Medical Licensure |

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

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 18, 2013

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

September 16, 2013

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

Model HIPAA Notices

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

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

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

September 23 Business Associate Agreement Update Deadline

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

CMS To Host Provider Webinar To Celebrate National Health IT Week

September 13, 2013

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

Details of Webinar

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

Administrative Simplification
eRx Incentive Program
ICD-10
Quality Measurement

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

Registration Information

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

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

September 9, 2013

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

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

Health Care
Research and Innovation
Prevention and Wellness

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

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

August 21, 2013

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

About the Program

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

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

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

Registration & Meeting Details

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

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

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

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

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

About the NTHCPA

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

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

Thanks To Solutions Law Press, Inc. ™

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

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

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 Project COPE, The Coalition on Patient Empowerment & It’s Affiliate, the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy.

The best opportunity to improve access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans is for every American, and every employer, insurer, and community organization to seize the opportunity to be good Samaritans. The government, health care providers, insurers and community organizations can help by providing education and resources to make understanding and dealing with the realities of illness, disability or aging easier for a patient and their family, the affected employers and others. At the end of the day, however, caring for people requires the human touch. Americans can best improve health care by not waiting for someone else to step up: Step up and help bridge the gap when you or your organization can. Speak up to help communicate and facilitate when you can. Building health care neighborhoods filled with good neighbors throughout the community is the key. Project COPE: The Coalition On Patient Empowerment brings together people, organizations, and resources to promote awareness and collaboration, share ideas, tools and other solutions and other resources to help promote patient empowerment, heath care access, health care quality and health and health coverage operations in meaningful, tangible ways. Its focus is little and big actions that help patients, providers, communities and others deal with or work within the health care system in the real world. The Coalition For Responsible Health Care Policy provides a resource that concerned Americans can use to share, monitor and discuss the Health Care Reform law and other health care, insurance and related laws, regulations, policies and practices and options for promoting access to quality, affordable healthcare through the design, administration and enforcement of these regulations.

To review or receive the Health Care Update, learn or get involved with the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy or its PROJECT COPE: The Coalition on Patient Empowerment, or participate in discussions in a Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ LinkedIn Group or for other information about Solutions Law Press, Inc™ resources and services, see www.SolutionsLawPress.com.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, ASC, Controlled Substances, DEA, DME, Doctor, Employer, Employment, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Physician, Physician Licensing, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Union | Tagged: discipline, Employer, Health Care, health care systems, Hospital, human resources, Labor, licensing, management, management services organizations, medical, Peer Review, performance management, physician practice, Physicians, privileges | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

August 21, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Court’s opinion is available here.

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

$1.2M HIPAA Settlement Results From Improper Copier Disposal

August 15, 2013

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

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

HIPAA Updates Require Breach Notification, Tightened Other HIPAA Requirements

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

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

Affinity Settlement Highlights

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

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

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

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

Learn From Affinity Lesson On Proper Disposal Procedures

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

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

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

HIPAA Regulation Updates Require Other Updates Beyond Disposal Procedures

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

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

CMS Rescinds Plan To Require Automatic Denial of Provider Enrollment To Providers With Outstanding Overpayments

August 5, 2013

Citing “industry concerns,” the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has abandoned at least temporarily its May 31 request to change Section 15.13 of its Program Integrity Manual chapter to require the denial of enrollment applications when the requesting provider or its owner had an overpayment of $1500 or more which was not repaid at the time it submitted its application.

In Change Request 8304, CMS on May 31, 2013 sought to revise its Provider Integrity Manual to instruct a Medicare administrative contractor (MAC) to deny a Form CMS-855 enrollment application if the current owner of an enrolling provider or supplier, an enrolling physician or a non-physician practitioner had an existing of $1500 or more that had not been repaid in full when the provided filed its application. The instruction would have required the MAC to deny the enrollment application regardless of the reason for the overpayment.

CMS rescinded the Change Request 8304 on July 27, 2013 pending further consideration. Change Request 8304 Rescission Notice.

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Corporate Compliance, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Federal Health Center, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, OIG, Physician, Rehabilitation Act, Reimbursement | Tagged: HHS, Hospital, Medicare, provider enrollment, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Publishes 2014 Branded Prescription Drug Fee Guidance

August 5, 2013

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

Branded Prescription Drug Fee Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

2014 Deadlines & Procedures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

CMS Publishes FY 2014 Final Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Prospective Payment Rule

August 5, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

CMS Publishes FY 2014 Final Inpatient Rehab Facility Prospective Payment Rule

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

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

CMS Publishes FY 2014 Final Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Prospective Payment Rule

August 1, 2013

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

CMS Publishes FY 2014 Final Inpatient Rehabiliation Facility Prospective Payment Rule

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

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

CMS Publishes FY 2014 Final Inpatient Rehab Facility Prospective Payment Rule

August 1, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

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

July 30, 2013

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

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

Health Care Providers & Industry Under Fire For Disability Discrimination

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

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

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

Specifically under the ADA:

