Hospital | | Page 3

2017 CMS Hospital OPPS & ACS Payment System Updates Released

November 1, 2016

On November 1, CMS issued Final Rules updating payment rates and policy changes in the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) and Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC) Payment System for CY 2017.

The Final Rules add new quality measures to the Hospital Outpatient Quality Reporting Program and the ASC Quality Reporting Program that CMS says focus on improving patient outcomes and experience of care. CMS estimates that the updates in the final rule would increase OPPS payments by 1.7 percent and ASC rates by 1.9 percent in 2017.The Final Rule also:

Contains provisions that seek to address physicians’ concerns regarding pain management;
Focus payments on patients rather than setting; and
Seek to Improve patient care through technology.

About Solutions Law Press Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, compensation, data security and privacy, health care, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns.

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

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, ASC, Doctor, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Hospital, Medicaid, Outpatient, Physician, Rural Health Care, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$2.7M OCR Settlement Warns HIPAA Covered Entities To Clean Up Compliance

October 28, 2016

A new settlement agreement requiring Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) to pay $2.7 million and implement a comprehensive three-year corrective action plan to resolve charges it violated the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act Privacy & Security Rules (HIPAA) sends a clear warning to other health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their business associates to encrypt devices with protected health information (PHI), have signed HIPAA-compliant business associate agreement in place before letting them access PHI and otherwise keep your HIPAA enterprise risk assessment and compliance up-to-date.

OHSU Charges

The OHSU settlement announced September 23 settled Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR) charges of multiple, long-standing, systematic HIPAA violations by OHSU uncovered by OCR as a result of investigations initiated in response to three reports of large-scale breaches of electronic protected health information (ePHI) made by OHSU.

OCR opened its HIPAA investigations at OHSU after the large public academic health center and research university centered in Portland, Oregon, submitted three HIPAA breach reports affecting thousands of individuals, including two reports involving unencrypted laptops and another large breach involving a stolen unencrypted thumb drive:

On March 23, 2013, HHS received notification from OHSU regarding a breach of its unsecured electronic protected health information (“ePHI”) resulting from a stolen laptop computer;
On July 28, 2013, HHS received notification from OHSU regarding a breach of its ePHI resulting from storing ePHI at an internet-based service provider without a business associate agreement; and.
On May I, 2013, and on November 8, 2013, HHS notified OHSU of its investigations of these breach incidents, respectively, regarding OHSU’s compliance with the HIPAA Rules.

These incidents each garnered significant local and national press coverage. OCR’s investigation uncovered evidence of widespread vulnerabilities within OHSU’s HIPAA compliance program, including the storage of the ePHI of more than 3,000 individuals on a cloud-based server without a business associate agreement. OCR found significant risk of harm to 1,361 of these individuals due to the sensitive nature of their diagnoses.

OCR found the reported breaches resulted from widespread, long-term, systematic and unresolved HIPAA violations by OHSU that OCR attributed to an inadequate commitment to and oversight of HIPAA compliance by OHSU C-level management which lead OHSU to fail to appropriately monitor and maintain its ongoing compliance and to assess and address changes in its enterprise-wide risk and compliance obligations on an ongoing basis. OHSU performed risk analyses in 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2013, but OCR’s investigation found that these analyses did not cover all ePHI in OHSU’s enterprise, as required by the Security Rule. While the analyses identified vulnerabilities and risks to ePHI located in many areas of the organization, OHSU did not act in a timely manner to implement measures to address these documented risks and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level. OHSU also lacked policies and procedures to prevent, detect, contain, and correct security violations and failed to implement a mechanism to encrypt and decrypt ePHI or an equivalent alternative measure for ePHI maintained on its workstations, despite having identified this lack of encryption as a risk.

Based on these findings, OCR concluded that while OHSU initially adopted HIPAA Policies, the reported breaches were the result of a series of widespread and ongoing breaches of HIPAA resulted including the following:

From January 5, 2011, until July 3, 2013, OHSU disclosed the ePHI of 3,044 individuals in violation of Privacy Rules §§160.103 and 164.502(a) when workforce members disclosed the ePHI to a third-party internet-based service provider without obtaining a business associate agreement or other satisfactory assurance that the internet-based service provider would safeguard the ePHI;
From January 5, 2011 until July 3, 2013 OHSU failed to obtain a business associate agreement from an internet-based service provider that was storing ePHI on its behalf as a business associate as required by 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(b);
From January 5, 2011 until July 3, 2013 OHSU failed to implement policies and procedures to prevent, detect, contain, and correct security violations as required under Privacy Rule § 164.308(a)(1)(i);
From July 12, 2010 to present, OHSU failed to implement a mechanism to encrypt and decrypt ePHI or an equivalent alternative measure for all ePHI maintained in OHSU’s enterprise as required by Privacy Rules §§ 164.312(a)(2)(iv) and 164.306(d)(3)); and
From May 29, 2013 until July 3, 2013, OHSU failed to implement policies and procedures to address security incidents in violation of Privacy Rule § 164.308(a)(6)(i).

According to statements made by OCR Director Jocelyn Samuels in OCR’s announcement of the OHSU Settlement, the breaches should not have happened. “From well-publicized large-scale breaches and findings in their own risk analyses, OHSU had every opportunity to address security management processes that were insufficient,” said OCR Director Jocelyn Samuels. OCR’s announcement also signals that OCR views inadequate commitment and oversight by OHSU’s senior management to have played a key role in the creation and perpetuation of the OHSU violations. It quotes OCR Director Jocelyn Samuels as stating, “This settlement underscores the importance of leadership engagement and why it is so critical for the C-suite to take HIPAA compliance seriously.”

To resolve the HIPAA charges, the OHSU Settlement requires OHSU to pay OCR $2,700,000 as well as take a long series of corrective actions detailed in the Corrective Action Plan incorporated into the Settlement Agreement. The requirements of the Corrective Action Plan both seek to address the specific weaknesses that lead to the breaches of unsecured ePHI reported by OHSU in its breach notifications as well as the broader deficiencies in OHSU’s overall HIPAA compliance practice by requiring among other things that OHSU:

Conduct an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI at all OHSU facilities and on all systems, networks, and devices that create, receive, maintain, or transmit ePHI;.
Develop and present to OCR for approval a comprehensive written risk managementh plan that explains OHSU’s strategy for implementing security measures sufficient to reduce the risks and vulnerabilities identified in the risk analysis to a reasonable and appropriate level based on OHSU’s circumstances as well as a comprehensive, enterprise-wide plan to implement effective oversight of OHSU workforce members to ensure their adherence to HIPAA Rules and OHSU’s internal privacy and security policies and procedures with specific timelines for their expected completion and compensating controls identified in the interim to safeguard OHSU’s ePHI;
Implement and administer the written risk management plan and other safeguards as approved by OCR;
Provide updates to OCR about OHSU’s implementation of required encryption including a Mobile Device Management (MDM) solution that ensures all OHSU- owned and personally-owned mobile devices (tablets, smart phones, and other mobile devices) that access ePHI on OHSU’s secure network are encrypted other than mobile devices for which OHSU has granted exceptions based on documented evidence of the implementation of alternative reasonable compensating controls to protect the ePHI on such devices;
Report to OCR on OHSU’s efforts to a solution to enforce encryption of ePHI on OHSU-owned and personally-owned devices (laptops, desktops, and medical equipment) connecting to OHSU’s secure wired and wireless networks except for any devices for which OHSU has granted exceptions to the encryption requirement;
Report to OCR about its implementation of policies that prohibit the transfer of data containing ePHI from OHSU-owned and personally-owned devices to unencrypted removable storage devices (USB drives and portable hard drives) and implementation of a technical solution that enforces the policies prohibiting transfers of this type when attached to the OHSU secure network, except for any removable storage devices for which OHSU has granted exceptions based on documented evidence of reasonable compensating controls that have been implemented to protect the ePHI on such devices;
Send a communication to all members of the OHSU community describing its commitment to enterprise encryption;
Prepare to the satisfaction of OCR security awareness training materials needed to implement its security management processing including specific privacy and security awareness related to a) use of internet-based information storage services; b) disclosures to third-party entities that require a business associate agreement or other reasonable assurance in place to ensure that the business associate will safeguard the protected health information (PHI) and/or ePHI; c) regarding managers, effective oversight of workforce members’ uses and disclosures of PHI, including ePHI, to ensure the workforce members’ compliance with the Privacy and Security Rules and OHSU’s internal policies and procedures; d) security incident reporting; and e) password management;
Initially train all workforce members with access to PHI and/or ePHI with 120 days of OCR’s approval of the training and thereafter ensure that new workforce members are trained with 15 days of hire and that all workforce members subsequently continue to receive training on an ongoing basis
Review the security awareness training materials annually, and, where appropriate, update the training to reflect changes in Federal law or HHS guidance, any issues discovered during audits or reviews, and any other relevant developments.
Management oversight and reporting to OCR concerning OHSU’s implementation and compliance with the Corrective Action Plan and HIPAA.

OHSU Lessons For Other Covered Entities & Business Associates & Their Management

The OHSU Settlement Agreement gives notice to all Covered Entities and business associates and their C-level management that OCR expects these organizations and their top management to get serious about HIPAA compliance. The OHSU Settlement shows Covered Entities and their business associates that they must constantly reassess their required HIPAA Privacy and Security policies and safeguards as well as risks to PHI and ePHI. In the event of a breach or audit, these organization’s leadership needs to ensure their organization can show both a strong commitment to HIPAA compliance and their actions to ensure their organization appropriately monitors events and developments that could impact the adequacy of their existing measures and timely update their systems and security, policies, procedures, training and other relevant safeguards.

The Settlement also makes clear that Covered Entities and their business associates should ensure that their organization possesses a well-documented current enterprise-wide risk assessment, as well as has in place and is administering as necessary to maintain the currency and adequacy of its risk assessment strong practices for conducting documented evaluations of their own HIPAA security, policies, practices, audits and investigations and other procedures necessary to comply with HIPAA, taking into account recent OCR guidance, its initiation of its Phase II audit program, the insights offered by OCR’s ever growing list of enforcement actions and compliance tools, as well as changes in systems, documentation, software, equipment or other occurrences within the operations of the Covered Entity or business associate’s operations that could impact the currency and adequacy of its risk assessment or otherwise raise compliance risks.

In this respect, Covered Entities and business associates are encouraged to take special note of the advisability of specifically reviewing and updating their HIPAA policies, practices, business associate agreements, training, oversight and documentation to in response to the guidance and insight that OCR provides, including:;

HIPAA Settlement Illustrates The Importance Of Reviewing And Updating, As Necessary, Business Associate Agreements (September 23, 2016); Business Associate’s Failure to Safeguard Nursing Home Residents’ PHI Leads to $650,000 HIPAA Settlement (June 29, 2016);
Clarification of Permissible Fees for HIPAA Right of Access – Flat Rate Option Up to $6.50 is Not a Cap on All Fees for Copies of PHI (May 23, 2016)
Guidance On HIPAA & Cloud Computing released October 6, 2016, which provides guidance for Covered Entities and business associates about contracting and other procedures that HIPAA-regulated Covered Entities and their business associates should implement when contracting for and using Cloud Computing Services;
Joint Guidance published October 21, 2016 by the Federal Trade Commission and OCR reminding Covered Entities and their business associates of the need to ensure that in addition to fulfilling the technical content requirements of HIPAA, their HIPAA authorizations, privacy practices notices and other HIPAA notices and communications are written and presented in plan language, include required specific terms and descriptions and in a manner that does not mislead individuals about their rights or about what is happening with their PHI. Furthermore, where Covered Entities and their business associates contemplate that businesses associates may request that individuals sign HIPAA authorizations, Covered Entities and their business associates should the Covered Entity and business associate have in place a current, signed HIPAA-compliant business associate agreement that expressly authorizes the business associate to request the HIPAA authorization in light of statements in the Joint Guidance indicating that OCR views the Privacy Rules as prohibiting a business associate from asking a consumer to sign a HIPAA authorization unless its business associate contract expressly permits the business associate to do so; and
Other OCR enforcement actions, tools and guidance. See, e.g. All Covered Entities Should Learn Lessons From Mississippi Medical Center’s $2.75 Million HIPAA Resolution Agreement; Providers, Health Plans Should Confirm Copy Charges Comply With New OCR HIPAA Guidance; $2 Million+ HIPAA Settlement, FAQ Warn Providers Protect PHI From Media, Other Recording Or Use; Addressing Gaps in Cybersecurity: OCR Releases Crosswalk Between HIPAA Security Rule and NIST Cybersecurity Framework; HIPAA Security Rule Crosswalk to NIST Cybersecurity Framework.

Employer and other health plan sponsors, health plan fiduciaries and business associates, and their service providers also generally will want to consider their responsibilities to provide and enforce employer certifications, as well as the fiduciary obligations health plan fiduciaries under the fiduciary responsibility rules of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Among other things, wrongful disclosure of PHI to a sponsoring employer or others could violate HIPAA or other plan terms. Furthermore, Department of Labor officials have indicated stated that a fiduciary’s general fiduciary responsibilities can apply to the protection and administration of PHI and other health plan information as well as create a duty by a responsible fiduciary to prudently investigate and take steps to address breaches or other potential concerns that place PHI at risk. See, HIPAA Settlement Warns Health Plans, Sponsoring Employers & Business Associates To Manage HIPAA Risks.

Furthermore, as breaches of PHI and other violations of HIPAA also frequently give rise to responsibilities or risks under a broad range of other federal and state laws medical and financial privacy and data security, Medicare and other terms of federal program participation, medical credentialing, licensure and ethics, insurance and Employee Retirement Income Security Act fiduciary responsibilities in the case of health plans, contractual, tort and other exposures, Covered Entities and their business associates also generally are best served to take into account these other responsibilities and exposures in conjunction with the design and administration of their HIPAA compliance and risk management policies and practices.

Covered Entities and their business associates also should seek advice from legal counsel regarding the adequacy of their compliance, investigatory, training, management oversight, training, reporting, documentation, document retention and other processes and procedures that could reduce risks of HIPAA violations and position the organization to effectively and more efficiently respond to a potential breach, audit, investigation or enforcement action and mitigate the costs and potential liability exposures that increasingly attends these events. In addition, given the typically high financial, operational and legal costs typically incurred to conduct investigations, report and redress breaches, and respond to OCR audits or investigations, much less make any payments and implement any corrective actions required to settle OCR changes, most Covered Entities and their business associations will want to consider the advisability and adequacy of insurance and other sources of funding or indemnification for the often substantial costs that often attend a HIPAA breach, audit or enforcement event. Since HIPAA violations under certain circumstances also can give rise to felony criminal liability, boards of directors and other leaders of Covered Entities and business associates also will want to ensure that their HIPAA compliance policies and practices also are incorporated and monitored by management as part of their organization’s overall Federal Sentencing Guideline Compliance programs and practices.

About The Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for work, teachings and publications on HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns earned in connection with her more than 28 years’ of involvement advising and representing business and government clients domestically and internationally about workforce and human resources, employee benefits; health care; insurance and financial; privacy and data security and other performance management, regulatory, internal controls and other compliance, risk management, public policy and operational other key concerns.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, past Group Chair and current Defined Contribution Plans Committee Co-Chair, Groups and Substantive Committee and Membership Committee Members, past Welfare Plans Committee Chair and Co-Chair, and former Fiduciary Responsibility Vice Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and Marketing Committee Chair and a prolific author and highly popular speaker and consultant, Ms. Stamer helps management manage.

Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her nearly 30-year career has focused on helping organizations and their management use the law and process to manage people, process, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer helps public and private, domestic and international businesses, governments, and other organizations and their leaders manage their employees, vendors and suppliers, and other workforce members, customers and other’ performance, compliance, compensation and benefits, operations, risks and liabilities, as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup workforce and other legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

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

As a core component of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively throughout her career with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, their technology and other vendors and service providers, and others on legal and operational risk management and compliance with HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security and data breach and other information privacy and data security rules and concerns; prevention, investigation, response, mitigation and resolution of known or suspected data or privacy breaches or other incidents; defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR, FTC, state attorneys’ general and other federal or state agencies; reporting and redressing known or suspected breaches or other violations; business associate and other contracting; insurance or other liability management and allocation; process and product development, contracting, deployment and defense; evaluation, commenting or seeking modification of regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement, and a host of other related concerns for public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, employers, and others.

Beyond her extensive involvement advising and representing clients on privacy and data security concerns and other health industry matters, Ms. Stamer also has served for several years as a scrivener for the ABA JCEB’s meeting with OCR, the Chair of the Southern California ISSA Health Care Privacy & Security Summit, and an editorial advisory board member, author, program chair or steering committee member, and faculties for a multitude of other programs and publications regarding privacy, data security, technology and other compliance, risk management and operational concerns in the health care, health and other insurance, employee benefits and human resources, retail, financial services and other arenas.

