Health Care Quality |

Preparing Privacy Compliance For Emergencies-Ebola Crisis Prompts HHS OCR To Share Guidance On HIPAA Privacy in Emergency Situations

November 11, 2014

The recent US Ebola scare provided an important reminder to health care providers, health insurers and health plans, health care clearinghouses, employers and others of the importance of understanding and preparing to deal with health care privacy and other challenges arising from epidemics and other emergencies. In response to the recent Ebola and other contagious disease outbreaks and just as U.S. health care and other business leaders are working to prepare for the biggest contagious disease time of the year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is reminding health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their business associates that the privacy rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) requiring Covered Entities and their business associates to limit the use, access and disclosure of patient’s protected health information (PHI) continue to apply during emergency situations and help them understand when HIPAA allows them to share PHI in emergency situations in a new notice titled “HIPAA Privacy in Emergency Situations” (Guidance) published November 10, 2014. A business associate of a covered entity (including a business associate that is a subcontractor) also must continue to comply with HIPAA and may only make disclosures permitted by the Privacy Rule on behalf of a Covered Entity or another business associate to the extent authorized by its business associate agreement and consistent with HIPAA’s requirements.

Sharing Patient Information

The Guidance begins by reminding Covered Entities and their business associates that HIPAA’s Privacy Rule continues to apply in emergency situations and requires Covered Entities protect and prohibits their use, access or disclosure of patient’s protected health information except as allowed by HIPAA unless the patient authorizes the Covered Entity to disclose the PHI in accordance with HIPAA’s requirements for authorization set forth in 45 CFR 164.508.

The Guidance then goes on to discuss the following circumstances that the HIPAA Privacy Rule might allow Covered Entities to share PHI without getting patient authorization, subject to the reminder that in many cases, HIPAA will require that the Covered Entity limit the disclosure to the minimum necessary disclosure necessary for the allowable purpose and require other conditions to be fulfilled:

Treatment.

Under the Privacy Rule, covered entities may disclose, without a patient’s authorization, protected health information about the patient as necessary to treat the patient or to treat a different patient. Treatment includes the coordination or management of health care and related services by one or more health care providers and others, consultation between providers, and the referral of patients for treatment. See 45 CFR §§ 164.502(a)(1)(ii), 164.506(c), and the definition of “treatment” at 164.501.

Public Health Activities.

The HIPAA Privacy Rule recognizes the legitimate need for public health authorities and others responsible for ensuring public health and safety to have access to protected health information that is necessary to carry out their public health mission. Therefore, the Privacy Rule permits covered entities to disclose needed protected health information without individual authorization:

To Or At The Direction Of A Public Health Authority.

The HIPAA Privacy Rule allows Covered Entities to share protected health information with Public Health Authorities authorized by law to collect or receive such information for the purpose of preventing or controlling disease, injury or disability like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or a state or local health department. This would include, for example, the reporting of disease or injury; reporting vital events, such as births or deaths; and conducting public health surveillance, investigations, or interventions. A “public health authority” is an agency or authority of the United States government, a State, a territory, a political subdivision of a State or territory, or Indian tribe that is responsible for public health matters as part of its official mandate, as well as a person or entity acting under a grant of authority from, or under a contract with, a public health agency. See 45 CFR §§ 164.501 and 164.512(b)(1)(i). For example, a covered entity may disclose to the CDC protected health information on an ongoing basis as needed to report all prior and prospective cases of patients exposed to or suspected or confirmed to have Ebola virus disease.

The HIPAA Privacy Rule also allows Covered Entities to share information at the direction of a public health authority:

To a foreign government agency that is acting in collaboration with the public health authority. See 45 CFR 164.512(b)(1)(i); and
To persons at risk of contracting or spreading a disease or condition if other law, such as state law, authorizes the covered entity to notify such persons as necessary to prevent or control the spread of the disease or otherwise to carry out public health interventions or investigations. See 45 CFR 164.512(b)(1)(iv)

Disclosures to Family, Friends, and Others Involved in an Individual’s Care and for Notification.

The HIPAA Privacy Rule allows a Covered Entity to share protected health information:

With a patient’s family members, relatives, friends, or other persons identified by the patient as involved in the patient’s care;
About a patient as necessary to identify, locate, and notify family members, guardians, or anyone else responsible for the patient’s care, of the patient’s location, general condition, or death including where necessary to notify family members and others, the police, the press, or the public at large. See 45 CFR 164.510(b).

The Guidance reminds Covered Entities, however, that the Privacy Rule requires the Covered Entity to get verbal permission from individuals or otherwise be able to reasonably infer that the patient does not object, when possible. If the individual is incapacitated or not available, the Guidance states Covered Entities may share information for these purposes if, in their professional judgment, doing so is in the patient’s best interest.

The Guidance also confirms that Covered Entities may share protected health information with disaster relief organizations authorized by law or by their charters to assist in disaster relief efforts like the American Red Cross for the purpose of coordinating the notification of family members or other persons involved in the patient’s care, of the patient’s location, general condition, or death. It is unnecessary to obtain a patient’s permission to share the information in this situation if doing so would interfere with the organization’s ability to respond to the emergency.

Imminent Danger

The Guidance also states that Covered Entities that are health care providers may share patient information with anyone as necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health and safety of a person or the public – consistent with applicable law (such as state statutes, regulations, or case law) and the provider’s standards of ethical conduct. See 45 CFR 164.512(j).

Disclosures to the Media & Others Not Involved in the Care of the Patient/Notification

The Guidance also reminds Covered Entities of the importance of closely adhering to HIPAA’s rules when responding to information requests from the medial or others not involved in the care of a patient. The Guidance states that when the media or other other party not involved un the patient’s care asks the Covered Entity for information about a particular patient by name, a hospital or other health care facility may release limited facility directory information to acknowledge an individual is a patient at the facility and provide basic information about the patient’s condition in general terms (e.g., critical or stable, deceased, or treated and released) if the patient has not objected to or restricted the release of such information or, if the patient is incapacitated, if the disclosure is believed to be in the best interest of the patient and is consistent with any prior expressed preferences of the patient. See 45 CFR 164.510(a). In general, except in the limited circumstances authorized in the HIPAA Privacy Rule, affirmative reporting to the media or the public at large about an identifiable patient, or the disclosure to the public or media of specific information about treatment of an identifiable patient, such as specific tests, test results or details of a patient’s illness, may not be done without the patient’s written authorization (or the written authorization of a personal representative who is a person legally authorized to make health care decisions for the patient).

Minimum Necessary Restriction Requirement

The Guidance cautions Covered Entities and their business associates that for most disclosures, a Covered Entity generally must make reasonable efforts to limit the information disclosed to that which is the “minimum necessary” to accomplish the purpose. However, this minimum necessary requirement does not apply to disclosures to health care providers for treatment purposes.

Covered Entities may rely on representations from a public health authority or other public official that the requested information is the minimum necessary when making disclosures in response to request from those parties. For example, a covered entity may rely on representations from the CDC that the protected health information requested by the CDC about all patients exposed to or suspected or confirmed to have Ebola virus disease is the minimum necessary for the public health purpose.

Required Internal Restrictions On Use, Access & Disclosure

Internally, covered entities should continue to apply their role-based access policies to limit access to protected health information to only those workforce members who need it to carry out their duties. See 45 CFR §§ 164.502(b), 164.514(d).

Safeguarding Patient Information

Beyond limiting the use, access and disclosure of PHI, the Guidance also reminds Covered Entities and their business associates that even in emergency situations, HIPAA continues to require them to implement reasonable safeguards to protect patient information against intentional or unintentional impermissible uses and disclosures as well as to apply the administrative, physical, and technical safeguards of the HIPAA Security Rule to electronic PHI.

Limited Waiver

Although HHS has yet to take steps to trigger a limited waiver, the Guidance also reminds Covered Entities and their business associates that HHS has the power to do so, the effect of a limited waiver and the circumstances under which HHS could elect to apply a limited waiver to waive sanctions against a hospital for certain specific types of HIPAA violations while the waiver is in effect.

As the Guidance notes, the HIPAA Privacy Rule is not suspended during a public health or other emergency. Rather, the limited waiver rules only operates to permit the Secretary of HHS to waive certain provisions of the Privacy Rule under the Project Bioshield Act of 2004 (PL 108-276) and section 1135(b)(7) of the Social Security Act. The limited waiver only applies when the President declares an emergency or disaster and HHS declares a public health emergency. When and if these requirements are met, HHS may waive sanctions and penalties against a Covered Entity that is a hospital for failing to comply with the following HIPAA Privacy Rule provisions:

The requirements to obtain a patient’s agreement to speak with family members or friends involved in the patient’s care. See 45 CFR 164.510(b).
The requirement to honor a request to opt out of the facility directory. See 45 CFR 164.510(a).
The requirement to distribute a notice of privacy practices. See 45 CFR 164.520.
The patient’s right to request privacy restrictions. See 45 CFR 164.522(a).
The patient’s right to request confidential communications. See 45 CFR 164.522(b).

If the Secretary issues such a waiver, Covered Entities and their business associates should keep in mind the waiver only applies to the list violations and only applies:

For so long as the waiver remains in effect;
In the emergency area and for the emergency period identified in the public health emergency declaration
To hospitals that have instituted a disaster protocol; and
For up to 72 hours from the time the hospital implements its disaster protocol.

When the Presidential or Secretarial declaration terminates, a hospital must then comply with all the requirements of the Privacy Rule for any patient still under its care, even if 72 hours has not elapsed since implementation of its disaster protocol.

Not Necessarily Just About HIPAA

HIPAA is not necessarily the only law that Covered Entities, business associates or others need to consider when deciding what to disclose during an emergency or otherwise. The HIPAA Privacy Rule applies to disclosures made by and Covered Entities, business associates employees, volunteers, and other members of a Covered Entity’s or Business Associate’s workforce. The Privacy Rule does not apply to disclosures made by entities or other persons who are not Covered Entities.

Beyond HIPAA, Covered Entities, their business associates or members of their workforce, employers, and other organizations also need to consider whether other federal or state laws, ethical rules, contracts or policies may restrict use or disclosure, safeguard, or take other steps to protect PHI or other information. For instance, other federal laws, state law, professional ethical rules, contracts, facility policies or procedures, or other restrictions often apply to health care provides, insurers, brokers, employers or others. Employers, health care organizations, insurers and others also need to be concerned about potential discrimination, common law and statutory privacy, retaliation, defamation and other exposures.

