 100th day of extended care services in a skilled nursing facility in a benefit period.

The Social Security Act (the Act) requires the subtraction of an inpatient hospital deductible and certain coinsurance amounts from the amount otherwise payable under Medicare Part A. The coinsurance and deductible amounts are calculated based on a statutory formula. You can review the CMS announcement of these copayment and deductible amounts here.

Leave a Comment » | Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Medicare | Tagged: Copayments, Deductible, Hospital, Medicare, Medicare Part A, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CMS Renews Community Health Accreditation Program Authority To Accredit Hospices

October 24, 2009

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will continue to recognize the Community Health Accreditation Program (CHAP) as a national accreditation program for hospices seeking to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs for the period from November 20, 2009 though November 20, 2012. CMS announced its decision to conditionally approve the continuation of CHAP’s accreditation status with a 180-day probationary period on October 23, 2009 here.

For More Information

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here and/or by participating in the SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group on LinkedIn. To unsubscribe, e-mail here.

Leave a Comment » | Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Senate Finance Committee Releases Statutory Language of America’s Healthy Future Act To Present To Full Senate

October 22, 2009

Americans finally have a chance to read the actual statutory language of the painfully negotiated package of proposed health care reforms that the Senate Finance Committee proposes for adoption. The Senate Finance Committee leadership finally finished drafting has posted the 1506 page long text of the proposed statutory language of the health care reform provisions of the “America’s Healthy Future Act” on its website here.

When the Senate Finance Committee vote passing the America’s Health Future Act, members of the Senate Finance Committee had not yet had the opportunity to review the actual statutory language to be proposed to implement the package of heatlh care reforms painfully hashed out in their committee. As the actual statutory language had not been completed at the time a majority of the Democrats and one Republican Senator serving on the Senate Finance Committee voted to send the legislation to the the full Senate, the vote actually was taken based on a narative description of the intended reforms set forth in a revised draft of the “Chairman’s Mark” of the legislation. Since that time Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and other key Democrat Senators on the Senate Finance Committee have worked behind closed doors to prepare the actual statutory language to be presented to the full Senate.

As proposed, the America’s Healthy Future Act would require sweeping changes to the U.S. health care systems that if adopted will radically impact the roles and responsibilities of every patient, health care provider, health care payor, employer and other American. Because of the potential implications on the way health care is financed, delivered and administered and the projections that the legislation will cost approximately $1 Trillion, all parties are urged to carefully review the complex and lengthy legislation to gain an understanding of the legislation and to act quickly to make any concerns known to elected leaders in Congress.

For More Information

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here and/or by participating in the SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group on LinkedIn. To unsubscribe, e-mail here.

Leave a Comment » | America's Healthy Futures Act, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Consumer Driven Health Care, Doctor, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, Hospital, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, OIG, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professional Association Meets October 13

October 12, 2009

October 13, 2009 Meeting Invitation/Reminder & Updated Meeting Agenda

North Texas Health Care Compliance Professional Association’s invites you to its October 13, 2009 Meeting from 2:00 – 4:00 p.m. at the Texas Health Resources Pavilion.

The first portion of the program will feature a discussion by Kristin Jenkins from DFW Hospital Council of:

Modifications/upgrades in Group One’s Compliance Check processes; and
The ability to use the Data Initiative to pull RAC specific indicators and a dashboard in development for Compliance Officer use.

The second portion of the program will be a participatory Health Care Compliance Roundtable Discussion of Hot Topics moderated by the Erma E. Lee, JPS Health Network District Compliance Officer and NTPCA President. Topics to be discussed include:

HIPAA Data Breach;
Red Flag & Other Evolving Privacy & Data Security Obligations & Risks;
Office of Civil Rights Health Industry Disability & Other Civil Rights Enforcement;
Tax-Exemption Issues Including Proposed Form 990 and Exemption Reforms In Health Care Reform;
Health Care Fraud Enforcement; and
Other Hot Developments

NTHCPA invites interested persons to come catch up on these and other new developments and exchange thoughts and insights with other Health Care Compliance Professionals on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 from 2:00 – 4:00 p.m. in Classroom B of the Texas Health Resources Pavilion located at 612 E. Lamar Blvd., Arlington, TX. NTHCPA thanks Texas Health Resources for hosting this month’s meeting. For additional information, please contact NTHCPA Vice-President Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (214) 270-2402 or by e-mail at cstamer@solutionslawyer.net. NTHCPA looks forward to seeing you there! About the NTHCPA NTHCPA exists to champion ethical practice and compliance standards and to provide the necessary resources for ethics and compliance Professionals and others in North Texas who share these principles. The vision of NTHCPA is to be a pre-eminent compliance and ethics group promoting lasting success and integrity of organizations within North Texas. To register or update your registration or to receive notice of future meetings, e-mail here . This communication may be considered a marketing communication for certain purposes. If you wish to update your e-mail for purposes of or would prefer not to receive future e-mail concerning meetings or other activities of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association or other marketing and promotional mailings from it, please send an email with the word “unsubscribe” in its subject heading to here.

Leave a Comment » | Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professional Association To Meet At Texas Health Resources On October 13

September 29, 2009

NORTH TEXAS HEALTHCARE COMPLIANCE PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION

October 13, 2009 Meeting Reminder

2:00 – 4:00 p.m. at the Texas Health Resources Pavilion

North Texas Health Care Compliance Professional Association’s October 13, 2009 Meeting will feature a participatory Health Care Compliance Roundtable Discussion of Hot Topics moderated by the Erma E. Lee, JPS Health Network District Compliance Officer and NTPCA President on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 from 2:00 – 4:00 p.m at the Texas Health Resources Pavilion located at 612 E. Lamar Blvd., Arlington, TX. Topics to be discussed include:

HIPAA Data Breach, Red Flag & Other Evolving Privacy & Data Security Obligations & Risks
Office of Civil Rights Health Industry Disability & Other Civil Rights Enforcement
Tax-Exemption Issues Including Proposed Form 990 and Exemption Reforms In Health Care Reform
Health Care Fraud Enforcement
Other Hot Developments

Come catch up on these and other new developments and exchange thoughts and insights with other Health Care Compliance Professionals!

NTHCPA thanks Texas Health Resources for hosting this month’s meeting.

For additional information, please contact NTHCPA Vice-President Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (214) 270-2402 or by e-mail at cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.

We look forward to seeing you there!

About the NTHCPA

The vision of NTHCPA is to be a pre-eminent compliance and ethics group promoting lasting success and integrity of organizations within North Texas.

To register or update your registration or to receive notice of future meetings, e-mail here .

Leave a Comment » | Anti-KickBack, ARRA, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Doctor, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health IT, Health Policy, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Medicaid, Medicare, OCR, OIG, Physician, Privacy, Reimbursement, Tax, Tax-Exemption, Technology | Tagged: Data Security, Doctor, Events, false claims act, Form 990, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Discrimination, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Policy, Health Care Reform, Health Care Reimbursement, Health Policy, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Physician, Red Flag Rules, Reimbursement, Tax-Exemption | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HIT Committee To Meet October 14 In Washington, D.C.

September 29, 2009

The next meeting of the HIT Standards Committee of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) will be held on October 14, 2009, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m./Eastern Time at the Omni Shoreham Hotel, 2500 Calvert Street, NW., Washington, DC. The hotel telephone number is 202-234-0700. Interested members of the public are invited to attend.

Created under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the HIT Standards Committee is charged with making recommendations to the Office of National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) on standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria for the electronic exchange and use of health information consistent with the implementation of the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan, and in accordance with policies developed by the HIT Policy Committee. Even as Congress debates further reforms, the activities of the HIT Committee and other components of the ONC are key actors in the continuing efforts of the Obama Administration to promote health care efficiency by reengineering health care technology.

During a previous meeting on August 20, 2009, the HIT Committee finalized certain recommendations concerning meaningful use of electronic medical records, clinical quality, and privacy and security of protected health information, which are available for review here.

According to the ONC announcement regarding the upcoming meeting in today’s (September 29, 2009) Federal Register available here, the Committee plans during the meeting to:

Discuss reports from its Clinical Operations, Clinical Quality, and Privacy and Security Workgroups
Take testimony from invited experts in the field of security as it relates to health information technology

Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before October 6, 2009. Oral comments from the public will be scheduled between approximately 2:30 p.m. to 3 p.m. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of speakers requesting to comment is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, ONC will take written comments after the meeting until close of business.

ONC hopes to make background material available to the public at least two (2) business days prior to the meeting. However, if ONC is unable to post the background material on its Web site before the meeting, it will make that material publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and post the background material on ONC’s web site after the meeting here.

The designated person to contact for additional information is Jonathan Ishee, Office of the National Coordinator, HHS, 200 Independence Ave, SW., Room 729-G, Washington, DC 20201, 202-205-8493, Fax: 202-690-6079, e-mail: jonathan.ishee@hhs.gov.

If you need assistance preparing or presenting comments to the HIT Standards Committee or with monitoring or responding to other health care IT, privacy and data security, regulatory, operational, public policy or other health care concerns, please contact the author of this update, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Health Practice Chair and Partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (214) 270-2402 or via e-mail at CStamer@CTTLegal.com.

Other Recent Developments

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

For More Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you need assistance with auditing or defending these or other health care compliance, risk management, transaction or operation concerns, please contact the author of this update, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Health Practice Group Chair, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, at (214) 270‑2402, cstamer@cttlegal.com, Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising clients and writes and speaks extensively on these and other health industry and other reimbursement, operations, internal controls and risk management matters.

You can review other recent health care and internal controls resources and additional information about the health industry and other experience of Ms. Stamer here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here, registering to receive updates in blog form here or e-mailing this information to support@solutionslawyer.net.

Leave a Comment » | ARRA, Doctor, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, Laws, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Outcomes Data, Physician, Technology | Tagged: ARRA, Health Care, Health Care Policy, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, Health Care Reimbursement, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plans, Health Policy, Health Technology, HHS, HIPAA, Hospital, Identity Theft, Medicare, Medicare Part B, PBMs, Privacy, Public Policy, Reimbursement, Technology | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Baucus Health Care Reform Proposal Calls For Significant Tightening In Tax-Exemption Rules

September 22, 2009

Senate Finance Set To Begin Markup Sessions Today – Repeal of Rebuttable Presumption Rule In Reasonable Compensation Rules, Other Tightening of Requirements Threatened

With Senate Finance Committee meetings to mark up Chairman Max Baucus’ health care reform proposal as outlined in his 220-page “Chairman’s Mark of America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009” (the “Baucus Proposal”) scheduled to begin today (September 22, 2009), tax-exempt health care and other non-profit organizations should evaluate carefully proposed amendments that could impact their tax-exempt status or related obligations. The proposed amendments have serious implications for non-profits within and beyond the health care industry.

Markup Scheduled To Begin Tuesday

The Senate Committee on Finance began meeting today (September 22, 2009) to negotiate how to convert into proposed legislation the Baucus Proposal introduced by Committee Chairman Max Baucus on September 16, 2009, the text of which may be reviewed here.

Since no text of the proposed legislation itself has been released yet, it is impossible to fully evaluate the specific nature and implications of the Baucus Proposal. While this week’s planned Senate Finance Committee mark up will further clarify these matters, a review of the description of changes proposed by Chairman Baucus in the Baucus Proposals nevertheless provides significant insight of what health care organizations can expect to be discussed and, in all likelihood incorporated into the draft legislation ultimately proposed in some form. Accordingly, tax-exempt health care organizations should carefully evaluate and act promptly to share their input with members of the Senate Finance Committee and other members of Congress about a series of proposed amendments that would impact their tax-treatment and other responsibilities.

All Tax-Exempts Should Monitor Proposals To Shift Burden Of Proof On Compensation Reasonability & Expanded IRS Powers

Among a multitude of proposed tax amendments, tax-exempt organizations inside and outside the health care industry will want to keep a a close eye on discussions and proposals to amend the Baucus Proposal to further modify the tax-exemption requirements for tax-exempt hospitals and other tax-exempt organizations. Late last week, Ranking Member Senator Chuck Grassley submitted a proposal to amend the Baucus Proposal to further tighten tax-exemption requirements in two material respects likely to generally concern tax-exempt organizations:

For the stated purpose of avoiding wasteful legal challenges to the management and governance questions on the revised Form 990, to specifically grant statutory authority to the Internal Revenue Service to ask management and governance questions on the Form 990; and
To make it easier for the Internal Revenue Service to challenge as unreasonable compensation payments made by tax-exempt entities by shifting the burden to the taxpayer of proving the reasonability of compensation and removing the burden currently borne by the Internal Revenue Service of going forward with the evidence on comparability. This would be accomplished by overruling the rebuttable presumption of reasonableness currently set forth in Treasury Regulation § 53.4958-6 of the intermediate sanctions rules and replacing it with a requirement that public charities due diligence demonstrate that their compensation payments meet the 3 current elements of the presumption:
- Review by an authorized body made of members without a conflict of interest
- Use of appropriate data as to comparability and
- Adequate and contemporaneous documentation. This amendment is expected to raise revenue, according to the summary.

Given the potential implications of these proposed amendments, tax-exempt health care and other organizations should keep a close eye on proposed tax provisions of the Baucus Proposal and other related proposals.

Proposal To Tighten Other Tax-Exemption & Reporting Requirements For Tax-Exempt Hospitals

While the Senate Finance Committee as of yet has not released text of the proposed legislation itself, a review of the description of changes proposed by Chairman Baucus in the Baucus Proposals and other subsequently proposed amendments to the Baucus Proposal reveal other plans to materially change the tax-exemption qualification, governance and reporting requirements for tax-exempt hospitals beyond the proposal to create CO-OPs. Among other things, the Baucus Proposal calls for the Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(3) and its related provisions to be amended to require tax-exempt hospitals:

To conduct or participate in and share with the public a community-needs analysis with input from a broad cross section of the community at least once every 3 years and thereafter to report on its implementation, including explaining where applicable why identified needs were unaddressed. These additional requirements would supplement rather than replace existing community benefit standards already generally applicable to charitable entities
To provide non-discriminatory emergency care
To have, implement and widely disseminate a written financial assistance policy defining among other things:
- The rules for determining who qualifies for financial assistance
- How the hospital determines amounts to be billed to patients in manner that provides for patient discounts to be based on Medicare rates, “best” commercial rates or other approved statutory measures rather than “chargemaster rates”
- Require hospital to notify patients of the financial assistance policy on admission, on bills and in telephone calls of its financial assistance policy before initiating various collection actions or reporting the account to a credit rating agency
To make its audited financial statements (and where applicable, the consolidated financial report of any entity of which it is a part) available widely
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to conduct a SEC-type review of each 501(c)(3) hospital’s community benefit activities at least once every three years based on data reported on Schedule H of the Form 990
The IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to report annually to Congress on community benefit activities of non-governmental tax-exempt hospitals, charity care, bad debt, and unreimbursed costs of government programs (means-tested and non-means-tested) incurred by tax-exempt, taxable, and governmental hospitals.

CO-Ops As Health Coverage Alternative

Much more widely discussed is the Chairman’s CO-OP proposal. The Baucus Proposal calls for the creation of a new vehicle to provide an alternative source of health care coverage called “CO-Ops.” As contemplated by the Baucus Proposal, CO-Ops would be associations controlled by a beneficiary board unrelated to existing organizations providing health insurance as of July 16, 2009. Subject to their meeting non-inurement and other common existing requirements for charitable status as well as other conditions, CO-Ops would be able to apply for tax-exempt status as well as federal funding.

New Taxes and Fees On Insurers & Others

The Baucus Proposal proposes to finance its health care reforms through a variety of mechanisms including, excise taxes and penalties on employers and individuals that fail to purchase the government specified health care package, taxes on premiums paid for health insurance coverage in excess of certain specified annual limits, the imposition of certain premium taxes and “sector fees” on healthcare insurers (with some exceptions possible under certain circumstances for certain 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) HMOs not providing commercial-type insurance within the meaning of Section 501(m)).

Other Baucus Proposal Highlights

In its current summary form, the 220-page Baucus Proposal includes a host of other sweeping reforms, which are certain to be further expanded and refined during this week’s scheduled Senate Finance Committee markup session. Many of these other proposed reforms were highlighted in an overview of the Baucus Proposal published here. You can join the discussion of these and other proposed health care forms and exchange updates and other resources about health care reform and related concerns by registering to participate in the Coalition For Responsible Health Care Policy Group on Linkedin.

Other Recent Developments

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

For More Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you need assistance with health care compliance, risk management, reimbursement, staffing, credentialing, transactional, operational or public policy concerns, please contact the author of this update, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Health Practice Group Chair, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, at (214) 270‑2402, cstamer@cttlegal.com or your other favorite Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Partner. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising clients and writes and speaks extensively on these and other health industry and related matters.

You can review other recent health care and internal controls resources and additional information about the health industry and other experience of Ms. Stamer here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here, by e-mailing this information to support@cttlegal.com or by participating in the SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group on LinkedIn.

Leave a Comment » | America's Healthy Futures Act, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance Exchange, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Physician, Reimbursement, Tax, Tax-Exemption | Tagged: Health Care, Health Care Policy, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reimbursement, Health Policy, Hospital, Medicare, Nonprofits, Physician, Physicians, Prescription Drugs, Public Policy, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Baucus’ America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 Calls For Significant Tightening of Tax Exemption Rules

September 21, 2009

Senate Finance Set To Begin Markup Session Proposal September 22 – Repeal of Rebuttable Presumption Rule In Reasonable Compensation Rules, Other Tightening of Requirements Threatened

With Senate Finance Committee meetings to mark up Chairman Max Baucus’ health care reform proposal as outlined in his 220-page “Chairman’s Mark of America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009” (the “Baucus Proposal”) scheduled to begin tomorrow (September 22, 2009), tax-exempt health care and other non-profit organizations should evaluate carefully proposed amendments that could impact their tax-exempt status or related obligations in addition to the widely-discussed proposal to create “Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans (CO-OPs).

Markup Scheduled To Begin Tuesday

The Senate Committee on Finance plans on Tuesday, September 22, 2009 to hash out how to convert into proposed legislation the health care reform proposal outlined in the “Chairman’s Mark America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009” introduced by Committee Chairman Max Baucus on September 16, 2009, the text of which may be reviewed here.

Since no text of the proposed legislation itself has been released yet, it is impossible to fully evaluate the specific nature and implications of the Baucus Proposal. While this week’s planned Senate Finance Committee mark up will further clarify these matters, a review of the description of changes proposed by Chairman Baucus in the Baucus Proposals nevertheless provides significant insight of what health care organizations can expect to be discussed and, in all likelihood incorporated into the draft legislation ultimately proposed. Accordingly, tax-exempt health care organizations should carefully evaluate and act promptly to share their input with members of the Senate Finance Committee and other members of Congress about a series of proposed amendments that would impact their tax-treatment and other responsibilities.