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

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

Justice Department ADA Suit Against Brown & PCTC

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Department Barrier-Free Health Care Initiative Successes Growing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Department Plans To Keep Heat On Health Care Providers

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

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

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

Health Industry Disability Discrimination Risks: Beyond The Justice Department

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Disability Discrimination Risks

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

Act To Manage & Mitigate Disability Risks

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

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

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

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

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

July 23, 2013

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

OCR To Covered Entities: Learn From WellPoint $1.7 Settlement

July 12, 2013

WellPoint $1.7 M HIPAA Settlement Expensive Lesson On HIPAA Risks Of Leaving PHI Too Accessible In Web-Based Applications

With health care providers, health care organizations and others increasingly using Web-based applications and portals in operations and patient communications, managed care company WellPoint Inc. (WellPoint) is learning a $1.7 million lesson about the importance of ensuring Web-based applications and portals that allow access to members or other consumers protected health information (PHI) incorporate the administrative, technical and other security safeguards required by the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security rules.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) announced late yesterday (July 11, 2013) that WellPoint has agreed to pay $1.7 million to settle OCR charges that WellPoint violated the HIPAA Security Rule and left the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of 612,402 individuals accessible to unauthorized individuals over the Internet by failing to implement appropriate administrative and technical safeguards in its Web-based applications. See WellPoint HIPAA Settlement Press Release.

Web-based application use is increasingly popular among health care providers, health plans, employers and others. Health care providers use them for health care operations, as well as patient engagement and communication tools. Employers and health plans use them both in plan administration and as member tools.

The WellPoint settlement shows that managed care and other health insurers, health plans and their employer or other sponsors, health care providers, health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their business associates can’t let their enthusiasm for the ease of use of these products to compromise the security of PHI.

Rather, health care providers and other Covered Entities, employer and other health plan sponsors, their business associates, and the Web and other technology developers, providers and consultants marketing products, services or other solutions to these organizations should learn from WellPoint’s hard lesson to ensure that current and future Web-based applications, portals and other information system components that are or could be used to provide access to PHI incorporate the Security Rule safeguards both when originally implemented and with each subsequent upgrade.

HIPAA Privacy, Security & Breach Notification Rules Require PHI Safeguards & Other Protections

The Breach Notification Rule added to HIPAA under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health, or HITECH Act requires HIPAA-covered entities to notify OCR, affected individuals and the media promptly of a breach of “unsecured protected health information” (UPHI) impacting more than 500 individuals. For smaller breaches, the Breach Notification Rule still requires prompt notice to impacted individuals, but allows Covered Entities to disclose the breach to OCR as part of an annual breach report and to forego notification to the media. UPHI generally includes any PHI, whether or not ePHI that is not either secured or destroyed in the manner described by the Breach Notification Rules.

In addition to the Breach Notification Rule, most Covered Entities and their business associates also are subject to state laws or regulations that impose similar or additional breach notification and other standards and responsibilities on the protection of personal health or other data including required notification and other responses following a breach of the security of UPHI or other PHI.

WellPoint’s $1.7 HIPAA Security Mistake

WellPoint’s $1.7 million settlement lesson resulted from an OCR investigation started in response to a breach report WellPoint submitted to comply with the Breach Notification Rules.

According to OCR, the Breach Report indicated that security weaknesses in an online application database left the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of 612,402 individuals accessible to unauthorized individuals over the Internet.

OCR says its investigation indicated that WellPoint did not implement appropriate administrative and technical safeguards as required under the HIPAA Security Rule. According to OCR, WellPoint did not:

Adequately implement policies and procedures for authorizing access to the on-line application database;
Perform an appropriate technical evaluation in response to a software upgrade to its information systems; or
Have technical safeguards in place to verify the person or entity seeking access to electronic protected health information maintained in its application database.

As a result, OCR concluded that from October 23, 2009 until March 7, 2010, WellPoint impermissibly disclosed the ePHI of 612,402 individuals by allowing access to their ePHI maintained in the application database. This data included names, dates of birth, addresses, Social Security numbers, telephone numbers and health information.

Under the resulting WellPoint HIPAA Resolution Agreement, WellPoint must pay OCR a $1.7 million settlement payment as well as take a series of corrective actions to correct the deficiencies in its policies and practices that resulted in the reported breach to minimize future risks of breaches resulting from these deficient.

OCR Warns Learn From WellPoint’s Experience

All Covered Entities and their business associates and leaders should heed the lesson sent to them by OCR in announcing the WellPoint settlement and take appropriate steps other to ensure that appropriate policies and safeguards are adopted and applied in selecting and implementing future application or system upgrades, as well as review existing systems to ensure that the security of existing systems and applications have incorporated and apply the requisite safeguards.

OCR made clear that the WellPoint settlement is intended to send a message to Covered Entities and their business associates to ensure that these steps are appropriately taken. The settlement announcement states:

This case sends an important message to HIPAA-covered entities to take caution when implementing changes to their information systems, especially when those changes involve updates to Web-based applications or portals that are used to provide access to consumers’ health data using the Internet. Whether systems upgrades are conducted by covered entities or their business associates, HHS expects organizations to have in place reasonable and appropriate technical, administrative and physical safeguards to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of electronic protected health information – especially information that is accessible over the Internet.