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

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

Leave a Comment » | Consumer Driven Health Care, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, healthcare, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, Hospital, hospitals, Medical Privacy, OCR, Physician, Physician Licensing, Privacy, Rural Health Care, Uncategorized | Tagged: HIPAA, HITECH, medical, Privacy, Security, Technology | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$2.4M+ St. Joseph Health HIPAA Settlement Teaching Lesson For Other HIPAA-Covered Entities & Business Associates

October 25, 2016

St. Joseph Health (SJH) has agreed to pay a $2.4 million plus settlement payment, conduct an enterprise-wide risk analysis and implement and administer a comprehensive correction plan under a Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan (SJH Settlement) reached with the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) to settle OCR charges that SJH violated the Privacy & Security Rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) by allowing files containing electronic protected health information (ePHI) of 31,800 individuals that SJH created for its participation in the Medicare meaningful use program to be publicly accessible on the internet from February 1, 2011, until February 13, 2012. The SJH Settlement announced here by OCR on October 18, 2016 demonstrates the mounting HIPAA enforcement exposures that HIPAA-covered health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and their business associates (Covered Entities) risk when a breach of ePHI or other prohibited use, access, destruction or disclosure of ePHI or other personal health information (PHI) results from the failure of the Covered Entity or its business associates to properly protect or secure it in accordance with HIPAA. A review of the SJH Settlement drives home the point that Covered Entities should not assume that meaningful use or other electronic recordkeeping systems containing ePHI are properly secured in accordance with HIPAA.

SJH Investigation & Charges Resulting In $2.4 Million+ Settlement

A nonprofit integrated Catholic health care delivery system sponsored by the St. Joseph Health Ministry, who through its 24,000 employees and 6,000 physicians provides a range of health care services to more than 137,000 inpatients and 3.6 million outpatients each year at SHS’ 4 acute care hospitals, home health agencies, hospice care, outpatient services, skilled nursing facilities, community clinics and physician organizations located throughout California and in parts of Texas and New Mexico.

OCR’s charges against SJH arose out of OCR’s investigation into a 2012 breach notification report SJS filed with OCR. On February 14, 2012, SJH reported to OCR that files containing electronic protected health information (ePHI) of 31,800 individuals from five of the SJH hospitals-St. Jude Medical Center, Mission Hospital, Queen of the Valley Medical Center, Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, and Petaluma Valley Hospital that SJH created for its participation in the meaningful use program were publicly accessible on the internet from February 1, 2011, until February 13, 2012, via Google and possibly other internet search engines.

SJH’s report to OCR indicated that this public access resulted from a configuration within its network server in which PDF files containing following patient information were uploaded: patient names; BMI; blood pressure; lab results; smoking status; diagnoses lists; medication allergies; advance directive status and demographic information (language, ethnicity, race, sex, and birth date). The server SJH purchased to store the files included a file sharing application whose default settings allowed anyone with an internet connection to access them. Upon implementation of this server and the file sharing application, SJH did not examine or modify it. As a result, the public had unrestricted access to PDF files containing the ePHI of 31,800 individuals, including patient names, health statuses, diagnoses, and demographic information from February 14, 2012 until SJH blocked external access to the ePHI when it shut down the application February 13, 2012.

OCR’s investigation indicated the following potential violations of the HIPAA Rules:

From February 1, 2011 to February 13, 2012, SJH potentially disclosed the PHI of 31,800 individuals;
Evidence indicated that SJH failed to conduct an evaluation in response to the environmental and operational changes presented by implementation of a new server for its meaningful use project, thereby compromising the security of ePHI;
Although SJH hired a number of contractors to assess the risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity and availability of ePHI held by SJH, evidence indicated that this was conducted in a patchwork fashion and did not result in an enterprise-wide risk analysis, as required by the HIPAA Security Rule.

SJH Settlement Agreement Highlights

Under the settlement agreement with SJH that OCR announced on October 18, 2016, SJH must pay a $2,140,500 settlement payment and adopt a comprehensive corrective action plan which among other things, requires SJH to conduct an enterprise-wide risk analysis, develop and implement a risk management plan, revise its policies and procedures, and train its staff on these policies and procedures. SJH’s Chief Executive Officer, Annette M. Walker, is named in the Corrective Action Plan as the SJH authorized representative and contact person responsible for overseeing the CAP implementation.

Among other things, the Corrective Action Plan specifically requires that SJH:

Within 240 days, conduct an enterprise-wide analysis and provide a report to OCR which includes a complete inventory of all electronic equipment, data systems, and applications that contain or store ePHI, and prepare and deliver to OCR for review an enterprise-wide risk analysis that identifies all security risks and vulnerabilities that incorporates all electronic equipment, data systems, and applications controlled, administered, or owned by SJH, its workforce members, and affiliated staff that contains, stores, transmits, or receives electronic protected health information (ePHJ);
Revise this risk analysis plan as directed by OCR based on its review of the presented risk analysis;
Develop and implement to the satisfaction of OCR an organization-wide risk management plan to address and mitigate any security risks and vulnerabilities identified in the risk analysis;
Distribute the risk management plan as finally approved by OCR to to workforce members involved with implementation of the plan within 30 days of OCR approval;
Revise to OCR’s satisfaction, adopt and implement within 30 days of OCR’s approval compliant HIPAA policies and procedures;
Prepare for review of OCR training materials and once approved by OCR, provide initial training to required workforce members, and obtain certification of completion of that training from each required workforce member within 60 days of OCR’s approval of the training and thereafter at least annually as long as the Corrective Action Plan remains in force;
Promptly conduct a documented investigation of any information indicating a potential workforce member violation of the new HIPAA policies in the manner required by OCR and if the investigation confirms a violation (Reportable Event), notify OCR of the relevant facts, findings, corrective actions and sanctions imposed against the violating workforce member in the manner required by the Corrective Action Plan;
Submit annual report to OCR signed and attested to by an SJH officer, which contains the information and attestations of compliance with the requirements of the Corrective Action Plan in accordance with the Corrective Action Plan;
Retain for inspection and copying and provide to OCR upon request all documents and records relating to compliance with this Corrective Action Plan for six (6) years from the Effective Date of the SJH Settlement Agreement.

Take Away For Other Covered Entities & Business Associates

To help safeguard their own organizations against potential sanctions from OCR and other HIPAA enforcement risks, Covered Entities and their business associates should ensure that their organization possesses a well-documented current enterprise-wide risk assessment, as well as has in place and is administering as necessary to maintain the currency and adequacy of its risk assessment strong practices for conducting documented evaluations of their own HIPAA security, policies, practices, audits and investigations and other procedures necessary to comply with HIPAA, taking into account recent OCR guidance, its initiation of its Phase II audit program, the insights offered by the SJH and other OCR’s ever growing list of enforcement actions and compliance tools, as well as changes in systems, documentation, software, equipment or other occurrences within the operations of the Covered Entity or business associate’s operations that could impact the currency and adequacy of its risk assessment or otherwise raise compliance risks..

A series of recent OCR Resolution Agreements emphasizing the need for Covered Entities and their Business Associates to verify that have in place, and review and update as necessary business associate agreements e.g .HIPAA Settlement Illustrates The Importance Of Reviewing And Updating, As Necessary, Business Associate Agreements (September 23, 2016); Business Associate’s Failure to Safeguard Nursing Home Residents’ PHI Leads to $650,000 HIPAA Settlement (June 29, 2016)
Clarification of Permissible Fees for HIPAA Right of Access – Flat Rate Option Up to $6.50 is Not a Cap on All Fees for Copies of PHI (May 23, 2016)
Guidance On HIPAA & Cloud Computing released October 6, 2016, which provides guidance for Covered Entities and business associates about contracting and other procedures that HIPAA-regulated Covered Entities and their business associates should implement when contracting for and using Cloud Computing Services;
Joint Guidance published October 21, 2016 by the Federal Trade Commission and OCR reminding Covered Entities and their business associates of the need to ensure that in addition to fulfilling the technical content requirements of HIPAA, their HIPAA authorizations, privacy practices notices and other HIPAA notices and communications are written and presented in plan language, include required specific terms and descriptions and in a manner that does not mislead individuals about their rights or about what is happening with their PHI. Furthermore, where Covered Entities and their business associates contemplate that businesses associates may request that individuals sign HIPAA authorizations, Covered Entities and their business associates should the Covered Entity and business associate have in place a current, signed HIPAA-compliant business associate agreement that that expressly authorizes the business associate to request the HIPAA authorization in light of statements in the Joint Guidance indicating that OCR views the Privacy Rules as prohibiting a business associate from asking a consumer to sign a HIPAA authorization unless its business associate contract expressly permits the business associate to do so; and
Other OCR enforcement actions, tools and guidance. See, e.g. All Covered Entities Should Learn Lessons From Mississippi Medical Center’s $2.75 Million HIPAA Resolution Agreement; Providers, Health Plans Should Confirm Copy Charges Comply With New OCR HIPAA Guidance; $2 Million+ HIPAA Settlement, FAQ Warn Providers Protect PHI From Media, Other Recording Or Use; Addressing Gaps in Cybersecurity: OCR Releases Crosswalk Between HIPAA Security Rule and NIST Cybersecurity Framework; HIPAA Security Rule Crosswalk to NIST Cybersecurity Framework.

As breaches of PHI and other violations of HIPAA also frequently give rise to responsibilities or risks under a broad range of other federal and state laws medical and financial privacy and data security, Medicare and other terms of federal program participation, medical credentialing, licensure and ethics, insurance and Employee Retirement Income Security Act fiduciary responsibilities in the case of health plans, contractual, tort and other exposures, Covered Entities and their business associates also generally are best served to take into account these other responsibilities and exposures in conjunction with the design and administration of their HIPAA compliance and risk management policies and practices.

About The Author

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

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

As a core component of her work as the Managing Shareholder of Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, PC, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively throughout her career with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, their technology and other vendors and service providers, and others on legal and operational risk management and compliance with HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security and data breach and other information privacy and data security rules and concerns; prevention, investigation, response, mitigation and resolution of known or suspected data or privacy breaches or other incidents; defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR, FTC, state attorneys’ general and other federal or state agencies; reporting and redressing known or suspected breaches or other violations; business associate and other contracting; insurance or other liability management and allocation; process and product development, contracting, deployment and defense; evaluation, commenting or seeking modification of regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement, and a host of other related concerns for public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, employers, and others.

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

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, ARRA, Civil Rights, Conditions of Participation, Corporate Compliance, data breach, data security, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, FACTA, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, Health Policy, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Laws, managed care, Meaningful Use, Medical Malpractice, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare Advantage, Mental Health, Mental Heatlh, Outcomes Data, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Privacy, Psychiatric, Public Policy, Uncategorized, Wellness | Tagged: HIPAA, Meaningful Use, Technology | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

October 17, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About The Author

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

Ms. Stamer’s health industry experience includes advising hospitals, nursing home, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to Board of Medicine, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns.

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

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

About Solutions Law Press Inc.™

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

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

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

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

New Rule Gives ONC More Power Over Electronic Health Record Providers

October 16, 2016

The Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) will have more oversight over certifying electronic health records and other technologies that store, share and analyze health information for consumers and the authority to ask developers to pull noncompliant products from the market under a new Final Rule scheduled for official publication in the Federal Register on October 19, 2016. The Final Rule will give ONC power to decertify health IT products and issue a cease-and-desist notice to prevent the future sale or marketing of products that don’t comply with regulations or found to pose a risk to public health or safety. Developers of decertified products also would have to notify affected customers and providers who purchased the products.

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

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

If you found these updates of interest, you may be interested in other recent Solutions Law Press, Inc. updates available here.

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

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Accreditation, ASC, Clinical pathway, data breach, data security, DME, Doctor, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Federal Health Center, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, Health IT, HIPAA, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Meaningful Use, Medical Records, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Fee Schedule, Physician, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CMS Publishes Final MACRA Rule

October 14, 2016

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has released the 2398 page final rule implementing the Medicare Access & CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2105 (MACRA) reforms that Congress has adopted to replace the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) rules for determining physician and other clinician payments under Medicare with the new MACRA Quality Payment Program.

Despite widespread criticism by many physicians and clinicians about the MACRA reforms generally and the proposed regulations implemented in the final rules released today, CMS says the final rule establishes the primary regulatory structure to implement the MACRA reforms in a manner that will replace the current “flawed SGR payment system” with a “Quality Payment Program,” equip clinicians with the tools and flexibility to provide high-quality, and flexibility to provide high-quality, patient-centered care.

The sweeping final rule sets the 2017 performance period as a transition year for the 2019 Merit-Based Incentive Payment System payment year. Ultimately, however, physicians and other clinicians will need to choose between one of two options are having their compensation from Medicare determined under the new Quality Payment Program based on their evaluation of which program best fits their needs based on a thorough understanding and careful evaluation of the complex rules in the final regulations and any refinement to the rules that CMS subsequently issues:

Advanced Alternative Payment Models (APMs) or
The Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS)

If a Clinician decides to participate in an Advanced APM, through Medicare Part B he or she may earn an incentive payment for participating in an innovative payment model.

If the clinician decides to participate in traditional Medicare Part B, then he will participate in MIPS where he earns a performance-based payment adjustment.

In order to position themselves to timely respond to the impending changes, conduct the evaluations necessary to determine which approach is likely to best fit their interests and timely act to submit the data, make elections, implement processes and complete other steps to prepare for and timely comply with the final rule, physicians, clinicians and others impacted by these rules must begin as soon as possible to carefully and systematically become educated about the provisions and terms of the final rule, to modify their processes and procedures to capture the data and administer the billing, coding and other functions necessary to evaluate options, timely submit data and make elections and come into compliance with the requirements of the final rules as they take effect while at the same time positioning themselves to adapt these arrangements in response to additional guidance that CMS and other anticipate will be forthcoming as CMS moves forward to full implementation of MACRA.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. is working to prepare additional summaries and other updates exploring certain key details of the lengthy and highly technical provisions of the final rules, as well as monitoring developments that might impact these rules. Stay tuned here for more details.

About The Author

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

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

About Solutions Law Press Inc.™

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

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Affordable Care Act, Ambulatory care, Anti-KickBack, ASC, billing, Centers For Disease Control, Clinical pathway, Conditions of Participation, 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, Health Care Reform, health care reimbursement, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Medicaid, Medicare, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

All Covered Entities Should Learn Lessons From Mississippi Medical Center’s $2.75 Million HIPAA Resolution Agreement

July 27, 2016

Health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses (covered entities) and their business associates should reevaluate the adequacy of their practices and procedures for the protection of electronic protected health information (ePHI) on or accessible through laptops or other mobile devices in light of the $2.75 million penalty and other schooling the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) just gave the University of Mississippi (UM) Medical Center (UMMC) documented in a July 7, 2016 Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan (Resolution Agreement) resolving OCR charges of multiple violations of the privacy, security and breach notification requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) OCR says it uncovered while investigating UMMC’s breach notification report to OCR of the loss a laptop containing 328 files containing the ePHI of an estimated 10,000 patients.

UMMC Report of Missing Laptop Leads To Multiple Charges & Resolution Agreement

Mississippi’s sole public academic health science center, UMMC provides patient care in four specialized hospitals on the Jackson campus and at clinics throughout Jackson and the State as well as conducts medical education and research functions. Its designated health care component, UMMC, includes University Hospital, the site of the breach in this case, located on the main UMMC campus in Jackson.

The settlement agreed to by UMMC stems from charges resulting from an OCR investigation of UMMC triggered by a breach of unsecured electronic protected health information (“ePHI”) affecting approximately 10,000 individuals.

Like many prior resolution agreements previously announced by OCR, UMMC’s HIPAA woes came to light after a laptop went missing. OCR learned of the breach and opened its investigation in response to a March 21, 2013 notification UMMC filed with OCR. UMMC made the breach notification to comply with HIPAA’s Breach Notification Rule requirement that health care providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses (Covered Entities) timely notify affected individuals, OCR and others of breaches of unsecured ePHI.

UMMC’s breach notification disclosed that UMMC’s privacy officer had discovered a password-protected laptop containing ePHI of thousands of UMMC patients missing from UMMC’s Medical Intensive Care Unit (MICU). UMMC additionally reported that based on its investigation, UMMC believed that the missing laptop likely was stolen by a visitor to the MICU who had inquired about borrowing one of the laptops.

After discovering the loss, UMMC disclosed the breach to local media and on its website and notified OCR of the breach but apparently did not individually notify the subjects of the missing ePHI.

In keeping with its announced policy of investigating all breach reports impacting 500 or more individuals, OCR opened an investigation into UMMC’s breach report. Based on this investigation, OCR concluded that while the laptop apparently was password protected, UMMC had breached the Security Rules because ePHI stored on a UMMC network drive was vulnerable to unauthorized access via UMMC’s wireless network because users could use a generic username and password to access an active directory containing 67,000 files including 328 files containing the ePHI of an estimated 10,000 patients.