Prepare For Compliance Now

The recent experiences of various health care organizations intimately involved in caring for the Ebola patients highlights the importance of anticipating, preparing and conducting training, and having your workforce practice to prepare to deal with the special challenges of dealing with HIPAA and other legal responsibilities in advance of emergency events. When preparing for these events, Covered Entities and business associates need to take into account the need to comply operationally as well as to document and retain records of compliance. They should both should anticipate and prepare to respond to both typical inquiries as well as those from the media, public and others. They also should consider how various types of emergencies could create new privacy or security risks. For instance, in certain emergency situations, recordkeeping or other systems could be disrupted, impacting the ability retain and subsequently produce required documentation. Furthermore, Covered Entities also should prepare to manage the patient and public relations aspects of these events including adverse impressions that often arise when the media or others are disappointed at being denied information because of compliance obligations, from breaches or perceived breaches, or other similar events.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 26 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Her experience includes advising hospitals, nursing home, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to Board of Medicine, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. The scribe for the American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits annual agency meeting with the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA and other information privacy and data security rules, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others. In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

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

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

Leave a Comment » | Centers For Disease Control, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Disability Discrimination, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Employee Benefits, FDA, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, Hospital, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, OIG, Pandemic, Patient Empowerment, Pharmacy, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Prospective Payment, Public Policy, Substance Abuse | Tagged: controlled substance, DEA, DOJ, Drug Testing, drugs, false claims act, Grants, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, Health Plans, HEAT, HIPAA, licensure, Medicaid, Medical Board, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, physical therapy, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

6/30 Comment Deadline For Proposed Inpatient Rehab Payment and Quality Reporting Rules

May 6, 2014

On May 1, 2014, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a proposed rule outlining proposed fiscal year (FY) 2015 Medicare payment policies and rates for inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) and the IRF Quality Reporting Program (IRF QRP). The FY 2015 proposals are summarized below.

Changes to the payment rates under the IRF Prospective Payment System (PPS). We are proposing to update the IRF PPS payments for FY 2015 to reflect an estimated 2.1 percent increase factor (reflecting a 2.7 percent market basket, reduced by a 0.4 percent multi-factor productivity adjustment and a 0.2 percentage point reduction mandated by the Affordable Care Act). An additional 0.1 percent increase to aggregate payments due to updating the outlier threshold results in an overall update of 2.2 percent (or $160 million), relative to payments in FY 2014.
Facility-level adjustment updates. CMS is proposing to freeze the facility-level adjustment factors for FY 2015 and all subsequent years at the FY 2014 levels, while we continue to monitor the most current IRF data available and evaluate the effects of the FY 2014 changes. Additionally, we want to allow providers time to acclimate to the FY 2014 changes.
ICD-10-CM Conversion. The FY 2015 IRF PPS proposed rule discusses the transition from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM for all diagnosis codes used in the IRF PPS Grouper software and the software for evaluating IRFs’ compliance with the 60 percent rule. Using the General Equivalence Mappings (GEMs) tool, we have transitioned the following lists of diagnosis codes used in the IRF PPS: the List of Comorbidities, Codes That Meet Presumptive Compliance Criteria, and Impairment Group Codes That Meet Presumptive Compliance Criteria. Our intent was to keep the same meaning of the codes in transitioning from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM. We did not intend to add or delete conditions, or otherwise change the meaning of the code lists. We are addressing the conversion of ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM codes for the IRF PPS in this proposed rule, but in light of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA) (Pub. L. No. 113-93), the effective date of those changes would be the date when ICD-10-CM becomes the required medical data code set for use on Medicare claims and IRF-PAI submissions. Until that time, we will continue to require use of the ICD-9-CM codes for the IRF PPS.
Further Refinements to the Presumptive Methodology. In the FY 2014 IRF PPS final rule (78 FR 47860), we revised the list of ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes that are compared with a patient’s comorbidities in determining an IRF’s presumptive compliance with the 60 percent rule. However, a patient’s comorbidities are not the only aspect of a patient’s record that is evaluated in determining whether that patient should be counted towards an IRF’s presumptive compliance. In the FY 2014 IRF PPS final rule, we addressed only the comorbidity portion of the presumptive compliance determination, and did not address the IGC or Etiologic Diagnosis portions. In this proposed rule, CMS is proposing some additional revisions to the comorbidity, IGC, and Etiologic Diagnosis portions of the presumptive compliance determination to be consistent with the changes we implemented in the FY 2014 final rule.
Therapy Data Collection. CMS is proposing to add a new item to the inpatient rehabilitation facility-patient assessment instrument (IRF-PAI) that would require IRFs to record how much and what type of therapy (i.e., individual, group, co-treatment) patients receive in each therapy discipline (i.e., physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology), similar to what is currently reported on the minimum data set in the skilled nursing facility setting.
New IRF-PAI Item for Arthritis Diagnosis Codes. CMS is proposing to add an item to the IRF-PAI form in which providers could indicate that the prior treatment and severity requirements had been met for patients with arthritis conditions. The addition of this item would mitigate a potential increase in burden due to the changes in the presumptive compliance methodology finalized in the FY 2014 IRF PPS final rule (78 FR 47860 at 47887 through 47890) and the changes proposed in this year’s NPRM. For providers that fail the presumptive compliance test, the new IRF-PAI item would first be used to determine whether or not the inclusion of all of the arthritis cases indicated as meeting the severity and prior treatment requirements would be enough for the facility to comply with the 60 percent rule requirement. If so, instead of the Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) doing a medical review on all cases, the MAC could take a random sample of the arthritis cases to determine if the requirements were met by including these cases. Only in those instances where the facility did not meet the compliance requirements including the arthritis cases, would the MAC need to complete a medical review on all cases.
New Measure Proposals. CMS also is proposing to adopt two additional quality measures to the IRF QRP: NHSN Facility-Wide Inpatient Hospital-Onset Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Bacteremia Outcome Measure (NQF #1716), and NHSN Facility-Wide Inpatient Hospital-Onset Clostridium difficile Infection (CDI) Outcome Measure (NQF #1717).

CMS also is proposing various new policies including the following:

Reconsideration Process. CMS is proposing a formal reconsideration policy for the IRF QRP, which proposes to require that IRF providers follow specific procedures when submitting a request for CMS’ reconsideration of an initial IRF QRP provider compliance determination.
Extraordinary Circumstances Waiver Process. CMS is proposing to change the name of the previously finalized “Disaster Waiver” process to “Extraordinary Circumstances Exception/Extension.” We are also proposing to expand the process, previously finalized in the FY 2014 IRF PPS Final Rule, to allow IRF providers to request exceptions or extensions for other circumstances beyond their control, including those that are not classified as natural disasters.
CMS IRF QRP Thresholds and Data Validation. CMS is proposing a new Data Accuracy Validation policy, which will require randomly selected IRF providers to meet a proposed 90% data reliability threshold for required IRF-PAI quality indicator data items.

The proposed rule will be published in the Federal Register on May 7, 2014. CMS will accept comments on the proposed rule until June 30, 2014.

For More Information Or Assistance

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

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

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | ASC, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Hospital, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Money Laundering, Physician, Reimbursement | Tagged: 2014, On May 1, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a proposed rule outlining proposed fiscal year (FY) 2015 Medicare payment policies and rates for inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

April 4, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

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

Other Resources

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

NLRB Helps Union Force Another Health Care Employer To Recognize & Bargain With Union

March 13, 2014

Hospitals, skilled nursing and other health care organizations need to be concerned about union organizing of their employees in light of the growing success of unions with the aid of the pro-union support and agenda of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under the Obama Administration’s leadership. The Administration’s goal of telling health care providers what to do extends well beyond Medicare and Medicaid into their workforce and terms and conditions of employment.

On February 21, 2014, for instance, the Obama Administration helped the Service Employees International Union (the Union) force Holy Cross Youth and Family Services, Inc., d/b/a Kairos Healthcare (the Employer), a provider of drug and alcohol rehabilitation services, to recognize and bargain with the over terms and conditions of employees with the Union by securing a court order forcing the employer to recognize and bargain with the Union.

Ruling in a lawsuit filed by the NLRB against the Employer on February 21, a federal court judge for the Eastern District of Michigan ordered upheld the allegations made in August 23, 2013 by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Detroit, Michigan Regional Office that the Employer violated the National Labor Relations Act when it withdrew recognition from Local 517M, made unilateral changes to employees’ terms and conditions of employment without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain over those changes, and failed to provide relevant information to the Union to help in its bargaining with the Employer on behalf of the employees.

The Regional Office sought, and the Board authorized, seeking interim injunctive relief to return the parties to the bargaining table pending final resolution of the matter, to require the Employer to provide the Union with the information it requested and, upon request, to rescind the unilateral changes made to employees’ terms and conditions of employment.

On February 21, 2014, the District upheld the Regional Office’s action. It ruled that an interim injunction was appropriate to prevent loss of Union support, to keep the employees’ right to bargain with their Employer through their chosen bargaining representative, and to provide the Union with the information it needs to evaluate and make bargaining proposals while the administrative case is pending before the Board.

The case is one of a growing number of actions where the NLRB has used is powers to help Unions force health care and other employers to yield to union demands. See e.g., Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation of Mobile, Board Case No. 15-CA-68248 (reported at 357 NLRB No. 174) (6^th Cir. decided August 15, 2013 under the name Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC f/k/a Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation of Mobile v. NLRB).

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

1 Comment | Corporate Compliance, Doctor, Employment law, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Labor Law, Licensing, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Physician, Physician Licensing, Rehabilitation Act, Reimbursement, Substance Abuse | Tagged: Breach Notification, collective bargaining, Employment, Health Care, HHS, HIPAA Privacy, Hospital, labor law, labor-management, NLRA, NLRB, nursing home, Security, Union, Union Organizing | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

December 27, 2013

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

APDerm Settlement Overview

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

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

Enforcement Actions Highlight Growing HIPAA Exposures For Covered Entities

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

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

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

For Representation, Training & Other Resources

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

Other Resources

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

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

December 16, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, for additional information or representation.

For More Information Or Assistance

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

Other Resources

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

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

December 16, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

Other Resources

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

Update Mileage Reimbursement Policies, Communications For IRS 2014 Mileage Rates

December 10, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

Other Resources

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

Doc Sentenced to 15 Years for Health Care Fraud

November 16, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

Other Resources

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

DOL Extends Minimum Wage, Overtime Protections To Home Care Workers

September 18, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

New Home Care Worker Rules Effective January 2015

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

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

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

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

Enforcement Against Other Industries Shows Risks

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

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

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

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

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

FLSA Violations Generally Costly; Enforcement Rising

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

Employers Should Strengthen Practices For Defensibility

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

Other Resources

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

CMS Releases New Eligible Professionals Guide On Stage 2 EHR Incentive Program

September 18, 2013

CMS just released An Eligible Professional’s Guide to Stage 2 of the EHR Incentive Programs, which provides a comprehensive overview of Stage 2 of the EHR Incentive Programs for eligible professionals. The guide outlines criteria for Stage 2 meaningful use, 2014 clinical quality measure reporting, and 2014 EHR certification including Chapters on;

What is Stage 2 of the EHR Incentive Programs?
What are the requirements under Stage 2 of Meaningful Use?
How will clinical quality measures (CQMs) change?
Resources

The guide can be found on the Educational Resources page of the EHR website.