The settlement announcement also reminds business associates that OCR will begin holding them directly accountable along with their Covered Entity clients for complying with many HIPAA requirements beginning in September, stating:

Beginning Sept. 23, 2013, liability for many of HIPAA’s requirements will extend directly to business associates that receive or store protected health information, such as contractors and subcontractors.

Take Documented Steps To Show You Hear OCR’s Messages

Covered entities and their business associates and leaders, and vendors and consultants offering services or products to them should take care to conduct careful and well-documented reviews and implement corrective actions necessary to show their applications and systems, policies and practices reflect their strong commitment and action to appropriately protect PHI in accordance with the expectations shown by the WellPoint HIPAA Resolution Agreement and other OCR settlements, OCR’s updated HIPAA regulations, and other OCR and industry information.

In addition to the guidance set forth in OCR’s Resolution Agreements with WellPoint and other Covered Entities, revisions to OCR’s Privacy and Security Rules in OCR’s 2013 restatement of its regulations here cause all Covered Entities and their business associates conduct a well-documented reassessment of the adequacy of their existing policies, systems and practices and steps taken to redress any uncovered gaps.

Among other things, the 2013 Regulations:

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

Covered Entities were required to begin complying with most of these rule changes earlier this year. However, delayed compliance dates in the 2013 Regulations allowed Covered Entities and Business Associates to delay updates to pre-existing business associate agreements and the date that OCR would begin enforcing many of the HIPAA Rules directly against business associates to September 23, 2013.

Even without the necessity Settlements like that involving WellPoint, these 2013 Regulations make it imperative that Covered Entities to take the necessary steps to conduct an appropriate and well-documented review and update as needed their systems, policies and practices, business associate agreements, training and documentation.

With self-disclosures of breaches mandated by the Breach Notification Rules and OCR audits and enforcement rising, careful documentation of these activities and its analysis is necessary so that Covered Entities can be in a position to show OCR that the risk assessments required by the Security Rules was conducted as well as the efforts and commitment of the Covered Entity or business associate in the event of a breach investigation or audit. Yesterday’s WellPoint HIPAA announcement is just the latest in an ever-growing list of examples of the expensive consequences that can result if a Covered Entity or business associate cannot produce this documentation in response to an OCR audit or investigation. See, e.g. OCR Hits Alaska Medicaid For $1.7M+ For HIPAA Security Breach; OCR Audit Program Kickoff Further Heats HIPAA Privacy Risks; $1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report; HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website; Providence To Pay $100000 & Implement Other Safeguards. In contrast, the OCR website also provides a multitude of examples showing how the ability to produce documentation and other evidence showing diligent efforts to comply has helped other covered entities that fall under OCR investigation to avoid or mitigate serious sanctions.

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

In response to the 2013 Regulations and these expanding exposures, all Covered Entities should review critically and carefully the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration OCR’s investigation and enforcement actions against WellPoint and others, emerging litigation and other enforcement data; their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses; and other developments to decide if additional steps are necessary or advisable. Covered Entities and business associates should document this review in a manner that both reflects the scope and diligence of their activities including relevant considerations and decision-making about identified potential susceptibilities and reasoning about the adequacy of safeguards and other solutions.

Because this review is likely to uncover existing or past deficiencies or breaches, most covered entities and business associates will want to discuss with qualified legal counsel the planned assessment within the scope of attorney-client privilege to understand when and how to conduct the assessment to preserve options to claim attorney-client privilege to protect sensitive work product or discussions that may result in the course of the investigation within the attorney-client communication, work product or other evidentiary privileges, evaluation of the adequacy and appropriateness of the audit and resulting investigations and its documentation, and other assistance in strengthening the defensibility of compliance and risk management activities.

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

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

Nationally recognized for her extensive work, publications and leadership on HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns, Ms. Stamer has extensive experience representing, advising and assisting health care providers, health plans, their business associates and other health industry clients to establish and administer medical and other privacy and data security, employment, employee benefits, and to handle other compliance and risk management policies and practices; to investigate and respond to OCR and other enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. She regularly designs and presents HIPAA and other risk management, compliance and other training for health care providers, health plans and their sponsors, their workforces, professional associations and others.

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.

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

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Anti-KickBack, DME, Doctor, E-Prescribing, false claims act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Money Laundering, OIG, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Substance Abuse | Tagged: Health Care Providers, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA Privacy, HIPAA Security, OCR, Privacy, WellPoint | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

July 8, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

July 8, 2013

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

Hollywood Pavillion & Other Fraud Convictions Show Individuals Risk Prison Time For Health Care Fraud Involvement

July 6, 2013

Convictions Show Growing Fraud Enforcement Risks Reach Broadly To Broad Range Of Actors

Do you love your health care organization enough to go to jail? With federal and state prosecutors stepping up health care fraud investigation and enforcement, this is a question that individuals leading, working or investing in health care organizations increasingly need to seriously consider.