While OCR’s investigation confirmed that UMMC had implemented policies and procedures pursuant to the HIPAA Rules, OCR’s additionally found that the theft of the laptop that prompted UMMC’s breach report resulted from broad deficiencies in UMMC’s implementation and administration of these policies and its practices.

Based on these findings, OCR charged UMMC with the following HIPAA violations:

From the compliance date of the Security Rule, April 20, 2005, through the settlement date, UMMC violated 45 C.F.R. §164.308(a)(1)(i) by failing to implement policies and procedures to prevent, detect, contain, and correct security violations, including conducting an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all of the ePHI it holds, and implementing security measures sufficient to reduce risks and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level;
From January 19, 2013, until March 1, 2014, UMMC violated 45 C.F.R. §164.310(c) by failing to implement physical safeguards for all workstations that access ePHI to restrict access to authorized users;
From the compliance date of the Security Rule, April 20, 2005, to March 14, 2013, UM violated 45 C.F.R. § 164.312 (a)(2)(i) by failing to assign a unique user name and/or number for identifying and tracking user identity in information systems containing ePHI including, for example, allowing workforce members to access ePHI on a shared department network drive through a generic account, preventing UMMC from tracking which specific users were accessing ePHI; and
While UMMC provided notification on UMMC’s website and in local media outlets following the discovery of the reported breach of unsecured ePHI,, UMMC violated the Breach Notification Rule by failing to notify each individual whose unsecured ePHI was reasonably believed to have been accessed, acquired, used, or disclosed as a result of the breach.

Finally, OCR determined that UMMC was aware of risks and vulnerabilities to its systems as far back as April 2005, yet took no significant risk management activity until after the breach, due largely to organizational deficiencies and insufficient institutional oversight.

To resolve these charges, UMMC agrees in the Resolution Agreement to pay OCR $2.75 million and implement a comprehensive compliance plan which among other things, requires UMMC to conduct a sweeping review and correct its HIPAA privacy, security and breach notification policies and their implementation and administration to comply with HIPAA as well as implement and administer detailed management and OCR oversight and reporting processes over the implementation and administration of these procedures.

Lessons For Other Covered Entities From UMMC Resolution Agreement

The UMMC charges and Resolution Agreement contains several key lessons for other covered entities and their business associates, which OCR’s July 21, 2016 announcement warns other covered entities and business associates to heed..

Certainly, the $2.75 million settlement amount reaffirms that covered entities and their business associates risk substantial liability for failing to properly assess and protect the security of ePHI in accordance with HIPAA’s Privacy and Security Rule.

Furthermore, the charges and Resolution Agreement also adds a new twist to OCR’s now well established to stiffly sanction covered entities and their business associates that fail appropriately assess and address risks to the security of their ePHI on or accessible from laptops or other mobile devices. Through previous resolution agreements and guidance, OCR has made clear that it interprets the HIPAA Security Rule as generally requiring that covered entities and business associates encrypt all laptops or other mobile devices containing ePHI. The UMMC charges and Resolution Agreement makes clear that the responsibility to protect ePHI on or accessible through laptops or other mobile devices does not end with encryption. Rather, the Resolution Agreement makes clear that covered entities and their business associates also must take appropriate, well-documented steps to monitor, assess, identify, and timely and effectively address other potential risks to the security of the ePHI.

The Resolution Agreement makes clear that these additional responsibilities include, but are not necessarily limited to ensuring that proper safeguards are implemented and enforced to secure access not only to the ePHI contained on the laptop as well as other data bases and systems containing ePHI accessible through the laptop. In this respect, the Resolution Agreement particularly highlights the need for covered entities and their business associates to assess risks and take appropriate steps:

To safeguard the physical security of laptops and other mobile devices;
To prevent the use of generic or other unsecure passwords to access ePHI on or accessible through the laptop or other mobile device;
To establish and administer appropriate, well-documented processes for assessing and addressing the adequacy of safeguards for and potential threats to the security of ePHI both initially and on an ongoing basis in a manner that meaningfully assesses the actual risks and effectiveness of safeguards against these risks, including those resulting from nonadherence to required safeguards and practices such as the sharing of passwords, changing systems or circumstances, and other developments that potentially threaten the adequacy of ePHI security.

Furthermore, OCR’s July 21, 2016 press release concerning the Resolution Agreement also sends a clear message to all covered entities and business associates that OCR views HIPAA as requiring organizations not only to adopt written policies and procedures that comply on paper or in theory with HIPAA, but also to take steps to monitor and maintain the effectiveness of their safeguard by continuously assessing and monitoring their HIPAA risks and acting as necessary to ensure that required safeguards of protected health information and ePHI and other HIPAA requirements are effectively implemented and administered in operation as well as form.

In OCR’s Press Release announcing the Resolution Agreement, OCR Director Jocelyn Samuels. Stated, “We at OCR remain particularly concerned with unaddressed risks that may lead to impermissible access to ePHI.” She also warned “In addition to identifying risks and vulnerabilities to their ePHI, entities must also implement reasonable and appropriate safeguards to address them within an appropriate time frame.”

Additionally, the Resolution Agreement also illustrates need for covered entities and business associates to timely provide all individual and other notifications and otherwise fully comply with all requirements of the Breach Notification Rules.

Since the risk of a breach is ever-present even for Covered Entities and business associates exercising the highest degree of care to safeguard PHI and maintain compliance with HIPAA, Covered Entities and business associates are wise to take steps to position themselves to be able to demonstrate the adequacy of both their written policies and procedures and the effectiveness of their implementation and enforcement including ongoing documented practices for assessing, monitoring and addressing security risks and other compliance concerns as well as prepare to comply with the breach notification requirements in the event they experience their own breach of unsecured ePHI.

About The Author

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

About Solutions Law Press Inc.™

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

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

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Civil Rights, Corporate Compliance, data breach, data security, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, FACTA, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Licensing, managed care, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Mental Health, Mental Heatlh, OCR, Outpatient, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Psychiatric, Rural Health Care, substance abuse treatment, Technology, Telemedicine, Uncategorized, Union, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Care, Wellness | Tagged: Employers, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Plans, HIPAA, Hospital, Medicaid, OCR, Physician, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Providers, Health Plans Should Confirm Copy Charges Comply With New OCR HIPAA Guidance

May 26, 2016

Healthcare providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their business associates should verify that their copying charges and other policies and practices for responding to requests of individuals for copies and other access to protected health information (PHI) comply with the Privacy and Security Rules (Privacy Rule) of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) as construed in a new Frequently Asked Question (FAQ published May 24, 2016 as follow up to two other sets of guidance about HIPAA assess rights published by the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR) since January, 2016.

New OCR Guidance Sheds New Light On HIPAA Access Rule Requirements

The OCR FAQ titled New Clarification – Up to $6.50 Flat Rate Option published May 24, 2016 is the third in a series of guidance materials OCR discussing OCR’s interpretation of individuals’ core right under HIPAA to access and obtain a copy of their PHI from Covered Entities since January, 2016 (the “Access Rule”). With OCR Enforcement Data already showing Access Rule violations among the top 5 issues in cases investigated by OCR every year since HIPAA took effect in 2003, Covered Entities can expect OCR to include Access Rule violations among the Privacy Rule violations OCR likely will target as it continues to ramp up its HIPAA audit, investigation and enforcement efforts.

As part of its sweeping requirements concerning the use, access, protection and disclosure of PHI, the Access Rule provisions of the Privacy Rule generally require Covered Entities to provide individuals, upon request, with access to the protected health information (PHI) about them in one or more “designated record sets” maintained by or for the Covered Entity or its business associate. This includes the right to inspect or obtain a copy, or both, of the PHI, as well as to direct the Covered Entity to transmit a copy to a designated person or entity of the individual’s choice as long as the Covered Entity or a business associate on its behalf maintains the PHI, regardless of the date the information was created; whether the information is maintained in paper or electronic systems onsite, remotely, or is archived; or where the PHI originated (e.g., whether the Covered Entity, another provider, the patient, etc.).

With its publication of the New Clarification FAQ on May 24, 2016, OCR now has published three pieces of guidance (the Access Guidance) about its interpretation of the Access Rule since January, 2016 that it hopes will promote greater understanding of and compliance with the Access Rule by Covered Entities:

In January, OCR published a comprehensive Fact Sheet (Fact Sheet) and the first in a series of topical frequently asked questions (FAQs) addressing patients’ right to access their medical records, which set forth requirements providers must follow in sharing medical records with patients, including that they must do so in a timely manner and in a format that works for the patient;
On March 1, OCR published a second set of FAQs accessible here addressing when Covered Entities may charge individuals to provide requested copies of their PHI, how Covered Entities must calculate these fees, when Covered Entities must send an individual’s PHI to a third party designated by the individual in its request for copies, and other issues relating to access rights guaranteed by the Privacy Rule; and
On May 24, 2016 OCR clarified this prior Access Guidance by publishing another FAQ titled New Clarification – Up to $6.50 Flat Rate Option .

Collectively, the Access Guidance addresses a broad range of questions and issues about the responsibilities of Covered Entities under the Access Rule including what PHI Covered Entities must provide as well as detailed guidance about when and how much Covered Entities can charge individuals for requested copies of their PHI or summaries of their PHI. Since the OCR Access Guidance may restrict the charge that health care providers or other Covered Entities can charge for copies or other access more than applicable state law rules, Covered Entities need to verify their practices comply with OCR’s Access Guidance in addition to any applicable state law rules. The Access Guidance makes clear that OCR expects Covered Entities and their business associates to ensure that their charges for copying or providing other access to PHI guaranteed by the Privacy Rule complies with this Access Guidance even if that practice does not violate applicable state law.

Are You Charging Too Much? Charges For Copies of PHI Must Meet OCR Privacy Rule Guidance

Concerning charges for copies of PHI requested by an individual, Privacy Rule § 164.524(c)(4) permits a Covered Entity to impose a reasonable, cost-based fee if the individual requests a copy of the PHI (or agrees to receive a summary or explanation of the information) provided that the Covered Entity properly and timely notifies the individual of the cost and properly determines the cost in accordance with OCR guidance.

Many physicians or other health care providers that use electronic health records (EHRs) certified to allow individuals to access their PHI in the system may be unaware that OCR views the availability of electronic access from the EHR affects the health care provider’s ability to charge for copies of requested PHI. OCR’s position is that the Privacy Rule prohibits a Covered Entity from charging an individual for requested copies of PHI when the request is fulfilled by the individual accessing the requested PHI using the View, Download, and Transmit functionality of the provider’s certified electronic health record.

Assuming the request for access or copies is not fulfilled through download from an HER, the Access Guidance indicates q Covered Entity must use one of three potentially applicable OCR-approved methods to calculate the fee the Covered Entity charges an individual for copies of PHI or an agreed upon summary provided that the method used takes into account only labor costs for copying or producing an agreed upon summary as defined by OCR.:

The “Actual Cost” Method;
The “Average Cost” Method; or
For electronic copies of PHI maintained electronically, the “Flat Fee” Method.

Charging a flat fee not to exceed $6.50 is an option available to those entities that do not want to go through the process of calculating actual or average costs for requests for electronic copies of PHI under either the Actual Cost or Average Cost Methods. However, by its terms, the “Flat Fee” Method is only an allowable for Covered Entities to use to avoid calculating actual or average allowable costs when a Covered Entity is providing electronic copies of PHI maintained electronically (and presumably when the access request is not fulfilled through download from an EHR). When applicable, the Flat Fee Method allows a Covered Entity to charge a flat fee for all requests for electronic copies of PHI maintained electronically, provided the fee does not exceed $6.50, inclusive of all labor, supplies, and any applicable postage. The New Clarification – Up to $6.50 Flat Rate Option clarifies that use of the Flat Rate Method is permitted not required when a Covered Entity provides copies of PHI maintained electronically other through download directly from a certified EHR. Covered Entities that wish to charge more than the $6.50 flat rate allowed under the Flat Rate Option retain the right, if the facts and evidence warrant, to use either the Actual Cost Method or Average Cost Method to calculate the fee for providing electronic records electronically within the boundaries of what is permissible under the Privacy Rule.

Where the Flat Fee Method is inapplicable or the Covered Entity elects not to use it, the Covered Entity must use either the Actual Cost Method or the Average Cost Method to calculate the fee in accordance with OCR’s rules.

Under the “Actual Cost Method,” a Covered Entity may calculate actual labor costs to fulfill the request, as long as the labor included is only for copying (and/or creating a summary or explanation if the individual chooses to receive a summary or explanation) and the labor rates used are reasonable for such activity. The Covered Entity may add to the actual labor costs any applicable supply (e.g., paper, or CD or USB drive) or postage costs. Covered Entities that charge individuals actual costs based on each individual access request still must be prepared to inform individuals in advance of the approximate fee that may be charged for providing the individual with a copy of her PHI. An example of an actual labor cost calculation would be to time how long it takes for the workforce member of the Covered Entity (or business associate) to make and send the copy in the form and format and manner requested or agreed to by the individual and multiply the time by the reasonable hourly rate of the person copying and sending the PHI. What is reasonable for purposes of an hourly rate will vary depending on the level of skill needed to create and transmit the copy in the manner requested or agreed to by the individual (e.g., administrative level labor to make and mail a paper copy versus more technical skill needed to convert and transmit the PHI in a particular electronic format);

Under the “Average Cost” Method, in lieu of calculating labor costs individually for each request, a Covered Entity can develop a schedule of costs for labor based on average labor costs to fulfill standard types of access requests, as long as the types of labor costs included are the ones which the Privacy Rule permits to be included in a fee (e.g., labor costs for copying but not for search and retrieval) and are reasonable. Covered Entities may add to that amount any applicable supply (e.g., paper, or CD or USB drive) or postage costs. This standard rate can be calculated and charged as a per page fee only in cases where the PHI requested is maintained in paper form and the individual requests a paper copy of the PHI or asks that the paper PHI be scanned into an electronic format. However OCR’s guidance states that OCR does not consider per page fees for copies of PHI maintained electronically to be reasonable for purposes of 45 CFR 164.524(c)(4);

Whether using the Actual Cost Method or the Average Cost Method, a Covered Entity must only take into account only “reasonable labor costs associated only with the: (1) labor for copying the PHI requested by the individual, whether in paper or electronic form; and (2) labor to prepare an explanation or summary of the PHI, if the individual in advance both chooses to receive an explanation or summary and agrees to the fee that may be charged.

OCR’s guidance makes clear that the reasonability of the charges for labor must reflect the technology available for providing this access. In this respect, OCR’s guidance states that a Covered Entity cannot charge a fee under HIPAA for individuals to access the PHI from a health care provider’s EHR technology that has been certified as being capable of making the PHI accessible. OCR’s position is that where a Covered Entity fulfills an individual’s HIPAA access request by allowing the individual to access the requested PHI using the View, Download, and Transmit functionality of the provider’s certified electronic health record (CEHRT), an individual requests or agrees to access her PHI available through the View, Download, and Transmit functionality of the CEHRT, there are no labor costs and no costs for supplies to enable such access.

To the extent that access is not provided through an CEHRT, the fee a Covered Entity charges an individual to provide copies of requested PHI or an agreed upon summary may include only the cost of:

Copying the PHI; and
Preparation of an explanation or summary of the PHI, if agreed to by the individual.

As interpreted by OCR, labor for copying includes only labor for creating and delivering the electronic or paper copy in the form and format requested or agreed upon by the individual, once the PHI that is responsive to the request has been identified, retrieved or collected, compiled and/or collated, and is ready to be copied. For example, labor for copying may include labor associated with the following, as necessary to copy and deliver the PHI in the form and format and manner requested or agreed to by the individual:

Labor for copying the PHI requested by the individual, whether in paper or electronic form;

Supplies for creating the paper copy or electronic media (e.g., CD or USB drive) if the individual requests that the electronic copy be provided on portable media;
Postage, when the individual requests that the copy, or the summary or explanation, be mailed; and
Creating and executing a mailing or e-mail with the responsive PHI.

See 45 CFR 164.524(c)(4).

The Access Guidance states the fee may not include costs associated with verification; documentation; searching for and retrieving the PHI; maintaining systems; recouping capital for data access, storage, or infrastructure; outsourcing the function of responding to individual requests for PHI copies or other costs not listed above even if such costs are authorized by State law. See 45 CFR 164.524(c)(4).

Of course, in any case, OCR’s guidance makes clear that regardless of how a entity chooses to calculate its fee to copy PHI, the Privacy Rule requires that the Covered Entity inform the requesting individual in advance of the approximate fee that may be charged for providing the copy requested and otherwise comply with the Privacy Rule as interpreted by OCR’s latest guidance concerning providing individuals access to PHI and other requirements.