Health care providers and their vendors and advisors using these resources also are reminded to ensure that their business associate agreements, privacy practices notices and other privacy and data security processes, policies, and procedures are updated to comply with changes to the Privacy, Security, Breach Notification and other requirements he for the protection and handling of personal health information including electronic personal health information of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) as amended by the HITECH Act. The Final Omnibus Regulations published by the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) generally took effect earlier this year except that the regulations set next Monday, September 23, 2013 as the deadline for updating business associate agreements and the effective date for the extension of most HIPAA requirements to business associates. As demonstrated by recent enforcement actions by OCR, Health care providers and other covered entities, their business associates and advisors continuously reconfirm that their systems and arrangements continue to comply with these requirements as they make updates.

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

OCR Shares Model Privacy Notices 1 Week Before Deadline For Updated Business Associate Agreements

September 16, 2013

A week before the September 23, 2013 deadline for all health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their business associates to have updated their business associate agreements to comply with the Final Omnibus HIPAA Rule, the Department of Health & Human Services Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) and the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) today (September 16, 2013) released Model Notices of Privacy Practices (Notices) for health care providers and health plans to use to communicate with their patients and plan members. With penalties and enforcement continuing to rise, Covered Entities and their business associates should take appropriate steps to review and update their privacy and breach notification policies and procedures, privacy officer appointments, notices of privacy practices, business associate agreements and other HIPAA compliance and risk management documentation, practices, procedures and coverage, breach notification and other HIPAA compliance and risk management practice.

Model HIPAA Notices

Developed collaboratively by ONC and OCR the Notices available here designed in the following three different styles are designed for users to customize to fit their specific needs and practices:

A notice in the form of a booklet;
A layered notice with a summary of the information on the first page and full content on the following pages; and
A notice with the design elements of the booklet, but that is formatted for full-page presentation.

Use of these model Notices is optional. While the agencies designed the Notices to let Covered Entities to use these models by entering some of their own information into the model, such as contact information, and then printing for distribution and posting on their websites, Covered Entities should consult with legal counsel to determine the suitability of the Notices generally for their entity’s use and any customization, if any, that may be recommended or required to a Notice if the Covered Entity decides rely upon a model Notice to prepare its Notice of Privacy Practices. To facilitate any tailoring, the agencies provided a text-only version for Covered Entities wishing only wish to use the content with or without tailoring.

September 23 Business Associate Agreement Update Deadline

September 23, 2013 also is the final deadline established in the Final Omnibus HIPAA Rule for Covered Entities and their business associations to update the business associate agreements required by HIPAA to reflect application of the breach notification, business associate, and many of HIPAA’s requirements to directly cover business associates and other aspects of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. While HHS published a Sample Business Associate Agreement last June to aid Covered Entities and their business associates with understanding the business associate agreement requirements as impacted by the Omnibus Final HIPAA Rule, it also made clear that Covered Entities and their business associates should tailor their business associate agreements to fit their specific circumstances and relationships. OCR National Office and regional officials speaking about their findings about past business associate agreement compliance have indicated that their audit and enforcement activities show widespread compliance issues among Covered Entities and business associates with the original business associate agreements. OCR clearly expects Covered Entities and their business associates to address and resolve these compliance issues going forward.

Covered Entities and their business associates are increasingly at peril if caught violating HIPAA’s Privacy, Security or Breach Notification rules. With the HITECH Act Breach Notification rules now requiring Covered Entities to self-disclose breaches, OCR becomes aware of breaches much more easily. Coupled with the HITECH Act’s increase in sanctions for HIPAA violations, Covered Entities and, beginning September 23, 2013, their business associates face rising risks for violating HIPAA. See, e.g. HHS Settles with Health Plan in Photocopier Breach Case; WellPoint Settles HIPAA Security Case for $1,700,000; Shasta Regional Medical Center Settles HIPAA Security Case for $275,000; Idaho State University Settles HIPAA Security Case for $400,000; and HHS announces first HIPAA breach settlement involving less than 500 patients.

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

CMS To Host Provider Webinar To Celebrate National Health IT Week

September 13, 2013

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

Details of Webinar

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

Administrative Simplification
eRx Incentive Program
ICD-10
Quality Measurement

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

Registration Information

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

September 9, 2013

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

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

Health Care
Research and Innovation
Prevention and Wellness

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

Court Upholds NLRB Certification of CNAs As Bargaining Union Based On NLRB Modified Community Of Interest Test

August 21, 2013

Hospitals, skilled nursing and other health care organizations facing or concerned about union organizing or their nursing or other staffs employees should consider an apparent change in National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) certification policy upheld when the Sixth Circuit ruling upheld the NLRB’s certification of a bargaining unit consisting exclusively of certified nursing assistants (CNAs) at Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation of Mobile (Specialty) nursing home and enforced the Board’s order finding that Specialty’s refusal to bargain with the certified unit violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation of Mobile, Board Case No. 15-CA-68248 (reported at 357 NLRB No. 174) (6^th Cir. decided August 15, 2013 under the name Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC f/k/a Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation of Mobile v. NLRB), arose after the union had petitioned to represent a unit of 53 full-time and part-time CNAs, Specialty claimed that the smallest appropriate unit must include 86 other service and maintenance employees.　 The NLRB Regional Director found the unit appropriate and conducted the election, which the union won.　 The NLRB granted review, asked the parties and public for their views on eight questions on community of interest unit determinations in the non-acute care healthcare industry, and ultimately issued a decision upholding the unit determination and the union’s election victory.

In its decision, the Board overruled Park Manor Care Center, 305 NLRB 872 (1991), which applied a “pragmatic or empirical community of interests approach” to determining unit appropriateness in nursing homes.　 Instead, the Board ruled that it would apply the traditional test to evaluate appropriateness, which examines whether a proposed unit is readily identifiable and shares a community of interest distinct from other employees.　 Then, the Board explained, if “a party contends that a petitioned-for unit containing employees readily identifiable as a group who share a community of interest is nevertheless inappropriate because it does not contain additional employees, the burden is on the party so contending to show that the excluded employees share an overwhelming community of interest with the included employees.”　 Because the CNA-only unit was readily identifiable and shared a distinct community of interest, and because Specialty failed to show that the excluded service and maintenance employees shared an overwhelming community of interest with the CNAs, the Board certified the unit and the union’s victory.　 Specialty refused to bargain, and this technical NLRA Section 8(a)(5) proceeding followed.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the Board’s order and its clarification of the community-of-interest test.　 First, rejecting Specialty’s argument that the Board did not merely embrace the traditional community-of-interest test but instead improperly created an entirely new framework, the court held that the Board permissibly “adopted a community-of-interest test based on some of the Board’s prior precedents, and . . . did explain its reasons for doing so.”　 In so holding, the court explicitly recognized the ambiguity in the Act’s command that bargaining units must be “appropriate,” and observed that the Board merely granted Judge Posner’s “wish that the Board would give [the traditional community-of-interest test] ‘a precise meaning.’” Slip op. at 13 (quoting Cont’l Web Press v. NLRB, 742 F.2d 1087, 1090 (7th Cir. 1984)).

Next, the court concluded that the Board acted within its discretion in requiring a party claiming that the smallest appropriate unit must include additional employees to show that the excluded employees share an “overwhelming community of interest” with the proposed unit.　 Indeed, the court explained that “[t]he Board has used the overwhelming-community-of-interest standard before, so its adoption [here] is not new.”　 After citing numerous cases, including the D.C. Circuit’s Blue Man Vegas LLC v. NLRB, 529 F.3d 417 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the court agreed that the Board merely clarified existing law, overruled any inconsistent precedent, appropriately placed the burden of proving overwhelming community of interest on the employer (who typically possesses the information to make that case), and explained its reasons for doing all of the above.

Turning to Specialty’s third defense, the court concluded that the Board’s test did not run afoul of Section 9(c)(5), which prohibits the Board from finding “the extent to which the employees have organized . . . controlling” in making unit determinations.　 To the contrary, the court noted that the Board first engaged in an independent community of interest determination to find out whether the proposed CNA-only unit was appropriate “aside from the fact that the union had organized it.”　 Further, “[a]s long as the Board applies the overwhelming community of interest standard only after the proposed unit has been shown to be prima facie appropriate, the Board does not run afoul of the statutory injunction that the extent of the union’s organization not be given controlling weight.”　 Slip op. at 19 (internal quotations omitted and emphasis in original).

Finally, the court held that “the Board did not abuse its discretion in adopting a generally applicable rule through adjudication instead of rule making because NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co. Div. of Textron, Inc., 416 U.S. 267, 294 (1974), holds both that ‘the Board is not precluded from announcing new principles in an adjudicative proceeding and that the choice between rule making and adjudication lies in the first instance within the Board’s discretion.’”

The Court’s opinion is available here.

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Corporate Compliance, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Genetic Information, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Licensing, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, OCR, OIG, Physician, Physician Licensing, Rehabilitation Act, Reimbursement, Substance Abuse | Tagged: Breach Notification, collective bargaining, Employment, Health Care, HHS, HIPAA Privacy, Hospital, labor-management, NLRB, nursing home, Security, Union Organizing | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$1.2M HIPAA Settlement Results From Improper Copier Disposal

August 15, 2013

Be careful when repurposing or disposing of copiers and other equipment and media that may contain protected health information. That’s the message the Office of Civil Rights is sending health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their business associates in its August 14, 2013 announcement of a $1.2 million plus settlement agreement with Affinity Health Plan, Inc. (Affinity) under the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act Privacy and Security Rules.

According to OCR, the non-profit New York area managed care plan Affinity will pay $1,215,780 and take other corrective actions to settle alleged HIPAA violations under the Affinity Resolution Agreement and CAP (Affinity Settlement). The settlement comes as the September 24, 2013 deadline for health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their business associates to update the written business associate agreements that HIPAA requires exist before business associates can be allowed to create, use, access or disclose personally identifiable health care information protected by HIPAA (PHI) to carry out HIPAA-covered functions on behalf of a Covered Entity to comply with changes to HIPAA’s implementing regulations adopted by OCR earlier this year. Health plans and other Covered Entities should take timely action to confirm that their existing procedures appropriate safeguards to protect PHI when using or disposing of copiers or other equipment or media as well as to implement business associate or other policy, procedures or training updates required to comply with the updated HIPAA rules.