As federal and state officials continue to ramp up their war on health care fraud, the ever-growing list of criminal convictions of individuals found to have participate in or tolerated prohibited billing, referral or other activities prohibited under federal or state health care fraud laws are intended to both punish the guilty and send a strong message to others throughout the industry: Don’t Do The Crime If You Don’t Want To Serve The Time!

Hollywood Pavilion Convictions

The July 28 federal jury conviction of four individuals for their involvement in nearly $70 million of fraudulent Medicare billings by Hollywood Pavilion (HP), a Miami-area mental health care hospital is the latest case in point. The successful prosecutions shows again the readiness of the Justice Department to prosecute individuals at all levels of organizations for their participation in health care fraud activities even after obtaining criminal convictions, civil settlements, and program disqualification or other administrative consequences against the health care organizations, their leaders, employees and others that participate illegal schemes that defraud federal health care programs like Medicare, private health insurance plans or both.

In the verdicts announced July 28 stemmed from the Justice Department’s prosecution of the former Chief Executive Officer, the former in-patient clinical director, former head of intensive outpatient care and former director of physical therapy for various health care fraud, wire fraud and other charges for their participation in a massive scheme that attempted to defraud the United States of approximately $70 million by taking advantage of Medicare beneficiaries.

Federal officials originally announced charges against the four defendants as part of high-profile sting and takedown by the Medicare Fraud Strike Force of 91 individuals across the nation for their alleged involvement in submitting approximately $430 million in false billings to federal health care programs. See Indictment of 91 Shows Growing Heath Care Fraud Enforcement Risk.

The convictions resulted after the Justice Department tried the defendants with illegally paying bribes to a network of patient recruiters, falsifying documents and other criminal conduct in violation of federal health care fraud, wire fraud and other laws. Based on evidence presented at trial, the federal jury found:

Karen Kallen-Zury, 59, and Daisy Miller, 44, each guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and health care fraud, five substantive counts of wire fraud and two substantive counts of health care fraud;
Michele Petrie, 64, guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and health care fraud and three substantive counts of wire fraud;
Kallen-Zury, Miller, Petrie and a fourth defendant, Christian Coloma, 49, of one count of conspiracy to pay bribes in connection with Medicare; and
Kallen-Zury and Coloma also each guilty of five substantive counts of paying bribes.

The convictions resulted after Federal prosecutors charged the four defendants and one other individual with participating and aiding HP to illegally bill Medicare for nearly $70 million for services that were not properly rendered, for patients that did not qualify for the services being billed and for claims for patients procured through bribes and kickbacks from at least 2003 through at least August 2012.

At trial, Federal prosecutors claimed that the defendants and their co-conspirators caused the submission of false and fraudulent claims to Medicare through HP, a state-licensed psychiatric hospital located in Hollywood that purportedly provided, among other things, inpatient psychiatric care and intensive outpatient psychiatric care. Prosecutors claimed the defendants paid illegal bribes and kickbacks to patient brokers in order to obtain Medicare beneficiaries as patients at HP who did not qualify for psychiatric treatment, then illegally submitted claims to Medicare for those patients who were procured through bribes and kickbacks.

Among other things, Federal prosecutors charged and introduced evidence that:

Karen Kallen-Zury, the CEO and registered agent of HP, attempted to conceal the payment of bribes and kickbacks by creating false documents to make it appear as if legitimate services were being rendered;
Miller, the clinical director of HP’s inpatient facility, and Petrie, the head of HP’s intensive outpatient program, facilitated the payment of bribes to patient recruiters and oversaw the fraudulent admissions and treatment of unqualified patients;
Coloma, the director of physical therapy for an entity associated with HP, facilitated the payment of bribes and kickbacks, and he supervised the creation of false documents to conceal the bribery scheme.

All four defendants now are awaiting sentencing.

Zealous Investigation & Prosecution Part of National Anti-Health Care Fraud Campaign

These and other convictions provide tangible proof of the growing success of the efforts to zealously investigate and prosecute health fraud by the Justice Department, HHS and other federal officials under their joint the Health Care Fraud Prevention & Enforcement Action Team (HEAT), Medicare Fraud Strike Force and other anti-fraud efforts. The joint Department of Justice-HHS Medicare Fraud Strike Force that lead to these charges and convictions 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.

In recent years, Congress has amended the False Claims Act and enacted other reforms that give the Justice Department and other federal officials working in these anti-fraud efforts new tools that they are using to strengthen the effectiveness of their anti-fraud investigation and prosecution efforts. See Health Care Fraud Enforcement Packs New Heat.