Documented, Timely Action Needed To Mitigate OCR Audit, Investigation & Enforcement Risks

Beyond operationally complying with the Access Guidance, Covered Entities and their business associates generally will want to update their policies, practices and training to position themselves to defend their calculation of any charges made for copies provided in response to a request for access protected by the Privacy Rule and other compliance with the requirements of that rule and the otherwise applicable provisions of HIPAA as well as include monitoring and enforcement of these requirements as part of their ongoing HIPAA compliance efforts.

These and other HIPAA compliance efforts are particularly critical in light of the expanding audit, investigation and enforcement activities of OCR under the Privacy Rule. OCR’s publication of the Access Guidance coincides with a surge in OCR’s HIPAA audit, investigation and enforcement activities.

OCR’s publication of the new Access Guidance comes as OCR is ramping up its interpretation, oversight and enforcement of HIPAA generally. See, Brace For OCR HIPAA Audits & Enforcement; Update Privacy Practices For New OCR HIPAA Enforcement, Security & Records Access Guidance. While continuing to offer guidance like the Access Guidance and other tools to encourage and help Covered Entities and their business to understand and comply with the Privacy Rule, OCR also increasingly now uses the expanded penalties and authority created by the HITECH Act to punish Covered Entities for violating Privacy Rule requirements. HITECH Act amendments, among other things, broadened the duties of OCR to audit, investigate and sanction HIPAA violations as well as tightened various requirements of the Privacy Rules.

The risks to Covered Entities from violating the Privacy Rules are significant and growing. Since the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (HITECH) amended HIPAA, Covered Entities and their business associates face heightened risks that violations of HIPAA will trigger liability to pay a Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) to OCR or other sanctions. The two, multimillion dollar CMPs now imposed by OCR against two different Covered Entities caught violating the Privacy Rules only reflect a small part of OCR’s CMP enforcement. Equally or perhaps more significant are the growing stream of high dollar settlement payments that an ever-growing list of Covered Entities to resolve OCR Privacy Rule violation charges that otherwise also might result in OCR’s assessment of a CMP against them. See, e.g. $2 Million+ HIPAA Settlement, FAQ Warn Providers Protect PHI From Media, Other Recording Or Use; Provider Pays $750K To Settle HIPAA Business Associate Rule Breach Charges; North Memorial Hit With $3.9M HIPAA Fine For HIPAA Violations; OCR’s 2nd-Ever HIPAA CMP Nails Lincare For $239,000; Lehey Pays $850K After Unencrypted Laptop Stolen.

These already substantial enforcement risks are likely to rise as OCR begins auditing the compliance of selected Covered Entities as part of its recently announced 2016 audit program. As a result of audit requirements enacted as part of the HITECH Act, Covered Entities now need to be prepared to demonstrate the adequacy of their HIPAA compliance in case their organization becomes targeted for audit under OCR’s 2016 audit program. Even if not selected for audit, however, Covered Entities and their business associates still face the risk that a complaint filed with OCR will trigger an OCR investigation of their practices for providing copies or other access or other compliance with the Privacy Rules. In light of the growing aggressiveness of OCR’s enforcement, Covered Entities and their business associates need to be prepared to demonstrate their efforts to comply. Those that cannot show adequate compliance efforts should be prepared for potentially substantial CMP or Resolution Agreement payments and other sanctions. Consequently, Covered Entities and their business associates should move quickly to review and update their practices, communications and training to comply with this new Access Guidance as well as other guidance, enforcement and other developments that might impact the adequacy of their existing practices under the Privacy Rule generally. Because of the risk that any review or investigation of the adequacy of its practices or complaints under the Privacy Rule will involve sensitive information or analysis, Covered Entities and their business associates are cautioned to consider the advisability of arranging for this analysis and review to be conducted within the scope of attorney-client privilege under the guidance of legal counsel experienced with the Privacy Rules and other related legal concerns.

About The Author

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

As a core component of her work as the Managing Shareholder of Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, PC, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively throughout her nearly 30 year career with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, their technology and other vendors and service providers, and others on legal and operational risk management and compliance with HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security and data breach and other information privacy and data security rules and concerns; prevention, investigation, response, mitigation and resolution of known or suspected data or privacy breaches or other incidents; defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR, FTC, state attorneys’ general and other federal or state agencies; reporting and redressing known or suspected breaches or other violations; business associate and other contracting; insurance or other liability management and allocation; process and product development, contracting, deployment and defense; evaluation, commenting or seeking modification of regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement, and a host of other related concerns for public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, employers, and others.

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

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

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here. ©2016 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ All other rights reserved.

1 Comment | Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, HIPAA, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Meaningful Use, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Physician, Physician Licensing, Privacy, Rural Health Care, Uncategorized, Veterans Health Care | Tagged: Data Security, Electronic Health Records, EMR, Health Care, Health Plan, HIPAA, Hospital, Meaningful Use, Medical Records, Privacy, Privacy Rule | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

March 25, 2016

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

Feinstein Settlement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Settlement Latest Reminder To Manage HIPAA Risks

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

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

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

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

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

Latest Guidance Clarifies Patient Rights To Access PHI & Allowable Charges

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

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

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

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

Other Key HIPAA Regulatory & Enforcement Changes Raise Responsibilities & Risks

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

Register For 3/30 Webex Briefing

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

About The Author

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

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

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here. ©2016 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ All other rights reserved.

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

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

March 16, 2016

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

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

Settlement Latest Reminder To Manage HIPAA Risks

Latest Guidance Clarifies Patient Rights To Access PHI & Allowable Charges

Other Key HIPAA Regulatory & Enforcement Changes Raise Responsibilities & Risks

Register For 3/30 Webex Briefing

About The Author

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

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

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

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

March 9, 2016

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

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

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

√ Respond to participant questions on a time permitting basis

√ More

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

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

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

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

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

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

REGISTRATION & PROGRAM DETAILS

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

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

ABOUT SOLUTIONS LAW PRESS, INC.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides business and management information, tools and solutions, training and education, services and support to help organizations and their leaders better anticipate legal and operational issues impacting their organization’s performance, regulatory compliance and risk management, data and information protection and risk management and other key management objectives. Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ also conducts and assist businesses and associations to design, present and conduct customized programs and training targeted to their specific audiences and needs. For additional information about upcoming programs, to inquire about becoming a presenting sponsor for an upcoming event, e-mail your request to info@Solutionslawpress.com. These programs, publications and other resources are provided only for general informational and educational purposes, the applicability of which to any particular circumstances may be impacted by legal changes, the specific facts and circumstances or other factors. Consequently, neither the distribution or presentation of these programs and materials to any party nor any statement or information provided in or in connection with this communication, the program or associated materials are not intended to or shall not be construed as establishing an attorney-client relationship, to constitute legal advice or a substitute for legal advice, or otherwise provide any assurance or expectation from Solutions Law Press, Inc., the presenter or any related parties that any participant or any other party can rely upon the information or any statements presented herein. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future Alerts or other information about developments, publications or programs or other updates, send your request to info@solutionslawpress.com. If you would prefer not to receive communications from Solutions Law Press, Inc. send an e-mail with “Solutions Law Press Unsubscribe” in the Subject to support@solutionslawyer.net. CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: The following disclaimer is included to comply with and in response to U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230 Regulations. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN. If you are an individual with a disability who requires accommodation to participate, please let us know at the time of your registration so that we may consider your request. ©2016 Solutions Law Press, Inc.

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

OIG Modifies Past Ruling, Blesses Two New Medicare Co-Pay Financial Programs

January 4, 2016

Healthcare providers interested in or offering financial assistance with co-pays or other out-of-pocket charges to Medicare or Medicaid patients should review carefully two new and one modified opinion just published by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG).

OIG generally interprets federal healthcare fraud laws as prohibiting healthcare providers from paying for or providing financial assistance with co-pay or other out-of-pocket costs for Medicare or Medicaid beneficiaries unless the arrangement Falls then an exemption approved by OIG.

In recent years the OIG increasingly has approved certain nearly defined co-pay or other financial assistance for him arrangements in a series of specific opinion letters. The three Advisory Opinions released today are the latest of these opinions. See Advisory Opinion 15-17 at http://go.usa.gov/c5ekz; Advisory Opinion 15-16 at http://go.usa.gov/c5e8C; and Modification of Advisory Opinion 06-04 http://go.usa.gov/c5e8W.

Healthcare providers reading these opinions must keep in mind the opinions only protect the parties who receive that opinion; other parties interested in offering financial assistance to Medicare or Medicaid beneficiaries with copayments or other out-of-pocket costs must get the OIG to issue them an opinion specifically blessing their proposed arrangement before moving forward to avoid risking triggering fraud enforcement.

While non parties cannot rely n opinions issued to others, health care providers offering or considering offering financial assistance carefully should review the guidance published in these opinions as a roadmap for designing and operating their own arrangements. Guidance in these opinions helps identify key criteria for qualification and enforcement.

For More Information Or Assistance

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

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

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

About Solutions Law Press

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you found these updates of interest, you also be interested in one or more of the following other recent articles published on the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform electronic publication available here, our electronic Solutions Law Press Health Care Update publication available here, or our HR & Benefits Update electronic publication available here. You also can get access to information about how you can arrange for training on “Building Your Family’s Health Care Toolkit,” using the “PlayForLife” resources to organize low-cost wellness programs in your workplace, school, church or other communities, and other process improvement, compliance and other training and other resources for health care providers, employers, health plans, community leaders and others here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here. You can reach other recent updates and other informative publications and resources.

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

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

Leave a Comment » | Anti-KickBack, DME, Doctor, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, health care reimbursement, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Money Laundering, Nonprofits, OIG, Outpatient, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Stark, Uncategorized | Tagged: Fianancial Assistance, Fraud & Abuse, Health Care Fraud, OIG, Rebate, STARK | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

October 19, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

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

Scribe for the ABA JCEB annual Technical Sessions meeting with OCR for the past five years, Ms. Stamer also is recognized for her extensive publications and programs including numerous highly regarding publications and programs on HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns.

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

Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals; Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association; founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Health Policy and Project COPE: The Coalition on Patient Empowerment; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, Past Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas Board, Past Board President of the Richardson Development Center Early Child Intervention Agency (not Warren Center for Children) and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Council, the American Bar Association (ABA) and State Bar of Texas, Cindy serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Insurance Thought Leadership, Employee Benefit News, HR.com, on the leadership of the ABA JCEB Council and several ABA Sections, and in many other professional and civic organizations and educational faculties, Ms. Stamer also is a prolific and popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry, labor and employment and other related concerns. She publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns as well as conducts workshops and programs and publications on these and many other compliance, operational and risk management, and other health industry matters. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications.

For more information about Ms. Stamer and her health industry or other experience, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer, register here.

About Solutions Law Press

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:

©2015 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. Non-exclusive license to republish granted to Solutions Law Press. All other rights reserved. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here. For important information about this communication, see here. THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

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

Tex Docs Urged To Support Medical Board Reforms

May 5, 2015

The Association of Physicians and Surgeons is urging Texas physicians and others concerned about facing a potential licensing board disciplinary action in Texas to urge the Texas Legislature to enacted SB 1813, which would end confidential complaints against physicians and provide access to other information.
SB 1813 would amend the required notice requirements for licensing board actions by the Texas Medical Board to require that the Board:
Notify a physician subject to a Board complaint of the filing of the complaint
Provide the physician a full copy of the complaint, without redaction, and a statement of the alleged violation in plain language

Require the Board to deliver a copy of the preliminary and final reports, including any dissenting or minority report, to the physician who is the subject of the review.
Provide the name and medical credentials of each physician who files an expert report to the physician under review.
Although opposed by the Texas Medical Association and Texas Hospital Association, the majority of the Texas Senate Health & Human Services Committee voted in favor of S.B. 1813.

Expanding medical regulation and expectations are driving up the standards physicians are expected to meet. Meanwhile reimbursement is declining and competition is increasing. These and other changes make physicians at risk not only for discipline for legitimate quality issues as well as allegations of billing fraud, disruptive conduct and a host of other highly subjective charges. Frequently these charges are made by competitors or others with agendas other than traditional quality. Not being able to identify and confront their accuser is viewed by many physicians as a major impediment to defending themselves.

Effective defense is critical. The Texas Medical Board is known for its heavy handed investigation and discipline. Discipline by a licensing board or peer review organization results among other things in reports to the Health Care Quality Data Bank, loss or restrictions on privileges, licenses, employment or a combination of these, great expense, lost income, embarrassment and more.

Timely access to information and records is viewed by many as one small piece of the puzzle that many physicians believe would help doctors understand and defend against charges. Physicians or others that support this change should communicate their support to their elected representatives and others in the Texas Legislature as soon as possible.

Leave a Comment » | Evidence Based Medicine, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Qulity, Hospital, Licensing, Peer Review, Physician, Physician Licensing, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

March 5, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

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

About Solutions Law Press

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you found these updates of interest, you also be interested in one or more of the following other recent articles published on the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform electronic publication available here, our electronic Solutions Law Press Health Care Update publication available here, or our HR & Benefits Update electronic publication available here. You also can get access to information about how you can arrange for training on “Building Your Family’s Health Care Toolkit,” using the “PlayForLife” resources to organize low-cost wellness programs in your workplace, school, church or other communities, and other process improvement, compliance and other training and other resources for health care providers, employers, health plans, community leaders and others here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here. You can reach other recent updates and other informative publications and resources.

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

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

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

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

March 3, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sharing and promoting the use of practical practices, tools, information and ideas that patients and their families, health care providers, employers, health plans, communities and policymakers can share and offer to help patients, their families and others in their care communities to understand and work together to better help the patients, their family and their professional and private care community plan for and manage these needs is the purpose of

The Coalition and its Project COPE arise and operate on the belief that health care reform and policy must be patient focused, patient centric and patient empowering. The best opportunity to improve access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans is for every American, and every employer, insurer, and community organization to seize the opportunity to be good Samaritans. The government, health care providers, insurers and community organizations can help by providing education and resources to make understanding and dealing with the realities of illness, disability or aging easier for a patient and their family, the affected employers and others. At the end of the day, however, caring for people requires the human touch. Americans can best improve health care by not waiting for someone else to step up: Step up and help bridge the gap when you or your organization can. Speak up to help communicate and facilitate when you can. Building health care neighborhoods filled with good neighbors throughout the community is the key.

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

We also encourage you and others to help develop real meaningful improvements by joining Project COPE: Coalition for Patient Empowerment here by sharing ideas, tools and other solutions and other resources. The Coalition For Responsible Health Care Policy provides a resource that concerned Americans can use to share, monitor and discuss the Health Care Reform law and other health care, insurance and related laws, regulations, policies and practices and options for promoting access to quality, affordable healthcare through the design, administration and enforcement of these regulations.

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

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

About Solutions Law Press

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you found these updates of interest, you also be interested in one or more of the following other recent articles published on the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform electronic publication available here, our electronic Solutions Law Press Health Care Update publication available here, or our HR & Benefits Update electronic publication available here. You also can get access to information about how you can arrange for training on “Building Your Family’s Health Care Toolkit,” using the “PlayForLife” resources to organize low-cost wellness programs in your workplace, school, church or other communities, and other process improvement, compliance and other training and other resources for health care providers, employers, health plans, community leaders and others here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here. You can reach other recent updates and other informative publications and resources.

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

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

Health Care Employer’s Discrimination Triggers Medicare, EEOC Prosecutions

March 2, 2015

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

OCR Race Discrimination Medicare Action

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

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

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

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

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

Phoenix EEOC ADA Discrimination Action

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

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

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

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

Prepare Employment Discrimination Defenses

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

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

About Solutions Law Press

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you found these updates of interest, you also be interested in one or more of the following other recent articles published on the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform electronic publication available here, our electronic Solutions Law Press Health Care Update publication available here, or our HR & Benefits Update electronic publication available here. You also can get access to information about how you can arrange for training on “Building Your Family’s Health Care Toolkit,” using the “PlayForLife” resources to organize low-cost wellness programs in your workplace, school, church or other communities, and other process improvement, compliance and other training and other resources for health care providers, employers, health plans, community leaders and others here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here. You can reach other recent updates and other informative publications and resources.

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

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

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

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

March 2, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Coalition and its Project COPE are founded and operate based on the belief that health care reform and policy must be patient focused, patient centric and patient empowering. The best opportunity to improve access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans is for every American, and every employer, insurer, and community organization to seize the opportunity to be good Samaritans. The government, health care providers, insurers and community organizations can help by providing education and resources to make understanding and dealing with the realities of illness, disability or aging easier for a patient and their family, the affected employers and others. At the end of the day, however, caring for people requires the human touch. Americans can best improve health care by not waiting for someone else to step up: Step up and help bridge the gap when you or your organization can. Speak up to help communicate and facilitate when you can. Building health care neighborhoods filled with good neighbors throughout the community is the key.