HIPAA Updates Require Breach Notification, Tightened Other HIPAA Requirements

HIPAA generally requires that Covered Entities (and after September 24, 2013, their business associates) safeguard and restrict the use, access or disclosure of PHI as required by HIPAA. The HITECH Act amended these requirements to tighten certain of these requirements and restrictions, to expand the sanctions for violation of these requirements, to require Covered Entities and their business associates to provide notification of breaches of unsecured PHI to individuals whose information was breached, OCR and in some cases, the media, and made certain other changes to the original requirements of HIPAA. Earlier this year, OCR amended and restated its original Privacy and Security Rules here (2013 Final Rule) to comply with changes in the regulations resulting from these HITECH Act amendments beginning last March, but set the deadline for updating business associate agreements to meet these updated requirements at September 23, 2013.

The 2013 Final Rule and other OCR guidance makes clear that OCR expects Covered Entities and their business associates appropriately to safeguard PHI stored in computers, hard drives, and other digital media until it is properly disposed in accordance with the updated standards required by HIPAA as implemented under the 2013 Final Rule. HITECH Breach Notification Rule requires HIPAA-covered entities to notify HHS of a breach of unsecured protected health information, including breaches resulting from failure to properly secure PHI stored in digital format until it has been destroyed in accordance with the standards established by the 2013 Final Rule. OCR previously has sanctioned other Covered Entities for failed to properly destroy or safeguard PHI stored in digital format on computer or other equipment before abandoning or disposing of that equipment. The Affinity Settlement reaffirms OCR’s concern that Covered Entities meet these disposal requirements when replacing or abandoning equipment containing electronic PHI.

Affinity Settlement Highlights

According to the August 14, 2013 OCR announcement of the settlement, the settlement resulted from an investigation initiated after Affinity filed a breach report with OCR on April 15, 2010, as required by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act.)

In its breach report, Affinity indicated that it was informed by a representative of CBS Evening News that, as part of an investigatory report, CBS had purchased a photocopier previously leased by Affinity. CBS informed Affinity that the copier that Affinity had used contained confidential medical information on the hard drive.

Affinity estimated in its breach report that up to 344,579 individuals may have been affected by this breach. OCR’s investigation indicated that Affinity impermissibly disclosed the protected health information of these affected individuals when it returned multiple photocopiers to leasing agents without erasing the data contained on the copier hard drives. In addition, OCR reports its investigation revealed that Affinity failed to incorporate the electronic protected health information (ePHI) stored on photocopier hard drives in its analysis of risks and vulnerabilities as required by the Security Rule, and failed to implement policies and procedures when returning the photocopiers to its leasing agents.

In addition to the $1,215,780 payment, the Affinity Settlement includes a corrective action plan requiring Affinity to use its best efforts to retrieve all hard drives that were contained on photocopiers previously leased by the plan that remain in the possession of the leasing agent, and to take certain measures to safeguard all ePHI.

Learn From Affinity Lesson On Proper Disposal Procedures

Like prior OCR settlements stemming from inadequate security for PHI when transitioning equipment, media or facilities, the Affinity Settlement sends another reminder to Covered Entities and their business associates again of the importance of using appropriate procedures to protect or dispose of PHI when replacing or redeploying equipment or media that may contain PHI.

“This settlement illustrates an important reminder about equipment designed to retain electronic information: Make sure that all personal information is wiped from hardware before it’s recycled, thrown away or sent back to a leasing agent,” said OCR Director Leon Rodriguez. “HIPAA covered entities are required to undertake a careful risk analysis to understand the threats and vulnerabilities to individuals’ data, and have appropriate safeguards in place to protect this information.”

OCR has published guidance concerning HIPAA’s requirements for the proper safeguarding and disposal of media and equipment in the 2013 Final Rule and other guidance. Concerning the proper disposition of copiers that may have PHI stored on their hard drives or in other digital formal, OCR in the Affinity Settlement recommended that Covered Entities and their associates also review the Federal Trade Commission’s Guidance On Safeguarding Sensitive Data Stored In The Hard Drives Of Digital Copiers and the National Institute of Standards and Technology has issued Guidance On Assessing The Security Of Multipurpose Office Machines. Covered Entities and their business associates should use this and other guidance to ensure that they can demonstrate that appropriate practices and procedures have been used to when disposing of or repurposing copies or other equipment that may contain electronic PHI.

HIPAA Regulation Updates Require Other Updates Beyond Disposal Procedures

In addition to addressing the concerns that lead to the Affinity Settlement, Covered Entities and their business associates also should verify that their practices, policies, privacy notices, business associate agreements, and training also are updated to comply with updates to the updated 2013 Final Rule adopted by OCR earlier this year here.

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

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

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

IRS Publishes 2014 Branded Prescription Drug Fee Guidance

August 5, 2013

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) today released Notice 2013-51. “Branded Prescription Drug Fee; Guidance for the 2014 Fee Year,” which contains guidance on the branded prescription drug fee imposed under section 9008 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) for the 2014 fee year.

Branded Prescription Drug Fee Background

ACA requires that covered entities that engage in the business of manufacturing or importing branded prescription drugs pay the branded prescription drug fee. The Branded Prescription Drug Fee Regulations in 26 C.F.R. Part 51, published on August 18, 2011 (76 FR 51245), provide the method by which each covered entity’s annual fee is calculated. These regulations also define terms for the administration of the fee.

Regulation section 51.2T(g) defines fee year as the calendar year in which the fee for a particular sales year must be paid and section 51.2T(m) defines sales year as the second calendar year preceding the fee year.

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

Section 51.6T provides that for each sales year the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will make a preliminary fee calculation for each covered entity and will tell each covered entity of this calculation by the date prescribed in guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin. This notification will also include additional prescribed information. As used in this notice, “notice of preliminary fee calculation” includes the additional prescribed information.

Section 51.7T provides that upon receipt of its preliminary fee calculation, each covered entity will have an opportunity to dispute this calculation by submitting to the IRS an error report with prescribed information. Sections 51.7T(b) and (c) set out the information that a covered entity must submit to support each asserted error. Section 51.7T(d) provides that each covered entity must submit reports and error reports, if anyin the form and way required by the IRS.

Section 51.8T provides that the IRS will send each covered entity its final fee calculation no later than August 31st of each fee year and also provides that covered entities must pay their fee by September 30th of the fee year.

2014 Deadlines & Procedures

Notice 2013-51 provides guidance for covered entities for 2014 on:

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

For the 2014 fee year, the Notice states that a covered entity that chooses to submit Form 8947 must file the form by November 1, 2013.

For the 2014 fee year, the Notice states that the IRS will mail each covered entity a paper notice of its preliminary fee calculation by March 3, 2014. This mailing will include a National Drug Code (NDC) attachment (NDC attachment) that lists the covered entity’s NDCs and the sales data reported to the IRS by each government program pursuant to Regulation section 51.4T.

A covered entity may request that the IRS send a CD-ROM with the NDC attachment in Microsoft Excel format. The covered entity must make this request by February 17, 2014. The Notice instructs that this request must be made either by telephone to Ingrid Taylor at (908) 301-2118 or Mi Lim at (312) 292-3775 (not toll-free calls) or by email to it.bpd.fee@irs.gov. If a covered entity makes this request timely, the notice says the IRS will mail the covered entity its notice of preliminary fee calculation on paper and the NDC attachment on paper and CD-ROM by March 3, 2014.

For the 2014 fee year, the Notice also states a covered entity that chooses to submit an error report regarding its preliminary fee calculation must mail the error report by May 15, 2014. When the IRS mails each covered entity a notice of its preliminary fee calculation by March 3, 2014, the IRS will also send each covered entity a template on a CD-ROM that the covered entity must use to prepare its error report. All completed templates and the supporting documentation must be submitted on a CD-ROM and sent by mail as instructed in the Notice.

The Notice also indicates that the IRS will notify each covered entity of its final fee calculation for 2014 by August 29, 2014, after which each covered entity must pay this fee by September 30, 2014 in accordance with Regulation section 51.8T(c),

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance responding to regulatory, enforcement or other developments, reviewing or tightening your policies and procedures, conducting training or audits, responding to or defending an investigation or other enforcement action or with other health care related risk management, compliance, training, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Her experience includes advising hospitals, nursing home, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to Board of Medicine, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her presentations and programs include How to Ensure That Your Organization Is In Compliance With Regulations Governing Discrimination, as well as a wide range of other workshops, programs and publications on discrimination and cultural diversity, as well as a broad range of compliance, operational and risk management, and other health industry matters. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance responding to concerns about the matters discussed in this publication or other health care concerns, wish to obtain information about arranging for training or presentations by Ms. Stamer, wish to suggest a topic for a future program or update, or wish to request other information or materials, please contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer, see here.

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

CMS Publishes FY 2014 Final Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Prospective Payment Rule

August 5, 2013

Medicare payments to inpatient psychiatric facilities (IPFs) will rise by 2.3% for fiscal year (FY) 2014 under the final Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities Prospective Payment System (PPS) Updated for Fiscal Year Beginning October 1, 2013 (FY 2013) posted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) July 29 here.

The notice updates the prospective payment rates for Medicare inpatient hospital services provided by inpatient psychiatric facilitates for discharges occurring during the fiscal year (FY) beginning October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014.

Highlights of the final 2014 IPFPPS adjustments under 42 CFR 412.428 include the following:

The FY 2008-based Rehabilitation, Psychiatric, and Long Term Care (RPL) market basket update of 2.6 percent adjusted by a 0.1 percentage point reduction as required by section 1886(s)(2)(A)(ii) of the Social Security Act (the Act) and a 0.5 percentage point reduction for economy-wide productivity as required by section 1886(s)(2)(A)(i) of the Act.
The fixed dollar loss threshold amount in order to maintain the appropriate outlier
percentage.
The electroconvulsive therapy payment by a factor specified by CMS.
The national urban and rural cost-to-charge ratio medians and ceilings.
The cost of living adjustment factors for IPFs located in Alaska and Hawaii, if
appropriate.
The description of the ICD-9-CM and MS-DRG classification changes discussed in
the annual update to the hospital inpatient PPS regulations.
Use of the best available hospital wage index and information regarding whether an adjustment to the Federal per diem base rate is needed to maintain budget neutrality.
The MS-DRG listing and comorbidity categories to reflect the ICD-9-CM revisions effective October 1, 2013.
Retaining the 17 percent adjustment for IPFs located in rural areas, the 1.31 adjustment factor for IPFs with a qualifying emergency department, the coefficient value of 0.5150 for the teaching adjustment to the Federal per diem rate, the MS-DRG adjustment factors and comorbidity adjustment factors currently paid to IPFs for FY 2013.