Empowered by these and other new tools, the Justice Department and other participants in the HEAT and Medicare Fraud Strike Force increasingly are successful in prosecuting and convicting health care providers and others for participating in activities and schemes that violate federal or state health care fraud, referral, anti-kickback or other federal or state laws. See, e.g., North Texas Medical Supply Company Owner Indicted For Health Care Fraud Now Also Charged With Immigration Fraud; Former Houston Texas Physician Gets 70 Month Prison Sentence For Fraud Conviction; 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; Detroit-Area Foot Doctor Pleads Guilty to Medicare Fraud Scheme; Merck To Pay $950 Million To Settle Vioxx® Off-Label Marketing Charges. Indeed, since the jury rendered its July 28 verdict, Justice Department officials already have announced several other prosecutorial successes. See, e.g.,Los Angeles Medical Supply Company Owner Sentenced to Five Years in Prison for $8.4 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme; Los Angeles-Area Doctor and Patient Recruiter Plead Guilty to Participating in a Power Wheelchair Scheme That Defrauded Medicare of Over $10.1 Million; Owner of Rehabilitation Facility Pleads Guilty to Mail Fraud Charge; Local Oncology Practice Sentenced To Pay Millions for Medicare Fraud.

In addition to criminal prosecutions, the HHS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, working with the HHS-OIG, are using a wide range of new and old tools in their campaign against what they perceive as fraudulent providers and to deter other perceived aggressiveness by health care providers and organizations. See e.g., U.S. to use software to crack down on Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP fraud; Health Care Fraud Enforcement Packs New Heat; OIG Shares Key Insights On When Owners, Officers & Managers Face OIG Program Exclusion Based On Health Care Entity Misconduct; OIG Launch of Health Care Fraud “Most Wanted” List Sign of Enforcement Risks; CMS Delegated Lead Responsibility For Development of New Affordable Care Act-Required Medicare Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol; HHS announces Rules Implementing Tools Added By Affordable Care Act to Prevent Federal Health Program Fraud.

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.

See HHS announces Rules Implementing Tools Added By Affordable Care Act to Prevent Federal Health Program Fraud.

Act To Manage Risks

In response to the growing emphasis and effectiveness of Federal officials in wielding these and other tools 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 » | Academic medicine, Anti-KickBack, DME, Doctor, E-Prescribing, false claims act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Money Laundering, 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

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

September 18, 2012

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

September 19 Webinar

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

Topics of discussion will include:

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

To join the webcast click here.

Rising Civil Rights Law Exposures Require Management

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

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

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

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

Recent Settlements Highlight Risk

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

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

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

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

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

Invest in Prevention To Minimize Liability Risks

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

August 13, 2012

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

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

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

Baltimore County Nailed For Health Screening of Public Safety Workers

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

ADA Employment Discrimination Generally

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Settlements Highlight Risk

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

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

Obama Administration Also Aggressively Prosecutes Disability Discrimination In Other Business Operations

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

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

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

Invest in Prevention To Minimize Liability Risks

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

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

Supreme Court Now Expected To Release Ruling On Health Care Reform Law Thursday

June 25, 2012

The Supreme Court did not release its ruling on challenges to the constitutionality to the Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) health care reform today. The Supreme Court now is expected to release its much-anticipated decision on a series of consolidated challenges to the ACA on Thursday. Thursday is the last day that the Court can issue rulings before the Justices end their term. They are not scheduled to return until the new 2012 Session begins in October.

Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, it is clear that health care reform will remain a key point of debate for the upcoming election and in Congress. With opinions sharply divided about health care reform among members of the public and budget challenges looming, members of Congress from both parties have made clear that they expect to continue to wrangle over the reforms. Whether or not the Supreme Court rules any part of the law unconstitutional, Republicans and Democrats in Congress largely share support of the mandates and other reforms scheduled for implementation before 2014. To the extent that ACA survives its pending constitutional challenges, implementation of the law will progress. To the extent that the Supreme Court ruling would adversely impact these provisions, Republican and Democrat leaders alike have indicated an intention to act quickly to reenact many of these provisions. In the meanwhile, regardless of the status of the law, market and state law reforms implemented in anticipation of the law inevitably will prevent a reversion to pre-ACA status regardless of the Supreme Court’s rulings.

Project COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment & Coalition For Responsible Health Care Quality

Amid the continuing debate and uncertainty, Americans more then ever need to stay involved in the discussion. Project COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment & the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Quality are coalitions of individuals and organizations that share the belief that every American and American organization has a stake, and something to contribute to our ability to find and implement the best options for ensuring that the U.S. health care system provides quality, affordable health care.

Health care impacts every individual and every organization in America. Consequently, every American citizen and organization including but not limited to health care providers, employers, insurer, and community organizations should take part. 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 or speak up.

Project COPE urges and invites each individual and organization speak up to help communicate and act to make health care work for themselves, their families and others when you can and share your input to help preserve and continue to develop real meaningful improvements to our health care system by joining Project COPE: Coalition for Patient Empowerment here by sharing ideas, tools and other solutions and other resources.