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you found these updates of interest, you also be interested in one or more of the following other recent articles published on the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform electronic publication available here, our electronic Solutions Law Press Health Care Update publication available here, or our HR & Benefits Update electronic publication available here. You also can get access to information about how you can arrange for training on “Building Your Family’s Health Care Toolkit,” using the “PlayForLife” resources to organize low-cost wellness programs in your workplace, school, church or other communities, and other process improvement, compliance and other training and other resources for health care providers, employers, health plans, community leaders and others here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here. You can reach other recent updates and other informative publications and resources.

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

Unpatched and Unsupported Software Triggers Latest HIPAA Security Breach Resolution Agreement

December 11, 2014

Health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses (covered entities) and their business associates need to watch for and protect protected health information (PHI) against security exposures from unpatched or unsupported software and other weaknesses in their data security protections as part of their compliance obligations under the Security Rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA).

The need to monitor and address data security threats associated with unpatched or unsupported software is demonstrated by the December 9, 2014 announcement by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) that Anchorage Community Mental Health Services (ACMHS) will pay $150,000 and adopt a corrective action plan to correct deficiencies in its HIPAA compliance program resulting from unpatched and unsupported software.

OCR opened an investigation against the five-facility, nonprofit provider of behavioral health care services to children, adults, and families in Anchorage, Alaska after receiving notification from ACMHS of a breach of unsecured electronic protected health information (ePHI) affecting 2,743 individuals due to malware compromising the security of its information technology resources.

According to the OCR announcement of the ACMHS Resolution Agreement with OCR, OCR’s investigation revealed that ACMHS had adopted sample Security Rule policies and procedures in 2005, but failed to follow these procedures. Moreover, OCR found that the reported security incident directly resulted of ACMHS failing to identify and address basic risks, such as not regularly updating their IT resources with available patches and running outdated, unsupported software.

“Successful HIPAA compliance requires a common sense approach to assessing and addressing the risks to ePHI on a regular basis,” said OCR Director Jocelyn Samuels. “This includes reviewing systems for unpatched vulnerabilities and unsupported software that can leave patient information susceptible to malware and other risks.”

In an effort to promote awareness of the need to assess and monitor the security of ePHI by covered entities and business associates, OCR continues to encourage covered entities and business associates to conduct regular documented evaluations of the adequacy of their ePHI safeguards and systems. To aid in this process, OCR and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology have created a Security Rule Risk Assessment Tool available here to assist organizations that handle PHI in conducting a regular review of the administrative, physical and technical safeguards they have in place to protect the security of the information. Since OCR points to the Tool as a resource, covered entities and business associates should anticipate that their failure to identify and address any deficiencies in the areas identified by the tools as a potentially serious compliance issue. As a result, covered entities and business associates likely will want to take steps to ensure that their records include documented review of the adequacy of the security safeguards identified in the Tool. At the same time, covered entities and their business associates should not assume that the Tool adequately covers all potential HIPAA Security Rule exposures. OCR has made clear in this and other Resolution Agreements that HIPAA’s Security Rule requires ongoing monitoring and assessment of the adequacy of security in response to changes in software or system, emerging threats and other developments.

For More Information Or Assistance

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

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

Former Center Texas Medical Center CFO Faces 5 Years After Guilty Plea To EHR Incentive Fraud Reminder To Manage Incentive Compliance

November 18, 2014

The prosecution and resulting November 12, 2014 guilty plea of former Shelby Regional Medical Center Chief Financial Officer Joe White to making false statements when applying for electronic health record (EHR) incentives highlights another growing fraud exposure risk that health care organizations and their leaders need to manage arising from applications or other claims made in seeking EHR or other incentives or grants.

White presently faces sentencing to up to five years in prison after pleading guilty to making a false statement in an application for EHR incentives he signed on behalf of Center, Texas-based Shelby Regional Medical Center. White plead guilty to the charge before U.S. Magistrate Judge John D. Love on November 12, 2014.

The charges against White stemmed from an application he made on behalf of the medical center for EHR incentives. According to information presented by the U.S. Department of Justice in court, White was the Chief Financial Officer for the medical center owned and operated by Dr. Taqriq Mahmood. White oversaw the implementation of EHRs for the hospital and was responsible for attesting to the meaningful use of electronic health records in order to qualify to receive incentive payments under Medicare’s Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program.　 The Justice Department charged that on November 20, 2012, White knowingly made a false statement to Medicare falsely representing that the hospital was a meaningful user of electronic health records, when the hospital did not meet the meaningful use requirements.　 As a result, the medical center received $785,655.00 in EHR incentives from Medicare.　 A federal grand jury indicted White on February 6, 2014. He faces up to five years in prison when sentenced. The sentencing date is not set yet.
White’s prosecution and guilty plea is one of several actions that highlight the growing exposure that health care organizations and their leaders face to criminal and civil prosecution for fraud or other misconduct in seeking or collecting federal incentives or grants.

Federal and state officials responsible for administering the massive influx of grants and incentives to health care providers and others authorized under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Stimulus Bill and other legislation now are auditing and investigating fraud or other compliance concerns and acting aggressively to prosecute organizations and individuals criminally, civilly or both for fraudulent or other abuse of the rules. The White criminal conviction, for instance, follows the October, 2014 civil complaint and simultaneous settlement of theFalse Claims Act civil suit, US ex rel. v. Columbia U. and ICAP complaint-in-intervention and its resolution through the simultaneously filed US ex rel. v. Columbia U. and ICAP stipulation and order (“Settlement”) involving the Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New York (“Columbia University”), and ICAP (formerly known as the International Center For Aids Care And Treatment Programs) (collectively, “Columbia”). In that suit, federal officials charged Columbia University with improperly defrauding the federal government in violation of the False Claims Act in federal grants that Columbia University obtained to fund ICAP’s AIDS- and HIV-related work. The United States’ Complaint-in-Intervention (the “Complaint”) alleged that Columbia University, as the grant administrator on behalf of ICAP, received millions of dollars in federal grants and, pursuant to the rules applicable to such grants, was required for nearly 200 of ICAP’s employees located in New York City to use a suitable means of verifying that the employees had actually performed the work charged to a particular grant. The Complaint alleges that Columbia was well aware that this was not being done, yet continued wrongly to charge many federal grants for work that was not devoted to the projects they funded. According to the Justice Department, Colombia failed to ensure that these reports were created or verified by the more than 200 individuals for which grant monies were sought. Instead, Columbia’s Finance Department provided information for these reports even though the employees of that department had limited or no knowledge of which grants the individuals actually worked on. In addition, the lawsuit charged that the effort reports were certified as correct by the principal investigators on the grants without using suitable means to verify the accuracy of the reports. Instead of taking the appropriate steps to determine whether the reports were accurate, the principal investigators would certify large batches of the reports, without making any inquiry into whether the allocation of work among the grants was accurate. Moreover, ICAP’s management was well aware of the inaccuracies of the effort reporting system. According to the complaint, these omissions resulted in Columbia charging grants for work that was not performed on the project being funded by that grant. For instance, an ICAP Finance Analyst stated that he spent approximately 15-20% of his time on MCAP in fiscal year 2010, but his effort report falsely listed his MCAP effort, and related salary charges, as 85%. Likewise, in fiscal year 2010, an ICAP Subcontracts Manager’s effort report listed her effort as 100% MCAP, but the Subcontracts Manager actually worked on three other grants, in addition to MCAP, that year. The time submitted for many other employees was similarly mischarged. The complaint also charged that ICAP also charged federal grants for time spent on activities that are not chargeable to any federal grants, such as competitive grant proposal writing. For example, an ICAP Grants Manager spent a significant amount of her time writing competitive grant proposals, but her effort report showed that all of her time was charged to grants, with as much as 92% of her time charged to MCAP in some years.

In the Settlement, Columbia admitted failing to use a suitable means of verifying whether the salary and wage charges that ICAP applied to specific federal grants were based on an employee’s actual effort for that grant. Columbia also admitted that as a result, certain effort reports contained inaccurate information, and for a number of years ICAP mischarged certain federal grants for work that was not allocable to those agreements. Columbia also agreed to pay $9,020,073 to resolve the Government’s claims.

The White criminal prosecution and conviction and the Colombia civil prosecution and settlement are two of a growing list of reminders to health care, educational and other organizations receiving Department of Health & Human Services or other federal grants or incentives as a critical reminder to review and tighten as necessary their federal grant and other incentive program compliance and documentation to ensure that it can withstand an audit or other scrutiny by federal officials.

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 » | DME, Doctor, E-Prescribing, FDA, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, OIG, Prescription Drugs, Substance Abuse | Tagged: controlled substance, DEA, DOJ, Drug Testing, drugs, EHR, Electronic Health Records, false claims act, Grants, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, HEAT, licensure, Medicaid, Medical Board, Medicare, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, physical therapy, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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.

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

IRS Issues Ebola-Related Tax Relief

October 29, 2014

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has published the following tax rule relief under the Internal Revenue Code (Code)

Notice 2014-65 designates the Ebola virus outbreak occurring in the West African countries of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone as a qualified disaster for purposes of section 139 of the Code. As a result of the designation of the EVD outbreak as a qualified disaster for purposes of § 139, payments of qualified disaster relief to assist victims affected by the EVD outbreak in the three countries (Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone) are excludable from the recipients’ gross income.

Notice 2014-68 provides guidance on the treatment of leave-based donation programs to aid victims of the Ebola virus outbreak occurring in the West African countries of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone for income and employment tax purposes where an employer allows employees to elect to forgo vacation, sick, or personal leave in exchange for cash payments an employer makes to organizations described in § 170(c) of the Code for the relief of victims of the EVD outbreak in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. This notice provides guidance on the treatment of these payments for income and employment tax purposes.

Notice 2014-65 and Notice 2014-68 will be published in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2014-47 on Nov. 17.

For More Information Or Assistance

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

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

Whistleblower To Get $17M+ of Omnicare $124M False Claims Settlement

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

CMS Proposes Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) Pre-Authorization Rule

Medicare Fraud Strike Force Nails 90 Individuals For Almost $260 Million In False Billing Including 16 Doctors

Encrypt Mobile Devices & Clean Up Management Documentation Key HIPAA Compliance Messages In New HIPAA Settlements

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

Latest OCR Resolution Agreement Hits Public Health Department, Shows Needs To Stay Up-To-Date

Euless Healthcare Corporation Owner, Associates Face Conspiracy And Health Care Fraud Charges For Alleged Submission Of $700,000+ In Fraudulent Health Care Claims

Former Manager 9th Employee Sentenced For Involvement In Maxim Medicare False Claims Action

Leave a Comment » | DME, Doctor, E-Prescribing, FDA, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, OIG, Prescription Drugs, Substance Abuse | Tagged: controlled substance, DEA, DOJ, Drug Testing, drugs, false claims act, Grants, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, HEAT, licensure, Medicaid, Medical Board, Medicare, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, physical therapy, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Columbia to Pay $9 Million Plus To Settle DOJ/HHS False Claims Charges For Submitting Inaccurate Cost Reports and Mischarging Federal Grants

October 29, 2014

The US ex rel. v. Columbia U. and ICAP complaint-in-intervention civil False Claims Act lawsuit (lawsuit) and its resolution through the simultaneously filed US ex rel. v. Columbia U. and ICAP stipulation and order (“Settlement”) entered against the Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New York (“Columbia University”), and ICAP (formerly known as the International Center For Aids Care And Treatment Programs) (collectively, “Columbia”) that U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced October 28, 2014 reminds health care, education and other organizations receiving federal grant monies that their False Claims Act and other compliance programs must provide for appropriate management and recordkeeping of any federal grant programs participated in by their organizations. The lawsuit and settlement highlight the importance for health care, education and other organizations receiving or managing federal grants to establish appropriate controls to ensure that they can demonstrate the requisite compliance with grant requirements and other terms and conditions.

The settlement resolves a civil lawsuit jointly brought and simultaneously settled by DOJ and the Department of Health & Human Service against Colombia that charged Columbia with submitting false claims in connection with federal grants that Columbia University obtained to fund ICAP’s AIDS- and HIV-related work. The United States’ Complaint-in-Intervention (the “Complaint”) alleged that Columbia University, as the grant administrator on behalf of ICAP, received millions of dollars in federal grants and, pursuant to the rules applicable to such grants, was required for nearly 200 of ICAP’s employees located in New York City to use a suitable means of verifying that the employees had actually performed the work charged to a particular grant. The Complaint alleges that Columbia was well aware that this was not being done, yet continued wrongly to charge many federal grants for work that was not devoted to the projects they funded. The lawsuit seeks damages and penalties under the False Claims Act.

According to DOJ, the Colombia lawsuit and Settlement arose from Columbia’s participation in the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (“PEPFAR program”), a global HIV/AIDS program, targeting billions of dollars in new funding for prevention, treatment, and care services in the most affected countries of the world. Columbia received $125 million in PEPFAR funding through the Multi-Country Columbia Antiretroviral Program (“MCAP”) grant, and over the years obtained over 75 grants and many millions more from the federal government for HIV- and AIDs-related work performed by ICAP.

The grant rules among other things, required that grantees track the work performed by the recipient’s employees and, with limited exceptions, charge grants only for work actually performed as a part of that grant. Columbia claimed to accomplish this by producing effort reports for ICAP’s New York City-based employees purportedly detailing the employees’ distribution of work across federal, state, and private grants, as well as Columbia-sponsored projects. These reports were used to determine how much a given grant was charged for work performed by individual employees.

For nearly 200 individuals, however, DOJ and the Justice Department charged Colombia failed to ensure that these reports were created or verified by the individuals to whom they applied. Instead, Columbia’s Finance Department provided information for these reports even though the employees of that department had limited or no knowledge of which grants the individuals actually worked on. In addition, the lawsuit charged that the effort reports were certified as correct by the principal investigators on the grants without using suitable means to verify the accuracy of the reports. Instead of taking the appropriate steps to determine whether the reports were accurate, the principal investigators would certify large batches of the reports, without making any inquiry into whether the allocation of work among the grants was accurate. Moreover, ICAP’s management was well aware of the inaccuracies of the effort reporting system.

According to the complaint, these omissions resulted in Columbia charging grants for work that was not performed on the project being funded by that grant. For instance, an ICAP Finance Analyst stated that he spent approximately 15-20% of his time on MCAP in fiscal year 2010, but his effort report falsely listed his MCAP effort, and related salary charges, as 85%. Likewise, in fiscal year 2010, an ICAP Subcontracts Manager’s effort report listed her effort as 100% MCAP, but the Subcontracts Manager actually worked on three other grants, in addition to MCAP, that year. The time submitted for many other employees was similarly mischarged.

The complaint also charged that ICAP also charged federal grants for time spent on activities that are not chargeable to any federal grants, such as competitive grant proposal writing. For example, an ICAP Grants Manager spent a significant amount of her time writing competitive grant proposals, but her effort report showed that all of her time was charged to grants, with as much as 92% of her time charged to MCAP in some years.

Health care, educational and other organizations receiving HHS or other federal grants should heed the lawsuit and settlement as a reminder to review and tighten as necessary their federal grant program compliance and documentation to ensure that it can withstand an audit or other scrutiny by federal officials.

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 » | DME, Doctor, E-Prescribing, FDA, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, OIG, Prescription Drugs, Substance Abuse | Tagged: controlled substance, DEA, DOJ, Drug Testing, drugs, false claims act, Grants, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, HEAT, licensure, Medicaid, Medical Board, Medicare, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, physical therapy, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OIG Warns Pharma Manufacturers to Prevent Copayment Coupon Use for Part D Drug Purchases

September 19, 2014

Pharmaceutical manufacturers risk sanctions unless they take appropriate steps to ensure that their copayment coupons intended to reduce patient out-of-pocket costs for purchase for specific brand name drugs do not induce improperly the purchase drugs paid for by Medicare Part D or other Federal health care programs items or services.

The warning from the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) appears in OEI-05-12-00540 Study Results and accompanying Special Advisory Bulletin published warns pharmaceutical manufacturers they may be liable under the anti-kickback statute if they offer coupons to induce the purchase of drugs paid for by Federal health care programs, including Medicare Part D.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers often offer copayment coupons to reduce or eliminate the cost of patients’ out of pocket copayments for specific brand name drugs.

The anti-kickback statute prohibits the knowing and willful offer or payment of remuneration to a person to induce the purchase of any item or service for which payment may be made by a Federal health care program.

According to OIG, the use of coupons by Medicare beneficiaries could impose significant costs on the Part D program because many coupons encourage beneficiaries to choose more expensive brand name drugs over less expensive alternative drugs.

OIG’s warning comes in conjunction with its announcement of findings an OIG study about the safeguards pharmaceutical manufacturers employ to prevent their copayment coupons from being used for drugs paid for by Part D and to identify vulnerabilities in those safeguards which OIG reports revealed that pharmaceutical manufacturers’ current safeguards may not prevent all copayment coupons from being used for drugs paid for by Part D.