IPFs, their operators, management and investors should review the new rules, update their practices and budgets and make other arrangements to respond effectively to the Rule.

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

CMS Publishes FY 2014 Final Inpatient Rehab Facility Prospective Payment Rule

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

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

CMS Publishes FY 2014 Final Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Prospective Payment Rule

August 1, 2013

Highlights of the final 2014 IPFPPS adjustments under 42 CFR 412.428 include the following:

The FY 2008-based Rehabilitation, Psychiatric, and Long Term Care (RPL) market basket update of 2.6 percent adjusted by a 0.1 percentage point reduction as required by section 1886(s)(2)(A)(ii) of the Social Security Act (the Act) and a 0.5 percentage point reduction for economy-wide productivity as required by section 1886(s)(2)(A)(i) of the Act.
The fixed dollar loss threshold amount in order to maintain the appropriate outlier
percentage.
The electroconvulsive therapy payment by a factor specified by CMS.
The national urban and rural cost-to-charge ratio medians and ceilings.
The cost of living adjustment factors for IPFs located in Alaska and Hawaii, if
appropriate.
The description of the ICD-9-CM and MS-DRG classification changes discussed in
the annual update to the hospital inpatient PPS regulations.
Use of the best available hospital wage index and information regarding whether an adjustment to the Federal per diem base rate is needed to maintain budget neutrality.
The MS-DRG listing and comorbidity categories to reflect the ICD-9-CM revisions effective October 1, 2013.
Retaining the 17 percent adjustment for IPFs located in rural areas, the 1.31 adjustment factor for IPFs with a qualifying emergency department, the coefficient value of 0.5150 for the teaching adjustment to the Federal per diem rate, the MS-DRG adjustment factors and comorbidity adjustment factors currently paid to IPFs for FY 2013.

IPFs, their operators, management and investors should review the new rules, update their practices and budgets and make other arrangements to respond effectively to the Rule.

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

CMS Publishes FY 2014 Final Inpatient Rehabiliation Facility Prospective Payment Rule

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

1 Comment | Corporate Compliance, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Genetic Information, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Licensing, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, OCR, OIG, Physician, Physician Licensing, Rehabilitation Act, Reimbursement, Substance Abuse | Tagged: accommodation, Civil Rights, controlled substance, DEA, Disability, Discrimination, Drug Testing, drugs, HHS, Hospital, Justice Department, licensure, Medical Board, Medical Practice, Office of Civil Rights, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, Prospective Payment, psychiatric, psychiatric ocr | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CMS Publishes FY 2014 Final Inpatient Rehab Facility Prospective Payment Rule

August 1, 2013

Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities (IRFs) take note. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services yesterday (July 31, 2013) published its final Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF), Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Prospective Payment System for Federal Fiscal Year 2014 Final Rule (Rule). The Rule, which with its preamble is 272 pages, among other things:

Updates the prospective payment rates for (IRFs) for federal fiscal year (FY) 2014 (for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2013 and on or before September 30, 2014) as required by the statute.
Revises the list of diagnosis codes that may be counted toward an IRF’s “60 percent rule” compliance calculation to determine “presumptive compliance,” update the IRF facility-level adjustment factors using an enhanced estimation methodology;
Revises sections of the Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility-Patient Assessment Instrument,
Revises requirements for acute care hospitals that have IRF units;
Clarifies the IRF regulation text regarding limitation of review;
Updates references to previously changed sections in the regulations text; and
Revises and updates quality measures and reporting requirements under the IRF quality reporting program.

The regulatory amendments in this Rule generally are effective as follows:

Its revisions to the list of diagnosis codes used to determine presumptive compliance under the “60 percent rule” are applicable for compliance review periods beginning on or after October 1, 2014; and
The updated IRF prospective payment rates are applicable for IRF discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2013 and on or before September 30, 2014 (FY 2014).
The changes to the Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility-Patient Assessment Instrument, the amendments to §412.25, and the revised and updated quality measures and reporting requirements under the IRF quality reporting program are applicable for IRF discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2014.

IRFs, their operators, management and investors should review the new rules, update their practices and budgets and make other arrangements to respond effectively to the Rule.

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

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

July 30, 2013

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

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

Health Care Providers & Industry Under Fire For Disability Discrimination

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

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

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

Specifically under the ADA:

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

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

Justice Department ADA Suit Against Brown & PCTC

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Department Barrier-Free Health Care Initiative Successes Growing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Department Plans To Keep Heat On Health Care Providers

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

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

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

Health Industry Disability Discrimination Risks: Beyond The Justice Department

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Disability Discrimination Risks

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

Act To Manage & Mitigate Disability Risks

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

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

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

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

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

July 23, 2013

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

July 8, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

July 8, 2013

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

July 6, 2013

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

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

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

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

55 Settlements Impact Systems & Providers Across The Nation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whistleblower Involvement Played Big Role

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

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

Mitigate Risks With Effective Oversight of Both Documentation & Operations

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

July 6, 2013

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

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

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

Former SIP Employee’s Qui Tam Claim Prompted Suit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mitigate Risks With Effective Oversight of Both Documentation & Operations

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

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

July 2, 2013

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

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

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

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

Based on these findings, OIG recommended that CMS should:

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

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

June 7, 2013

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

Technical Corrections To Omnibus Rule Released

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

May 24, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

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

May 16, 2013

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

Florida Arrests

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

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

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

Los Angeles Charges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aggressive Medicare Health Care Fraud Task Force Enforcement Continues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Help With Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

May 3, 2013

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

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

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

Former Cybersecurity Coordinator Schmidt Keynotes

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

Stamer Speaks On Latest HIPAA Rules & Developments

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

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

CMS Proposes To Further Tighten Medicare Provider Enrollment Rules

May 1, 2013

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

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

May 1, 2013

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

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

Summary Of The SMP Incentive Reward Program Proposals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

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

May 1, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

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

April 30, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

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

HHS Publishes Medicaid Expansion Final Regs, Invites Public Comment

April 1, 2013

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

March 27, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

March 25, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

For instructions to comment or more details, see here.

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

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

On Health Reform Law’s 3rd Anniversary, Test Your Reform Knowledge

March 21, 2013

March 21, 2013 is the 3rd Anniversary of the Affordable Care Act. With the 2014 rollout of the next round of reforms approaching, the Kaiser Family Foundation invites you to take its latest interactive quiz to test your knowledge about what’s in – and what’s not in – the health reform law and encourage your friends and family to do the same. You can compare your knowledge with others and share your results on Facebook and Twitter. The quiz also includes links to more information about specific provisions of the law.

If you need assistance reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 25 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies and to respond to DEA and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns including a number of programs and publications on OCR Civil Rights rules and enforcement actions. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to ask about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press

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

Maintaining Patient Problem List Under Meaningful Use Core Measure 3 To Support Patient Care

March 16, 2013

ONC is sharing resources to help health care providers see the value of and effectively incorporate and use active patient problem lists as part of the electronic health records systems (EHRs).

Meaningful Use Core Measure 3 calls for physicians and other eligible professionals to design their electronic health record systems to incorporate and maintain an up-to-date problem list of current and active diagnoses of patients.

The requirement reflects ONC’s determination that accurate active problem lists and the fast overview of patient history’s they provide are a “mainstay” of efficient and effective primary care. Effective active patient problem lists in EHRs make this information available to all clinic staff and the on-call team improves the efficiency and effectiveness of the care team.

To support this goal, the requirement that Meaningful Use Core Measure 3 calls for more than 80 percent of all unique patients seen by the eligible professional have at least one entry or an sign that no problems are known for the patient recorded as structured data.

Review the requirements of Core Measure 3 and access other tips and resources for developing and using effective patient problem lists in EHRs here.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 25 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies and to respond to DEA and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns including a number of programs and publications on OCR Civil Rights rules and enforcement actions. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to ask about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press

1 Comment | Academic medicine, Affordable Care Act, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, Durable Medical Equipment, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Hospital, Laws, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Outpatient, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Public Policy, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark, Substance Abuse | Tagged: EHR, Health Care, Meaningful Use | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CMS 2nd Recalculation Medicare Readmission Penalties In 6 Months Cuts Overall Penalties By $10M

March 15, 2013

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)for the second time in six months has corrected errors in its calculation of Medicare readmission penalties imposed against more than 1,000 hospitals imposed under the Medicare Hospital Readmission Reduction Program.

Under the Medicare Readmission Reduction Program, CMS is penalizing hospitals whose readmissions within 30 days following their discharge of heart attack, heart failure and pneumonia patients exceed the rate CMS expects based on their patient risks with the loss of up to 1 percent of their regular payments. This maximum penalty ramps is slated to rise to up to 2 percent in October and 3 percent in 2014.

While some hospital’s penalties went up and most went down, the net effect of the recalculation back to the program’s origination last October is a $10 million reduction in the overall penalties resulting in an adjusted total of $280 million for 2013.

An updated chart of the corrected readmission penalties prepared by Kaiser Health News is available here.

Part of new CMS “quality” provisions, the readmission penalties have prompted widespread concern by many hospital and other health care leaders as penalizing hospitals for readmissions beyond their control. Supports of the penalties say that the penalties can encourage hospitals to provide better quality and reduce costs by emphasizing appropriate discharge planning.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 25 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies and to respond to DEA and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns including a number of programs and publications on OCR Civil Rights rules and enforcement actions. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to ask about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press

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

Par Pharmaceutical Pays $45 Million For Illegal Off-Label Marketing Of Megace ES

March 11, 2013

New Jersey-based Par Pharmaceutical Companies Inc. (Par) must pay more than will pay $45 million to resolve their criminal and civil liability under its March 5, 2013 guilty plea to illegally promoting off-label uses of the prescription drug Megace ES in violation of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules and wrongfully promoting and billing Medicare for its use. The Par guilty plea followed a guilty plea by Par’s Chief Executive Officer Paul V. Campanelli earlier in the day in a New Jersey federal court.

Par also entered into a civil settlement that resolved three lawsuits filed under the whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act, which let private parties to file suit on behalf of the United States and obtain part of the government’s recovery. The civil lawsuits filed in New Jersey are U.S. ex rel. McKeen and Combs v. Par Pharma ceutical, et al., U.S. ex rel. Thompson v. Par Pharmaceutical, et al., and U.S. ex rel. Elliott & Lundstrom v. Bristol-M yers Squibb, Par Pharma ceutical, et al. As part of today’s resolution, relators McKeen and Combs will receive $4.4 million. The actions provide another example of the growing role of whistleblowers to the success of federal health care fraud detection and enforcement efforts.