Proposal To Tighten Tax-Exemption & Reporting

Requirements For Tax-Exempt Hospitals

While the Senate Finance Committee as of yet has not released text of the proposed legislation itself, a review of the description of changes proposed by Chairman Baucus in the Baucus Proposals and other subsequently proposed amendments to the Baucus Proposal reveal plans to materially change the tax-exemption qualification, governance and reporting requirements for tax-exempt hospitals beyond the proposal to create CO-OPs. Among other things, the Baucus Proposal calls for the Internal Revenue Code § 50!(c)(3) and its related provisions to be amended to require:

The hospital to conduct or participate in and share with the public a community-needs analysis with input from a broad cross section of the community at least once every 3 years and thereafter to report on its implementation, including explaining where applicable why identified needs were unaddressed. These additional requirements would supplement rather than replace existing community benefit standards already generally applicable to charitable entities
The hospital to provide non-discriminatory emergency care
The hospital to have, implement and widely disseminate a written financial assistance policy defining among other things:
- The rules for determining who qualifies for financial assistance
- How the hospital determines amounts to be billed to patients in manner that provides for patient discounts to be based on Medicare rates, “best” commercial rates or other approved statutory measures rather than “chargemaster rates”
- Require hospital to notify patients of the financial assistance policy on admission, on bills and in telephone calls of its financial assistance policy before initiating various collection actions or reporting the account to a credit rating agency
The hospital make its audited financial statements (and where applicable, the consolidated financial report of any entity of which it is a part) available widely
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to conduct a SEC-type review of each 501(c)(3) hospital’s community benefit activities at least once every three years based on data reported on Schedule H of the Form 990
The IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to report annually to Congress on community benefit activities of non-governmental tax-exempt hospitals, charity care, bad debt, and unreimbursed costs of government programs (means-tested and non-means-tested) incurred by tax-exempt, taxable, and governmental hospitals.

In addition to the proposed amendments included in the Baucus Proposal as originally introduced, health care organizations also will need a close eye on discussions and proposals to amend the Baucus Proposal to further modify the tax-exemption requirements for tax-exempt hospitals and other health care organizations. For instance, late last week, Ranking Member Senator Chuck Grassley submitted a proposal to amend the Baucus Proposal to further tighten requirements for tax-exempt health care organizations:

For the stated purpose of avoiding wasteful legal challenges to the management and governance questions on the revised Form 990, to specifically grant statutory authority to the Internal Revenue Service to ask management and governance questions on the Form 990; and
To make it easier for the Internal Revenue Service to challenge as unreasonable compensation payments made by tax-exempt entities by shifting the burden to the taxpayer of proving the reasonability of compensation and removing the burden currently borne by the Internal Revenue Service of going forward with the evidence on comparability. This would be accomplished by overruling the rebuttable presumption of reasonableness currently set forth in Treasury Regulation § 53.4958-6 of the intermediate sanctions rules and replacing it with a requirement that public charities due diligence demonstrate that their compensation payments meet the 3 current elements of the presumption:
- Review by an authorized body made of members without a conflict of interest
- Use of appropriate data as to comparability and
- Adequate and contemporaneous documentation. This amendment is expected to raise revenue, according to the summary.

With these provisions already targeting their tax-exempt status, tax-exempt hospitals and other non-profits and others likely to surface as the legislative discussion proceeds, tax-exempt health care and other organizations should keep a close eye on proposed tax provisions of the Baucus Proposal and other related proposals.

CO-Ops As Health Coverage Alternative

New Taxes and Fees On Insurers & Others

Other Baucus Proposal Highlights

Other Recent Developments

For More Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you need assistance with these or other health care public policy, regulatory, compliance, risk management, workforce and other staffing, transactional or operational concerns, please contact the author of this update, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Health Practice Group Chair, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, at (214) 270‑2402, cstamer@cttlegal.com, Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising clients and writes and speaks extensively on these and other health industry and other reimbursement, operations, internal controls and risk management matters.

Ms. Stamer has extensive experience in these and other health industry related representation. You can review other recent health care and related resources and additional information about the health industry and other experience of Ms. Stamer here.

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here, or e-mailing this information to cstamer@cttlegal.com, and/or by participating in the SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group on LinkedIn.

Leave a Comment » | Corporate Compliance, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance Exchange, Health Plan, Health Plans, Hospital, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Tax-Exemption | Tagged: America's Healthy Future Act, Doctor, Health Care, Health Care Policy, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, Health Care Reimbursement, Health Insurance, Hospital, Medicare, Nonprofits, Public Policy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CMS Proposes New Prospective Payment System For Renal Dialysis Facilities

September 15, 2009

November 16, 2009 is the deadline to comment on a new prospective payment system (PPS) for facilities that provide dialysis services to Medicare beneficiaries who have end-stage renal disease (ESRD) proposed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) today (9/15/09). Interested persons can review the proposed rule here.

Currently, ESRD is the only category for Medicare eligibility that is based on a specific diagnosis, without regard to the age of the patient. Patients diagnosed with ESRD must rely on dialysis or receive a kidney transplant for survival. ESRD services are furnished on an outpatient basis in independent or hospital-based dialysis facilities. Currently, Medicare pays for certain dialysis services under a partial bundled rate, referred to as the composite rate. Payments for these composite rate services represent about 60 percent of total Medicare payments to ESRD facilities. The remainder of Medicare spending for dialysis services is for separately billed items such as drugs, but may also include laboratory services, supplies and blood products.

Today’s notice proposes three quality measures that CMS plans to use for its quality incentive program (QIP) and lays out a conceptual model for public comment.

Quality Improvement Measures

The ESRD PPS proposed rule proposes the following specific measures that will apply to the initial performance period of the Quality Incentive Program:

Hemodialysis Adequacy: Achieved urea reduction ratio (URR) of 65 percent or more;
Anemia Management: Controlled anemia, as shown in two measures:
- The percentage of patients at a facility whose hemoglobin levels were less than 10 grams per deciliter (g/dL), and
- The percentage of patients at a facility whose hemoglobin levels were greater than 12 g/dL.

CMS reports the proposed measures were chosen because dialysis facilities have used them since 2001. These measures are currently collected from Medicare dialysis facility claims so there is no need for separate reporting. Finally, CMS already has data on these measures which it can use to develop and test models for the operation of the QIP.

As required by law, CMS plans to establish performance standards for each of the measures and facilities would be scored based on their adherence to the measures. Providers and facilities that do not meet or exceed the total performance score during a performance period would see up to a two percent reduction from their payment rates in the succeeding year.

CMS will accept comments on this conceptual QIP model in the ESRD PPS proposed rule through November and will is

The ESRD PPS proposed rule proposes the following specific measures that will apply to the initial performance period of the Quality Incentive Program:

Hemodialysis Adequacy: Achieved urea reduction ratio (URR) of 65 percent or more;
Anemia Management: Controlled anemia, as shown in two measures:
- The percentage of patients at a facility whose hemoglobin levels were less than 10 grams per deciliter (g/dL), and
- The percentage of patients at a facility whose hemoglobin levels were greater than 12 g/dL.

Proposed PPS Model

The proposed PPS would provide a single bundled payment to dialysis facilities that would cover the items and services used in providing outpatient such services, including the dialysis treatment, prescription drugs, and clinical laboratory tests.

Under the proposed rule, CMS would establish a base bundled payment rate of $198.64 for all of the services related to a dialysis session, including the services in the current composite rate as well as items, including oral drugs that are billed separately. CMS reports the proposed base rate was derived from 2007 claims data for both composite rate and separately billable services and updated to reflect projected 2011 prices. CMS would adjust this base rate for case mix factors such as the patient’s age, gender, body size, and time on dialysis. A special case-mix adjustment would apply to pediatric patients. Additional adjustments to the payment rate would be made for specific conditions, or co-morbidities that have a significant impact on a course of treatment. By accounting for more characteristics of patients, the new PPS would target payments more appropriately, paying higher rates to those facilities with the most costly patients. The base rate would also be adjusted to reflect geographic differences in labor costs. In addition, CMS is proposing to provide an adjustment for low-volume facilities, as well as an outlier policy that would make an adjustment for particularly expensive cases.

The following are highlights of the proposed mechanics of the proposed new PPS:

ESRD Base Rate and Bundle of Services: CMS is proposing to pay a base rate of $198.64 per dialysis treatment, representing the average Medicare allowable payment per treatment for composite rate and separately billable services, including training and home dialysis costs, laboratory services and all ESRD-related Part B and former Part D drugs. The proposed base rate would be adjusted to reflect patient- and facility-specific differences in case-mix and other adjustments as required by MIPPA.

To arrive at a base rate, CMS is proposing to adjust the average payment per treatment using 2007 claims data adjusted to reflect 2011 projected prices. The rate will not include positive adjustments for case-mix and the wage index as those will be introduced into the payment formula at a later time. This standardized amount must then be reduced by 1.0 percent to fund the proposed outlier policy, and reduced by the percentage required by MIPPA to reflect 98 percent of the estimated payments that would have been made absent the statutory changes.

Proposed Standardized Amount: Based on 2007 claims data, total per treatment payments in CY 2011 are projected to be $261.58. To eliminate the overall positive effects of the proposed case-mix and geographic adjustments, CMS is proposing a 21.73 percent reduction, yielding a standardized amount of $204.74.

Proposed Outlier Adjustment: CMS is proposing to reduce the standardized amount by 1.0 percent for outlier payments for cases requiring unusually high amounts of drugs or other services that are separately payable under the current payment system. This 1.0 percent reduction lowers the standardized amount of $204.74 to $202.69.

MIPPA Required 98 Percent Adjustment: As required by MIPPA, CMS is also proposing to adjust the reduce the standardized amount by 2.0 percent to ensure that estimated total Medicare payments to ESRD facilities in CY 2011 are 98 percent of what they would have been under the existing system. This additional reduction yields a proposed base rate of $198.64.

Transition Budget Neutrality Adjustment: Also required by MIPPA, CMS is proposing that a transition budget neutrality adjustment factor (a 3.0 percent reduction) be applied to all payments during the four-year phase-in and would make payments under the transition the same as they would have been had there not been a transition. As part of this transition budget neutrality adjustment, during the transition, CMS is proposing to apply a $14 per treatment adjustment to the composite rate portion of the blended payment amount to reflect ESRD-related Part D drugs.

Patient-Level Adjustments: As authorized by MIPPA, CMS is proposing to adjust the base rate for case mix using a variety of factors which have been found to affect costs. Under the existing payment system, the composite rate is adjusted for age, body surface area (BSA), body mass index (BMI), and pediatric status. The proposed rule would add adjustments for patient sex (female patients) and certain co-morbidities, as well as a “new patient adjustment” that recognizes that patients have higher costs in their first four months of maintenance dialysis. In addition, special payment adjusters would apply for providers of pediatric services. CMS is specifically seeking comment about these and other patient characteristics that may affect costs of treatment and for which a payment adjustment may be appropriate.

Facility-Level Adjustments: MIPPA specifically requires CMS to adopt an adjustment for low-volume facilities and gives the HHS secretary discretion to adopt additional facility-level adjustments. Based on an analysis of ESRD data, CMS is proposing to define low-volume facilities as those facilities that: (1) furnished fewer than 3,000 treatments in each of the three years preceding the payment year; and (2) have not opened, closed, nor received a new provider number due to a change in ownership during the three years preceding the payment year. Other definitions may be added to include geographic restrictions. CMS is also proposing to continue to apply a wage index adjustment using the core-based statistical area (CBSA) definitions. The index would be based on the most current hospital wage data, prior to application of the rural floor and occupational mix adjustments, and geographic reclassifications.

Outlier Policy: MIPPA requires CMS to make adjustments for high cost patients, called outlier payments, to ESRD facilities that treat patients who use more than the predicted amount of services, including the amount of erythropoietin stimulating agents (ESAs) used to manage dialysis-related anemia. As noted previously, CMS is proposing to reduce the standardized amount for all dialysis treatments by 1.0 percent, to fund the proposed 1.0 percent policy under the new ESRD PPS. CMS is proposing a fixed loss dollar amount of $134.96 for adult and $174.31 for pediatric dialysis patients. Once the fixed dollar amount is met, CMS would pay 80 percent of the ESRD facility’s outlier service costs. CMS projects that approximately 5.3 percent of adult and 2.6 percent of pediatric patient months would qualify for outlier payments.

Annual Payment Rate Updates: As required by MIPPA, beginning in CY 2012 the ESRD PPS base rate will be updated annually by an ESRD market basket index minus one percentage point. The proposed rule includes a discussion of how the ESRD market basket would be calculated.

Beneficiary Coinsurance: CMS is proposing that the beneficiary coinsurance amount be 20 percent of the ESRD bundled payment amount, including applicable case-mix adjustments and outlier payments. CMS will accept comments on the proposed rule through November 2009, and will respond to them in a final rule to be issued in 2010. The new payment system would apply to renal dialysis services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries on or after January 1, 2011.

Required by the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA), CMS reports the new payment system set forth in the proposed rule is designed to improve the efficiency of care, while promoting high quality services.

CMS will accept comments on the proposed rule through November 16, 2009, and will respond to them in a final rule to be issued in 2010. The new payment system would apply to dialysis services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries on or after January 1, 2011.

If you need assistance with auditing, updating or defending your organizations HIPAA and other privacy and data security practices, please contact the author of this update, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Health Practice Leader Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (214) 270-2402 or via e-mail at CStamer@CTTLegal.com. The former Compliance Committee Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising nephrology, dialysis and other health care providers about gainsharing and other reimbursement, quality, regulatory and compliance, risk management, workforce and staffing and other operational matters.

Other Recent Developments

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

For More Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you need assistance with auditing or defending these or other health care compliance, risk management, transaction or operation concerns, please contact the author of this update, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Health Practice Group Chair, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, at (214) 270‑2402, cstamer@cttlegal.com. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising clients and writes and speaks extensively on these and other health industry and other internal controls and risk management matters.

You can review other recent health care and internal controls resources and additional information about the health industry and other experience of Ms. Stamer here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information to cstamer@cttlegal.com.

Leave a Comment » | Disease Management, Doctor, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Medicaid, Medicare, Outpatient, Physician, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Two Recent Criminal Prosecutions For HIPAA Privacy Rule Violations Signal Rising Criminal Enforcement Risks

September 8, 2009

Register here To Participate In September 9 or September 17 Briefings on New HIPAA Data Breach Rules

September 8, 2009

Two recent separate criminal actions against hospital workers for wrongfully accessed medical records in violation of the medical privacy provisions of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996, as amended (HIPAA) are the latest reminders to health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates and members of their workforce that the criminal provisions of the HIPAA Privacy Rules have teeth.

Palmetto General Hospital Employee And Accomplice Indicted For Stealing Patient Records As Part Of Fraud

In Miami-Dade County, federal felony charges are pending against Jacquettia L. Brown, 29, and Tear Renee Barbary, 25, prosecution on for offenses relating to the theft of patient profile records from Palmetto General Hospital to further a fraud scheme.

A seven-count Indictment announced by the Department of Justice on May 26, 2009 charges Brown and Barbary with conspiracy to commit access device fraud in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1029(b)(2), and criminal violations of HIPAA. In addition, Brown is charged with aggravated identity theft, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1028A(a)(1). If convicted, the defendants face a statutory maximum of five (5) years’ imprisonment on Count 1, and a statutory maximum of ten (10) years’ imprisonment as to each of Counts 2, 3, and 7. As to Counts 4-6, Brown faces a two (2) year mandatory prison sentence per count.

According to the Indictment, Brown, a medical records employee of Palmetto General Hospital, took records containing personal profile information of Palmetto General Hospital patients. Defendant Brown and Barbary then used the stolen personal information to further a credit card fraud conspiracy. The patient profile records that Brown stole included personal identifying information, such as patients’ names, birthdates, Social Security numbers, addresses, driver’s license numbers, and next of kin contacts. Brown used the stolen identifying information to obtain patients’ credit card account numbers. She gave patient profile records and credit card account numbers to Barbary, who used the information to make unauthorized credit card purchases. When law enforcement officials disrupted the scheme, Brown was in possession of 41 patient profile records and Barbary was in possession of six patient profile records.

Curiosity Check of Medical Records Results In Arkansas Doctor, 2 Former Hospital Employees Guilty Plea To HIPAA Violation

Three Arkansas health care workers could be sentenced to up to 1 year in prison, a fine of not more than $50,000, or both after pleading guilty in July, 2009 to misdemeanor violations of the health information privacy provisions of HIPAA for accessing a patient’s record without any legitimate purpose.

United States Magistrate Judge Henry L. Jones, Jr. accepted the guilty pleas of Dr. Jay Holland, age 56, of Little Rock, Arkansas; Sarah Elizabeth Miller, age 28, of England Arkansas; and Candida Griffin, age 34 of Little Rock, Arkansas after each admitted to accessing patient records to satisfy their own curiosity.

Dr. Holland, Medical Director of Select Specialty Hospital, located on the 6 floor of the St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center (SVIMC), admitted that after watching news reports on television, he logged on to the SVIMC patient records from his computer at home and accessed a patient’s files to determine if the news reports were accurate. He admitted he accessed the file because he was curious even though he had had HIPAA training and understood he was violating HIPAA when he accessed the file. SVIMC suspended Dr. Holland’s privileges for two weeks and required him to complete on-line HIPAA training.

Sarah Elizabeth Miller, formerly an account representative at SVIMC, Sherwood Campus, was responsible for checking patients in and out of the clinic and for processing patient billing. In order to perform her duties, she had access to the SVIMC patient records program which includes all locations, not just that of the Sherwood clinic. Miller admitted that on October 20 and 21, 2008, she accessed a patient’s files approximately 12 times out of curiosity. She admitted that she accessed the records without any legitimate purpose. Records show that Miller was trained on HIPAA privacy laws by SVIMC. SVIMC fired Miller from her position.

Candida Griffin was the emergency room unit coordinator at SVIMC. Her responsibilities were to order patient tests, perform data entry into electronic patient files for patients and perform other secretarial functions in the emergency room. Griffin admitted that on October 20, 2008, she was told by the charge nurse to set-up an alias for a particular patient admitted to the emergency room. On October 21, 2008, after the patient had been moved to ICU, Griffin admitted that she became curious about the patient’s status and accessed the medical chart to find out if the patient was still living. Although Griffin did not inform anyone about accessing the chart, hospital records show that the patient’s records were accessed three times that day by Ms. Griffin. SVIMC records show that Griffin was trained on HIPAA privacy laws. SVIMC fired Griffin from her position.