According to the OIG, all surveyed manufacturers provide notices directed to beneficiaries and pharmacists that coupons may not be used in Federal health care programs. Most surveyed manufacturers use pharmacy claims edits to prevent coupons from being processed for drugs covered by Part D. Despite these actions, OIG reports most of these edits may not prevent all coupons from being processed for Part D covered drugs. Finally, Part D plans and other entities cannot identify coupons within pharmacy claims.

In light of these findings, OIG’s Special Advisory Bulletin affirms that pharmaceutical manufacturers should act to ensure that their copayment coupons do not induce the purchase of Federal health care programs items or services, including drugs paid for by Medicare Part D. The guidance makes clear that OIG does not view the current practices of many manufacturers as sufficient controls.

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 » | DME, Doctor, E-Prescribing, FDA, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, OIG, Prescription Drugs, Substance Abuse | Tagged: controlled substance, DEA, Drug Testing, drugs, false claims act, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, HEAT, licensure, Medicaid, Medical Board, Medicare, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, physical therapy, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

July 6, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

Whistleblower To Get $17M+ of Omnicare $124M False Claims Settlement

June 26, 2014

Former employee turned whistleblower Donald Gale will receive $17.24 million of the $124.24 million that the U.S.’ largest provider of pharmaceuticals and pharmacy services to nursing homes, Omnicare, Inc. has agreed to pay to settle charges that Omnicare violated the Anti-Kickback Statute by offering improper financial incentives to skilled nursing facilities in return for their continued selection of Omnicare to provide pharmaceuticals and pharmacy services to their residents. The settlement announced June 25, 2014 by the Department of Justice (DOJ) highlights the growing risks that health care organizations using aggressive marketing incentive programs face to whistleblower, Department of Justice and other investigations.

According to DOJ, the Omnicare settlement resolves allegations that “Omnicare provided improper discounts in return for the opportunity to provide medication to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries” in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. The settlement resolves allegations initially brought by two whistleblowers that Omnicare submitted false claims by entering into below-cost contracts to supply prescription medication and other pharmaceutical drugs to skilled nursing facilities and their resident patients to induce the facilities to select Omnicare as their pharmacy provider. The facilities were participating providers under agreements with Medicare and Medicaid. In addition to the facilities’ own claims for reimbursement from Medicare for short-term rehabilitation treatment rendered to patients, Omnicare submitted additional claims for reimbursement to Medicare and Medicaid for drugs Omnicare supplied.

The Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to induce referrals of items or services covered by Medicare, Medicaid and other federally funded programs as a means of helping to ensure that the selection of health care providers and suppliers is not compromised by improper financial incentives and is instead based on the best interests of the patient. This settlement illustrates both the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud and marks another achievement for the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative and the critical role that current or former employees or other whistleblowers often play in the successful investigation and prosecution of these cases.

The HEAT initiative announced in May 2009 by Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius makes heavy use of whistleblowers to uncover potential violations and then uses the False Claims Act and other expanded investigatory and enforcement tools granted by Congress to nail providers.

In conducting its war against health care fraud, Federal officials credited new tools created under the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) with aiding their health care fraud investigation and enforcement efforts. Legal reforms and new resources granted under the Affordable Care Act and various other legal changes have beefed up the fraud detection and fighting powers of Federal health care fraud investigators and prosecutors. Examples of these new tools include:

Tough new rules and sentences for criminals
Enhanced screening and other enrollment requirements
Increased coordination of fraud prevention efforts
Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT)
New focus on compliance and prevention
Expanded overpayment recovery efforts
New durable medical equipment (DME) requirements
An additional $350 million over 10 years to ramp up anti-fraud efforts
Greater oversight of private insurance abuses
Senior Medicare Patrols

The continuing success of these and other federal health care fraud investigation and enforcement efforts continue to prove the need for health care providers and payers to strengthen their compliance practices and documentation to avoid getting caught in the ever tightening health care fraud dragnet. Since January 2009, the Justice Department has recovered a total of more than $19.5 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $13.9 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs. In announcing the settlement, Justice Department officials sent strong warnings to other health care providers and suppliers about the dangers of providing or accepting improper discounts or other improper incentives as part of their business marketing strategies. “Health care providers who seek to profit from providing illegal financial benefits will be held accountable,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division Stuart F. Delery. “Schemes such as this one undermine the health care system and take advantage of elderly nursing home residents.” Meanwhile, Steven M. Dettelbach, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, said “Nursing homes should select their pharmacy provider based on the best quality, service and cost to the residents, not based on improper discounts to the nursing facility.”

Any quick look at the DOJ’s enforcement record shows its acting on these promises. For instance, in addition to the Omnicare settlement, DOJ also announced on June 25 the guilty plea of a physician and the sentencing on an ambulance company owner on health care fraud charges. See Huntersville Physician Pleads Guilty To Health Care Fraud and Tax Fraud and Agrees To Pay $6.2 Million to Settle Civil Fraud Claims; Ambulance Company Co-Owner Sentenced To 13 1/2 Years for Health Care Fraud Scheme.

Health Care Providers Must 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.

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 » | Controlled Substances, DEA, Doctor, E-Prescribing, FDA, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, OIG, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Substance Abuse | Tagged: controlled substance, DEA, Drug Testing, drugs, false claims act, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, HEAT, licensure, Medicaid, Medical Board, Medicare, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, physical therapy, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

June 11, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

CMS Proposes Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) Pre-Authorization Rule

May 28, 2014

July 28, 2014 is the deadline for concerned persons to comment on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed rule requiring prior authorization for certain durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS). The proposed rule available for review at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-05-28/pdf/2014-12245.pdf would establish a prior authorization process for certain durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS) items that are frequently subject to unnecessary utilization and would add a contractor’s decision regarding prior authorization of coverage of DMEPOS items to the list of actions that are not initial determinations and therefore not appealable.

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

1 Comment | Controlled Substances, DEA, Doctor, E-Prescribing, FDA, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, OIG, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Substance Abuse | Tagged: controlled substance, DEA, Drug Testing, drugs, false claims act, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, HEAT, licensure, Medicaid, Medical Board, Medicare, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, physical therapy, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Medicare Fraud Strike Force Nails 90 Individuals For Almost $260 Million In False Billing Including 16 Doctors

May 13, 2014

27 Medical Professionals Charged with Health Care Fraud

A nationwide takedown by Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations in six cities today (May 13, 2014) resulted in charges against 90 individuals, including 27 doctors, nurses and other medical professionals, for alleged participation in Medicare fraud schemes involving approximately $260 million in false billings, according to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. The announcement reminds U.S. health care providers that the Obama Administration continues to target health care providers in its campaign against health care fraud.

The seventh coordinated national Medicare fraud takedown by the Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations team of the Health Care Fraud Prevention & Enforcement Action Team (HEAT), Federal officials filed charges that accuse the defendants of various health care fraud-related crimes, including conspiracy to commit health care fraud, violations of the anti-kickback statutes and money laundering. The charges are based on a variety of alleged fraud schemes involving various medical treatments and services, including home health care, mental health services, psychotherapy, physical and occupational therapy, durable medical equipment and pharmacy fraud.

Among the defendants charged were 27 medical professionals, including 16 doctors, who Federal officials charge included doctors billing for services that were never rendered, supply companies providing motorized wheelchairs that were never needed, and recruiters paying kickbacks to get Medicare billing numbers of patients. According to court documents, the defendants allegedly participated in schemes to submit claims to Medicare for treatments that were medically unnecessary and often never provided. In many cases, court documents allege that patient recruiters, Medicare beneficiaries and other co-conspirators were paid cash kickbacks in return for supplying beneficiary information to providers, so that the providers could then submit fraudulent bills to Medicare for services that were medically unnecessary or never performed. Collectively, the doctors, nurses, licensed medical professionals, health care company owners and others charged are accused of conspiring to submit approximately $260 million in fraudulent billings.

In Miami, a total of 50 defendants were charged today and yesterday for their alleged participation in various fraud schemes involving approximately $65.5 million in false billings for home health care and mental health services, and pharmacy fraud. In one case, two defendants were charged in connection with a $23 million pharmacy kickback and laundering scheme. Court documents allege that the defendants solicited kickbacks from a pharmacy owner for Medicare beneficiary information, which was used to bill for drugs that were never dispensed. The kickbacks were concealed as bi-weekly payments under a sham services contract and were laundered through shell entities owned by the defendants.

Eleven individuals were charged by the Houston Medicare Strike Force. Five Houston-area physicians were charged with conspiring to bill Medicare for medically unnecessary home health services. According to court documents, the defendant doctors were paid by two co-conspirators to sign off on home health care services that were not necessary and often never provided.

Eight defendants were charged in Los Angeles for their roles in schemes to defraud Medicare of approximately $32 million. In one case, a doctor was charged for causing almost $24 million in losses to Medicare through his own fraudulent billing and referrals for durable medical equipment, including over 1,000 expensive power wheelchairs, and home health services that were not medically necessary and often not provided.

In Detroit, seven defendants were charged for their roles in fraud schemes involving approximately $30 million in false claims for medically unnecessary services, including home health services, psychotherapy and infusion therapy. In one case, four individuals, including a doctor, were charged in a sophisticated $28 million fraud scheme, where the physician billed for expensive tests, physical therapy and injections that were not necessary and not provided. Court documents allege that when the physician’s billings raised red flags, he was put on payment review by Medicare. He was allegedly able to continue his scheme and evade detection by continuing to bill using the billing information of other Medicare providers, sometimes without their knowledge.

In Tampa, Florida, seven individuals were charged in a variety of schemes, ranging from fraudulent physical therapy billings to a scheme involving millions of dollars in physician services and tests that never occurred. In one case, five individuals were charged for their alleged roles in a $12 million health care fraud and money laundering scheme that involved billing Medicare using names of beneficiaries from Miami-Dade County for services purportedly provided in Tampa area clinics, 280 miles away. The defendants then allegedly laundered the proceeds through a number of transactions involving several shell entities.

In Brooklyn, New York, the Strike Force announced an indictment against Syed Imran Ahmed, M.D., in connection with his alleged $85 million scheme involving billings for surgeries that never occurred; Dr. Ahmed had been arrested last month and charged by complaint. Dr. Ahmed has charged with health care fraud and making false statements. In addition, the Brooklyn Strike Force charged six other individuals, including a physician and two billers who allegedly concocted a $14.4 million scheme in which they recruited elderly Medicare beneficiaries and billed Medicare for medically unnecessary vitamin infusions, diagnostic tests and physical and occupational therapy supposedly provided to these patients.

The cases announced today are being prosecuted and investigated by Medicare Fraud Strike Force teams comprised of attorneys from the Fraud Section of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and from the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Southern District of Florida, the Eastern District of Michigan, the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of Texas, the Central District of California, the Middle District of Louisiana, the Northern District of Illinois and the Middle District of Florida; and agents from the FBI, HHS-OIG and state Medicaid Fraud Control Units.

The HEAT Strike Force is 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. The joint Department of Justice and HHS Medicare Fraud Strike Force is a multi-agency team of federal, state and local investigators designed to combat Medicare fraud through the use of Medicare data analysis techniques and an increased focus on community policing. Almost 400 law enforcement agents from the FBI, HHS-OIG, multiple Medicaid Fraud Control Units and other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies participated in today’s takedown.

Since their inception in March 2007, Strike Force operations in nine locations have charged almost 1,900 defendants who collectively have falsely billed the Medicare program for almost $6 billion. Overall, since its inception, the Department of Justice’s Medicare Fraud Strike Force has charged nearly 1,900 individuals involved in approximately $6 billion of fraud. We are committed to using every tool at our disposal to prevent, deter, and prosecute health care fraud. In addition, CMS, working in conjunction with HHS-OIG, has suspended enrollments of high-risk providers in five Strike force locations and has removed over 17,000 providers from the Medicare program since 2011.

“Medicare is a sacred compact with our nation’s seniors, and to protect it, we must remain aggressive in combating fraud,” said Attorney General Holder. “This nationwide Medicare Strike Force takedown represents another important step forward in our ongoing fight to safeguard taxpayer resources and to ensure the integrity of essential health care programs. Department of Justice will not tolerate these activities. And we will continue working alongside the Department of Health and Human Services – as well as federal, state, and local partners – to use every appropriate tool and available resource to find, stop, and punish those who seek to take advantage of their fellow citizens.”

Tough new rules and sentences for criminals
Enhanced screening and other enrollment requirements
Increased coordination of fraud prevention efforts
Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT)
New focus on compliance and prevention
Expanded overpayment recovery efforts
New durable medical equipment (DME) requirements
An additional $350 million over 10 years to ramp up anti-fraud efforts
Greater oversight of private insurance abuses
Senior Medicare Patrols

“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.”

The continuing success of these and other federal health care fraud investigation and enforcement efforts continue to demonstrate the need for health care providers and payers to strengthen their compliance practices and documentation to avoid getting caught in the ever tightening health care fraud dragnet.

Health Care Providers Must Act To Manage Risks

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

Latest OCR Resolution Agreement Hits Public Health Department, Shows Needs To Stay Up-To-Date

March 16, 2014

Health Department HIPAA Violations Cost County $250,000, Requires Sweeping HIPAA Reforms

Hear Update On Resolution Agreement & Other New HIPAA Developments At 3/18 North Texas Healthcare Professionals Association Meeting –

RSVP here by Noon on March 17, 2014

Skagit County, Washington will pay a $215,000 monetary settlement and work closely with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) to correct deficiencies in its HIPAA compliance program to settle potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification Rules by the Skagit County Public Health Department (Health Department) under a Resolution Agreement announced by OCR on March 7, 2014. The Resolution Agreement makes clear the need for health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates to update and maintain their policies and practices in compliance with the constantly evolving OCR guidance and resolution agreements, as well as to timely investigate and report breaches. Interested persons are invited to hear a briefing on a series of new developments including this latest Resolution Agreement at the March 18, 2014 North Texas Healthcare Professionals Association Meeting.

OCR investigated the Health Department after receiving a breach report that unknown parties accessed money receipts with electronic protected health information (ePHI) of seven individuals after the ePHI had been inadvertently moved to a publicly accessible server maintained by the County.

OCR reports its investigation revealed a broader exposure of protected health information involved in the incident, which included the ePHI of 1,581 individuals. Many of the accessible files involved sensitive information, including protected health information about the testing and treatment of infectious diseases.

OCR’s investigation further uncovered general and widespread non-compliance by Skagit County with the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification Rules.

Specifically, the Resolution Agreement between OCR and the Health Department states that OCR found the following conduct occurred (“Covered Conduct”).

From approximately September 14, 2011 until September 28, 2011, Skagit County disclosed the ePHI of 1,581 individuals in violation of the Privacy Rule by providing access to ePHI on its public web server;
From November 28, 2011 until present, Skagit County failed to provide notification as required by the Breach Notification Rule to all of the individuals for whom it knew or should have known that the privacy or security of the individual’s ePHI had been compromised as a result of the breach incident;
From April 20, 2005 until present, Skagit County failed to implement sufficient policies and procedures to prevent, detect, contain, and correct security violations;
From April 20, 2005 until June 1, 2012, Skagit County failed to implement and maintain in written or electronic form policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with the Security Rule; and
From April 20, 2005 until present, Skagit County failed to provide security awareness and training to all workforce members, including its Information Security staff members, as necessary and appropriate for the workforce members to carry out their functions within Skagit County.

To resolve OCR’s allegations of these breaches, Skagit County agrees under the Resolution Agreement to pay HHS $215,000.00 and to ensure that the Health Department implements a series of corrective actions. Among other things, the Resolution Agreement requires that the Health Department:

Provide substitute Breach Notification to individuals not previously notified of the breach of their ePHI in accordance with the Resolution Agreement
Revise to the satisfaction of OCR and adopt revised accounting for disclosure, hybrid entity designations, policies on safeguarding PHI, including its sample business associate agreements;
Conduct an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of electronic protected health information (ePHI) held by the covered health care components of Skagit County as identified in its hybrid entity documentation approved by HHS and implement security measures sufficient to reduce the risks and vulnerabilities identified in the risk analysis to a reasonable and appropriate level.
Create and revise, as necessary, written policies and procedures for its covered health care components to comply with the Federal standards that govern the privacy, security, and breach notification of individually identifiable health information;
Comply with strict workforce training requirements;
Notify and OCR of the occurrence of some reported breaches, its investigation and corrective actions;
Provide a summary of the reported events and the status of any corrective and preventative action relating to all such Reportable Events; and
Provide OCR with an attestation signed by an officer of Skagit County attesting that he or she has reviewed the Annual Report, has made a reasonable inquiry regarding its content and believes that, upon such inquiry, the information is accurate and truthful.