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

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

Nonprofit CEO Convicted Of Embezzling Medicaid Funds Intended For Mentally Disabled Care

June 18, 2012

Former Chief Executive Officer of Evelyn Douglin Center for Serving People in Need (EDC) Seibert Phillips faces sentencing to up to 15 years in prison after pleading guilty to stealing over $600,000 from the charity. The prosecution and conviction of Phillips by the New York Attorney General demonstrates that Medicaid and other health care fraud investigation and oversight by states is thriving along side the much more widely reported federal health care fraud inititives.

Evelyn Douglin Center is a Medicaid-funded corporation which provides care and services to mentally disabled New York City residents. Among other things, it operates supportive and supervised alternative housing and provides residential habilitation and day habilitation programs for those in need. EDC is reimbursed in part by the New York State Medicaid program. Over a five year period, while Chief Executive of EDC, which he founded in 1999, Phillips secretly diverted over $600,000 in Medicaid checks made payable to EDC into a fraudulent account he opened in the corporation’s name. Phillips thereafter used this account for himself, funding frequent personal travel, cars and even his dog trainers. EDC’s Board of Directors was unaware of the secret account and cooperated in the investigation leading to Phillips’s arrest and conviction.

Phillips’s arrest and conviction arises out of the Attorney General’s prior investigation of EDC which concluded last year with a $5 million settlement. Medicaid rules required EDC to draft and maintain daily reports detailing the specific services it provided to Medicaid recipients. The investigation uncovered that, for a five year period ending in 2009, EDC altogether failed to create many of the records. As part of its settlement agreement, EDC also agreed to reconstitute its Board of Directors and to retain a monitor for five years to ensure its compliance with all applicable Medicaid rules and regulations.

Phillips’s secret account came to light during an Attorney General investigation of EDC. Phillips pled guilty today to Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, a class C Felony which carries a maximum penalty of five to fifteen years in state prison. Under the terms of his plea agreement, Phillips will be sentenced to five years of probation, pay back restitution totaling $445,000 to EDC, and perform 500 hours of community service. He will be sentenced on August 7, 2012. Get more details here.

The Phillips conviction is one of a growing list state and federal prosecutions of health care and other organizations and individuals for violations of federal or state health care fraud or other laws. Driven both by federal program mandates and daunting state health care entitlement program budget expenditures, state regulators and law enforcement teams across the United States increasingly are active and vital participants in the expanding federal and state war against health care fraud and other health care provider misconduct. See e.g., Health Care Providers Also Should Guard Against Rising Exposures To State Health Care Fraud & Other Enforcement Risks.

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

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 Companies Looking To Raise Funds Beware: Old Practices & Forms May Need Update For Securities Law Changes

June 7, 2012

Health care entrepreneurs and other businesses looking to raise investment from private investors without registration in accordance with applicable federal and state securities laws requirements for publicly traded investments need to exercise care that their practices meet all requirements, particularly in light of recent changes to the regulations.

For example, health care, health care IT and other businesses looking to raise capital in a private versus publicly registered context often plan to rely upon the restriction of offers and sales to individuals who qualify as “accredited investors” and other compliance with the accredited investor exemptions to registration requirements under federal and state securities laws.

When planning to raise capital, however, reliance on past experience and recycling old documents can be risky. Due to recent changes in the accredited investor regulations, however, businesses intending to rely upon the accredited investor exception may need to update their accredited investor questionnaires and other practices to avoid unintentionally running afoul of modified rules.

On December 21, 2011, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission adopted final rules that amended the “accredited investor” definition in the rules under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The recent regulatory amendments respond to securities laws changes enacted by Section 413(a) of the U.S. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”).

Among many other changes it enacted, Dodd-Frank requires the definition of “accredited investor” in the Securities Act rules to exclude the value of a person’s primary residence for purposes of determining whether the person qualifies as an “accredited investor” on the basis of having a net worth in excess of US $1,000,000.

Securities Act Rules 215 and 501, as amended, in response to Dodd-Frank now define “accredited investor” to include, among other things, any natural person whose individual net worth, or joint net worth with that person’s spouse, exceeds US$1,000,000, excluding the value of the investor’s primary residence. SEC regulations provide guidance about the application of this revised requirement.

Because of the change to the accredited investor requirements of federal securities laws, investor questionnaires may need to be updated to reflect the new definition. Investors relying on the net worth category of the accredited investor definition may also need to get valuations of their residences to determine their fair market value and may also need to disclose the value of any mortgages thereon and the timing of when such mortgages were incurred to confirm accredited investor status.

The changes to the accredited investor exemption rules is just one of many changes in securities registration exemption, reporting, and other requirements. Protect yourself and your business. Review your practices and documentation to confirm they are up to date and compliant before you get started and keep a careful eye on compliance and out for more changes coming down the pike on an ongoing basis.

Interested persons can see a copy of the SEC’s final rule here.

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

Wichita Kansas Physician, Practice To Pay $1.5 Million To Settle False Claims Act

May 25, 2012

Federal officials earlier this week charged a Boston-area man with illegally concealing material information from Medicare. Blessing Sydney Iwuala, 53, was indicted on charges of knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing, or covering up by trick, scheme or device a material fact from Medicare.