Pursuant to plea agreements with the United States, Holland, Miller and Griffin pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor a violation of the health information privacy provisions of HIPAA based on their accessing a patient’s record without any legitimate purpose. Each faces a maximum penalty of 1 year imprisonment, a fine of not more than $50,000, or both. A sentencing date has not yet been set, but is expected within the next few weeks.

Criminal Referral and Enforcement Continues

Together with the HIPAA-related criminal convictions of in 2008 of David Gibson, Ferando Ferrer, Jr. and Andrea Smith discussed here, these new Arkansas and Florida criminal actions document the willingness of Justice Department attorneys to investigate and prosecute certain criminal violations. Because they involved the theft of health information for use in furtherance of other health care fraud schemes, many have viewed as predictable and understandable the prosecution of Gibson, Ferrer, Brown and Barbary. In contrast, the willingness of Jane W. Duke, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to prosecute criminally the wrongful access by the SVIMC health care workers and Andrea Smith in the absence of other health care fraud motives challenges the perception widely held among certain segments of the health care and health plan industry that the criminal provisions of HIPAA have little teeth. Since U.S. Attorney Duke pursued both the SVIMC and Smith prosecutions, it remains to be seen whether other U.S. Attorneys will be equally willing to pursue prosecution of HIPAA violations in the absence of evidence of other federal health care crimes.

Less speculative is the growing readiness of the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights to pursue civil remedies for HIPAA violations. On February 18, 2009, for instance, OCR and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued a joint announcement (the “Announcement”) ordering CVS Pharmacy, Inc., the nation’s largest retail pharmacy chain, to pay the U.S. government a $2.25 million settlement and to take other corrective action to ensure that it does not violate the privacy rights patients under HIPAA when disposing of patient information such as identifying information on pill bottle labels. In a coordinated action, CVS Caremark Corp., the parent company of the pharmacy chain, also signed a consent order and agreed to a settlement with the FTC to settle potential violations of the FTC Act. The investigation resulting in the settlement marks the first instance where the OCR formally coordinated on investigation and resolution of a case with the FTC.

Coming as new data breach notification requirements for HIPAA-covered entities are set to take effect on September 23, 2009, these and other stepped up oversight and enforcement activities make it critical that all health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates need to update their policies and practices, tighten their compliance and data breach monitoring processes, and strengthen their internal controls, compliance in preparation for defending their actions under the newly strengthened Privacy Rules. Covered entities and their business associates more than ever must ensure their ability to demonstrate to federal regulators the effectiveness of their HIPAA compliance efforts by both adopting the written policies and procedures required by HIPAA and continuously monitoring and administering these safeguards. Covered entities should consider reviewing the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance practices taking into consideration the Corrective Action Plan, published OCR noncompliance and enforcement statistics, their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses, and other developments to determine if additional steps are necessary or advisable.

If you need assistance with auditing, updating or defending your organizations HIPAA and other privacy and data security practices, please contact Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (214) 270-2402 or via e-mail at CStamer@CTTLegal.com.

Register Now For Upcoming September Health Industry Update Programs

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in one of the following upcoming health industry programs to be presented by Ms. Stamer during September:

HITECH ACT Health Data Security & Breach Update on September 9, 2009 hosted live or via teleconference by Curran Tomko Tarski LLP
How to Ensure That Your Organization Is In Compliance With Regulations Governing Discrimination — What You Should Be Doing To Be Prepared for the New, Stepped Up Enforcement Actions on September 10, 2009 hosted via teleconference by Health Resources Publishing
Health Information Security & Data Breach Under HITECH Act on September 17, 2009 hosted via teleconference by the Health Care Compliance Association

To register or for other details about these and other upcoming programs and presentations by Ms. Stamer and other Curran Tomko Tarski members, see here.

Other Recent Developments

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the following recent Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Latest in Health Care Updates available online by clicking on the article title:

For More Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you need assistance with auditing or defending these or other health care compliance, risk management, transaction or operation concerns, please contact the author of this update, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Health Practice Group Chair, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, at (214) 270‑2402, cstamer@cttlegal.com, Edwin J. Tomko at (214) 270-1405 or another Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Partner of your choice. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising clients and writes and speaks extensively on these and other health industry and other internal controls and risk management matters.

You can review other recent health care and internal controls resources and additional information about the health industry and other experience of Ms. Stamer here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information to cstamer@cttlegal.com.

Leave a Comment » | Corporate Compliance, Electronic Medical Records, FACTA, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, OCR | Tagged: ARRA, Doctor, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance, HIPAA, Hospital, Identity Theft, Physician, Physicians, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Pfizer To Pay $2.3 Billion For Fraudulent Marketing In Largest DOJ Health Care Fraud Settlement

September 2, 2009

Announcement Highlights Growing Fraud Prosecution Risks of Health Industry Businesses

Today’s announcement that Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. (collectively “Pfizer”) will pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability for alleged illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products and other stepped up oversight and enforcement activities make it critical that all health industry organizations strengthen their internal controls, compliance and audit activities as well as be prepared to defend their actions against the rising tide of federal and state oversight and enforcement.

The pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. have agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the alleged illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, the Justice Department (DOJ) announced today (September 2, 2009).

According to DOJ, Pharmacia & Upjohn Company agreed to plead guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for misbranding Bextra with the intent to defraud or mislead. Bextra is an anti-inflammatory drug that Pfizer pulled from the market in 2005.

The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act requires that a company specify the intended uses of a product in its new drug application to FDA. Once approved, the drug may not be marketed or promoted for so-called “off-label” uses – i.e., any use not specified in an application and approved by FDA. DOJ charged Pfizer promoted the sale of Bextra for several uses and dosages that the FDA specifically declined to approve due to safety concerns. Under the announced settlement, Pfizer will pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion, the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter. Pharmacia & Upjohn will also forfeit $105 million, for a total criminal resolution of $1.3 billion.

In addition, Pfizer agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve allegations under the civil False Claims Act that the company illegally promoted four drugs – Bextra; Geodon, an anti-psychotic drug; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, an anti-epileptic drug – and caused false claims to be submitted to government health care programs for uses that were not medically accepted indications and therefore not covered by those programs. The civil settlement also resolves allegations that Pfizer paid kickbacks to health care providers to induce them to prescribe these, as well as other, drugs. The federal share of the civil settlement is $668,514,830 and the state Medicaid share of the civil settlement is $331,485,170. This is the largest civil fraud settlement in history against a pharmaceutical company.

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

Whistleblower lawsuits filed under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act that are pending in the District of Massachusetts, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Eastern District of Kentucky triggered this investigation. As a part of today’s resolution, six whistleblowers will receive payments totaling more than $102 million from the federal share of the civil recovery.

Today’s announcement of this historic settlement emphasizes the continuing and growing government commitment to, coordination and sophistication in the investigation and prosecution of health care crimes by pharmaceutical industry and other health care providers. The Obama Administration has made investigation and prosecution of health care fraud laws a key element of its strategy to manage U.S. health care program costs. Recently enacted changes in the False Claims Act and other laws are making it easier for federal prosecutors to successfully prosecute these and other health care fraud cases.

The enhanced coordination among agencies central to this strategy is reflected in the collaboration among the many agencies involved in the investigation leading to these charges. The U.S. Attorney’s offices for the District of Massachusetts, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the Eastern District of Kentucky, and the Civil Division of the Department of Justice handled these cases. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts led the criminal investigation of Bextra. The investigation was conducted by the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the FBI, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), the Office of Criminal Investigations for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Veterans’ Administration’s (VA) Office of Criminal Investigations, the Office of the Inspector General for the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Office of the Inspector General for the United States Postal Service (USPS), the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units and the offices of various state Attorneys General.

These and other stepped up oversight and enforcement activities make it critical that all health industry organizations strengthen their internal controls, compliance and audit activities as well as be prepared to defend their actions against the rising tide of federal and state oversight and enforcement.

Register Now For Upcoming September Health Industry Update Programs

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in one of the following upcoming health industry programs to be presented by Ms. Stamer during September:

HITECH ACT Health Data Security & Breach Update on September 9, 2009 hosted live or via teleconference by Curran Tomko Tarski LLP
How to Ensure That Your Organization Is In Compliance With Regulations Governing Discrimination — What You Should Be Doing To Be Prepared for the New, Stepped Up Enforcement Actions on September 10, 2009 hosted via teleconference by Health Resources Publishing
Health Information Security & Data Breach Under HITECH Act on September 17, 2009 hosted via teleconference by the Health Care Compliance Association

To register or for other details about these and other upcoming programs and presentations by Ms. Stamer and other Curran Tomko Tarski members, see here.

Other Recent Developments

For More Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you need assistance with auditing or defending health care fraud concerns or other health care compliance, risk management, transaction or operation concerns, please contact the author of this update, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Health Practice Group Chair, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, at (214) 270‑2402, cstamer@cttlegal.com, Edwin J. Tomko at (214) 270-1405 or another Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Partner of your choice. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising clients and writes and speaks extensively on these and other health industry and other internal controls and risk management matters.

You can review other recent health care and internal controls resources and additional information about the health industry and other experience of Ms. Stamer here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information to cstamer@cttlegal.com.

Leave a Comment » | Corporate Compliance, Doctor, false claims act, FDA, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Medicare, OIG, Physician, Reimbursement | Tagged: Corporate Compliance, Doctor, false claims act, FDA, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Fraud, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reimbursement, HHS, Hospital, Off-label marketing, Pharma, Pharmaceudical, Prescription Drugs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

House Democratic Leaders Work To Resolve Differences In Committee Versions of Health Care Reform Legislation and Build Public Support During August Recess

August 5, 2009

Democratic Leaders in the House of Representatives plan to hammer out differences three versions of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act (H.R. 3200) as separately passed by three key House Committees in July before House members return from their August recess in hopes of bringing the agreed to version of H.R. 3200 to the full house in September. Regardless of which version ultimately emerges, the enactment of H.R. 3200 would result in sweeping new regulation and federal control over health care providers, health care payers, employers, and individuals.

After negotiating a last minute pre-August recess deal with certain Blue Dog Democrat Committee members, the House Energy and Commerce Committee on July 31, 2009 passed its version of H.R. 3200, the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act (H.R. 3200). The version of H.R. 3200 passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee incorporates a series of amendments to the language of H.R. 3200 as originally introduced. For instance, this version of H.R. 3200 provides incentives for states to adopt certain tort reforms, provides for a public plan option that would reimburse physicians based on negotiated rates rather Medicare rates, and would allow states to offer both state-based heath insurance exchanges and health insurance co-ops. To review H.R. 3200 as amended by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, see here.

The approval by the Energy and Commerce Committee of its version of H.R. 3200 follows the July 17, 2009 approval by the House Ways and Means Committee and Education and Labor Committee of their own versions of H.R. 3200. For details on the version of H.R. 3200 approved by the House Ways and Means Committee, see here. For details on the version of H.R. 3200 approved by the House Education and Labor Committee, see here.

Leading House Democrats have announced their intention to work to resolve differences between these three versions of H.R. 3200 as passed by these Committees during August recess in hopes of bringing the agreed to version of H.R. 3200 to a vote of the full House of Representatives in September.

Meanwhile, House members from both parties also generally are using the August recess as an opportunity to reconnect with local constituents on health care reform and other core issues.

For More Information

The author of this article, Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP Health Care Practice Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health industry clients and others about a diverse range of health care policy, regulatory, compliance, risk management and operational concerns. You can get more information about her health industry experience here.

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you need assistance monitoring, evaluating or responding to these or other proposed health care or other regulatory reforms or with other health care compliance, risk management, transaction or operation concerns, please contact the author of this update, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Health Practice Group Chair, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, at (214) 270-2402, cstamer@cttlegal.com or your other favorite Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Partner.

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you found these updates of interest, you also be interested in one or more of the following other recent articles published on our electronic Solutions Law Press Health Care Update publication available here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please register to receive this Solutions Law Press Health Care Update here and be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here. You can access other recent updates and other informative publications and resources provided by Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys and get information about its attorneys’ experience, briefings, speeches and other credentials here.

For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject to support@SolutionsLawyer.net.

Leave a Comment » | Disease Management, Electronic Health Records, Evidence Based Medicine, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Qulity, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, Health Policy, HIPAA, Hospital, Indian Health, Medicaid, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Outcomes Data, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Tax, Wellness | Tagged: Affordable Health Choices Act, America's Affordable Health Choices Act, Doctor, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Policy, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, Health Care Reimbursement, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Health Policy, HHS, Hospital, Medicare, Medicare Part B, Nonprofits, Physician, Physicians, Prescription Drugs, public health, Public Policy, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Where To Read & Share Your Feedback About The Health Care Reform Legislation

August 1, 2009

As the health care reform policy debate continues, Americans increasingly are asking where to read the text of the health care reform legislation that members of Congress are debating and how to share their input.

While numerous alternatives presently are pending before Congress, much of recent discussion and debate has focused around one of the following bills:

H.R. 3200: America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, introduced in the House by Rep Dingell, John D. on July 14, 2009 the text of which as originally introduced may be reviewed here. It has been the focus of significant mark up negotiation through out July before the following House Energy and Commerce, House Ways & Means, and House Education & Labor Committees; and
S. __, the Affordable Health Choices Act approved by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, the text of which as approved may be reviewed here.

When reviewing these bills, Americans should keep in mind that members of Congress are engaged in ongoing negotiations about the specific provisions and language of these bills, as well as other legislation. Official developments generally may be monitored here.

Many American businesses and individuals also are asking about how and where to share their views, how to organize others to do the same and other questions about getting the word out. Here a some quick ideas. We encourage others to share.

The Coalition For Patient Empowerment and the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform linkedin group are two one of many resources where individuals are sharing information about these matters.
Concerned individuals should share their views both by faxing, e-mailing or telephoning key decisionmakers in Congress, as well as joining and participating in activities of other individuals and groups that share their concerns. Contact and get involved with this and other groups that share your concerns.
Contact the offices of your Congressional representatives in the House and Senate as well as other members of Congress that support your views and ask them about other groups and ways that you can share your views. They will welcome your input and involvement.
If you are aware of or involved in a group that shares your views, we encourage you to share it on the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform linkedin group. If you or others are planning a town hall or other health care reform meeting, use this or other linked in groups to spread the word.
If you are interested in volunteering to plan events in your region, let us know.

When communicating, consider targeting your messages to members of Congress whose votes are likely to be impacted by your communications.

For instance, with both the House and Senate in the majority in Congress, Democrats generally have greater control over what legislation moves forward. The Democratic Leadership of the House and Sentate generally can get legislation passed by their members as long as they can maintain consensus among the members of their parties. In connection with the health care reform proposals, however, cost and other considerations have made maintaining a consensus more difficult than on other legislation. Certain fiscally moderate members of the Democratic Party have expressed concern about the expense and other aspects of their Leadership proposed health care reform proposals. These Democrats in Congress generally the members of Congress whose votes are most likely to be impacted by public input and feedback generally and from voters in their districts and contributors specifically.

In the House of Representatives, these members likely are the “Blue Dog Democrats.” Read about Blue Dog Democrats here.

The fiscal conservatism of Blue Dog Democrats makes them more likely to listen to concerns about the cost and other concerns relating to the health care reform bills touted by the Democrat Leadership in the House and Senate. In fact, many Blue Dog Democrats already are speaking out about their concerns about the cost and other aspects of the Bill.

Contact from voters and contributors in their districts and others could make a major difference in the ability that the House Democrat Leadership needs to pass their Bill. Immediately contacting these members and getting others – particularly voters and contributors in the districts that elect these members – is one of the most important steps that concerned Americans can do to position their concerns to be heard.

For most concerned voters, telephone or fax contact is the best means to convey these messages. To minimize spam, most members only accept e-mail submitted through their website links. Security concerns can delay receipt of written correspondence for weeks.

For persons interested in making their voices heard and sharing information with others who wish to do the same, the following contact information may be of interest:

The number of the Capital Switchboard is 202-224-3121.

The Blue Dog Leadership Team and there telephone and fax numbers are:

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration, Telephone: 202.225.2801 , Fax: 202.225.5823

Rep. Baron Hill (IN-09), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy,Telephone: 202-225-4031, Fax: (202) 226-6866

Rep. Charlie Melancon (LA-03), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications, Telephone: 202-225-4031, Fax: (202) 226-3944

Rep. Heath Shuler (NC-11), Blue Dog Whip, Telephone: 202-225-6401, Fax: (202) 226-6422

The Blue Dog Members and their telephone numbers are :

Altmire, Jason (PA-04),(202)225-2565
Arcuri, Mike (NY-24), (202)225-3665
Baca, Joe (CA-43),(202)225-6161
Barrow, John (GA-12), (202) 225-2823
Berry, Marion (AR-01), (202) 225-4076
Bishop, Sanford (GA-02), (202) 225-3631
Boren, Dan (OK-02), (202) 225-2701
Boswell, Leonard (IA-03), (202) 225-3806
Boyd, Allen (FL-02), (202) 225-5235
Bright, Bobby (AL-02), (202) 225-2901
Cardoza, Dennis (CA-18), (202) 225-6131
Carney, Christopher (PA-10), (202) 225-3731
Chandler, Ben (KY-06), (202) 225-4706
Childers, Travis (MS-01), (202) 225-4306
Cooper, Jim (TN 5^th), (202) 225-4311
Costa, Jim (CA 20^th), (202) 225-3341
Cuellar, Henry (TX 28^th), (202) 225-1640
Dahlkemper, Kathleen A. (PA 3^rd), (202) 225-5406
Davis, Lincoln (TN 4^th),(202) 225-6831
Donnelly, Joe (IN 2^nd), (202) 225-3915
Ellsworth, Brad (IN 8^th), (202) 225-4636
Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ 8^th), (202) 225-2542
Gordon, Bart (TN 6^th), (202) 225-4231
Griffith, Parker (AL 5^th), (202) 225-4801
Harman, Jane (CA 36^th), (202) 225-8220
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie (SD At Large), (202) 225-2801
Hill, Baron P. (IN 9^th), (202) 225-5315
Holden, Tim (PA 17^th), (202) 225-5546
Kratovil, Frank Jr. (MD 1^st), (202) 225-5311
McIntyre, Mike (NC 7^th), (202) 225-2731
Marshall, Jim (GA 8^th), (202) 225-6531
Matheson, Jim (UT 2^nd), (202) 225-3011
Melancon, Charlie (LA 3^rd), (202) 225-4031
Michaud, Michael H. (ME 2^nd), (202) 225-6306
Minnick, Walt (ID 1^st), (202) 225-6611
Mitchell, Harry E. (AZ 5^th), (202) 225-2190
Moore, Dennis (KS 3^rd), (202) 225-2865
Murphy, Patrick J. (PA 8^th), (202) 225-4276
Nye, Glenn C. (VA 2^nd), (202) 225-4215
Peterson, Collin C. (MN 7^th), (202) 225-2165
Pomeroy, Earl (ND At Large), (202) 225-2611
Ross, Mike (AR 4^th), (202) 225-3772
Salazar, John T. (CO 3^rd), (202) 225-4761
Sanchez, Loretta (CA 47^th), (202) 225-2965
Schiff, Adam B. (CA 29^th), (202) 225-4176
Scott, David (GA 13^th), (202) 225-2939
Shuler, Heath (NC 11^th), (202) 225-6401
Space, Zachary T. (OH 18^th), (202) 225-6265
Tanner, John S. (TN 8^th), (202) 225-4714
Taylor, Gene (MS 4^th), (202) 225-5772
Thompson, Mike (CA 1^st), (202) 225-3311
Wilson, Charles (OH-06), (202) 225-5705

We also encourage you and others to join the discussion about these and other health care reform proposals and concerns by joining the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform Group on Linkedin, registering to receive these updates here The author of this article, Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP Health Care Practice Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health industry clients and others about a diverse range of health care policy, regulatory, compliance, risk management and operational concerns. You can get more information about her health industry experience here.