Par Criminal & Charges

The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) requires companies such as Par to specify the intended uses of a product in its new drug application to the FDA. Once approved, a drug may not be distributed in interstate commerce for unapproved or “off-label” uses until the company receives FDA approval for the new intended uses.

Par pleaded guilty to a federal a criminal misdemeanor violation of these rules by misbranding Megace ES in violation of the FDCA. Megace ES, a megestrol acetate drug product was approved by the FDA to treat anorexia, cachexia, or other significant weight loss suffered by patients with AIDS. Federal prosecutors charged that Megace ES distributed nationwide by Par was criminally misbranded because its FDA-approved labeling lacked adequate directions for use in the treatment of non-AIDS-related geriatric wasting, a use that was intended by Par but never approved by the FDA.

Federal Judge Judge Arleo fined Par $18 million and ordered $4.5 million in criminal forfeiture. Par also entered into a civil settlement agreement to settle associated civil liability.

The civil settlement agreement requires Par to pay $22.5 million to the federal government and various states to resolve claims arising from its off-label marketing. The civil settlement resolves allegations that Par, by promoting the sale and use of Megace ES for uses that were not FDA-approved and not covered by Federal health care programs, caused false claims to be submitted to these programs. The United States further alleged that Par deliberately and improperly targeted sales to elderly nursing home residents with weight loss, whether or not such patients suffered from AIDS, and launched a long-term care sales force to market to this population. During this marketing campaign, the government charged Par was aware of adverse side effects associated with the use of megestrol acetate in elderly patients, including an increased risk of deep vein thrombosis, toxic reactions in elderly patients with impaired renal function, and mortality. The United States alleged that Par made unsubstantiated and misleading representations about the superiority of Megace ES over generic megestrol acetate for elderly patients to encourage providers to switch patients from generic megestrol acetate to MegaceES, despite having conducted no well-controlled studies to support a claim of greater efficacy for Megace ES.

As part of plea agreement and corporate integrity agreements reached to resolve its civil and criminal charges, Par committed to the Department of Justice, the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) and its Office of Inspector General. Par to implement several compliance measures and annually provide the U.S. Attorney’s Office and other agencies with certain reports.

The plea agreement and corporate integrity agreement include provisions that require Par to implement changes to the way it does business. The plea agreement and agreement prohibit Par from providing compensation to sales representatives or their managers based on the volume of sale of Megace ES, and in the corporate integrity agreement, based on the volume of Megace ES and any branded successor megestrol acetate drug.

The agreements also dictate individual accountability of Par’s board and executives. Under the agreement, Par is also required to change its executive compensation program to permit the company to recoup annual bonuses from covered executives if they, or their subordinates, engage in significant misconduct. Company executives may have to forfeit annual bonuses if they or their subordinates engage in significant misconduct, and sales representatives may not be paid incentive compensation for the drug involved in the case, or successor branded versions of that drug. For instance, the plea agreement requires Par give the Justice Department a sworn certification from its chief executive officer that the company has not unlawfully marketed any of its pharmaceutical products.

Par Prosecutions Part Of Larger Aggressive Health Care Fraud Enforcement

The Par civil and criminal charges were brought as part of the ongoing war against health care fraud conducted by federal and state officials. Its announcement is just one of high-profile health care fraud charges, settlements and convictions announced by the Justice Department in the first seven days of March. See, e.g., Health Care Clinic Director Pleads Guilty in Miami for Role in $63 Million Health Care Fraud Scheme; Orange County Doctor Convicted of Six Counts of Health Care Fraud in Multi-Million Dollar Scam involving Durable Medical Equipment; Manhattan U.S. Attorney Sues Park Avenue Medical Associates for Medicare Billing Fraud; Par Pharmaceuticals Pleads Guilty and Agrees to Pay $45 Million to Resolve Civil and Criminal Allegations Related to Off-Label Marketing; Doctor gets 50 Month Sentence for Health Care Fraud & Tax Evasion; and Nelson County, Kentucky Drug Store Owner Charged With Health Care Fraud and Wire Fraud.

Already a lead federal enforcement priority for more than a decade, the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2012 (FY2012 Report) documents that DOJ and HHS health care fraud enforcement activities scored big in 2012, and that qui tam whistleblowers played a big part and shared big in the profits. See Federal Health Care Fraud & Abuse Recovery of $4.2 Billion In FY 2012 Shows Enforcement Risks Growing.

Act To Manage Risks

In response to the growing emphasis and effectiveness of Federal officials in investigating and taking action against health care providers and organizations, health care providers covered by federal false claims, referral, kickback and other health care fraud laws should consider auditing the adequacy of existing practices, tightening training, oversight and controls on billing and other regulated conduct, reaffirming their commitment to compliance to workforce members and constituents and taking other appropriate steps to help prevent, detect and timely redress health care fraud exposures within their organization and to position their organization to respond and defend against potential investigations or charges. Along with a broad health care fraud enforcement and compliance programs, these efforts should include targeted efforts to prevent and manage fraud and other whistleblower claims by employees, business partners and others.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 25 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies and to respond to DEA and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns including a number of programs and publications on OCR Civil Rights rules and enforcement actions. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to ask about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press

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

Corpus Christi Radiology Group & Clinic $2.3 Million To Settle Health Care Fraud Charges

March 11, 2013

Children’s Physician Services of South Texas (CPSST) and Radiology Associates jointly will pay $2.3 million to settle claims they violated the False Claims Act and the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act between 2002 and 2007.

The CPSST & Radiology Associates Settlement as part of another busy week of health care fraud enforcement by the Justice Department. See, Health Care Clinic Director Pleads Guilty in Miami for Role in $63 Million Health Care Fraud Scheme; Orange County Doctor Convicted of Six Counts of Health Care Fraud in Multi-Million Dollar Scam involving Durable Medical Equipment; Manhattan U.S. Attorney Sues Park Avenue Medical Associates for Medicare Billing Fraud; Par Pharmaceuticals Pleads Guilty and Agrees to Pay $45 Million to Resolve Civil and Criminal Allegations Related to Off-Label Marketing; Doctor gets 50 Month Sentence for Health Care Fraud & Tax Evasion; and Nelson County, Kentucky Drug Store Owner Charged With Health Care Fraud and Wire Fraud. These and other growing health care fraud charges, settlements and convictions show the zealous enforcement by federal prosecutors is continuing. To guard against getting caught in the health care fraud hopper, health care providers must constantly look at current and past practices against emerging regulations and enforcement and take prompt steps to maintain compliance and minimize risks as they become clear.

CPSST & Radiology Associates Settlement Highlights

According to the March 5, 2013 announcement of United States Attorney Kenneth Magidson, the charges settled involved allegations that CPSST billed and received payment for Radiology Associates’ professional services and, without disclosing the payments, directed Radiology Associates to bill and receive payment for the same professional services. Magidson says that CPSST, a part of the Driscoll Health System, agreed to pay $1.5 million, while Radiology Associates, an independent physician group serving the Driscoll Health System, agreed to pay $800,000 to settle claims they billed and received payment twice for the professional reading and interpretation of genetic ultrasounds.

Medicare billing rules recognize two components for each ultrasound, a technical component and a professional component. The technical component refers to the actual taking of the ultrasound by a technician and the professional component refers to the reading and interpretation of the ultrasound images by a physician, usually a radiologist.

According to federal prosecutors, CPSST made arrangements to have Radiology Associates read and interpret the ultrasounds taken at CPSST. From Jan. 1, 2002, to June 1, 2007, Radiology Associates read and interpreted several thousand ultrasounds for CPSST. The understanding between the two providers was that CPSST would bill and receive payment solely for the technical component and Radiology Associates would bill and receive payment solely for the professional component. In reality, CPSST billed and received payment for both the technical and professional components without informing or disclosing this fact to Radiology Associates. Upon discovery of this fact, Radiology Associates informed CPSST about the double billing for the professional component, but CPSST denied billing for the professional component except for a few accidental and isolated occasions. Instead, CPSST instructed and directed Radiology Associates to continue to bill for the professional component and reaffirmed that CPSST would only bill for the technical component. Despite additional evidence of double billing, Radiology Associates ignored the evidence, accepted CPSST’s misrepresentations without question and continued to bill and receive payment for the professional component.

Government funded health care programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE and the Federal Employees Health Benefits program agree to pay enrolled health care providers once for the technical and professional components of each ultrasound performed on a patient covered by theses health care programs. Health care providers enrolled and servicing patients covered by these government-funded health care programs are prohibited from billing and receiving payment twice for the ultrasound’s technical or professional component.

The settlement resolves allegations made against Radiology Associates, Children’s Physician Services of South Texas, Center for Genetic Services, and Raymond C. Lewandowski Jr. M.D. in a qui tam or whistleblower lawsuit filed in 2008 by a former revenue manager and coding compliance officer with Radiology Associates. Under the False Claims Act, private citizens can bring suit on behalf of the government and share in any amounts that are obtained through that legal action. In this case, the share will be between 15 – 25% of the proceeds of the overall settlement.

The investigation was conducted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services – Office of Inspector General and the Texas Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit and Civil Medicaid Fraud Division.

Strike Force & Other Zealous Health Care Fraud Enforcement Continues

The settlement and other fraud enforcement actions provide clear evidence of the risks health care providers and their management face if they are found to have participated in activities that federal or state health care fraud prosecutors view as violating health care fraud rules.

The FY2012 Report says DOJ opened 1,131 new criminal health care fraud investigations involving 2,148 potential defendants. Federal prosecutors had 2,032 health care fraud criminal investigations pending, involving 3,410 potential defendants, and filed criminal charges in 452 cases involving 892 defendants. A total of 826 defendants were convicted of health care fraud-related crimes during the year. Also in FY 2012, DOJ opened 885 new civil health care fraud investigations and had 1,023 civil health care fraud matters pending at the end of the fiscal year. In FY 2012, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) health care fraud investigations resulted in the operational disruption of 329 criminal fraud organizations, and the dismantlement of the criminal hierarchy of more than 83 criminal enterprises engaged in health care fraud.

Meanwhile, HHS’ Office of Inspector General (HHS/OIG) excluded 3,131 individuals and entities in FY 2012. Among these were exclusions based on criminal convictions for crimes related to Medicare and Medicaid (912) or to other health care programs (287); for patient abuse or neglect (212); and as a result of licensure revocations (1,463). In addition, HHS/OIG imposed civil monetary penalties against, among others, providers and suppliers who knowingly submitted false claims to the Federal government. HHS/OIG also issued many audits and evaluations with recommendations that, when implemented, would correct program vulnerabilities and save program funds.