In addition to bringing its policies and practices up to date with OCR regulations in effect at the time of the breach that resulted in the Resolution Agreement, the Health Department also will have to update its polic9ies and practices to meet changes to OCR’s HIPAA rules that have taken effect since the breach under the revised rules published by OCR in its Modifications to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, Enforcement, and Breach Notification 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 Final Rule) OCR published January 25, 2013 as well as a series of recently issued OCR rules such as the following:

Covered Entities & Business Associates Should Review & Tighten Practices in Response To Resolution Agreement & Other New Guidance

Other covered entities and their business associates should carefully evaluate and tighten their existing practices in response to the Resolution Agreement and other recent guidance. In the past, OCR officials have stated it expects that other health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates will review resolution agreements like this one along with other emerging OCR guidance and update their practices as necessary to address concerns within their own organization that might be similar to those reflected in the applicable resolution agreement. The Resolution Agreement documents this expectation by specifically incorporating this requirement as part of its terms.

Hear Stamer’s Update On Resolution Agreement & Other New HIPAA Developments At 3/18 North Texas Healthcare Professionals Association Meeting

Scribe for the American Bar Association Annual Agency Meeting with OCR for the fourth year, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will overview these and other HIPAA developments when she presents “Tutoring On OCR’s Latest HIPAA Homework” at the North Texas Healthcare Professionals Association Study Group Luncheon on Tuesday, March 18, 2014 from 11:30 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. at the offices of the Dallas Ft Worth Hospital Council, 250 Decker Drive, Irving, TX 75062-2706. A complimentary luncheon will be served to guests to who register in advance. There is no charge to particulate but space is limited. RSVP here by Noon on March 17, 2014.

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 » | Controlled Substances, DEA, Doctor, E-Prescribing, FDA, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, OIG, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Substance Abuse | Tagged: Business Associates, Compliance, controlled substance, Covered Entities, DEA, Drug Testing, drugs, false claims act, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, HEAT, HIPAA, licensure, Medicaid, Medical Board, Medical Privacy, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, PHI, physical therapy, Physician | 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).

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

Hospital Will Pay $75K For Refusing To Hire Disabled Worker

March 10, 2014

Osceola Community Hospital Refused To Hire Child Care Worker With Cerebral Palsy Who Had Worked As Volunteer

Osceola Community Hospital in Sibley, Iowa will pay $75,000 and furnish other relief to settle an Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for its refusal to hire a child care worker with cerebral palsy. The case shows both the need for health care and other employers to have sufficient evidence to support decisions not to hire disabled workers for safety reasons as well as the potential risks that hospitals or other face when refusing to hire disabled individuals who have been allowed to work as volunteers in their organizations.

The EEOC charged a day care center operated by the hospital, Bright Beginnings of Osceola County, unlawfully failed to hire a volunteer employee into a paid position for which she was qualified because of her cerebral palsy. Although the woman who brought the charge of discrimination against the hospital already volunteered in the day care center and held a job driving a school bus, the EEOC’s investigation revealed the county refused to hire her into a paying job in the center out of an unfounded fear that her disability meant that she could not safely care for the children.

Judge Mark Bennett entered a consent decree on February, 28, 2014, resolving the brought by the EEOC in EEOC v. Osceola Community Hospital d/b/a Bright Beginnings of Osceola County, Civil Action No. 5:12-cv-4087 (N.D. Iowa, Sept. 26, 2012 that orders Osceola Community Hospital to pay $75,000 to the discrimination victim. The decree also requires the hospital to institute a policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability and to distribute the policy to all of its employees. The hospital also must train its employees and report regularly to the EEOC on its compliance with the ADA.

The lawsuit provides another example to health care and other employers of their growing exposure to disability discrimination claims under the ADA. The EEOC action and lawsuit highlights the importance of employers ensuring that decisions to refuse to hire disabled workers for safety reasons are based upon appropriate evidence of actual safety concerns that prevent the worker from safely performing the assigned duties with or without reasonable accommodation.

The fact that the worker in this case had in fact worked as a volunteer likely created additional challenges in defending the decision. The use of volunteer workers in health industry businesses is a common practice that may justify special care before those organizations deny employment to a former volunteer on the basis of safety concerns associated with the disabilities of the applicant or worker both to document the reasonable basis of the safety concern and that the concern could not be adequately resolved through reasonable accommodation.

Health Care Providers Must Strengthen Disability Compliance & Risk Management

Employment discrimination isn’t the only disability discrimination risk that hospitals and other health industry organizations need to worry about in today’s liability charged environment. Enforcing federal discrimination laws is a high priority of the Obama Administration. The Departments of Labor, Health & Human Services, Education, Justice, Housing & Urban Development, and others all have both increased enforcement, audits and public outreach, as well as have sought or are proposing tighter regulations.

The expanding applicability of nondiscrimination rules coupled with the wave of new policies and regulatory and enforcement actions should alert private businesses and state and local government agencies of the need to exercise special care to prepare to defend their actions against potential disability or other Civil Rights discrimination challenges under employment, Medicare, housing and a broad range of other laws.

The Obama Administration is targeting disability discrimination by health care organizations in a broad range of areas as part of its Barrier Free Health Care Initiative (Initiative). Launched on the 22^nd anniversary of the ADA in July 2012, the Initiative is a partnership of the Civil Rights Division and 40 U.S. Attorney’s offices across the nation, that targets ADA and other disability discrimination law enforcement efforts on a critical area for individuals with disabilities.

Part of a broader enforcement initiative of the Obama Administration to enforce and expand federal protections for individuals with disabilities, the Initiative seeks to protect patients with disabilities against illegal disability discrimination by prosecuting health care providers under the ADA and the Rehab Act.

Section 504 of the Rehab Act requires recipients of Medicare, Medicaid, HUD, Department of Education, welfare and most other federal assistance programs funds including health care, education, housing services providers, state and local governments to ensure that qualified individuals with disabilities have equal access to programs, services, or activities receiving federal financial assistance.

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. The public accommodation provisions of the ADA, for instance, generally require those doctors’ offices, medical clinics, hospitals, and other health care providers, as well as other covered businesses to provide people with disabilities, including those with HIV, equal access to goods, services, and facilities. The ADA also may compel health care providers to adjust their practices for delivering care and/or providing access to facilities to accommodate special needs of disabled individuals under certain circumstances. Meanwhile the Civil Rights Act and other laws prohibit discrimination based on national origin, race, sex, age, religion and various other grounds. These federal rules impact almost all public and private health care providers as well as a broad range housing and related service providers.

The Justice Departments campaign against disability discrimination by health care providers is supported and enhanced by the concurrent efforts of OCR. Along side the Justice Department’s efforts, OCR recently has announced several settlement agreements and issued letters of findings as part of its ongoing efforts to ensure compliance with the Rehab Act and the ADA well as various other federal nondiscrimination and civil rights laws. Through its own antidiscrimination campaign, OCR is racking up an impressive list of settlements with health care providers, housing and other businesses for violating the ADA, Section 504 or other related civil rights rules enforced by OCR. See, e.g. Genesis Healthcare Disability HHS OCR Discrimination Settlement Reminder To Use Interpreters, Other Needed Accommodations For Disabled. Meanwhile, both the Justice Department and OCR also are encouraging victims of discrimination to enforce their rights through private action through educational outreach to disabled and other individuals protected by federal disabilities and other civil rights laws to make them aware of and to encourage them to act to enforce these rights.

Health Care Organizations & Providers Should Act To Manage Patient-Related Disability Discrimination Risks

Prosecutions and settlements by these and other federal agencies show the need for health care providers and other public and private organizations to strengthen their disability discrimination compliance and management practices to defend against rising exposures to actions by the Justice Department, OCR, the EEOC and other agencies as well as private law suits. Hospitals, health care clinics, physicians and other health care providers should take steps to guard against joining the growing list of health care providers caught in the enforcement sights of the Initiative by reviewing and updating practices, policies, training and oversight to ensure that their organizations can prevent and defend against charges of disability discrimination.

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance responding to concerns about the matters discussed in this publication or other health care concerns, wish to obtain information about arranging for training or presentations by Ms. Stamer, wish to suggest a topic for a future program or update, or wish to request other information or materials, please contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides business and management information, tools and solutions, training and education, services and support to help organizations and their leaders promote effective management of legal and operational performance, regulatory compliance and risk management, data and information protection and risk management and other key management objectives. Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ also conducts and help businesses and associations to design, present and conduct customized programs and training targeted to their specific audiences and needs. For additional information about upcoming programs, to explore becoming a presenting sponsor for an upcoming event, e-mail your request to info@Solutionslawpress.com These programs, publications and other resources are provided only for general informational and educational purposes. Neither the distribution or presentation of these programs and materials to any party nor any statement or information provided in or in connection with this communication, the program or associated materials are intended to or shall be construed as establishing an attorney-client relationship, to constitute legal advice or provide any assurance or expectation from Solutions Law Press, Inc., the presenter or any related parties. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future Alerts or other information about developments, publications or programs or other updates, send your request to info@solutionslawpress.com. CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: The following disclaimer is included to comply with and in response to U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230 Regulations. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN. ©2013 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. All rights reserved.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ADA, DME, Doctor, Electronic Health Records, Employer, Employment, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, OCR, Physician | Tagged: ADA, Disability Discrimination, EEOC, Health Care, Hospital, OCR | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR Assigns More HIPAA Compliance Work To Health Care Providers

March 5, 2014

Think your health care organization or health plan has health care privacy covered? Think again.

A series of supplemental guidance issued by the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in recent weeks is giving health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their business associates even more to do in reviewing and updating their policies, practices and training for handing protected health information (PHI) beyond bringing their policies and practices into line with OCR’s restatement and update to the Modifications to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, Enforcement, and Breach Notification 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 Final Rule) OCR published January 25, 2013.

Covered Entities generally have been required to comply with most requirements the Omnibus Final Rule’s restated regulations restating OCR’s regulations implementing the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Rules to reflect HIPAA amendments enacted by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act since the Omnibus Final Rule took effect on March 26, 2013 and to have updated business associate agreements in place since September 23, 2013. Meanwhile, the Omnibus Final Rule generally has required business associates have updated business associate agreements in place and otherwise to have come into compliance with all of the applicable requirements of the Omnibus Final Rule since September 23, 2013. Although these deadlines are long past, many Covered Entities and business associates have yet to complete the policy, process and training updates required to comply with the modifications implemented in the Omnibus Final Rule.

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

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

For 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

Federal Health Care Fraud Enforcement Recouped Record $4.3 Billion in FY 2013

March 4, 2014

Health care providers got another reminder last week of their ever-growing exposure to federal health care fraud detection and enforcement efforts. The joint federal health care fraud enforcement efforts of the Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services (HHS) set new records for recoveries in Fiscal Year (FY) 2013, according to the newly released annual Health Care Fraud and Abuse (HCFAC) Program Report (the “Fraud Report”).

Record Breaking Fraud Recoveries In FY 2013 Highlight Health Care Fraud Enforcement Risk

According to the Fraud Report, the government’s health care fraud prevention and enforcement efforts recovered a record-breaking $4.3 billion in taxpayer dollars in Fiscal Year (FY) 2013, up from $4.2 billion in FY 2012, from individuals and companies who attempted to defraud federal health programs serving seniors or who sought payments from taxpayers to which they were not entitled.　 Over the last five years, the Fraud Report says administration’s enforcement efforts have recovered $19.2 billion, up from $9.4 billion over the prior five-year period.　 Since the inception of the program in1997, the HCFAC Program has returned more than $25.9 billion to the Medicare Trust Funds and treasury.

These reported recoveries show the commitment and growing success of federal health care fraud detection, investigation and enforcement efforts targeting providers and others in health care. This is the fifth consecutive year that the program has increased recoveries over the past year, climbing from $2 billion in FY 2008 to over $4 billion every year since FY 2011.

Recoveries Show Providers Big & Growing

The DOJ and HHS credit the success of these efforts largely to the joint Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) program DOJ and HHS created in 2009 to target health care fraud and reforms passed as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) that aid government investigation and enforcement efforts.

DOJ and HHS have used HEAT and expanded powers in ACA to strengthen and grow their join fraud detection and enforcement efforts. ACA reforms have strengthened these efforts by giving the agencies new tools.

Among other things, ACA empowered HHS to:

Suspend payments to providers and suppliers based on credible allegations of fraud in Medicare and Medicaid;
Impose a temporary moratorium on Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP enrollment on providers and suppliers when necessary to help prevent or fight fraud, waste, and abuse without impeding beneficiaries’ access to care.
Strengthen and build on current provider enrollment and screening procedures to more accurately assure that fraudulent providers are not gaming the system and that only qualified health care providers and suppliers are allowed to enroll in and bill Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP;
Terminate providers from Medicaid and CHIP when they have been terminated by Medicare or by another state Medicaid program or CHIP;
Require provider compliance programs, now required under the Affordable Care Act, that will ensure providers are aware of and comply with CMS program requirements.

These tools make it easier for HHS to detect and prevent potential questionable activities, as well as aid DOJ and HHS in investigating and prosecuting suspected fraud or other misconduct. The agencies tout their use of these tools along with their heightened enforcement and coordination for the growing success of their health care fraud detection and prosecution efforts.

“With these extraordinary recoveries, and the record-high rate of return on investment we’ve achieved on our comprehensive health care fraud enforcement efforts, we’re sending a strong message to those who would take advantage of their fellow citizens, target vulnerable populations, and commit fraud on federal health care programs,” said Attorney General Eric Holder.　 “Thanks to initiatives like HEAT, our work to combat fraud has never been more cooperative or more effective.　 And our unprecedented commitment to holding criminals accountable, and securing remarkable results for American taxpayers, is paying dividends.”

“These impressive recoveries for the American taxpayer are just one aspect of the comprehensive anti-fraud strategy we have implemented since the passage of the Affordable Care Act,” said HHS Secretary Sebelius.　 “We’ve cracked down on tens of thousands health care providers suspected of Medicare fraud. New enrollment screening techniques are proving effective in preventing high risk providers from getting into the system, and the new computer analytics system that detects and stops fraudulent billing before money ever goes out the door is accomplishing positive results – all of which are adding to savings for the Medicare Trust Fund.”

Federal officials also give credit to new new authorities given to them by the Affordable Care Act that help HHS and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to detect and target heatlh care fraud.

In FY 2013, CMS announced the first use of its temporary moratoria authority granted by the Affordable Care Act.　 The action stopped enrollment of new home health or ambulance enrollments in three fraud hot spots around the country, allowing CMS and its law enforcement partners to remove bad actors from the program while blocking provider entry or re-entry into these already over-supplied markets.

The Justice Department and HHS have improved their coordination through HEAT and are currently operating Medicare Fraud Strike Force teams in nine areas across the country. The strike force teams use advanced data analysis techniques to identify high-billing levels in health care fraud hot spots so that interagency teams can target emerging or migrating schemes as well as chronic fraud by criminals masquerading as health care providers or suppliers. The Justice Department’s enforcement of the civil False Claims Act and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act has produced similar record-breaking results.　 These combined efforts coordinated under HEAT have expanded local partnerships and helped educate Medicare beneficiaries about how to protect themselves against fraud.

In Fiscal Year 2013, the strike force secured records in the number of cases filed (137), individuals charged (345), guilty pleas secured (234) and jury trial convictions (46). Beyond these remarkable results, the defendants who were charged and sentenced are facing significant time in prison – an average of 52 months in prison for those sentenced in FY 2013, and an average of 47 months in prison for those sentenced since 2007.

In FY 2013, the Justice Department opened 1,013 new criminal health care fraud investigations involving 1,910 potential defendants, and a total of 718 defendants were convicted of health care fraud-related crimes during the year.　 The department also opened 1,083 new civil health care fraud investigations.

The strike force coordinated a takedown in May 2013 that resulted in charges by eight strike force cities against 89 individuals, including doctors, nurses and other licensed medical professionals, for their alleged participation in Medicare fraud schemes involving approximately $223 million in false billings. As a part of the May 2013 takedown, HHS also suspended or took other administrative action against 18 providers using authority under the health care law to suspend payments until an investigation is complete.

In FY 2013, the strike force secured records in the number of cases filed (137), individuals charged (345), guilty pleas secured (234) and jury trial convictions (48). Beyond these remarkable results, the defendants who were charged and sentenced are facing significant time in prison – an average of 52 months in prison for those sentenced in FY 2013, and an average of 47 months in prison for those sentenced since 2007.

In March 2011, CMS began an ambitious project to revalidate all 1.5 million Medicare enrolled providers and suppliers under the Affordable Care Act screening requirements. As of September 2013, more than 535,000 providers were subject to the new screening requirements and over 225,000 lost the ability to bill Medicare due to the Affordable Care Act requirements and other proactive initiatives.　 Since the Affordable Care Act, CMS has also revoked 14,663 providers and suppliers’ ability to bill the Medicare program. These providers were removed from the program because they had felony convictions, were not operational at the address CMS had on file, or were not in compliance with CMS rules.