If you need assistance evaluating or formulating comments on the proposed reforms contained in the House Bill or on other health industry matters please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, CTT Health Care Practice Group Chair, at cstamer@cttlegal.com, 214.270.2402 or your other favorite Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorney.

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

Leave a Comment » | Consumer Driven Health Care, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health Plan, Health Plans, Patient Empowerment, Public Policy | Tagged: Affordable Health Choices Act, American's Affordable Health Choices Act, Doctor, Employer, false claims act, Health Care, Health Care Policy, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, Health Care Reimbursement, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Health Policy, Hospital, Medicare, Medicare Part B, PBMs, Physician, Physicians, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, public health, Public Policy, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Blue Dog Democrats Hold Key Voice On House Democrats Proposed Health Care Reform Plan; Contact Numbers Here

July 20, 2009

Health care providers and others concerned about the “American’s Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009” health care reform proposal introduced by the House Democratic Leadership should target their input on the Democrats in Congress most likely to listen to those concerns. In the House of Representatives, these members likely are the “Blue Dog Democrats” in the House. Read about Blue Dog Democrats here.

For persons interested in making their voices heard and sharing information with others who wish to do the same, the following contact information may be of interest:

The number of the Capital Switchboard is 202-224-3121.

The Blue Dog Leadership Team and there telephone and fax numbers are:

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration, Telephone: 202.225.2801 , Fax: 202.225.5823

Rep. Baron Hill (IN-09), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy,Telephone: 202-225-4031, Fax: (202) 226-6866

Rep. Charlie Melancon (LA-03), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications, Telephone: 202-225-4031, Fax: (202) 226-3944

Rep. Heath Shuler (NC-11), Blue Dog Whip, Telephone: 202-225-6401, Fax: (202) 226-6422

The Blue Dog Members and their telephone numbers are :

Altmire, Jason (PA-04),(202)225-2565

Arcuri, Mike (NY-24), (202)225-3665

Baca, Joe (CA-43),(202)225-6161

Barrow, John (GA-12), (202) 225-2823

Berry, Marion (AR-01), (202) 225-4076

Bishop, Sanford (GA-02), (202) 225-3631

Boren, Dan (OK-02), (202) 225-2701

Boswell, Leonard (IA-03), (202) 225-3806

Boyd, Allen (FL-02), (202) 225-5235

Bright, Bobby (AL-02), (202) 225-2901

Cardoza, Dennis (CA-18), (202) 225-6131

Carney, Christopher (PA-10), (202) 225-3731

Chandler, Ben (KY-06), (202) 225-4706

Childers, Travis (MS-01), (202) 225-4306

Cooper, Jim (TN 5^th), (202) 225-4311

Costa, Jim (CA 20^th), (202) 225-3341

Cuellar, Henry (TX 28^th), (202) 225-1640

Dahlkemper, Kathleen A. (PA 3^rd), (202) 225-5406

Davis, Lincoln (TN 4^th),(202) 225-6831

Donnelly, Joe (IN 2^nd), (202) 225-3915

Ellsworth, Brad (IN 8^th), (202) 225-4636

Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ 8^th), (202) 225-2542

Gordon, Bart (TN 6^th), (202) 225-4231

Griffith, Parker (AL 5^th), (202) 225-4801

Harman, Jane (CA 36^th), (202) 225-8220

Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie (SD At Large), (202) 225-2801

Hill, Baron P. (IN 9^th), (202) 225-5315

Holden, Tim (PA 17^th), (202) 225-5546

Kratovil, Frank Jr. (MD 1^st), (202) 225-5311

McIntyre, Mike (NC 7^th), (202) 225-2731

Marshall, Jim (GA 8^th), (202) 225-6531

Matheson, Jim (UT 2^nd), (202) 225-3011

Melancon, Charlie (LA 3^rd), (202) 225-4031

Michaud, Michael H. (ME 2^nd), (202) 225-6306

Minnick, Walt (ID 1^st), (202) 225-6611

Mitchell, Harry E. (AZ 5^th), (202) 225-2190

Moore, Dennis (KS 3^rd), (202) 225-2865

Murphy, Patrick J. (PA 8^th), (202) 225-4276

Nye, Glenn C. (VA 2^nd), (202) 225-4215

Peterson, Collin C. (MN 7^th), (202) 225-2165

Pomeroy, Earl (ND At Large), (202) 225-2611

Ross, Mike (AR 4^th), (202) 225-3772

Salazar, John T. (CO 3^rd), (202) 225-4761
Sanchez, Loretta (CA 47^th), (202) 225-2965

Schiff, Adam B. (CA 29^th), (202) 225-4176
Scott, David (GA 13^th), (202) 225-2939

Shuler, Heath (NC 11^th), (202) 225-6401

Space, Zachary T. (OH 18^th), (202) 225-6265

Tanner, John S. (TN 8^th), (202) 225-4714

Taylor, Gene (MS 4^th), (202) 225-5772

Thompson, Mike (CA 1^st), (202) 225-3311

Wilson, Charles (OH-06), (202) 225-5705

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

Leave a Comment » | American's Affordable Health Choices Act, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Consumer Driven Health Care, Doctor, Electronic Medical Records, Evidence Based Medicine, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance Exchange, Health Plan, Health Plans, Health Policy, Hospital, Indian Health, Medicaid, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Outcomes Data, Outpatient, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark, Uncategorized, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Care | Tagged: American's Affordable Health Care Choices act of 2009, Health Care, Health Care Policy, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reimbursement, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Health Policy, HHS, Hospital, House Democrat Majority, Long Term Care Hospital, Medicare, Medicare Part B, Physician, Physicians, Prescription Drugs, public health, Public Policy, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Contact House Blue Dog Democrats About Health Care Reform Bill Concerns

July 17, 2009

Individuals concerned about the “American’s Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009” health care reform proposal introduced by the House Democratic Leadership earlier this week should target their input on the Democrats in Congress most likely to listen to those concerns. In the House of Representatives, these members likely are the “Blue Dog Democrats” in the House. Read about Blue Dog Democrats here.

For persons interested in making their voices heard and sharing information with others who wish to do the same, the following contact information may be of interest:

The number of the Capital Switchboard is 202-224-3121.

The Blue Dog Leadership Team and there telephone and fax numbers are:

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration

Telephone: 202.225.2801 , Fax: 202.225.5823

Rep. Baron Hill (IN-09), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy

Telephone: 202-225-4031, Fax: (202) 226-6866

Rep. Charlie Melancon (LA-03), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications

Telephone: 202-225-4031, Fax: (202) 226-3944

Rep. Heath Shuler (NC-11), Blue Dog Whip

Telephone: 202-225-6401, Fax: (202) 226-6422

The Blue Dog Members and their telephone numbers are :

Altmire, Jason (PA-04),(202)225-2565

Arcuri, Mike (NY-24), (202)225-3665

Baca, Joe (CA-43),(202)225-6161

Barrow, John (GA-12), (202) 225-2823

Berry, Marion (AR-01), (202) 225-4076

Bishop, Sanford (GA-02), (202) 225-3631

Boren, Dan (OK-02), (202) 225-2701

Boswell, Leonard (IA-03), (202) 225-3806

Boyd, Allen (FL-02), (202) 225-5235

Bright, Bobby (AL-02), (202) 225-2901

Cardoza, Dennis (CA-18), (202) 225-6131

Carney, Christopher (PA-10), (202) 225-3731

Chandler, Ben (KY-06), (202) 225-4706

Childers, Travis (MS-01), (202) 225-4306

Cooper, Jim (TN 5^th), (202) 225-4311

Costa, Jim (CA 20^th), (202) 225-3341

Cuellar, Henry (TX 28^th), (202) 225-1640

Dahlkemper, Kathleen A. (PA 3^rd), (202) 225-5406

Davis, Lincoln (TN 4^th),(202) 225-6831

Donnelly, Joe (IN 2^nd), (202) 225-3915

Ellsworth, Brad (IN 8^th), (202) 225-4636

Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ 8^th), (202) 225-2542

Gordon, Bart (TN 6^th), (202) 225-4231

Griffith, Parker (AL 5^th), (202) 225-4801

Harman, Jane (CA 36^th), (202) 225-8220

Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie (SD At Large), (202) 225-2801

Hill, Baron P. (IN 9^th), (202) 225-5315

Holden, Tim (PA 17^th), (202) 225-5546

Kratovil, Frank Jr. (MD 1^st), (202) 225-5311

McIntyre, Mike (NC 7^th), (202) 225-2731

Marshall, Jim (GA 8^th), (202) 225-6531

Matheson, Jim (UT 2^nd), (202) 225-3011

Melancon, Charlie (LA 3^rd), (202) 225-4031

Michaud, Michael H. (ME 2^nd), (202) 225-6306

Minnick, Walt (ID 1^st), (202) 225-6611

Mitchell, Harry E. (AZ 5^th), (202) 225-2190

Moore, Dennis (KS 3^rd), (202) 225-2865

Murphy, Patrick J. (PA 8^th), (202) 225-4276

Nye, Glenn C. (VA 2^nd), (202) 225-4215

Peterson, Collin C. (MN 7^th), (202) 225-2165

Pomeroy, Earl (ND At Large), (202) 225-2611

Ross, Mike (AR 4^th), (202) 225-3772

Salazar, John T. (CO 3^rd), (202) 225-4761
Sanchez, Loretta (CA 47^th), (202) 225-2965

Schiff, Adam B. (CA 29^th), (202) 225-4176
Scott, David (GA 13^th), (202) 225-2939

Shuler, Heath (NC 11^th), (202) 225-6401

Space, Zachary T. (OH 18^th), (202) 225-6265

Tanner, John S. (TN 8^th), (202) 225-4714

Taylor, Gene (MS 4^th), (202) 225-5772

Thompson, Mike (CA 1^st), (202) 225-3311

Wilson, Charles (OH-06), (202) 225-5705

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

Leave a Comment » | Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, Health Plan, Health Plans, Health Policy, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Outcomes Data, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

House Democrats Introduce the “American’s Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009”

July 15, 2009

House Democrats introduced their proposal for health care reform this afternoon (July 14, 2009), the “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (the “House Bill”). Introduced under the sponsorship of three key House committees — Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and Labor — the 1018 page House Bill details the sweeping and comprehensive health care reforms touted by House Democrat Leaders.. A copy of the House Bill as introduced may be reviewed here.

The House Bill proposes sweeping reforms built around the establishment of a public plan option while technically continuing to permit private plans to operate but in a federally regulated form allowing for little meaningful plan design control to private payers, health care providers or the individuals choosing among the plan options. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the coverage side of the bill will cost $1 trillion and cover 97 percent of the legal population within 10 years.

The following is a brief overview of certain key provisions of the House Bill drawn mostly from a series of high level summaries released by House Democrats along with the House Bill. Long on politically comforting phrasing and short on details, you can read these summaries here.

Public Plan Option. The House Bill proposes the establishment of a public health insurance option that would compete with allowable private plans, both of which would be subject to sweeping federal controls. Democrat House co-sponsors represent the House Bill:

Provides a public health insurance option that would compete with private insurers within the Health Insurance Exchange.
The public health insurance option would be made available in the new Health Insurance Exchange (Exchange) along with private health insurance plans that comply with the design dictates established in the House Bill.
The public health insurance option and private plan options meet the same benefit requirements and comply with the same insurance market reforms
The public option’s premiums would be established for the local market areas designated by the Exchange.
Individuals with affordability credits could choose among the private carriers and the public option.
Require that the public health plan and private health plan options and private options each must be financially self-sustaining
Promote primary care, encourage coordinated care and shared accountability, and improve quality.
Institute new payment structures and incentives to promote these critical reforms.
Specify health care provider participation in the plans will be voluntary; Medicare providers are presumed to be participating unless they opt out.
Provides for provider reimbursements for services from the plans initially will be established using “rates similar to those used in Medicare with greater flexibility to vary payments.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has announced plans to proceed immediately on mark up on the House Bill with the intention to of scheduling a vote on the House Bill by the end of July. Assuming that House leaders adhere to this schedule, the planned timetable leaves little opportunity for critical evaluation and input by members of Congress or the public who may have questions or concerns about the proposed legislation. Prompt and coordinated action is required for individuals with concerns about any of the proposed reforms.

Federal Mandates Health Plan Benefits. In order to achieve affordable, quality health care for all, the House Bill would impose federal standards regulating the benefits that the public health plan and private health plans would be required and permitted to offer. Under these provisions, the House Bill would:

Establish a standardized benefit package that covers essential health services.
Vest the power in the Secretary of Health & Human Services to decide the coverage that would be included in this mandated standardize benefit package.
Eliminate cost-sharing for preventive care (including well baby and well child care)
Impose caps annual out-of-pocket spending for individuals and families.
Create a new independent Benefits Advisory to recommend to the Secretary and update the core package of benefits.
Provide for the public health plan option to offer four tiers of benefit packages from which consumers can choose to best meet their health care needs. Each allowable plan would be required to provide the dictated core benefits.
- The Basic Plan would include the federally mandated core set of covered benefits and cost sharing protections;
- The Enhanced Plan would include the federally mandated core set of covered benefits with more generous cost sharing protections than the Basic plan;
- The Premium Plan would include the federally mandated core set of covered benefits with more generous cost sharing protections than the Enhanced plan; and
- The Premium Plus Plan would include the federally mandated core set of covered benefits, the more generous cost sharing protections of the Premium plan, and additional covered benefits (e.g., oral health coverage for adults, gym membership, etc.) that will vary per plan. In this category, insurers must disclose the separate cost of the additional benefits so consumers know what they’re paying for and can choose among plans accordingly.

The House Bill empowers the Secretary of Health & Human Services to decide the federally dictated, required core set of benefits provides coverage with input from a newly created Benefits Advisory Commission. These core benefits are intended to include inpatient hospital services, outpatient hospital services, physician services, equipment and supplies incident to physician services, preventive services, maternity services, prescription drugs, rehabilitative and habilitative services, well baby and well child visits and oral health, vision, and hearing services for children and mental health and substance abuse services. However, the particular, terms and scope of these benefits is left to HHS to define.

Health Insurance Exchange. The House Bill also calls for the establishment of a “Health Insurance Exchange” meeting federal mandates through which low income individuals initially, and certain small businesses would be offered the option to purchase health care coverage through federally mandated purchasing groups. In the first year, the House Bill provides for the Health Insurance Exchange to accept those without health insurance, those who are buying health insurance on their own, and small businesses with fewer than 10 people. In the second year, the Health Insurance Exchange could accept small businesses with fewer than 20 people. After that, “larger employers as permitted by the Commissioner.” In other words, expansion is discretionary, not mandated.

Affordability & Subsidies. The House Bill provides sliding-scale affordability credits for individuals and families with incomes above the Medicaid thresholds but below 400% of poverty and imposes a cap on total out-of-pocket spending for individuals and families covered under the plans regardless of income. In addition, the House Bill would broaden Medicaid coverage to include individuals and families with incomes below 133% of poverty.

Effective 2013, sliding scale affordability credits would be provided provided to individuals and families between 133% to 400% of poverty. That means the credits phase out completely for an individual with $43,320 in income and a family of four with $88,200 in income (2009).

The sliding scale credits limit individual family spending on premiums for the essential benefit package to no more than 1.5% of income for those with the lowest income and phasing up to no more than 11% of income for those at 400% of poverty.

The affordability credits also subsidize cost sharing on a sliding scale basis, phasing out at 400% of poverty, ensuring that covered benefits are accessible.

The Health Insurance Exchange would administer the affordability credits in relationship with other federal and state entities, such as local Social Security offices and Medicaid agencies.

The essential benefit package, and all other benefit options, limit exposure to catastrophic costs with a cap on total out of pocket spending for covered benefits. Special provisions would apply to Medicaid.

Effective 2013, individuals with family income at or below 133% of poverty ($14,400 for an individual in 2009) are eligible for Medicaid. State Medicaid programs would continue to cover those individuals with incomes above 133% of poverty, using the eligibility rules states now have in place.

Paying The Tab. House Democrats propose to finance approximately half of the estimated $1 trillion bill for their proposed reforms through projected $500 billion or so in savings from Medicare and Medicaid achieved by a variety of reimbursement and benefit cutbacks and other reforms. The rest of the financing would come from a combination of revenue expections from employer and individual mandates (an estimated $200 billion over 10 years) and a surtax on the richest 1.5 percent of Americans. The surtax is 1 percent on income between $350,000 and $500,000; 1.5 percent on income between $500,000 and $1,000,000; and 5.4 percent in income above $1,000,000. The House Bill permits the amount of this surtax to vary if the bill is less or more expensive than initially anticipated.

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please register to receive this Solutions Law Press Health Care Update in real time here, joining the LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, and/or subscribing to receive e-mail distributions of some of these updates by sharing your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile here. You can access other recent updates and other informative publications and resources provided by Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys and get information about its attorneys’ experience, briefings, speeches and other credentials here.

For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject here.

Leave a Comment » | Anti-KickBack, Centers For Disease Control, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Consumer Driven Health Care, Corporate Compliance, Disease Management, Doctor, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, Evidence Based Medicine, false claims act, FDA, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, Health Policy, HIPAA, Hospital, Indian Health, Medicaid, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, OCR, OIG, Outcomes Data, Patient Empowerment, Peer Review, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Public Policy, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark, Tax, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Care, Wellness | Tagged: Corporate Compliance, Doctor, Health Care Policy, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, Health Care Reimbursement, Health Insurance, HIPAA, Hospital, Medicare, Medicare Part B, PBMs, Physician, Physicians, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, public health, Public Policy, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR Requires Health Care Providers To Improve Services for Limited English Speakers, Hearing Impaired As HHS Steps Up Enforcement of Federal Discrimination Laws

July 14, 2009

Health care providers should review the adequacy of translation and other mechanisms required to allow limited English speakers, hearing impaired, and other language limited populations effective access to services in light of recent enforcement actions taken by Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) against health care providers for discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and other federal discrimination laws.