The enforcement actions announced by the Justice Department the first week of March, 2013 make clear federal prosecutors are gunning for even greater health care fraud enforcement success in 2013. See Health Care Clinic Director Pleads Guilty in Miami for Role in $63 Million Health Care Fraud Scheme; Orange County Doctor Convicted of Six Counts of Health Care Fraud in Multi-Million Dollar Scam involving Durable Medical Equipment; Manhattan U.S. Attorney Sues Park Avenue Medical Associates for Medicare Billing Fraud; Par Pharmaceuticals Pleads Guilty and Agrees to Pay $45 Million to Resolve Civil and Criminal Allegations Related to Off-Label Marketing; Doctor gets 50 Month Sentence for Health Care Fraud & Tax Evasion; and Nelson County, Kentucky Drug Store Owner Charged With Health Care Fraud and Wire Fraud.

Act To Manage Risks

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 25 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies and to respond to DEA and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns including a number of programs and publications on OCR Civil Rights rules and enforcement actions. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to ask about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press

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

Houston Ambulance Service Owner Convicted Of Health Care Fraud Faces Up To 70 Years

March 11, 2013

A Houston, Texas Federal jury on March 4, 2013 convicted the owner and operator of a Houston-area ambulance company, Olusola Elliott, of one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and six counts of health care fraud for submitting false and fraudulent claims to Medicare for ambulance services.

Elliott owned and operated Double Daniels LLC, a Texas entity that purportedly provided non-emergency ambulance services to Medicare beneficiaries in the Houston area. During the course of the scheme, the Justice Department charged that Elliott submitted and caused the submission of approximately $1,713,716 in fraudulent ambulance service claims to Medicare.

According to evidence presented at trial, Elliott and others conspired from April 2010 through December 2011 to unlawfully enrich themselves by submitting false and fraudulent claims to Medicare for ambulance services that were medically unnecessary and not provided. Evidence showed that Elliott falsified patient records in order to fraudulently bill Medicare for beneficiaries who were not in need of ambulance services. According to court documents, Elliot transferred the proceeds of the fraud to himself and others after Medicare payments were sent to Double Daniels.

Elliot is scheduled for sentencing on May 31, 2013, in Houston. The six health care fraud counts and the conspiracy count each carry a maximum potential penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine

Federal prosecutors brought the charges as part of the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, supervised by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas and the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.

Strike Force & Other Zealous Health Care Fraud Enforcement Continues

The conviction is another reminder to health care providers, leaders and organizations of the advisability of tightening compliance practices and taking other steps to guard against ever-expanding health care fraud exposures. Even as the jury convicted Elliott, federal prosecutors finalizing a health care fraud settlement with another group of Texas providers. On March 5, 2013, the Justice Department announced that Children’s Physician Services of South Texas (CPSST) and Radiology Associates had agreed to pay more than $2 million collectively to settle claims they violated the False Claims Act and the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act between 2002 and 2007. Under the settlement, CPSST, a part of the Driscoll Health System, agreed to pay $1.5 million, while Radiology Associates, an independent physician group serving the Driscoll Health System, will pay $800,000 to settle claims they billed and received payment twice for the professional reading and interpretation of genetic ultrasounds. See, Corpus Christi Radiologist Group and Children’s Genetic Services Clinic Settle False Claims Act Allegations.

Act To Manage Risks

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 23 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies and to respond to DEA and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns including a number of programs and publications on OCR Civil Rights rules and enforcement actions. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to ask about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

March 1, 2013

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

Health Industry Employers High Priority OSHA Enforcement Target

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

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

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

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

Battle Creek VA OSHA Safety Violations

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has nearly 35 years of experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies and to respond to DEA and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns including a number of programs and publications on OCR Civil Rights rules and enforcement actions. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to ask about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Affordable Care Act, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, Employer, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Hospital, Laws, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Outpatient, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Public Policy, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark, Substance Abuse | Tagged: Health Care, Health Care Fraud, hospita, Hospital, Medicaid Fraud, Medicare Fraud Task Force, OSHA, Safety | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Federal Health Care Fraud & Abuse Recovery of $4.2 Billion In FY 2012 Shows Enforcement Risks Growing

March 1, 2013

A new report from the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) joint Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program (HCFC) documents the growing exposures of health care providers to federal health care fraud enforcement actions.

The charges are provide yet another powerful reminder to health care providers, leaders and organizations of the advisability of tightening compliance practices and taking other steps to guard against ever-expanding health care fraud exposures. Already a lead federal enforcement priority for more than a decade, the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2012 (FY2012 Report) documents that DOJ and HHS health care fraud enforcement activities scored big in 2012, and that qui tam whistleblowers played a big part and shared big in the profits.

Among other things, the FY2012 Report credits HCFC with producing $4.2 Billion in health care fraud judgments and settlements in Fiscal Year 2012 of which more than $284 million of the recovered monies were paid to relators under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act (FCA).

The FY2012 Report says the Medicare Trust Fund received more than $2.4 billion, including civil recoveries of $935 million, $1.4 billion in criminal fines, and $89.7 million in HHS Medicare program audit disallowances.

On the enforcement front, the FY2012 Report says DOJ opened 1,131 new criminal health care fraud investigations involving 2,148 potential defendants. Federal prosecutors had 2,032 health care fraud criminal investigations pending, involving 3,410 potential defendants, and filed criminal charges in 452 cases involving 892 defendants. A total of 826 defendants were convicted of health care fraud-related crimes during the year. Also in FY 2012, DOJ opened 885 new civil health care fraud investigations and had 1,023 civil health care fraud matters pending at the end of the fiscal year. In FY 2012, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) health care fraud investigations resulted in the operational disruption of 329 criminal fraud organizations, and the dismantlement of the criminal hierarchy of more than 83 criminal enterprises engaged in health care fraud.

Act To Manage Risks

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 23 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies and to respond to DEA and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns including a number of programs and publications on OCR Civil Rights rules and enforcement actions. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to ask about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

January 12, 2013

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

For Representation, Training & Other Resources

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

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

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

September 23, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Act To Manage Health Care Fraud Exposures

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

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

For Help With Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

September 18, 2012

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

September 19 Webinar

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

Topics of discussion will include:

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

To join the webcast click here.

Rising Civil Rights Law Exposures Require Management

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

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

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

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

Recent Settlements Highlight Risk

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

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

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

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

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

Invest in Prevention To Minimize Liability Risks

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

August 13, 2012

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

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

In the employment arena, a settlement announced August 7 with Baltimore County is particularly notable as part of this trend, both for its challenge of medical exams and inquiries for EMTs and others in health care and other areas where safety could be a concern, as well as its objection to medical inquiries made to workers on medical leave during the course of that leave.

Baltimore County Nailed For Health Screening of Public Safety Workers

Employment disability discrimination risk management clearly must be a key element of health care and other organization’s disability discrimination risk management and risk assessments should not take for granted the defensibility of practices previously assumed defensible as required by law or for health and safety reasons. Rather, health care and other employers that require employees to submit to medical examinations, question employees about physician or mental conditions or disabilities, or engage in other similar activities should check the defensibility of those practices in light of the growing challenges to these and other employee screening practices by the Obama Administration and private plaintiff attorneys like the Justice Department disability discrimination complaint that lead to a $475,000 settlement against Baltimore County, Maryland announced by the Justice Department on August 7, 2012. According to the Justice Department, Baltimore County, Maryland will pay $475,000 and change its hiring procedures to resolve a Justice Department lawsuit filed that charged the county violated the ADA by requiring employees to submit to medical examinations and disability-related inquiries without a proper reason, and by excluding applicants from EMT positions because of their diabetes.

ADA Employment Discrimination Generally

Title I of the ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of disability in various aspects of employment. The ADA’s provisions on disability-related inquiries and medical examinations show Congress’s intent to protect the rights of applicants and employees to be assessed on merit alone, while protecting the rights of employers to make sure that individuals in the workplace can efficiently do the essential functions of their jobs. An employer generally violates the ADA if it requires its employees to undergo medical examinations or submit to disability-related inquiries that are not related to how the employee performs his or her job duties, or if it requires its employees to disclose overbroad medical history or medical records. Title I of the ADA also generally requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees’ and applicants’ disabilities as long as this does not pose an undue hardship or the employer the employer otherwise proves employing a person with a disability with reasonable accommodation could not eliminate significant safety concerns. Employers generally bear the burden of proving these or other defenses. Employers are also prohibited from excluding individuals with disabilities unless they show that the exclusion is consistent with business necessity and they are prohibited from retaliating against employees for opposing practices contrary to the ADA. Violations of the ADA can expose businesses to substantial liability.

As reflected by the Baltimore County settlement, violations of the employment provisions of the ADA may be prosecuted by the EEOC or by private lawsuits and can result in significant judgments. Employees or applicants that can prove they were subjected to prohibited disability discrimination under the ADA generally can recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and up to $300,000 of exemplary damages (depending on the size of the employer).

Baltimore County Nailed For Medical Fitness Screening Of EMTs, Other Public Safety Workers

The U.S. Justice Department lawsuit against Baltimore County, Maryland is one in a growing series of lawsuits in which the Justice Department or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is aggressively challenging medical examination and other medical screenings by private and public employers. In its lawsuit against the County, the Justice Department complaint identified 10 current and former police officers, firefighters, EMTs, civilian employees and applicants who were allegedly subjected to inappropriate and intrusive medical examinations and/or other disability-based discrimination. Justice Department officials claimed the County required some employees to undergo medical examinations or respond to medical inquiries that were unrelated to their ability to perform the functions of their jobs. The complaint also alleged the County required employees to submit to medical examinations that were improperly timed, such as requiring an employee who was on medical leave and undergoing medical treatment to submit to a medical exam even though the employee was not attempting to return to work yet.

According to the complaint, many affected employees – some of whom had worked for the County for decades – submitted to the improper medical exams for fear of discipline or termination if they refused. The complaint also alleges that the county retaliated against an employee who tried to caution against the unlawful medical exams and refused to hire two qualified applicants for EMT positions because they had diabetes.

In the proposed consent decree filed on August 7, 2012 and awaiting District Court approval, the County seeks to resolve the lawsuit by agreeing to:

Pay $475,000 to the complainants and provide more work-related benefits (including retirement benefits and back pay, plus interest);
Adopt new policies and procedures on the administration of medical examinations and inquiries;
Refrain from using the services of the medical examiner who conducted the overbroad medical examinations in question;
Stop the automatic exclusion of job applicants who have insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus; and
Provide training on the ADA to all current supervisory employees and all employees who participate in making personnel decisions.