The Indictment alleges that Iwuala was the owner of Above All Home Care and Supply, Inc. (Above All), a supplier of durable medical equipment (DME) in Braintree. In 2008, he submitted an application to Medicare to supply Medicare beneficiaries with DME. In the application, Medicare required that Iwuala identify any individual who had an ownership interest, was a managing employee, or had a partnership interest in Above All. Iwuala only identified himself and his wife in this section. Iwuala certified that the information in the application was true, correct, and complete, and he certified that he would notify Medicare if he became aware that any information in the application was not true, correct, or complete.

It is alleged that at some point, but by no later than Jan. 19, 2009, Iwuala entered into an arrangement with another individual, identified in the indictment as JN, with respect to Above All. JN had a medical supply company as well, but in or around June 2008, Medicare had suspended JN’s privileges to supply DME to Medicare patients. Iwuala and JN allegedly entered into an agreement whereby JN obtained orders for the overwhelming majority of patients who received medical equipment from Above All. It is alleged that JN handled numerous aspects of these orders, including billing Medicare for the orders using Above All’s names, and that Iwuala sent to JN a substantial portion of the Medicare payments to Above All.

On May 6, 2009, a Medicare representative performed a site visit at Above All. By this point, all of the Medicare beneficiaries handled by JN had received their equipment, Above All had begun billing Medicare for claims, and Iwuala had begun to send money to JN and JN’s associates. During the site visit, Iwuala filled out a questionnaire. In one of the items, Iwuala was required to list “all management and owners” of Above All. Iwuala listed himself as the “sole owner” of the company, concealing from Medicare JN’s involvement with the company. If Medicare had been aware of JN’s involvement with Above All, it would not have paid for any Above All orders. Thus, it is alleged that Iwuala knowingly and willfully falsified, concealed, and covered up by trick, scheme, and device from Medicare JN’s true involvement with Above All. In 2009, Above All billed Medicare for more than $1 million of DME, and Medicare paid more than $400,000 for these claims.
.
If convicted, Iwuala faces up to five years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, a $250,000 fine and restitution to Medicare.

United States Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz and Susan J. Waddell, Special Agent in Charge of the Department of Health and Human Services made the announcement today. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney David S. Schumacher of Ortiz’s Health Care Fraud Unit.

As part of a broader effort to control Medicare and other federal health care program costs, Federal and state officials are conducting an ever-growing war on health care fraud. To help this effort, legal reforms and new resources granted under the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (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.

To target resources to highly suspect behaviors, CMS has implemented the new Fraud Prevention System, which uses advanced predictive modeling technology to fight fraud. The system has been screening all Medicare fee-for-service claims before payment is made since June 30, 2011. Much like the predictive technologies used in the credit card industry, the Fraud Prevention System uses advanced technology to identify “suspicious behavior and billing irregularities.” By streaming claims on a prepayment basis, CMS and its investigative partners are able to more efficiently identify fraudulent claims and respond quickly to emerging trends.

Using these data mining an a host of other new fraud fighting resources created under the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) and other recently enacted laws, the HEAT Task Force and other federal health care fraud investigators are enjoying record successes in deploying these tools to achieve successful health care fraud prosecutions. Government’s health care fraud prevention and enforcement efforts recovered nearly $4.1 billion in taxpayer dollars in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 according to the FY 2011 Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program Report jointly released by HHS and the Justice Department on February 14, 2012.

In addition to the data mining tools, other new tools helping to boost the success of federal health care fraud investigation and prosecution include:

Tough new rules and sentences for criminals
Enhanced screening and other enrollment requirements
Increased coördination 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

Wielding these and other tools, Federal and state health care fraud fighters are racking up a growing list of successful prosecutions and settlements against a broad range of health care providers that they say have defrauded the health care system. See, e.g. Ambulance Worker Gets 46 Month Sentence For Defrauding Medicare By Running Company As Disqualified Person;Temple To Pay $1,088,574.93 To Resolve Exposures From Voluntarily Disclosed Improper Health Care Billings;Former Orthofix Executive Pleads Guilty To Anti-Kickback Law Violations;Houston-Area Nurse Gets 97 Month Sentence For Role In $5.2 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme; Health Care Providers Get Nailed For Using False Statements To Defraud Medicaid, Bankruptcy Court; Texas Medical Supply Medical Supply Company Owner Convicted Of Violating Anti-Kickback Statute Could Get 5 Years; Texas Healthcare Operator’s Guilty Plea To Bankruptcy Fraud Conspiracy Highlights Broad Prosecution Risks.

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.

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

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

Wichita Kansas Physician, Practice To Pay $1.5 Million To Settle False Claims Act

May 25, 2012

Roger W. Evans, M.D. and his company, EECP Heart Center of Kansas, Inc. (EECP) will pay $1.5 million to settle allegations that Evans and EECP submitted false claims to the Medicare program. Evans is owner and president of EECP. The prosecution of and settlement and EEPC settlement of the Wichita, Kansas physician provides another demonstration of the breadth and scope of Federal health care fraud detection and enforcement.