As part of a broader Obama Administration initiative to make prevention and redress prohibited national origin, disabilities and other discrimination in employment, public services, public accommodations and telecommunications a priority, HHS has announced that OCR will hold health care providers accountable for ensuring effective and adequate access by individuals seeking services having limited English language proficiency, hearing loss or other language or communication restrictions impacting on their ability to access care and services.

Medco Health Solutions, Inc. National Origination Settlement

On June 22, 2009, OCR announced that national pharmacy benefit management company Medco Health Solutions, Inc. had agreed to implement a multi-faceted plan to improve services to limited and non-English speaking members in 2009.

The commitment to take corrective action by the nation’s largest mail-order pharmacy operation arose from OCR’s investigation of a complaint filed with OCR on behalf of a Spanish-speaking member. The complaint alleged that Medco violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) by failing to provide limited English proficiency members (LEP members) with meaningful access to mail-order pharmacy services and other pharmacy benefit management services.

Under Title VI, health care providers and other recipients of federal financial assistance are required to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their programs by limited English proficient individuals who are eligible to receive their services.

Under the commitment letter, Medco agreed to implement a number of measures to strengthen its provision of language assistance services to LEP members starting with those for Spanish-speaking members in 2009. The corrective actions agreed to by Medco include:

Expanding its pool of bilingual customer service representatives who speak Spanish
Revising its systems to enhance its ability to route Spanish-speaking members who need help with prescription drug questions or problems directly to bilingual staff, including pharmacists where possible and appropriate
Continuing to use a telephonic interpreter service available for more than 150 other languages to communicate with other non-English speakers.
Implementing a critical improvement in Medco’s internal computer systems that will flag language preference on an ongoing basis to aid effective communication with limited English proficient persons during member-Medco contact.
Continuing to improve its ability to identify and track individuals’ language preferences so that important written communications and outbound telephone calls are placed to members in their primary language.
Reviewing how best to notify limited English proficient members that language assistance services are available.
Developing an evaluation process with respect to interpreter competency. Staff at call centers and pharmacies expected to communicate directly with members in languages other than English will be assessed as to language proficiency, and those serving as interpreters will be assessed for interpreting competency.
Training all relevant staff on system changes intended to improve access to limited English proficient members, and will monitor the results of these efforts through periodic assessments.

Read the Medco Commitment Letter here.

Scottsdale Healthcare – Osborn (SHO) Voluntary Resolution Agreement

The Medico Commitment Letter follows OCR’s April, 2008 announcement that d a signed Resolution Agreement that requiring Scottsdale Healthcare – Osborn (“SHO”) a 337–bed full–service Arizona hospital to improve access to sign language interpreters and other services required for hearing impaired patients to effectively access services. The SHO VRA resolves a disability discrimination complaint against SHO brought by a patient with severe hearing loss, who reported that she was denied a sign language interpreter when treated in the SHO emergency room and intensive care unit.

Following OCR’s investigation of the complaint, SHO among other things agreed to: (1) affirm its compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794; (2) issue and post revised policies to ensure that appropriate auxiliary aids, including sign language interpreters or video interpretation services, are provided to deaf or hard-of-hearing patients or companions within a two hour time period; (3) develop procedures to assess the sign language interpreter needs of patients or companions; (4) train hospital personnel and physicians on its revised policies and procedures to ensure effective communication; (5) place TTY lines throughout its facility; (6) maintain a centralized telecommunication number 24-hours per day, 7-days per week for sign language interpreter requests; and (7) provide regular compliance reports to OCR. Read SHO VRA here

Health Care Providers Should Act To Manage Risks As Obama Administration Makes Enhanced Investigation and Enforcement of Federal Discrimination Laws A Priority

Health care providers and other businesses covered by Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act and other federal discrimination laws should heed the Medco and SHO actions of the advisability of taking prompt action to review and if necessary, strengthen the adequacy of reasonable accommodations necessary to enable individuals with limited English proficiency, hearing or other language impairments to access services.

Beyond the adequacy of services to address language impairments, health care providers and others also generally should anticipate that the willingness by the OCR under the Obama Administration to act on the Medco and SHO complaints reflects a heightened willingness by federal agencies to investigate and enforce disabilities, national origin and charges of federal discrimination violations by health care providers and others by OCR and other federal agencies under the Obama Administration. Review Obama Administration Civil Rights Enforcement Agenda here. While OCR took a series of enforcement actions under the predecessor Bush Administration, this announced renewed emphasis on federal discrimination law enforcement coupled by the series of actions taken by OCR and other federal agencies since January, 2009 reflects that OCR and other agencies are acting on the direction of President Obama to make prevention and redress of disabilities and other discrimination in employment, public services, public accommodations and telecommunications a priority. Read about other recent OCR federal discrimination enforcement activates here. See also, e.g., recent discrimination policies and enforcement activities by Department of Justice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The Medco and SHO actions, as well as a series of other recently announced enforcement actions reflect that OCR and other federal agencies are likely to continue to expand investigation and enforcement of disability and other violations by health care providers of federal disability and other discrimination laws in recent months. Health care providers and others regulated by these federal discrimination laws should consider auditing the adequacy of existing practices, reaffirming their commitment to compliance to workforce members and constituents, retraining workforce and taking other appropriate steps to help prevent illegal discrimination within their organization and to position their organization to respond and defend against potential discrimination investigations or charges.

The author of this article, Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP Health Care Practice Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care practitioners and other businesses and business leaders to establish, administer, investigate and federal and state discrimination and other compliance and internal control policies and practices to reduce risk under federal and state health care, discrimination and other laws. Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer’s practice emphasizes assisting health industry clients to monitor compliance and other legal and operational risks and to design, administer and defend internal controls and other risk management practices to mitigate these exposures. You can get more information about her health industry experience here.

If you need assistance investigating the adequacy of your current compliance efforts, with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, CTT Health Care Practice Group Chair, at cstamer@cttlegal.com, 214.270.2402 or your other favorite Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorney.

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

Leave a Comment » | ADA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Doctor, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Policy, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, OCR, Physician, Rehabilitation Act | Tagged: ADA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Doctor, English as A Second Language, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reimbursement, Health Insurance, Health Policy, Hearing Impairment, HHS, Hospital, Limited English Proficiency, Medicare, Medicare Part B, National Origin Discrimination, Physician, Physicians, Prescription Drugs, Public Policy, Rehabilitation Act, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

“Health Care Government Relations and Legislative Update” Focus On July 14 North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professional Association Meeting

July 13, 2009

NORTH TEXAS HEALTHCARE COMPLIANCE PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION

July 14, 2009 Meeting Reminder

Congress and federal regulators are making health care regulation and reform their latest priority. The NTHCPA invites interested health care compliance and ethics professionals to join us on July 14, 2009 for a lively discussion about “Health Care Government Relations and Legislative Update” lead by as Sandy Pappas, from Congressman Pete Session’s Office and Cynthia Marcotte Stamer from Curran Tomko Tarski LLP.

Date: Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Time: 2:00 p.m.

Location: Texas Health Resources, 612 E. Lamar Blvd., Arlington, TX 76011

For additional information, please contact Cynthia Stamer at (214) 270-2402 or by e-mail at cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.

About the NTHCPA

The vision of NTHCPA is to be a pre-eminent compliance and ethics group promoting lasting success and integrity of organizations within North Texas.

To register or update your registration to receive notice of other upcoming events, e-mail your contact information to lfigueroa@cttlegal.com.

Leave a Comment » | Anti-KickBack, Centers For Disease Control, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Doctor, Electronic Health Records, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, Health IT, Licensing, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, OIG, Peer Review, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Care | Tagged: Antitrust, Doctor, Health Care, Health Care Policy, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, Health Care Reimbursement, Health Insurance, Health Policy, HHS, HIPAA, Hospital, Long Term Care Hospital, Medicare, Medicare Part B, Physician, Physicians, Prescription Drugs, public health, Red Flag Rules, Reimbursement, retaliation, Retalitory Discharge | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

8 Miami-Area Residents Charged, Assets Frozen in $22 Million Home Health Medicare Fraud Scheme

June 29, 2009

Eight Miami-Dade County, Florida residents have been indicted in connection with an alleged $22 million Medicare fraud scheme operated out of Miami businesses purporting to specialize in home health care services and the assets of those charged and their companies frozen as part of a joint Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Medicare Fraud Strike Force operation.

DOJ and HHS officials jointly announced the Florida indictments and injunction action on June 26, 2009, just two days after their June 24, 2009 joint announcement of that a Detroit Medicare Fraud Strike Force had secured indictments against 53 people for schemes to submit more than $50 million in false Medicare claims.

Both the Florida and Detroit actions arose from health care fraud conducted by Medicare Fraud Strike Force teams acting as part of a recently formalized and expanded Health Care Fraud Prevention & Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) jointly announced by the DOJ and HHS on May 20, 2009. The Florida and Detroit actions announced last week reflect the growing commitment of federal officials to investigate and prosecute Medicare and other alleged heath care fraud.

8 Florida Indictments

The Florida indictments announced June 26, 2009 charge Gladys Zambrana, Javier Zambrana, Enrique Perez, Alejandro Hernandez Quiros aka Alex Hernandez, Vanessa Estrada, Vicenta Tellechea, Modesto Hidalgo and Carlos Castaneda conspiracy to commit health care fraud. Gladys Zambrana was also charged with four counts of health care fraud. Gladys Zambrana and Hernandez Quiros were charged with three counts each of paying health care kickbacks, while Perez, Hidalgo and Tellechea were charged with one count each of paying health care kickbacks. Gladys Zambrana, Perez, Alejandro Quiros, Tellechea and Castaneda were also charged with conspiracy to launder health care fraud proceeds.

According to the indictment, Gladys Zambrana, Perez and Hernandez Quiros operated ABC Home Health Care Inc. (ABC), listing Javier Zambrana as the owner; and Gladys Zambrana and Castaneda operated Florida Home Health Care Providers Inc. (Florida Home Health), listing Tellechea as the owner. Both ABC and Florida Home Health purported to be home health agencies that catered to Medicare beneficiaries. The indictment alleges that at both agencies, beneficiaries were recruited and paid kickbacks and bribes to arrange for their Medicare beneficiary numbers to be used by their co-conspirators to file claims with Medicare for purported home health care services. The indictment alleges that the services were not provided and were not medically necessary.

The indictment alleges that in addition to exerting ownership and control of the home health agencies, Hernandez Quiros and Castaneda acted as Medicare beneficiary recruiters for ABC and Florida Home Health, respectively; and Hidalgo, a medical assistant, falsified medical tests and records to make it appear that the services were needed. The indictment alleges that ABC billed more than $17 million to the Medicare program for services provided from January 2006 through December 2008 that were medically unnecessary and were not actually provided. During that time frame, Medicare paid more than $11 million on those fraudulent claims submitted by ABC. The indictment also alleges that from October 2007 through March 2009, Florida Home Health billed more than $5 million to the Medicare program for services that were medically unnecessary and not actually provided. During that time frame, Medicare paid more than $4 million on those fraudulent claims submitted by Florida Home Health.

The charge of conspiracy to commit health care fraud carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years. Each charged count of health care fraud carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years and each count of paying health care kickbacks carries a maximum prison sentence of five years. Conspiracy to launder health care fraud proceeds carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years per count.

In conjunction with the criminal case, on June 24, 2009, the U.S. Attorney’s Office filed a civil complaint for injunctive relief under the fraud injunction statute and obtained a temporary restraining order freezing the assets of ABC, Florida Home Health, Gladys Zambrana, Javier Zambrana, Perez, Hernandez Quiros, Castaneda and Tellechea. In addition, that temporary restraining order also freezes certain financial assets of four other companies the defendants owned or controlled and allegedly used to launder money fraudulently obtained from Medicare. The temporary restraining order is intended to preserve the remaining proceeds of the fraud for recovery by the United States as part of the criminal case and any related civil proceedings.

53 Indicted In Detroit June 24

The announcement of the Florida indictment comes just 2 days after DOJ, HHS and FBI officials announced that a Detroit Medicare Fraud Strike Force had secured indictments against 53 people for their involvement in alleged schemes to submit false Medicare claims. The indictments unsealed June 24, 2009 returned by a grand jury in Detroit resulted in arrests in Miami, New York City and Detroit resulted from a concentrated effort by the Detroit Medicare Fraud Strike Force targeting infusion therapy and physical/occupational therapy providers involved in schemes orchestrated to defraud the Medicare program.

Collectively, the Detroit indictment accuses the physicians, medical assistants, patients, company owners and executives charged in the indictments of conspiring to submit more than $50 million in false claims to the Medicare program. According to the indictments, the defendants participated in schemes to submit claims to Medicare for treatments that were in fact medically unnecessary and oftentimes, never provided. In many cases, indictments also allege that beneficiaries accepted cash kickbacks in return for allowing providers to submit forms saying they had received the unnecessary and not provided treatments.

Federal Officials Turning On The HEAT on Health Care Fraud

The Florida and Detroit indictments reflect the growing commitment and cooperation among federal and state officials to investigation and prosecution of health care fraud using Medicare Fraud Task Forces operating as part of HEAT. Drawing upon successful experiences gained from Medicare Fraud Task Forces operating in Miami and Los Angeles since 2007, HEAT is an expanded multi-agency effort jointly announced by HHS and DOJ in May, 2009 that uses a multi-agency team of federal, state and local investigators to investigate and combat Medicare fraud through the use of Medicare data analysis techniques and an increased focus on community policing. Since strike force operations began in March 2007, DOJ officials report that the Medicare Fraud Task Forces already have resulted in the indictment of 257 defendants in 115 cases for their allegedly fraudulently billing Medicare for more than $600 million.

Before the May 20, 2009 HEAT announcement, Medicare Fraud Strike Forces operating demonstration projects in South Florida and Los Angeles already had produced a number of indictments. The Medicare Fraud Strike Force team operating in South Florida has already convicted 146 defendants and secured $186 million in criminal fines and civil recoveries. After the success of operations in South Florida, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force expanded in May 2008 to phase two in Los Angeles, where 37 defendants have been charged with criminal health care fraud offenses. To date in the Los Angeles cases, more than $55 million has been ordered in restitution to the Medicare program. DOJ and HHS officials have indicated that the success of these demonstration projects lies behind the founding of the HEAT initiative.

The heightened emphasis on enforcement of federal health care fraud laws reflected in the HEAT program the enactment of recent amendments to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (FCA) under the “Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009”(FERA). The FERA amendments increase the likelihood both that whistleblowers will turn in health care providers and other individuals and organizations that file false claims in violation of the FCA and the liability that violators may incur for that misconduct.

The FERA amendments and the HEAT Team and Strike Force activities are part of a broader emphasis in the enforcement of federal health care fraud laws by both the Administration and Congress. President Obama’s proposed Fiscal Year 2010 budget seeks to further increase funding for fraud prevention and enforcement by investing $311 million — a 50 percent increase from 2009 funding — to strengthen program integrity activities within the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The Obama Administration anticipates that all combined, the anti-fraud efforts in the President’s budget could save $2.7 billion over five years by improving oversight and stopping fraud in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, including the Medicare Advantage and Medicare prescription drug programs. Many state agencies also are stepping up their health care fraud investigations and enforcement.

In light of this new emphasis upon health care fraud detection and enforcement, health care providers now more than ever need to prepare to demonstrate the appropriateness and defensibility of their health care billing and other compliance efforts.

Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP Health Care Practice Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care practitioners and other businesses and business leaders to establish, administer, investigate and defend health care fraud and other compliance and internal control policies and practices to reduce risk under federal and state health care and other laws. You can get more information about her health industry experience here.

If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, CTT Health Care Practice Group Chair, at cstamer@cttlegal.com, 214.270.2402 or your other favorite Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorney.

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here. You can access other recent updates and other informative publications and resources provided by Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys and get information about its attorneys’ experience, briefings, speeches and other credentials here.

Leave a Comment » | Anti-KickBack, Doctor, false claims act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare, OIG, Physician | Tagged: Corporate Compliance, DME, false claims act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Fraud, Health Care, Health Care Reimbursement, HEAT, HHS, home health, Hospital, IV-infusion, Medicare, Medicare Fraud, Medicare Part B, Physician, Physicians, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

53 Doctors, Health Care Executives & Beneficiaries Indicted For Involvement In A $50 Million Alleged False Billing Ring

June 24, 2009

Fifty-three people have been indicted for schemes to submit more than $50 million in false Medicare claims in the continuing operation of the Medicare Fraud Strike Force in Detroit, Attorney General Eric Holder, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and FBI Director Robert Mueller announced today (June 24, 2009).

The charges were unsealed today against the 53 individuals who are accused of various Medicare fraud offenses, including conspiracy to defraud the Medicare program, criminal false claims and violations of the anti-kickback statutes. The indictments returned by a grand jury in Detroit resulted in arrests in Miami, New York City and Detroit.

According to the DOJ, federal agents from the FBI and the HHS Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG) began executing arrest warrants and made arrests in Detroit, Miami and New York City earlier today as part of a concentrated effort targeting infusion therapy and physical/occupational therapy providers involved in schemes orchestrated to defraud the Medicare program.

Collectively, the indictment accuses the physicians, medical assistants, patients, company owners and executives charged in the indictments of conspiring to submit more than $50 million in false claims to the Medicare program. According to the indictments, the defendants participated in schemes to submit claims to Medicare for treatments that were in fact medically unnecessary and oftentimes, never provided. In many cases, indictments also allege that beneficiaries accepted cash kickbacks in return for allowing providers to submit forms saying they had received the unnecessary and not provided treatments. An indictment is merely an allegation, and defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

The investigation and enforcement action that lead to today’s indictment was conducted as part of the continuing activities of the new interagency Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) that DOJ and HHS jointly announced last month. On May 20, 2009, DOJ and HHS jointly announced they were combining forces to find and prosecute health care fraud through the HEAT and identified Detroit and Houston as cities targeted for Medicare Fraud Strike Force attention.

Before the May 20, 2009 HEAT announcement, Medicare Fraud Strike Forces operating demonstration projects in South Florida and Los Angeles already had produced a number of indictments. The Medicare Fraud Strike Force team operating in South Florida has already convicted 146 defendants and secured $186 million in criminal fines and civil recoveries. After the success of operations in South Florida, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force expanded in May 2008 to phase two in Los Angeles, where 37 defendants have been charged with criminal health care fraud offenses. To date in the Los Angeles cases, more than $55 million has been ordered in restitution to the Medicare program. The success of these demonstration projects lies behind the founding of the HEAT initiative.