Obama Administration Aggressively Enforcing & Interpreting Employment & Other Disability Discrimination Laws

The Baltimore County suit is reflective of the aggressive emphasis that the Obama Administration is placing on challenging employers that require employees to undergo medical screening, respond to medical inquiries or engage in other practices that the EEOC, Justice Department or other Obama Administration officials under Title I of the ADA, as well as its heavy emphasis upon enforcement of the ADA and other disability discrimination laws against U.S. businesses and state and local government agencies generally.

The Justice Department action against Baltimore County is part of the Obama Administration’s sweeping effort to enforce employment and other disability discrimination laws against businesses and state and local government agencies alike. While the Administration’s disability law enforcement reaches broadly, disability discrimination enforcement is particularly notable in the area of employment law. This enforcement targets both public employers like Baltimore County, and private employers. In the private employer arena, for instance, the EEOC earlier this year sued Wendy’s franchisee, CTW L.L.C., (Texas Wendy’s) for allegedly violating the ADA by denying employment to a hearing-impaired applicant. In its suit against Texas Wendy’s, the EEOC seeks injunctive relief, including the formulation of policies to prevent and correct disability discrimination as well as an award of lost wages and compensatory damages for Harrison and punitive damages against CTW L.L.C. In the suit, the EEOC charged that the general manager of a Killeen, Texas Wendy’s refused to hire Michael Harrison, Jr. for a cooker position, despite his qualifications and experience, upon learning that Harrison is hearing-impaired.

According to the EEOC, Harrison, who had previously worked for a different fast-food franchise for over two years, was denied hire by the general manager. Harrison said that after successfully interviewing with the Wendy’s shift manager, he attempted to complete the interview process by interviewing with Wendy’s general manager via Texas Relay, a telephonic system used by people with hearing impairments. Harrison’s told the EEOC that during the call he was told by the general manager that “there is really no place for someone we cannot communicate with.”

As illustrated by the suits against Baltimore County, Texas Wendy’s and many other public and private employers, employers must exercise care when making hiring, promotion or other employment related decisions relating to persons with hearing or other conditions that could qualify as a disability under the ADA.

Defending disability discrimination charges has become more complicated due to both the aggressive interpretation and enforcement of the ADA under the Obama Administration and amendments to the ADA that aid private plaintiffs, the EEOC, the Justice Department and others to prove their case. Provisions of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) that expand the definition of “disability” under the ADA, signed into law on September 25, 2008, broadened the definition of “disability” for purposes of the disability discrimination prohibitions of the ADA to make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that a person has a disability within the meaning of the ADA. The ADAAA retains the ADA’s basic definition of “disability” as an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. However, provisions of the ADAAA that took effect January 1, 2009 change the way that these statutory terms should be interpreted in several ways. Most significantly, the ADAAA:

Directs EEOC to revise that portion of its regulations defining the term “substantially limits;”
Expands the definition of “major life activities” by including two non-exhaustive lists: (1) The first list includes many activities that the EEOC has recognized (e.g., walking) as well as activities that EEOC has not specifically recognized (e.g., reading, bending, and communicating); and (2) The second list includes major bodily functions (e.g., “functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions”);
States that mitigating measures other than “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” shall not be considered in assessing whether an individual has a disability;
Clarifies that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active;
Changes the definition of “regarded as” so that it no longer requires a showing that the employer perceived the individual to be substantially limited in a major life activity, and instead says that an applicant or employee is “regarded as” disabled if he or she is subject to an action prohibited by the ADA (e.g., failure to hire or termination) based on an impairment that is not transitory and minor; and
Provides that individuals covered only under the “regarded as” prong are not entitled to reasonable accommodation.

The ADAAA also emphasizes that the definition of disability should be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA and generally shall not require extensive analysis. In adopting these changes, Congress expressly sought to overrule existing employer-friendly judicial precedent construing the current provisions of the ADA and to require the EEOC to update its existing guidance to confirm with the ADAAA Amendments. Under the leadership of the Obama Administration, the EEOC and other federal agencies have embraced this charge and have significantly stepped up enforcement of the ADA and other federal discrimination laws.

The ADAAA amendments coupled with the Obama Administration’s emphasis on enforcement make it likely that businesses generally will face more disability claims from a broader range of employees and will possess fewer legal shields to defend themselves against these claims. These changes will make it easier for certain employees to qualify as disabled under the ADA. Consequently, businesses should act strategically to mitigate their ADA exposures in anticipation of these changes. Given the Obama Administration’s well-documented, self-touted activism of the EEOC, Justice Department and other federal agencies in prosecuting disability discrimination and promoting a pro-disability enforcement agenda, businesses are encouraged to review and tighten their employment disability discrimination compliance procedures and documentation.

Likewise, businesses should be prepared for the EEOC and the courts to treat a broader range of disabilities, including those much more limited in severity and life activity restriction, to qualify as disabling for purposes of the Act. Businesses should assume that a greater number of employees with such conditions are likely to seek to use the ADA as a basis for challenging hiring, promotion and other employment decisions. For this reason, businesses should exercise caution to carefully document legitimate business justification for their hiring, promotion and other employment related decisions about these and other individuals who might qualify as disabled taking into account both the broadened disability definition and the aggressive interpretative stance of the Obama Administration. Businesses also generally should tighten job performance and other employment recordkeeping to promote the ability to prove nondiscriminatory business justifications for the employment decisions made by the businesses.

Businesses also should consider tightening their documentation regarding their procedures and processes governing the collection and handling records and communications that may contain information regarding an applicant’s physical or mental impairment, such as medical absences, worker’s compensation claims, emergency information, or other records containing health status or condition related information. The ADA generally requires that these records be maintained in separate confidential files and disclosed only to individuals with a need to know under circumstances allowed by the ADA.

As part of this process, businesses also should carefully review their employment records, group health plan, family leave, disability accommodation, and other existing policies and practices to comply with, and manage exposure under the new genetic information nondiscrimination and privacy rules enacted as part of the Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) signed into law by President Bush on May 21, 2008. Effective November 21, 2009, Title VII of GINA amends the Civil Rights Act to prohibit employment discrimination based on genetic information and restricts the ability of employers and their health plans to require, collect or retain certain genetic information. Under GINA, employers, employment agencies, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees face significant liability for violating the sweeping nondiscrimination and confidentiality requirements of GINA concerning their use, maintenance and disclosure of genetic information. Employees can sue for damages and other relief like currently available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other nondiscrimination laws. For instance, GINA’s employment related provisions include rules that will:

Prohibit employers and employment agencies from discriminating based on genetic information in hiring, termination or referral decisions or in other decisions regarding compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment;
Prohibit employers and employment agencies from limiting, segregating or classifying employees so as to deny employment opportunities to an employee based on genetic information;
Bar labor organizations from excluding, expelling or otherwise discriminating against individuals based on genetic information;
Prohibit employers, employment agencies and labor organizations from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information of an employee or an employee’s family member except as allowed by GINA to satisfy certification requirements of family and medical leave laws, to monitor the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace or other conditions specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit employers, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees from discriminating in any decisions related to admission or employment in training or retraining programs, including apprenticeships based on genetic information;
Mandate that in the narrow situations where limited cases where genetic information is obtained by a covered entity, it maintain the information on separate forms in separate medical files, treat the information as a confidential medical record, and not disclosure the genetic information except in those situations specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit any person from retaliating against an individual for opposing an act or practice made unlawful by GINA; and
Regulate the collection, use, access and disclosure of genetic information by employer sponsored and certain other health plans.

These employment provisions of GINA are in addition to amendments to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and Title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act that are effective for group health plan for plan years beginning after May 20, 2009. Added together, employment related disability discrimination are large and growing, meriting stepped up risk assessment and management.

Health Care & Other Organizations Also Targeted For Violations Of Public Accommodation & Other Federal Disability & Other Disability Discrimination Laws

In addition to the well-known and expanding employment discrimination risks, public and private health care and housing providers also increasingly face disability discrimination exposures under various federal laws such as the public accommodation and other disability discrimination prohibitions of the ADA, Section 504, the Civil Rights Act and various other laws that the Obama Administration views as high enforcement priorities.

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

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

Recent Settlements Highlight Risk

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

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

Obama Administration Also Aggressively Prosecutes Disability Discrimination In Other Business Operations

Guarding against disability discrimination in employment is not the only area that businesses need to prepare to defend against. The Obama Administration also has trumpeted its commitment to the aggressive enforcement of the public accommodation provisions of the ADA and other federal disability discrimination laws. In June, 2012, for instance, President Obama himself made a point of reaffirming his administration’s “commitment to fighting discrimination, and to addressing the needs and concerns of those living with disabilities.”

As part of its significant commitment to disability discrimination enforcement, the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department has aggressively enforced the public accommodation provisions of the ADA and other federal disability discrimination laws against state agencies and private businesses that it perceives to have improperly discriminated against disabled individuals. For instance, the Justice Department entered into a landmark settlement agreement with the Commonwealth of Virginia, which will shift Virginia’s developmental disabilities system from one heavily reliant on large, state-run institutions to one focused on safe, individualized, and community-based services that promote integration, independence and full participation by people with disabilities in community life. The agreement expands and strengthens every aspect of the Commonwealth’s system of serving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in integrated settings, and it does so through a number of services and supports. The Justice Department has a website dedicated to disabilities law enforcement, which includes links to settlements, briefs, findings letters, and other materials. The settlement agreements are a reminder that private businesses and state and local government agencies alike should exercise special care to prepare to defend their actions against potential disability or other Civil Rights discrimination challenges. All organizations, whether public or private need to make sure both that their organizations, their policies, and people in form and in action understand and comply with current disability and other nondiscrimination laws. When reviewing these responsibilities, many state and local governments and private businesses may need to update their understanding of current requirements. Statutory, regulatory or enforcement changes have expanded the scope and applicability of disability and various other federal nondiscrimination and other laws and risks of charges of discrimination.

To help mitigate the expanded employment liability risks created by the ADAAA amendments, businesses generally should act cautiously when dealing with applicants or employees with actual, perceived, or claimed physical or mental impairments to decrease exposures under the ADA. Management should exercise caution to carefully and proper the potential legal significance of physical or mental impairments or conditions that might be less significant in severity or scope, correctable through the use of eyeglasses, hearing aids, daily medications or other adaptive devices, or that otherwise have been assumed by management to fall outside the ADA’s scope. Employers should no longer assume, for instance, that a visually impaired employee won’t qualify as disabled because eyeglasses can substantially correct the employee’s visual impairment.

Invest in Prevention To Minimize Liability Risks

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

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

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Health Industry Employers High Priority OSHA Enforcement Target

Battle Creek VA OSHA Safety Violations

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Recent Posts

Archives

About Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Share this blog

Archives

Solutions Law Press Health Care Update