HHS and the Justice Department are leading historic efforts with the private sector to bring innovation to the fight against health care fraud. In addition to real-time data and information exchanges with the private sector, CMS’ Program Integrity Command Center worked with the HHS Office of the Inspector General and the FBI to conduct 93 missions to detect, investigate, and reduce improper payments in FY 2013.

From May 2013 through August 2013, CMS led an outreach and education campaign targeted to specific communities where Medicare fraud is more prevalent.　 This multimedia campaign included national television, radio, and print outreach and resulted in an increased awareness of how to detect and report Medicare fraud.

These and other activities make it more important than ever that hospitals, physicians and other health care providers participating in Medicare, Medicaid or other federal health care programs tighten their compliance and risk management practices and processes to manage their exposures.

Providers Urged To Act To Manage Risks

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

CMS Publishes Tools To Help Providers Understand E-Health Administrative Simplification Tools & Processes

March 4, 2014

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is offering training resources to help providers learn about the electronic administrative simplification tools available through the CMS eHealth programs implemented as part of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) Administrative Simplification rules.

CMS recently launched eHealth University, a new education portal designed to give providers information vital for understanding, implementing, and successfully participating in a range of . The curriculum offers resources organized by level, from beginner to advanced, in a variety of formats, including　fact sheets, guides, videos, checklists, webinar recordings, and more.

As part of eHealth University, CMS is offering tools and resources to help providers understand Administrative Simplification initiatives such as claims and eligibility operating rules, electronic funds transfer and remittance advice operating rules and standards, and the health plan identifier. These resources include:

What Administrative Simplification Does For You – This fact sheet explains the basics behind how Administrative Simplification will help improve health care efficiency and lower costs.
Introduction to Administrative Simplification – This guide gives an overview of Administrative Simplification initiatives and their purposes.
Introduction to Administrative Simplification: Operating Rules – A short video with information on Administrative Simplification operating rules.

Once providers or others have an understanding of the basics of Administrative Simplification through these beginner-level resources, the user can use the intermediate and advanced resources also available on the eHealth University website.

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. Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 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 on how to establish, administer and defend workforce, staffing, management, compliance and risk management policies and practices; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to employment, staffing, peer review and other quality, compliance and enforcement concerns; and to respond to OSHA and other Department of Labor, IRS, 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.

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.

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 » | Controlled Substances, DEA, Doctor, E-Prescribing, FDA, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, OIG, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Substance Abuse | Tagged: ADministrative Simplification, eHealth, health plan issuer, HIPAA health-care, Hospital, insurer, OSHA, Physician, Safety | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OSHA Hospital Tool Signals OSHA Enforcement Risk

January 20, 2014

Health industry employers brace for heightened worker health and safety exposures. The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OHSA) is getting serious about health care worker safety.

On January 15, 2014, OSHA launched a new educational Web-based OSHA Hospital Resource with extensive materials it intends to help hospitals prevent worker injuries, assess workplace safety needs, enhance safe patient handling programs, and implement safety and health management systems. The materials include fact books, self-assessments and best practice guides.

In announcing the new resource, OSHA noted that hospital workers face serious hazards, including: lifting and moving patients, workplace violence, slips and falls, exposure to chemicals and hazardous drugs, exposures to infectious diseases and needlesticks.

According to OSHA, U.S. hospitals recorded 250,000 work-related injuries and illnesses, almost 60,000 of which caused employees to miss work in 2012. Nationwide, workers’ compensation losses result in a total annual expense of $2 billion for hospitals.

According to OSHA, the website’s materials on safe patient handling are designed to address the most common type of injuries hospital workers face, and hospitals can use these resources to protect their workers, improve patient safety and reduce costs.

While presented as helpful tools for industry employers, health care employers should not overlook the potential legal exposures risked by failing to properly manage employee health and safety risks.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to ensure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. Viewed from this perspective, health industry employers generally will want to use the tool within the scope of attorney-client privilege to evaluate their potential risks and exposures in the event of a workplace injury or death, OSHA audit or both, and take appropriate steps to mitigate those risks promptly.

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. Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 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 on how to establish, administer and defend workforce, staffing, management, compliance and risk management policies and practices; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to employment, staffing, peer review and other quality, compliance and enforcement concerns; and to respond to OSHA and other Department of Labor, IRS, Board of Medicine, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns.

If you 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

Health Insurance Provider Fee Reporting Rules Published

January 20, 2014

Notice 2013-76 provides guidance on the health insurance providers fee related to (1) the time and manner for submitting Form 8963, “Report of Health Insurance Provider Information,” (2) the time and manner for notifying covered entities of their preliminary fee calculation, (3) the time and manner for submitting a corrected Form 8963 for the error correction process, and (4) the time for notifying covered entities of their final fee calculation. The Notice was published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin on December 16, 2013.

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 » | Controlled Substances, DEA, Doctor, E-Prescribing, FDA, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, OIG, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Substance Abuse | Tagged: EHR, electronic health record, Health Care, Health Care Reform, health insurance provider, health plan issuer, insurer, Physician, Safety | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HHS “Safer Guides” Tool For Safe EHR Implementation Published

January 20, 2014

The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) recently published guidance intended to help health care providers safely use electronic health record (EHR) technology. The Safety Assurance Factors for EHR Resilience (SAFER) Guides published here January 15, 2014 as part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS’) Health IT Patient Safety Action and Surveillance Plan are intended to serve as a tool health care providers can use to help identify and mitigate potential hazards of EHR technology.
According to HHS, HHS does not intend for the SAFER Guides to replace or revise the requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services EHR Incentive Program (Meaningful Use) Rules or other federal rules. Rather, HHS intends for health care providers to use the Guides to start a process that identifies electronic health record (EHR) EHR-related safety concerns and encourages mitigation of the high-priority risks of the EHR.
HHS has published each SAFER Guide in an interactive PDF format designed to help guide providers in self-assessing and documenting their assessments in the following areas associated with EHR implementation:

High Priority Practices;
Organizational Responsibilities;
Patient Identification;
Computerized Physician Order Entry with Decision Support;
Test Results Review and Follow-Up;
Clinician Communication;
Contingency Planning;
System Interfaces; and
System Configuration

A checklist of recommended practices in each SAFER Guide may help providers show and assess EHR safety practices adopted at their organization.

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

2/28/14 Deadline To Submit Quality Data for 2013 PQRS-Medicare EHR Incentive Pilot

January 17, 2014

February 28, 2014 is the deadline for any eligible professional participating or wishes to participate in the 2013 PQRS-Medicare EHR Incentive Pilot to submit its quality data. Eligible providers wishing to participate in the pilot must submit 12 months of CQM data by February 28, 2014 at 11:59 pm ET. The system is currently open to accept this data so eligible professionals wishing to participate should complete the collection and submission of this data as soon as possible.

Steps to Successfully Participate
To successfully participate in the pilot, you must do the following by February 28, 2014:

Register for an IACS account (for EHR submission only)
Indicate intent to report CQMs using pilot in EHR Registration & Attestation System
Generate required reporting files
Test data submission
Submit quality data

Eligible professionals that cannot submit their CQM data for 12 months electronically through PQRS must return to the EHR Attestation System and deselect the electronic reporting option. Please note: if a provider does not submit its 2013 quality data or deselect the electronic reporting option in the EHR Attestation System, CMS says the provider will not receive an EHR incentive payment.

For More Information
For further guidance on the 2013 PQRS-Medicare EHR Incentive Pilot, eligible providers should read the Participation Guide and Quick-Reference Guide.

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 » | Controlled Substances, DEA, Doctor, E-Prescribing, FDA, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, OIG, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Substance Abuse | Tagged: aging in place, community-based care, controlled substance, DEA, Disability, Drug Testing, drugs, false claims act, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, HEAT, licensure, long-term care, Medicaid, Medical Board, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, physical therapy, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Final CMS Rule To Expand Medicaid Support For Community & Home-Based Care

January 12, 2014

New Rule Expands Medicaid Coverage For Community Living For Disabled Aging Adults

Caregivers and service providers caring the Medicaid-eligible aging or disabled individuals will want to check out the new final rule on Home and Community-Based Services published by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on Friday, January 10. See Final Rule: Home and Community-Based Services (“Final Rule”).

HHS views the Final Rule as supporting its Community Living Initiative, which seeks to expand and improve community services in order to allow aging and disabled people to live, work, and participate in the greater community. The Initiative reflects the growing community support for helping aging and disabled individuals to avoid institutionalization and instead “age in place” by offering broader care options, developing community services that extend options for disabled and aging persons to live independently, and other actions that support the ability of individuals to live safely within community rather than institutional settings. In announcing the Final Rule, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “Today’s announcement will help ensure that all people participating in Medicaid home and community-based services programs have full access to the benefits of community living.”

The Final Rule expands the conditions under which Medicaid provides coverage for home and community-based services as an alternative to institutional care for older.. adults covered by Medicaid. Among other things, the Final Rule defines home and community-based settings and implements new flexibility authorized by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) that gives states additional options as part of their State Plan Option to expand home and community-based services and to target services to specific populations under the provisions of Section 1915(i) on home and community-based services. It also amends the 1915(c) home and community-based services waiver program to add new person-centered planning requirements, allow states to combine multiple target populations in one waiver, and streamlines waiver administration. The final rule also includes a transitional period for states to adjust their programs to meet the new home and community-based services settings requirements. CMS says technical assistance will also be available for states.

Service providers and community agencies caring for Medicaid-eligible populations will want to check out these new rules for insights on helping the aging and disabled covered by Medicaid and their families to adapt care plans in response to the new options that the Final Rule may afford.

For more information about Home and Community-Based Services available under Medicaid, see here. For information about the HHS Community Living Initiative, see here. For additional resources, persons interested in these and other aging in place trends and resources may want to contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, who regularly speaks and writes on these concerns.

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 » | Controlled Substances, DEA, Doctor, E-Prescribing, FDA, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, OIG, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Substance Abuse | Tagged: aging in place, community-based care, controlled substance, DEA, Disability, Drug Testing, drugs, false claims act, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, HEAT, licensure, long-term care, Medicaid, Medical Board, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, physical therapy, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Abbott Labs, Sisters of Charity Paying More Than $9M In Two Anti-Kickback Settlements

January 2, 2014

The Justice Department’s recovery of more than $9 million in two physician kickback settlements during the last week of December, 2013 sends another strong warning to health care providers and physicians of the risks of structuring physician compensation or other arrangements that run afoul of the federal Anti-kickback Statute, STARK Law or False Claims Act Health care providers and physicians or others who may be receiving or seeking compensation or other benefits prohibited by these and other federal or state health care fraud laws should seek advice and assistance from experienced qualified legal counsel to structure or review any proposed or existing transactions that could create these risks.

The two settlements both stem from alleged payments of kickbacks to physicians to induce referrals in contravention of federal health care fraud laws.

On December 31, 2013, DOJ announced that Butte, Montana based St. James Healthcare (St. James) and its Denver-based parent company, Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System (Sisters of Charity), have agreed to pay $3.85 million to resolve allegations that they violated the Anti-Kickback Statute, the Stark Law and the False Claims Act by improperly providing financial benefits to physicians and physician groups that made referrals to the hospital. Colorado Health Care Organization and One of Its Montana Hospitals to Pay $3.85 Million for Allegedly Providing Financial Benefits to Referring Physicians and Physician Groups.

The St. James settlement announcement follows DOJ’s December 27, 2013 announcement that pharmaceutical giant Abbot Laboratories has agreed to pay the United States $5.475 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act by paying kickbacks to induce doctors to implant the company’s carotid, biliary and peripheral vascular products. U.S. Department of Justice. Abbott Laboratories Pays U.S. $5.475 Million to Settle Claims That Company Paid Kickbacks to Physicians.

St. James/Sisters of Charity Settlement

The settlement with St. James and Sisters of Charity resolves DOJ charges that they provided various improper financial incentives to physicians and physician groups involved in a joint venture with St. James to own and run a medical office building on the St. James campus. These incentives included a payment to the joint venture that increased the share values for the physicians and physician groups in the joint venture and resulted in below fair market value lease rates for the physicians renting space in the medical office building. Additional incentives provided by St. James and Sisters of Charity included below fair market value lease rates for the land upon which the medical office building was constructed and other below fair market value arrangements related to shared facilities, use and maintenance. These issues were disclosed by St. James and Sisters of Charity to the government. To resolve their liability, St. James and the Sisters of Charity will pay $3.85 millions to the U.S. Government.

In announcing the settlement, U.S. Attorney for the District of Montana Michael W. Cotter cautioned other heath care providers to review their own transactions and to take the rules seriously, stating. “We are encouraged that hospitals like St. James Healthcare are taking these issues seriously by reviewing their operations and making disclosures to the government where necessary.”

Abbott Laboratories Settlement

The Abbott Laboratories settlement requires it to pay the U.S. $5.475 million to resolve allegations that Abbott Laboratories knowingly paid prominent physicians for teaching assignments, speaking engagements and conferences with the expectation that these physicians would arrange for the hospitals with which they were affiliated to purchase Abbott’s carotid, biliary and peripheral vascular products in violation of the Anti-Kickback Act and caused the submission of false claims to Medicare for the procedures using these Abbott products .

The settlement resolves allegations originally brought in a lawsuit filed by Steven Peters and Douglas Gray, former Abbott employees, under the qui tam provision of the False Claims Act. See United States ex rel. Peters et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-430 (E.D. Tenn.). The False Claims Act allows whistleblowers to file suit on behalf of the United States for false claims and share in any recovery Whistleblower claims are a major tool in the enforcement efforts and success of the DOJ in its campaign to find and prosecute health care fraud. As part of the Abbott Laboratory’s settlement, the two whistleblowers will receive a total payment of more than $1 million.

Settlements Reflect Heightened Enforcement Risks For Health Care Providers Participating In Kickback Arrangements

Health care providers offering or providing illegal or otherwise aggressive inducements to physicians or others for referrals of health care services covered by Medicare, Medicaid or other federal health care programs should heed the settlements as a warning. The two settlements illustrate the growing emphasis on the investigation and enforcement of Anti-Kickback, STARK and False Claims Act laws against health care providers by the DOJ and Department of Health & Human Services (HHS). The Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits the provision of remuneration with the intent to induce referrals of government health care program business unless the transaction falls within one of the safe harbors or otherwise qualifies as exempt from the prohibition. The Stark Law restricts financial relationships that hospitals or other designated health care providers may enter into with physicians who refer patients to them unless the arrangement meets the criteria to qualify as exempt from the prohibition. When either of these two prohibitions is violated, billing for services for care rendered creates additional fraud law exposures. Federal law prohibits payment by federal health care programs of medical claims that result from arrangements that violate the Anti-Kickback Statute or the Stark Law. The settlements announced this week both stemmed from civil prosecutions by the Justice Department. However, violations of these health care fraud laws also may result in criminal prosecutions.

DOJ, HHS and other federal and state agencies acting through the Medicare Fraud Strike Force activities conducted as part of the Health Care Fraud Prevention & Enforcement Action Team (HEAT), federal RAC audits and other actions hunting for, and increasingly finding an prosecuting health care providers and others who participate in transactions that violate these and other federal health care fraud laws as part of efforts to control health care costs and expenditures. HEAT is a joint initiative 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. The joint Department of Justice-HHS Medicare Fraud Strike Force is a multi-agency team of federal, state and local investigators designed to combat Medicare fraud through the use of Medicare data analysis techniques and an increased focus on community policing. Since its announcement, the Strike Force has used the combined resources of agents from the FBI, HHS-Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG), multiple Medicaid Fraud Control Units, and other state and local law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute a rising number of organizations and individuals throughout the industry for alleged violations of Federal health care fraud prohibitions.

The effectiveness of these Federal efforts to deter, find and prosecute false claims and other perceived abuses of Federal health care law has been significantly strengthened since Congress passed the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act). Among other things, ACA empowered HHS to:

Suspend payments to providers and suppliers based on credible allegations of fraud in Medicare and Medicaid;
Impose a temporary moratorium on Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP enrollment on providers and suppliers when necessary to help prevent or fight fraud, waste, and abuse without impeding beneficiaries’ access to care.
Strengthen and build on current provider enrollment and screening procedures to more accurately assure that fraudulent providers are not gaming the system and that only qualified health care providers and suppliers are allowed to enroll in and bill Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP;
Terminate providers from Medicaid and CHIP when they have been terminated by Medicare or by another state Medicaid program or CHIP;
Require provider compliance programs, now required under the Affordable Care Act, that will ensure providers are aware of and comply with CMS program requirements.

In its Abbott Laboratories settlement announcement, DOJ touted the HEAT efforts with resulting in the recovery of a total of more than $17 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $12.2 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.

Act To Manage Risks

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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.

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, EHR, HHS, HIPAA Privacy, Hospital, Security | 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:

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

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Recent Posts

Archives

About Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Share this blog

Archives

Solutions Law Press Health Care Update