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

Leave a Comment » | Anti-KickBack, Corporate Compliance, Doctor, false claims act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, OIG, Physician, Reimbursement | Tagged: Corporate Compliance, false claims act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Fraud, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reimbursement, heatlh care fraud, Hospital, Medicare, Medicare Part B, Physician, Physicians, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Comments On Definition of Meaningful Use of EMR For Purposes of HITECH Act Provider Incentives Due June 26

June 16, 2009

Friday, June 26, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time is the deadline to submit comments to the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) on the recommendations about what should be considered the term “meaningful use” of electronic health records (EHRs) presented to the Health Information Technology Policy Committee today (June 16, 2009) available for review here. Comments will be received by the Committee for consideration and further recommendations to the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology on the elements and measures of Meaningful Use of a certified EHR.

The HIT Policy Committee is a Federal Advisory Committee (FACA) to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA”) provides for Medicare and Medicaid incentive payments for eligible providers, such as physicians and hospitals, in order to promote the adoption of EHRs. To receive the incentive payments, providers must demonstrate “meaningful use” of a certified EHR. Building upon the work of the HIT Policy Committee, HHS anticipates developing a proposed rule that provides greater detail on the incentive programs and “meaningful use.” HHS expects to issue the proposed rule in late 2009, which will be followed by a comment period.

How OCR decides to define meaningful use of EMR is likely to play a central role in determining how effective provider incentives to use EMR included in ARRA’s HITECH Act provisions work and ultimately influence how effectively those provisions and other OCR efforts to accelerate EMR and other health information technology use to promote health care efficiency and quality work.

For instructions on how to comment or additional information, see here.

For More Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you need assistance with EMR or other health care technology, privacy or other health care compliance, risk management, transaction or operation concerns, please contact Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Health Practice Group Chair, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (214) 270-2402, CStamer@CTTLegal.com or your other favorite Curan Tomko Tarski LLP Partner.

You can review other recent health care and internal controls resources and additional information about the health industry and other experience of Ms. Stamer here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information to CStamer@CTTLegal.com.

Leave a Comment » | ARRA Funding, Corporate Compliance, Doctor, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, Health Plan, HIPAA, Hospital, Nonprofits | Tagged: ARRA, Data Security, Health Care Policy, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, Health Care Reimbursement, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Health Policy, HIPAA, Hospital, Medicare, Physician, Physicians, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Democrats Unveil Comprehensive Health Care Reform Proposal, Move To Fast Track Enactment

June 10, 2009

Coalition For Responsible Health Care Reform Founded To Help Concerned Americans Respond

Americans concerned about plans of President Obama and Congressional Democrats to enact comprehensive health care reform this year must speak up now.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy yesterday (June 9, 2009) circulated a 625 page proposal to radically reform the U.S. health care system. The latest draft of the “Affordable Health Choices Act” (the “Act”) details the comprehensive health care reforms that President Obama and Democrats in Congress propose to enact before year end. President Obama and key Congressional Democrats are moving quickly to enact their vision for “comprehensive health reform” this year.

The Act circulated yesterday by Senator Kennedy would radically change the U.S. health care system in enacted as currently proposed. Consistent with announced plans by President Obama and key Congressional Democrats to enact “comprehensive health care reform” this year, Democratic leaders in Congress are rushing to enact this legislation well before year end. In furtherance of plans to fast track enactment of the Act, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) chaired by Senator Kennedy will hold a hearing on the Act this week in anticipation of meetings to mark up of the Act on Tuesday, June 16 at 2:30 p.m. in Russell 325.

The Act, as proposed, would make sweeping changes to the U.S. health care system and radically expand the involvement of government in the delivery and financing of health care. Among other things, the Act as proposed would:

Establish government provided “Gateway” health care coverage programs to provide coverage for Americans not insured under qualifying employer or other privately run “qualified health plan” to be financed in part through surcharges on private health plans and health insurers and other taxes and assessments and in part through premiums on enrolled individuals
Require that Americans participating in the Gateway health care coverage programs be offered the opportunity to enroll in at least one “public health insurance option”
Require Americans to chose either to enroll in a government run Gateway health program or enroll in qualifying coverage under a privately run qualified health plan
Impose sweeping new mandates on employer and union-sponsored group health plans and insurers
Impose newly created taxes on individuals that fail to maintain enrollment in health coverage under either a Gateway health program or a private qualified health plan
Tax and/or eliminate the deductibility of health coverage premiums and certain other amounts paid by certain employers and employees
Impose new federal mandates for health care providers, health plans and health insurers relating to the quality standards, the use of health care technology and other matters
Grant federal regulators sweeping authority to define what qualifies as appropriate health care and health care coverage, the health care services that qualify for health care coverage and the payment and delivery of health care services.

You can review a copy of currently proposed provisions of the 615 page Act here. Individuals concerned about these and other proposed health care reforms must act immediately to become familiar and share their input on the proposals.

Assistance Monitoring & Responding To Health Care Reform Proposals

If you or someone else you know would like to receive updates about health care reform proposals and other related legislative, regulatory, and enforcement developments, please:

Register for this resource at the link above;
Join the Coalition for Responsible Health Policy group at linkedin.com to share information and input;
Share your input by communicating with key members of Congress on committees responsible for this legislation and your elected officials directly and by actively participating in and contributing to other like-minded groups; and
Be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile here.

You can register to receive future updates on legislative and regulatory health care reform proposals and other related information by registering for this resource or access other publications by Ms. Stamer and access other helpful resources here.

Long-time health policy advocate and advisor Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has more than 22 years of experience advising and assisting clients to evaluate and respond to health care reform proposals and other proposed or adopted changes in federal or state health care, employee benefit, employment, tax and other federal and state laws. Former Chair of the American Bar Association’s Managed Care & Insurance Section, Ms. Stamer is highly regarded legal advisor, policy advocate, author and speaker recognized both nationally and internationally for her more than 20 years of work assisting U.S. public and private employers, health care providers, health insurers, and a broad range of other clients to respond to these and other health care, employee benefit and workforce public policy, regulatory and compliance and risk management concerns within the U.S. as well as internationally. Her work includes extensive involvement providing input and assistance about health care, workforce, pensions and social security and other reforms domestically and internationally. In addition to her continuous involvement in U.S. health care, pensions and savings, and workforce policy matters, Ms. Stamer has served as an advisor on these matters internationally. As part of this work, she served as a lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its social security reform as well as has provided input on ethics, medical tourism, workforce and other reforms internationally.

Ms. Stamer is a widely published author and popular speaker on health plan and other human resources, employee benefits and internal controls issues. Her work has been featured and published by the American Bar Association, BNA, SHRM, World At Work, Employee Benefit News and the American Health Lawyers Association. Her insights on human resources risk management matters have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, Managed Care Executive, HealthLeaders, Business Insurance, Employee Benefit News and the Dallas Morning News.

Ms. Stamer also serves in a number of professional leadership roles including the leadership council of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Vice Chair of the ABA Real Property, Probate & Trust Section and Employee Benefits & Compensation Group.

If your organization needs assistance with monitoring, assessing, or responding to these or other health care, employee benefit or human resources reforms, please contact Ms. Stamer via e-mail here, or by calling (214) 270-2402. For additional information about the experience, services, publications and involvements of Ms. Stamer specifically or to access some of her many publications, see here.

Additional Resources & Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. For additional information about the experience, services, publications and involvements of Ms. Stamer specifically or to access some of her many publications, see here.

Leave a Comment » | Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, Disease Management, Doctor, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Policy, HIPAA, Hospital, Indian Health, Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Public Policy, Reimbursement, Tax | Tagged: Affordable Health Choices Act, employer mandates, Health Care, health care access, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, health care quality, Health Care Reform, Health Care Reimbursement, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Health Policy, HIPAA, Hospital, Medicare, Medicare Part B, PBMs, Physician, Physicians, Prescription Drugs, public health, Public Policy, Reimbursement, Uninsured | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Cindy Mann Appointed Director of the Center for Medicaid and State Operations

June 3, 2009

U. S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius recently announced the appointment of Cindy Mann to serve as Director of the Center for Medicaid and State Operations (CMSO), part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Secretary Sebelius announced the appointment May 29, 2009.

Prior to her appointment, Mann most recently served as a research professor and executive director of the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University’s Health Policy Institute. From 1999-2001, Ms. Mann was the director of the Family and Children’s Health Program Group at the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), now the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. In that capacity, she directed, at the federal level, the implementation and oversight of the Medicaid program with respect to families, children, and pregnant women, and oversaw the implementation of CHIP. Prior to her work at HCFA, Ms. Mann led the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ federal and state health policy work. She also has extensive state-level experience, having worked on health care, welfare, and public finance issues in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York. She holds a law degree from New York University School of Law.

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and other attorneys practicing with Curran Tomko Tarski LLP are experienced advising and representing health industry clients about federal and state regulatory, reimbursement, grant, enforcement and other health industry risk management and compliance concerns. If you have questions about these matters, please contact Ms. Stamer at 214.270.2402.

For More Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you need assistance responding to concerns about the matters discussed in this publication or other health care concerns, wish to obtain information about arranging for training or presentations by Ms. Stamer, wish to suggest a topic for a future program or update, or wish to request other information or materials, please contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 270-2402 or via e-mail to cstamer@CTTLegal.com.

You can review other recent updates and other publications by Ms. Stamer and other helpful health care resources and additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see Stamer Health Industry Experience. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here or by registering to participate in the Solutions Law Press Health Care Update blog at Health Care Update Blog. For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject to support@SolutionsLawyer.net.

Leave a Comment » | Anti-KickBack, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, OIG, Physician, Public Policy, Reimbursement, Stark, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Newly Enacted FERA Amendments To False Claims Act Signal New Risks For Health Industry Organizations & Others

May 26, 2009

Health care providers and other parties covered by the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (FCA), now face expanded whistleblower and other liability under amendments to the FCA enacted under the “Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009”(FERA). The amendments increase the likelihood both that whistleblowers will turn in health care providers and other individuals and organizations that file false claims in violation of the FCA and the liability that violators may incur for that misconduct.

Signed into law by President Obama last Wednesday (May 20, 2009), FERA immediately upon enactment:

Amends the whistleblower protections afforded to employees, contractors and agents who suffer retaliation for taking lawful efforts to stop violations of the FCA and to make it easier for those individuals to pursue retaliation claims;
Expands liability under for making false or fraudulent claims to the federal government under the FCA;
Applies liability under the FCA for presenting a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval (currently limited to such a claim presented to an officer or employee of the federal government); and
Requires persons who violate such Act to reimburse the federal government for the costs of a civil action to recover penalties or damages

Concurrent with President Obama’s signature of FERA into law, the U.S. Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Health & Human Services (HHS) jointly announced the expansion of federal health care fraud enforcement efforts. On May 20, 2009, HHS and DOJ announced their activation of a new interagency team to combat health care fraud highlights the increasing need for health care providers and health plans to review and tighten their practices for dealing with Medicare and other federal programs to survive scrutiny under federal health care fraud initiatives. Coupled with FERA and the already significant increase in federal health care fraud detection and enforcement activities in recent years and a proposed 50 percent increase in funding for these activities included in President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2010 budget, health care providers and payers must be prepared to defend their dealing with Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health care programs.

The expanded protections afforded under FERA to whistleblowers and others suffering retaliation for opposing or reporting illegal actions can be expected to serve as a key tool in these efforts. These new retaliation safeguards are designed further increase the likelihood that employees and other insiders will help government officials ferret out false claims and other fraud. Specifically with regard to retaliatory action claims Section 4(d) of FERA amends 31 U.S.C.§ 3730(h) to provide for the recovery of “all relief necessary to make that employee, contractor, or agent whole” where that individual is discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment because of lawful acts he does or takes on behalf of an individual in furtherance of other efforts to stop a violation of the FCA.

FERA expressly provides that relief to victims of retaliation will include “reinstatement with the same seniority status that employee, contractor, or agent would have had but for the discrimination, 2 times the amount of back pay, interest on the back pay, and compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discrimination, including litigation costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.”

The FERA amendments to the FCA, the new TEAMS enforcement effort announced simultaneously with its signature into law mean that health care industry organizations and others covered by the FCA must implement appropriate fraud prevention, detection, redress and other procedures to help defend against possible FCA or other health care fraud claims and investigations.

The attorneys at Curran Tomko Tarski, LLC have extensive experience representing and advising health industry and other clients against FCA and other federal health care and fraud laws.

For More Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you need assistance with auditing or defending health care fraud concerns or other health care compliance, risk management, transactions or operations concerns, please contact Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Partners Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (214) 270-2402, CStamer@CTTLegal.com; Michael T. Tarski at (214) 270-1420 or MTarski@CTTLegal.com; Edwin J. Tomko at (214) 270-1405 or ETomko@CTTLegal.com.

You can review other recent health care and internal controls resources and additional information about the health industry and white collar experience of the Curran Tomko Tarski LLP attorneys at http://www.CTTLegal.com. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at CTTLegal.com or e-mailing this information to CStamer@CTTLegal.com.

Leave a Comment » | Anti-KickBack, ARRA, Construction, Corporate Compliance, Doctor, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Grants, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, Health Plan, Health Policy, Hospital, OCR, OIG, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Reimbursement, Stark | Tagged: Antitrust, ARRA, Bid Rigging, Construction, Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Doctor, Economic Aid, Employer, false claims act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Fraud, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, Health Care Reimbursement, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Health Policy, Hospital, Identity Theft, Medicare, Medicare Part B, Nonprofits, PBMs, Physician, Physicians, Prescription Drugs, public health, Reimbursement, retaliation, Retalitory Discharge, Whistleblower | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer To Discuss “Making Gainsharing Work: Managing Physician Performance” At June 17, 2009 Dallas Bar Association Health Law Section Meeting

May 26, 2009

Health care organizations, health plans and regulars increasingly point to gainsharing and pay-for-performance strategies as key to securing needed key physician buy-in and performances to achieve desired health care quality and cost objectives. Using physician gainsharing to promote desired performances within the bounds of the law without undesirable side effects involves more than staying within the STARK exceptions and anti-kickback safe harbors.

Curran, Tomko Tarski, LLP attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will discuss key strategies and processes for designing and administering legally defensible pay-for-performance and other gainsharing arrangements that promote desired outcomes in operation at the Dallas Bar Association Health Law Section meeting on June 17, 2009.

Former Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, attorney and author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for her legal work, publications and programs, and advocacy on health industry performance management and other health industry matters. Ms. Stamer works extensively with health care organizations, managed care and health insurance organizations, governments and others to manage performance and legal risks. Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer combines her more than 22 years of health industry regulatory and risk management experience with an in-depth knowledge of workforce management and regulation to help clients manage performance and legal and operational risks. Her experience includes advising public and private health industry clients domestically and internationally on a wide range of matters. A widely published author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer’s insights on health industry matters also are quoted in HealthLeaders, Managed Care Executive, the Wall Street Journal and many other national popular, business and industry publications.

Ms. Stamer is scheduled to begin her remarks at Noon on June 17, 2009 at the offices of the Dallas Bar Association located at 2101 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75201. For additional information, call the Dallas Bar Association at 214-220-7400 or see http://www.dallasbar.org.

Leave a Comment » | Anti-KickBack, Doctor, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, Health Plan, Health Policy, HIPAA, Hospital, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medicare Advantage, OCR, OIG, Peer Review, Physician, Physician Licensing, Public Policy, Reimbursement, Stark | Tagged: Antitrust, Corporate Compliance, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Gainsharing, Health Care Policy, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health Policy, Hospital, Managed Care, Medicare, Medicare Part B, Pay-For-Performance, PBMs, Physician, Physicians, Prescription Drugs, Public Policy, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DOJ/HHS Step Up Health Care Fraud Enforcement By Announcing New Interagency Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team

May 20, 2009

Lead DOJ Health Care Fraud Enforcer Speaks In Dallas Tomorrow

The joint announcement today (May 20, 2009) by the U.S. Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Health & Human Services (HHS) of a new interagency team to combat health care fraud highlights the increasing need for health care providers and health plans to review and tighten their practices for dealing with Medicare and other federal programs to survive scrutiny under federal health care fraud initiatives. Houston and Detroit are targeted for the attention of a new Strike Force.

Participants attending tomorrow’s Dallas Health Industry Council Southwest Healthcare Transaction Conference will get to hear the latest about these and other federal health care fraud prevention and enforcement activities from one of its key players. The Justice Department’s lead federal health care fraud prosecutor, John “Jay” S. Darden, the U.S. Department of Justice Assistant Chief for Healthcare Fraud is scheduled to provide an update on these and other federal regulatory and enforcement activities affecting health care transactions when he speaks at the Conference tomorrow afternoon at the Omni Mandalay Hotel Dallas at Las Colinas at 1:30 p.m.

Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced the creation of the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT), to combat Medicare fraud and the expansion of Strike Force team operations to Detroit and Houston. Medicare Fraud Strike Forces, currently in operation in South Florida and Los Angeles, fight Medicare fraud on a targeted local level. Statements made by Secretary Sebelius and Attorney General Holder in connection with the announcement of HEAT and the Strike Force Expansion make clear that the Obama Administration views health care fraud enforcement and prevention as a key element of its efforts to control health care costs.

The HEAT team will include senior officials from DOJ and HHS who will build upon and strengthen existing programs to combat fraud while also investing new resources and technology to prevent fraud, waste and abuse before it happens. Efforts will include the expansion of joint DOJ-HHS Medicare Fraud Strike Force teams that have been successfully fighting fraud in South Florida and Los Angeles.

Established in 2007, these Strike Force teams have a proven record of success using a “data-driven” approach to identify unexplainable billing patterns and investigating these providers for possible fraudulent activity. The Medicare Fraud Strike Force team operating in South Florida has already convicted 146 defendants and secured $186 million in criminal fines and civil recoveries. After the success of operations in South Florida, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force expanded in May 2008 to phase two in Los Angeles, where 37 defendants have been charged with criminal health care fraud offenses. To date in the Los Angeles cases, more than $55 million has been ordered in restitution to the Medicare program.

In addition to health care fraud enforcement and prosecution, HHS and DOJ also view prevention as critical to reforming the system. Therefore, in addition to investigating and prosecuting fraud, the HEAT team will also focus critical resources on preventing fraud from occurring in the first place. These efforts are expected to include:

Drawing from demonstration projects by the HHS Inspector General and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) that have focused on suppliers of durable medical equipment (DME) including increasing site visits to potential suppliers to prevent imposters from posing as legitimate DME providers.
Increasing training for providers on Medicare compliance, offering providers the resources and the knowledge they need to help identify and prevent fraud.
Improving data sharing between CMS and law enforcement to help identify patterns that lead to fraud.
Strengthening program integrity activities to monitor and ensure Medicare Parts C (Medicare Advantage plans) and D (prescription drug programs) compliance and enforcement.

The Attorney General and the HHS Secretary also called on the American people to visit a new Web site http://www.hhs.gov/stopmedicarefraud or call 1-800-HHS-TIPS (1-800-447-8477) to report suspected Medicare fraud.

The HEAT Team and Strike Force activities are part of a broader emphasis in the enforcement of federal health care fraud laws. President Obama’s proposed Fiscal Year 2010 budget seeks to further increase funding for fraud prevention and enforcement by investing $311 million — a 50 percent increase from 2009 funding — to strengthen program integrity activities within the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The Obama Administration anticipates that all combined, the anti-fraud efforts in the President’s budget could save $2.7 billion over five years by improving oversight and stopping fraud in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, including the Medicare Advantage and Medicare prescription drug programs.

For More Information

You can review other recent updates and other publications by Ms. Stamer and other helpful health care resources and additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see Stamer Health Industry Experience. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here or by registering to participate in the Solutions Law Press Health Care Update blog at Health Care Update Blog. For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject to support@SolutionsLawyer.net.

Leave a Comment » | Anti-KickBack, ARRA, ARRA Funding, Corporate Compliance, Doctor, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, Health Policy, Hospital, Medicare Advantage, OCR, OIG, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Reimbursement, Stark | Tagged: Corporate Compliance, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Fraud, Health Care Reform, Health Care Reimbursement, Health Insurance, Health Policy, HHS, Hospital, Medicare, Medicare Part B, Physician, Physicians, Prescription Drugs, public health, Public Policy, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR Disability Charges Settlement Requires Equal Access to Transportation Services at Anchorage Pioneer Home

May 15, 2009

A State of Alaska owned licensed assisted living facility for seniors, the Anchorage Pioneer Home (APH), has modified its transportation policies and practices to better accommodate qualified individuals with disabilities as part of its recently announced settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS). The settlement agreement resolves an administrative complaint filed with the HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR) that charged DHSS and APH with violating Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). DHSS owns and operates APH, a licensed assisted living facility for seniors, 65 years of age or older. Serving more than 160 Alaska residents, APH provides care at three different levels: Level I (independent); Level II (basic assistance); and Level III (24-hour care for Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders). The Obama administration’s promise to emphasize disability and other federal discrimination law enforcement means public and private plans and providers should audit and strengthen practices to withstand scrutiny.

Section 504 requires state and local governments to ensure that qualified individuals with disabilities have equal access to programs, services, or activities receiving federal financial assistance. Title II of the ADA extends the prohibition against disability discrimination to state and local governments who do not receive federal financial assistance. After conducting an investigation prompted by an administrative complaint filed with OCR, OCR issued a Jan. 16, 2009, letter detailing its findings that among other things, DHSS had violated Section 504 and Title II of the ADA, by declining to consider a legitimate request for a reasonable modification to its policies to enable an APH resident with Alzheimer’s disease to use APH’s transportation services for medical appointments.

Under the settlement, APH will consider individual requests for reasonable modifications to its transportation policies and practices to ensure that APH residents with disabilities are afforded an equal opportunity to access transportation services. If, after an individualized assessment, an APH resident, who is a qualified individual with a disability, is determined to need an escort to access and benefit from APH transportation services, APH will provide an escort at no cost.

Under the settlement agreement:

DHSS reaffirmed its legal responsibility to ensure that no qualified individual with a disability is discriminated against in any DHSS service, program, or activity.
DHSS reaffirmed its legal responsibility to not retaliate against any person for opposing discrimination under Section 504 or Title II of the ADA, or participating in an investigation under those laws.
APH agreed to appoint a senior staff person to coordinate its compliance efforts under Section 504 and Title II of the ADA; provide additional staff training on preventing disability discrimination; publish a notice informing its residents and their guardians of their rights and responsibilities under these laws; and publish grievance procedures for handling disability discrimination complaints.
APH agreed to implement a revised transportation policy to ensure that its residents with disabilities, who are eligible to receive transportation services, are afforded an equal opportunity to participate in APH’s transportation program.

A copy of the OCR letter of finding and the settlement agreement, along with more information about OCR’s civil rights enforcement activities, can be found at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/activities/agreements/akpioneeragreement.pdf

For More Information

You can review other recent updates and other publications by Ms. Stamer and other helpful health care resources and additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see Stamer Health Industry Experience. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here or by registering to participate in the Solutions Law Press Health Care Update blog at Health Care Update Blog. For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject to support@SolutionsLawyer.net.

Leave a Comment » | ADA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Doctor, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Physician, Real Estate, Rehabilitation Act | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Sebelius Announces Key Personnel At New HHS Office of Health Reform

May 11, 2009

As the Obama Administration continues emphasis on health care reform, newly appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Kathleen Sebelius today (May 11, 2009) announced the establishment of the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of Health Reform. to spearhead HHS efforts to pass urgently needed health reform this year and coordinate closely with the White House Office of Health Reform. Both offices were created by an April 8 Executive Order to help deliver on one of President Obama’s top priorities.

The following key staff members have been appointed to the HHS Office of Health Reform:

Jeanne Lambrew, Ph.D., Director of the HHS Office of Health Reform: Jeanne Lambrew will lead the health reform effort in the Office, helping the Secretary to marshal the experience and assets of the department. Dr. Lambrew was previously an associate professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, and worked on health policy in the Clinton Administration.

Michael Hash, Senior Advisor: Michael Hash will serve as a senior advisor, running the inter-agency process for developing specific aspects of health reform legislation consistent with the President’s priorities. He will be an assignee at the White House Office of Health Reform and assist in the preparation of Administration positions and in communication with the Congress. Prior to his appointment, Hash held senior positions at the Health Care Financing Administration (now CMS) and on the staffs of the House Energy and Commerce Committee as well as a private health policy consulting firm.

Neera Tanden, Senior Advisor: Neera Tanden will work on developing health care policies for HHS and the Administration. She is the former domestic policy director for the Obama-Biden campaign and policy director for the Hillary Clinton campaign, and oversaw health care work on both campaigns. She has worked in think tanks, in the Senate and in the Clinton Administration.

Linda Douglass, Director of Communications: Linda Douglass will serve as the director of communications in the Office of Health Reform, working as an assignee at the White House Office of Reform, coordinating communications. Before joining the administration, Douglass was a traveling spokesperson for President Obama’s 2008 campaign and was chief spokesperson for the Presidential Inaugural Committee 2009. She spent most of her career as a journalist, most recently as a managing editor for National Journal and prior to that as Chief Capitol Hill Correspondent for ABC News

Meena Seshamani, M.D., Ph.D., Director of Policy Analysis: Meena Seshamani will coordinate the quantitative and qualitative analyses on health reform conducted throughout HHS. Before joining the Administration, Dr. Seshamani was a resident physician in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery at Johns Hopkins University. She is a health economist who has published widely on issues of health expenditures, health care financing, and their impact on health outcomes. She advised Senator Kennedy on a range of issues including public health and prevention, community health centers, health professions training and health disparities. Lewis will begin work in the Office of Health Reform on May 25.

Jennifer Cannistra, Policy Analyst and Director of Special Projects: Jennifer Cannistra will work as an assignee at the White House and will lead special projects undertaken by the HHS Office of Health Reform that require close coordination with the White House. Previously, Cannistra served as the Pennsylvania State Policy Director for the Obama campaign. Prior to joining Obama for America in September 2007, Cannistra served as a law clerk to the Honorable Faith S. Hochberg, D.N.J. and as an attorney in Washington, D.C.

Karen Richardson, Outreach Coordinator: Karen Richardson will be responsible for conducting outreach to stakeholders on behalf of HHS, as an assignee at the White House Office, as it relates to advancing the President’s agenda for health reform. She was previously the policy director at the Democratic National Committee (DNC). She was policy director for Obama for America in Iowa and several states throughout the Presidential primary. Richardson began working for President Obama at his Senate office in August 2005, beginning as an intern and then serving as deputy to the policy director.

Michael Halle, Special Assistant: Michael Halle will be responsible for coordinating office projects and activities as well as providing research assistance. Halle worked for the Presidential Inaugural Committee and Obama for America, contributing to field operations in Iowa and North Carolina. Prior to joining the Obama campaign he was an intern at the Center for American Progress with the health policy team.

You can find more information about the evolving health care reform discussion and other health care policy and health care matters at CynthiaStamer.com. If you need assistance monitoring health and managed care policy or other health care or health benefit matters, contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (214) 270.2402, or cstamer@cttlegal.com. To receive future Solutions Law Press Health Care Updates, register to participate in this Solution Law Press Health Care Update blog, register at CynthiaStamer.com or join the SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group on linkedin.com.

Leave a Comment » | Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Plan, Hospital, Physician, Reimbursement | Tagged: Health Care, Health Care Reform, Health Care Reimbursement, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Health Policy, HHS, Uninsured | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CMS Proposes Policy And Payment Rate Changes For Inpatient Stays In Acute Care And Long-Term Care Hospitals In Fy 2010

May 2, 2009

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) today (May 1, 2009) proposed the fiscal year (FY) 2010 policies and payment rates for inpatient services furnished to people with Medicare by both acute care hospitals and long-term care hospitals. Interested persons have until June 30 to submit comments to CMS. CMS plans to finalize the rule by August 1, 2009.

The proposed rule placed on display at the Federal Register today and available for review at www.archives.gov/federal-register/public-inspection/index.html would apply to approximately 3,500 acute care hospitals paid under the Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS), and 400 long-term care hospitals paid under the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System (LTCH PPS), beginning with discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2009. The proposed payment rates are based on the most recently available data and are subject to revision in the final rule to reflect more current data.

In today’s announcement, CMS proposes:

To update acute care hospital rates by 2.1 percent for inflation less an adjustment of 1.9 percentage points to remove the effect of increases in aggregate payments due to changes in hospital coding practices that do not reflect increases in patient’s severity of illness.
To update long-term care hospital rates by 2.4 percent for inflation less an adjustment of 1.8 percentage points to account for changes in documentation and coding practices that do not reflect increases in patient’s severity of illness.

Beginning October 1, 2008, Medicare adopted a new classification system for general acute and long term care hospitals to better recognize severity of illness and the cost of treating Medicare patients. According to the announcement, hospitals changed their documentation and coding of patient diagnoses under the new system in a manner that CMS states leads to an increase in aggregate payments without corresponding growth in actual patient severity. CMS says the proposed documentation and coding adjustments help ensure that estimated aggregate payments to these hospitals under the new classification systems would not increase solely as a result of the changes to the classification system and hospital coding practices.

The Medicare Actuary found based on analysis of 2008 data that additional coding that did not reflect actual changes in the severity of patients’ illnesses increased total payments under IPPS by 2.5 percent in FY 2008 and will further increase total payments in FY 2009. Based on current estimates, the Medicare Actuary estimates that total adjustments of approximately 8.5 percent would have to be made to the acute care hospital rates to address changes in hospitals’ coding practices, including the increase in FY 2008 payments and the estimated increase in FY 2009 payments. CMS is proposing a prospective adjustment of 1.9 percentage points for FY 2010, which means additional adjustments of approximately 6.6 percentage points, will be needed in FY 2011 and FY 2012. CMS is requesting public comment on whether to apply a different documentation and coding adjustment than the one being proposed for FY 2010.

Under current Medicare law, hospitals that successfully report the 2010 quality measures included in the Reporting Hospital Quality Data for Annual Payment Update (RHQDAPU) program will get the full update. Hospitals that do not participate in the quality reporting program will get the update less two percentage points. Ninety-seven percent of participating hospitals received the full update last year. The proposed rule adds four new measures for which hospitals must submit data under the RHQDAPU program to receive the full market basket update. Two of these measures are additions to the existing Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP) measure set, and CMS believes that the other two measures will promote hospital participation in nursing-sensitive care and stroke care registries.

CMS is also proposing changes to regulations affecting payment adjustments to teaching hospitals (hospitals that offer graduate medical education programs), and disproportionate share hospitals (hospitals that provide care to a disproportionate share of low income patients), and to clarify the regulations implementing the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). In addition, the proposed rule describes five applications for new technology add-on payments and CMS’ preliminary findings about those technologies.

For More Information

You can review other recent updates and other publications by Ms. Stamer and other helpful health care resources and additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see Stamer Health Industry Experience. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here or by registering to participate in the Solutions Law Press Health Care Update blog at Health Care Update Blog. For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject to support@SolutionsLawyer.net.

Leave a Comment » | Doctor, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Reimbursement | Tagged: Doctor, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Long Term Care Hospital, Medicare, Medicare Part B, Physicians, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Latest OIG Audit Results Announcements Find Overpayments In High-Dollar Payments For Services Processed By Wisconsin Physicians Service and Interrupted Stays At Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities

May 1, 2009

CMS Plans To Seek Recovery

As part of its continuing emphasis on audit and enforcement of federal health care program reimbursement and fraud rules, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) announced results of two regional audits. In both cases, OIG reported finding substantial overpayments, which it recommended should be recovered from billing providers.

In its Review of High-Dollar Payments For Services Processed By Wisconsin Physicians Service for Period January 1, 2004 Through December 31, 2006; where OIG found of the 100 sampled high-dollar payments that Wisconsin Physicians Service (WPS) made to Medicare Part B providers for services provided during calendar years (CY) 2004 through 2006, 77 were appropriate. The 23 remaining payments included net overpayments totaling $118,000, of which $96,000 for 20 payments had not been refunded at the start of our audit. Based on the sample results for our 3-year audit period, we estimated that WPS made 402 overpayments totaling $2.06 million to providers in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin for Part B services. Based on these findings, OIG recommended that WPS (1) recover the $96,000 in identified overpayments, (2) review the 1,647 remaining high-dollar payments with potential overpayments estimated at $1.9 million ($2.06 million less $118,000 overpaid) and work with the providers that claimed these services to recover any overpayments, (3) consider reviewing high-dollar payments made for services provided after CY 2006 and recover any additional overpayments, and (4) improve internal controls related to manual claim processing. In written comments on our draft report, WPS described corrective actions that it had taken or planned to take to implement our recommendations.

In its Review of Interrupted Stays At Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities For Calendar Years 2004 and 2005, OIG reported finding inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRF) did not always bill correctly for interrupted stays with discharge dates during calendar years 2004 and 2005. OIG reports its nationwide computer match showed that 448 IRFs billed incorrectly for 986 interrupted stays during that period. If a Medicare inpatient is discharged from an IRF and returns to the same IRF within 3 consecutive calendar days, OIG reported the IRF should combine the interrupted stay into a single claim and receive a single discharge payment.

According to OIG, the correct value of the stays was $17.5 million, rather than the $21.7 million that the IRFs billed. As a result, OIG concluded Medicare made net overpayments of $4.2 million to the IRFs. The payment errors occurred because the IRFs did not have the necessary controls to identify or correctly bill interrupted stays. Additionally, until April 2005, the Common Working File did not have an edit designed to identify all interrupted stays billed as two or more claims. After its adoption, the new Common Working File edit effectively detected incorrectly billed interrupted stays and prevented overpayments to IRFs.

OIG recommended CMS direct its fiscal intermediaries to recover the $4.2 million in net overpayments that our review identified. In its written comments on our draft report, CMS concurred with our recommendation.

Health care providers should evaluate the implications of these and other audit findings and enforcement actions by OIG and CMS on their existing and past billing practices and take corrective acting as appropriate. For assistance with these or other health care compliance and risk management policies, practices or programs, assessing the strength of your controls in addressing these laws or other healthcare laws and regulations, or in addressing other compliance or health care concerns, please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at cstamer@CTTLegal.com or (214) 270- 2402.

You can find more information about health care fraud and other health industry risk management concerns at CynthiaStamer.com.

For More Information

You can review other recent updates and other publications by Ms. Stamer and other helpful health care resources and additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience, see Stamer Health Industry Experience. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here or by registering to participate in the Solutions Law Press Health Care Update blog at Health Care Update Blog or by joining the join the SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group on linkedin.com. For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject to support@SolutionsLawyer.net.

Leave a Comment » | Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Physician, Reimbursement | Tagged: Health Care Provider, Hospital, Medicare, Physicians, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

FTC Extends Red Flag Rule Compliance Deadline From May 1 to August 1, 2009

May 1, 2009

Today is no longer the deadline for health care providers and other businesses regulated by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (“FACTA”) to begin complying with the identity theft detection and prevention (“Red Flag Rules”) adopted by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”).

While health care providers have more time to comply, they can’t breathe easy. Finalizing arrangements to comply with these new mandates and other recent amendments to the health care privacy and data security requirements applicable to health care providers under recently enacted amendments to the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) and FACTA and other recent regulatory and enforcement changes to these rules requires that health care providers move quickly. Learn more about these recent changes at http://solutionslaw.wordpress.com/2009/04/18/hhs-ftc-release-guidance-on-hitech-act-data-breach-rules-for-hipaa-covered-entities-entities-dealing-with-personal-health-records.

The FTC announced yesterday (April 30, 2009) its extension of the Red Flag Rule enforcement date to until August 1, 2009. Before yesterday’s announcement, health care providers and certain other FACTA-regulated businesses were required to comply with the Red Flag Rules today. The announcment means these organizations now have an additional three months to adopt the necessary policies and processes to monitor and respond to possible identity theft required under the Red Flag Rules.

According to the FTC announcement, organizations regulated by FACTA also will need to review their practices in light of additional guidance that the FTC expects to issue soon. For entities that have a low risk of identity theft, such as businesses that know their customers personally, the FTC plans to soon release a template to help them comply with the law. Yesterday’s announcement does not affect other federal agencies’ enforcement of the original November 1, 2008 compliance deadline for institutions subject to their oversight.

The FACTA directed financial regulatory agencies, including the FTC, to promulgate rules requiring “creditors” and “financial institutions” with covered accounts to implement programs to identify, detect, and respond to patterns, practices, or specific activities that could indicate identity theft. FACTA’s definition of “creditor” applies to any entity that regularly extends or renews credit – or arranges for others to do so – and includes all entities that regularly permit deferred payments for goods or services. Accepting credit cards as a form of payment does not, by itself, make an entity a creditor. Some examples of creditors are finance companies; automobile dealers that provide or arrange financing; mortgage brokers; utility companies; telecommunications companies; non-profit and government entities that defer payment for goods or services; and businesses that provide services and bill later, including many doctors and other health care providers and other professionals. “Financial institutions” include entities that offer accounts that enable consumers to write checks or make payments to third parties through other means, such as other negotiable instruments or telephone transfers.

During outreach efforts last year, the FTC staff learned that some industries and entities within the agency’s jurisdiction were uncertain about their coverage under the Red Flags Rule. During this time, FTC staff developed and published materials to help explain what types of entities are covered, and how they might develop their identity theft prevention programs. Among these materials was an alert on the Rule’s requirements, www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/alerts/alt050.shtm. The resources also included a Web site with more resources to help covered entities design and implement identity theft prevention programs, www.ftc.gov/redflagsrule.

You can find more information about the Red Flag Rules and other privacy and identity theft matters at CynthiaStamer.com. If you need assistance with questions or compliance with these or other privacy and data security rules or other health law matters, contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (214) 270.2402, or cstamer@cttlegal.com. To receive future Solutions Law Press Health Care Updates, register to participate in this Solution Law Press Health Care Update blog, register at CynthiaStamer.com or join the SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group on linkedin.com.

Leave a Comment » | Anti-KickBack, Corporate Compliance, Doctor, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Provider, HIPAA, Hospital, Medicare Advantage, Physician, Privacy | Tagged: Doctor, Health Care, HIPAA, Hospital, Identity Theft, Physicians, Privacy, Red Flag Rules | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CMS Plans Hospital & Hospital Quality Open Door Forum to Wednesday, May 6, 2009

April 21, 2009

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced today that it has rescheduled its next Hospital & Hospital Quality Open Door Forum to Wednesday, May 6, 2009 from 2-3pm ET. Interested persons can participate by phone dial 1-800-837-1935 using Conference ID 89323669. For more information on this or other upcoming or recently recorded forums sponsored by CMS or other Department of Health & Human Services Agencies, see http://www.cms.hhs.gov/opendoorforums or check out the Breaking News link on CynthiaStamer.com.

For assistance with compliance and risk management policies, practices or programs, assessing the strength of your controls in addressing these laws or other healthcare laws and regulations, or in addressing other compliance or health care concerns, please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at cstamer@CTTLegal.com or (214) 270- 2402.

Leave a Comment » | Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Hospital, OIG, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Hearing On Texas Medical Board Reforms Scheduled April 14, 2009

April 7, 2009

The 11 member Texas House Committee on Public Health has scheduled a hearing Tuesday, April 14^th to consider Texas Medical Board reforms proposed in HB 3816. Advocates of the legislation are urging supporters to attend the hearing and/or communicate their support for the legislation now.

Supported by a broad range of physician and other health care organizations, HB 3816 and a companion bill pending in the Texas Senate, SB 2336, seek to regulate certain practices by the Board which many physicians and others perceive as overly heavy handed. As currently proposed, HB 3816 would implement the following reforms effective September 1, 2009:

· Require that the Executive Director of the Board be a physician licensed in good standing

· Require that individuals filing complaints swear under oath to the truth of the statements in the complaint

· Require that the Board have “good cause” to file a complaint on its own initiative

· Require the Board to encourage each person with a complaint to attempt to resolve the complaint with the license holder directly before filing a formal complaint with the Board, in situations where that would be appropriate. Preprinted complaint forms provided by the Board would be required to include a prominent statement encouraging persons with complaints to attempt to resolve their complaints directly with the physician, when appropriate, before filing a formal complaint with the Board.

· Require that the Board notify physicians charged in a complaint be personal delivery or certified mail

· Prohibit the Board from considering or acting on a complaint involving care provided more than 4 years after the date the complaint is filed

· Deny civil, criminal, or regulatory immunity to persons filing complaints when the complaint is filed with malice or with an anticompetitive purpose.

· Require that the Board provide the physician charged in the complaint with an unredacted copy of the complaint unless there is a risk of harm to the public or unless it would jeopardize a criminal investigation.

· Ensure that physicians subject to a complaint receive at least 30 days after receiving a copy of the complaint to prepare and submit a response

· Establish a schedule for conducting each phase of a complaint that is under the control of the Board not later than the 30th day after the date the physician’s time for preparing and submitting a response expires.

· Restrict the physicians qualified to serve on the expert physician panel for a complaint to physicians actively practicing medicine in the State of Texas

· Require that the Board review a report concerning a physician’s medical competency prepared by an expert at the request of the physician who is the subject of the complaint

· Require that any review by a second expert be independent of the first review, without knowledge by the second reviewer of the identity of the first reviewer, and without any communication between the two reviewers.

· When the first and second reviewer disagree, require that the physician subject of the complaint be notified of the conflict and provided with copies of the conflicting reports and require that the final written report include a copy of the dissenting report.

· Requires that before using a report under this section, the Board provide the identity and qualifications of each expert physician who reviewed the complaint to the physician subject to the complaint

· Require considerations of the medical competency of the physician charged be conducted only by a physician engaged in an active practice in the same or similar specialty as the physician in the year preceding the review.

· Requires that the identity of the members of the expert panel considering medical competency be promptly disclosed to the physician who is the subject of the complaint

· Would require that a report concerning the medical competency of a charged physician be in the form of an affidavit sworn under oath to qualify for consideration by the Board

· Would excuse a charged physician from the obligation to provide evidence concerning patient records in the absence of a court order where the patient objects to this disclosure of the records for reasons of patient privacy

· Require “clear and convincing evidence” that, through the practice of medicine, the physician poses a continuing threat to the public welfare before the Board could deny or restrict a physician’s license or otherwise discipline a physician.

· Prohibit the Board from ordering or requiring a physician to practice medicine in a particular manner, to practice medicine, or to direct anyone in the practice of medicine, except by ordering that a physician not engage in a practice that causes actual harm or an imminent risk of harm to a patient

· Prohibit the Board from imposing a penalty, sanction, or other disciplinary action that is different from the action recommended by the panel in an informal proceeding and agreed upon by the license holder

· Prohibit the Board from involving itself in fee disputes or taking disciplinary action against a license holder for using the “fee for service” method of billing

· Prohibit the Board from taking disciplinary action against a license holder based upon the manner in which the license holder maintains the license holder’s office or records, unless the conduct has a likelihood of causing an actual harm or an imminent risk of harm to a patient

· Requires that a physician receive notice at least 48 hours prior to a an Informal Settlement Conference proceeding of the identity of the panel members presiding over the Informal Settlement Conference proceedings; and the opportunity to have an audio or video record or arrange for transcription of the Informal Settlement Conference proceedings

· Provide that decisions of the administrative law judge be binding on the Board

· Protect the right of a license holder may access and obtain a copy of any information relating to the license holder

· Provide that the district court reviewing a Board disciplinary action may only sustain the discipline on a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the action was supported by facts and law.

· Guarantee a jury trial right for physicians seeking to challenge the revocation of their license in the courts

· Require greater proof that a drug or treatment is nontherapeutic and that the prescribed treatment be have a “likelihood of harm to a patient” to constitute grounds for discipline.

You can review the current language of the bill at http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/doc/HB03816I.doc. For a list of the current members of the Texas House Committee on Public Health, see http://www.house.state.tx.us/committees/list81/410.htm.

If you need assistance evaluating or responding to these or other proposed legislative or regulative changes, responding to a licensing board complaint, peer review, or other disciplinary investigation or matter, or other health care matters, contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer or other members of Curren Tomko and Tarski LLP. please contact Ms. Stamer at cstamer@cttlegal.com, (214) 270-2402 or see CTTLegal.com or CynthiaStamer.com.

Leave a Comment » | Doctor, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Physician, Physician Licensing | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HIPAA Complaint Basis For Texas Whistleblower Claim

April 4, 2009

In a March 19, 2009 ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas recently recognized that the Texas Whistleblower Act prohibits health care organizations run by the State of Texas from retaliating against employees for making good faith complaints of violations of the Privacy Rules of the Health Insurance Portability Act (“HIPAA”).Nevertheless, the court dismissed the wrongful discharge lawsuit brought by a former Terrell State Hospital security guard who alleged he was wrongfully fired for complaining to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights (”OCR”) that the Hospital violated the HIPAA Privacy Rules because the plaintiff had failed to present sufficient proof that he was terminated in retaliation for filing a HIPAA complaint.

Illustrative of a growing number of state law retaliatory discharge claims brought be employees claiming to have been retaliated against for complaining about alleged violations of HIPAA’s Privacy Rules, Faulkner v. Department of State Health Servs., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22419 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2009), involved claims made by plaintiff Anthony Faulkner (”Faulkner”) that the Texas Department of State Health Services (”DSHS”); Terrell State Hospital; Texas DSHS Commissioner David L. Lakey, M.D.; Terrell State Hospital Superintendent Fred Hale; and Terrell State Hospital Risk Management Coordinator Clent Holmes, R.N. violated the Whistleblower Act and the First and Fourteenth Amendments by firing him seven days after he complained to OCR that Terrell State Hospital violated the HIPAA Privacy Rule by leaving admissions logs containing patient names and admission dates in a public area.

The Texas Whistleblower Act generally prohibits a state or local governmental entity from terminating or taking any other adverse personnel action against a public employee who in good faith reports a violation of law by the employing governmental entity or another public employee to an appropriate law enforcement authority.See Tex. Gov’t Code § 554.002(a).While the Court affirmed that the Texas Whistleblower Act permits a public employee of the State of Texas discharged or otherwise retaliated against for complaining in good faith to OCR that his public employer or its employee violated the HIPAA Privacy Rules, the Court nevertheless granted summary judgment to the defendants.

According to the court, Faulkner’s failure to introduce evidence rebutting defendant’s affidavit that he was terminated for repeatedly violating rules requiring him to report suspected abuse of patients precluded him from proving his termination was in retaliation for his filing of the HIPAA complaint.Meanwhile, the court also ruled that Faulkner’s claims against the individual defendants should be dismissed as the Whistleblower Act only creates a cause of action against governmental entities and not their employees. Having found Faulkner’s constitutional claims also without merit, the District Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

While the defendants were able to overcome Faulkner’s retaliatory discharge claim, the decision highlights the need for health care providers and other HIPAA covered entities to take appropriate precautions to defend against potential wrongful discharge, retaliation or other claims by employees or other service providers for complaining of possible HIPAA violations or for attempting to exercise other HIPAA-protected rights.HIPAA covered entities now should avoid engaging in actions that might unnecessarily fuel claims of retaliation. They also should carefully document and preserve evidence necessary to demonstrate the legitimacy of their disciplinary actions on an ongoing basis.

We hope you found this information helpful. If your organization needs assistance with understanding or managing its responsibilities or liabilities under HIPAA or other health care or employment laws or wishes to inquire about HIPAA training or other services and experience of Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, please contact Ms. Stamer via e-mail at Cstamer@Solutionslawyer.net or by telephoning Ms. Stamer at 469.767.8872.You also can review other helpful resources and register to receive other updates at CynthiaStamer.com.

Leave a Comment » | Corporate Compliance, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Plan, HIPAA, Hospital, Physician, Privacy | Tagged: Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Employer, Health Care Provider, HIPAA, Hospital, Privacy, retaliation, Retalitory Discharge, Whistleblower | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OIG Enters Into $2 Million Civil Monetary Penalty Settlement With Radiology Practice

March 29, 2009

A Las Vegas, Nevada radiology practice, West Valley Imaging Limited Partnership, and its principals, William L. Boren, M.D. and Luke S. Cesaretti, M.D., will pay $2 million and comply with the terms of an Integrity Agreement for five years to resolve allegations that they submitted false or fraudulent claims to Medicare, under a Civil Monetary Penalty (“CMP”) settlement agreement announced by the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) for the Department of Health and Human Services on March 25, 2009.

One of the largest CMP settlements ever negotiated under the OIG’s CMP authority, the West Valley CMP Settlement announcement comes just one day after the OIG announced changes to the conditions under which health care providers can use the OIG’s Self-Disclosure Protocol (“SDP”) to resolve CMP exposures for federal health care fraud violations and established $50,000 as the minimum settlement amount under the SDP program.

The West Valley CMP settlement resolves OIG charges that the defendants intentionally defrauded Medicare by improperly providing diagnostic tests to Medicare beneficiaries without the required treating physician’s orders; billing for certain tests under Current Procedural Terminology codes not supported by the medical records; and failing to satisfy certain other Medicare billing and coverage requirements.

The West Valley CMP settlement reflects the growing perils that health care providers face when charged with violating the Stark Law, Anti-Kickback Statute or other federal health care fraud laws. Health care providers should seek consult with qualified legal counsel within the scope of attorney-client privilege about the adequacy of their current policies and procedures and the development, implementation and enforcement of appropriate policies and practices to manage exposures to health care fraud or other liabilities taking into account the specific nature and scope of that health care provider’s health care operations. As part of this process, health care providers should work with their legal counsel within the scope of attorney-client privilege to decide and implement appropriate oversight and audit procedures and processes for investigating and addressing any issues that might arise in connection with an audit. While each health care provider generally should work with their legal counsel to define the scope and other particulars of such audit, every health care provider as part of this effort generally should undergo a periodic assessment by outside counsel of the adequacy of its Stark compliance efforts.

For assistance in reviewing and updating your Stark Law, Anti-Kickback Statute, or other health care compliance and risk management policies, practices or programs, assessing the strength of your controls in addressing these laws or other healthcare laws and regulations, or in addressing other compliance or health care concerns, please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at cstamer@solutionslawyer.net or 469.767.8872.

Leave a Comment » | Anti-KickBack, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, OIG, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OIG Narrows Availability of Self-Disclosure Protocol, Sets Minimum Settlement At $50K

March 29, 2009

The Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) recently narrowed the circumstances under which health care providers can use its Self-Disclosure Protocol (SDP) to resolve Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) exposures for federal health care fraud violations and established $50,000 as the minimum settlement amount under the SDP program. The announcement of modifications to the program corresponds with the OIG’s March 25, 2009 announcement that a Las Vegas, Nevada radiology practice, West Valley Imaging Limited Partnership, and its principals, William L. Boren, M.D., and Luke S. Cesaretti, M.D. must pay $2 million and comply with the terms of an Integrity Agreement for five years to resolve allegations that they submitted false or fraudulent claims to Medicare , under a Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) settlement agreement.

Under the Civil Monetary Penalties Law (“CMPL”), 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7a, and other provisions of the Social Security Act, health care providers risk the assessment of CMPs, exclusion from participation in all Federal health care programs or both if they knowingly and willfully:

ü Offer or pay remuneration to induce the referral of or solicit or receive remuneration in return for the referral of Federal health care program business in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute (42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b));

ü Present or cause to be presented a claim that the person knows or should know is for a service for which payment may not be made under 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn, the physician self-referral or “Stark” law. 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn(g)(3); or

ü Engages in certain other prohibited activities under federal healthcare fraud laws.

For an Anti-Kickback violation, the OIG may seek a penalty of up to $50,000 for each improper act and damages of up to three times the amount of remuneration at issue (regardless of whether some of the remuneration was for a lawful purpose). 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7a(a). As part of the federal government’s broader effort to control federal health care spending, OIG and other federal regulators are stepping up enforcement of these and other federal health care laws.

In keeping with this expanding enforcement commitment, the OIG announced in a March 24, 2009 Open Letter To Health Care Providers that health care providers generally will only be able to use the SDP to address health care fraud violations involving a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Effective March 24, 2009, the SDP cannot be used to resolve physician self-referral violations of the Stark law that do not also involve violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute. The OIG previously allowed health care providers the option to self-disclose and settle self-discovered violations of either the Anti-Kickback Statute or the Stark law under the SDP as a means of avoiding the uncertainty, disruptions and costs associated with a government-directed investigation and prosecution for those violations. The March 24, 2009 Open Letter announced that OIG will no longer accept disclosure of a matter that involves only liability under the physician self-referral law in the absence of a colorable anti-kickback statute violation. However, OIG will continue to accept providers into the SDP when the disclosed conduct involves colorable violations of the anti-kickback statute, whether or not it also involves colorable violations of the physician self-referral law.

In addition to narrowing the scope of the SDP, the March 24, 2009 Open Letter also announced that the OIG now will require a health care provider a minimum settlement of at least $50,000 to use the SDP. The OIG indicated this minimum settlement amount is consistent with OIG’s statutory authority to impose a penalty of up to $50,000 for each kickback and an assessment of up to three times the total remuneration. See 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7a(a)(7). Had this new minimum settlement policy been in effect at the time, it would have more than doubled the $21,025.62 settlement that San Jacinto Methodist Hospital (SJMH) paid in January, 2009 to settle its CMP exposure arising from its self-disclosure to the OIG that it had entered into an arrangement with a physician for a Medical Director position that included the physician occupying hospital space for private use and utilizing hospital personnel for clerical assistance related to the physician’s private practice patient visits without any contractual entitlement to do so.

Reflecting the continuing emphasis of the OIG on vigorous enforcement of federal health care fraud laws, the announcement of the SDP changes were immediately followed by the OIG’s announcement of one of the largest CMP settlements ever negotiated under the OIG’s CMP authority. On March 25, 2009, OIG announced that West Valley Imaging Limited Partnership, and its principals, William L. Boren, M.D., and Luke S. Cesaretti, M.D. must pay $2 million and comply with the terms of an Integrity Agreement for five years to resolve allegations that they submitted false or fraudulent claims to Medicare. The settlement resolves OIG charges that the defendants intentionally defrauded Medicare by improperly providing diagnostic tests to Medicare beneficiaries without the required treating physicians’ orders, billing for certain tests under Current Procedural Terminology codes not supported by the medical records, and failing to satisfy certain other Medicare billing and coverage requirements.

Even prior to the March 24, 2009 Open Letter, OIG habitually has assessed significant penalties against health care providers found to have violated the Anti-Kickback Statute, the Stark Law, and other federal health care fraud laws – including those violations self-disclosed under the SDP. In December, 2008, for instance King’s Daughters’ Hospital and Health Services in Indiana paid $391,500 to settle alleged violations of the Civil Monetary Penalties Law provisions applicable to kickbacks arising from its self-disclosure of compensation arrangements with employed physicians under which physicians were compensated for services that were not personally performed by them.

Health care providers should seek consult with qualified legal counsel within the scope of attorney-client privilege about the adequacy of their current policies and procedures and the development, implementation and enforcement of appropriate policies and practices to manage exposures to health care fraud or other liabilities taking into account the specific nature and scope of that health care provider’s health care operations. As part of this process, health care providers should work with their legal counsel within the scope of attorney-client privilege to decide and implement appropriate oversight and audit procedures and processes for investigating and addressing any issues that might arise in connection with an audit. While each health care provider generally should work with their legal counsel to define the scope and other particulars of such audit, every health care provider as part of this effort generally should undergo a periodic assessment by outside counsel of the adequacy of its Stark compliance efforts.

You also can review guidance governing the SDP at: http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/selfdisclosure.asp. For examples of past settlements under the SDP law, see http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/enforcement/cmp/kickback.asp.

Leave a Comment » | Anti-KickBack, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, OIG, Physician, Stark | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Recent Posts

Archives

About Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Share this blog

Archives

Solutions Law Press Health Care Update