Evans operated several clinics across Kansas and provided enhanced counterpulsation therapy, an in-patient service for the treatment of coronary artery disease. The United States contends that from July 2005, through June 2009, Evans submitted claims to Medicare for services when Evans was not actually present at the clinics and did not provide direct supervision of the procedures as required by Medicare.

During ECP treatment, a patient is placed on a treatment table and the patient’s lower trunk and lower extremities are wrapped in a series of compressive air cuffs which inflate and deflate in synchronization with the patient’s cardiac cycle. The cuffs compress blood vessels in the calves and thighs to increase blood flow and improve cardiac function. A full course of ECP therapy usually consists of 35 one-hour treatments which may be offered once or twice daily, usually five days per week.

According to the terms of the agreement, Evans and his company will pay $1.5 million to settle False Claims Act charges wuithout admitting any wrongdoing.

In addition to the data mining tools, other new tools helping to boost the success of federal health care fraud investigation and prosecution include:

Tough new rules and sentences for criminals
Enhanced screening and other enrollment requirements
Increased coördination 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

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

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

Ambulance Worker Gets 46 Month Sentence For Defrauding Medicare By Running Company As Disqualified Person

May 18, 2012

On May, 15, 2012, ambulance worker Ivan Tkach, 30 was sentenced to 46 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release for his role in a scheme to defraud Medicare and the U.S. Government. Tkach pleaded guilty January 10, 2012 to giving false statements in his application for reinstatement to the Medicare program in 2009, and to paying illegal kickbacks to a secretary at Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, all in relation to a private ambulance company’s involvement in a health care fraud scheme. In addition to the prison term, Tkach must pay restitution in the amount of $1.26 million to Medicare.

Tkach was indicted along with his boss Ilya Sivchuk who was convicted by a jury in November 2011. Tkach was excluded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 2004 from providing services under the Medicare Program due to his prior criminal convictions, yet continued to operate Advantage Ambulance Company and drive patients in ambulances. Tkach ran Advantage with the knowledge of Ilya Sivchuk, who also made false statements regarding the nature of Tkach’s employment to federal agents. In addition, Tkach gave kickback payments in 2008 to a worker at a Philadelphia kidney dialysis center in exchange for patient referrals to Advantage. Advantage Ambulance has a new owner. Ilya Sivchuk is awaiting sentencing. See Ambulance Company Worker Sentenced To Prison Term for 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 proper 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.

As part of these efforts, health care providers should carefully credential workers and other service providers to avoid running afoul of these prohibitions. Federal law prohibits health care providers from billing Medicare or other federal programs for services provided by disqualified persons as well as from otherwise filing false claims with Medicare. The Tkach prosecution and conviction shows that Federal prosecutors are serious about enforcing these prohibitions.

For Legal Representation or More Information

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

If you 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, disqualified provider, 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

Former Orthofix Executive Pleads Guilty To Anti-Kickback Law Violations

May 18, 2012

Thomas P. Guerrieri has pleaded guilty in federal court before U.S. District Judge Rya W. Zobel for violating the Anti-Kickback statute. Guerrieri was the former vice-president of sales at a medical device company, Orthofix, that sold bone growth simulators. His sentencing is scheduled for July 11, 2012 at 2:30 p.m. He faces up to five years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, a $250,000 fine and forfeiture.

Had the case proceeded to trial, the Government would have proven that Guerrieri facilitated signing up a surgeon in New York to a “consulting” agreement with the company to induce the surgeon to prescribe the company’s bone growth stimulators. The surgeon was paid tens of thousands of dollars by the company, but provided little or no consulting services in return. The surgeon was supposed to document his services in time sheets provided to the company, but for years he did not fill out these forms or provide any legitimate consulting services, even though he was paid every month.

In or about Aug. 2007, the surgeon became concerned about increased government scrutiny of consulting arrangements such as his. The surgeon, Guerrieri, and a territory manager for the company decided to create and backdate time sheets going back to 2006 to make it seem as though the surgeon filled out these forms contemporaneously and performed legitimate consulting services. In addition, at the surgeon’s request, Guerrieri and the territory manager obtained a letter from the company’s general counsel indicating that the surgeon was compliant under his consulting agreement, which was not true. Guerrieri did these things to induce the surgeon to continue to order bone growth stimulators from the company.

In addition, Guerrieri and others executed a scheme to pay Michael Cobb, a RI physician’s assistant, for each bone growth stimulator ordered by Cobb. The surgeon had delegated to Cobb the choice of which stimulator his patients received. For years, the device company paid Cobb $50-$100 for each stimulator that his surgeon prescribed. In Sept. 2008, the device company issued a policy expressly prohibiting any payments to anyone who works for a surgeon that prescribes the company’s products. Guerrieri and others were concerned that if they could no longer pay Cobb under the new policy, the company might lose Cobb’s business. Thus, Guerrieri, and others, devised a scheme where Cobb continued to be paid for each order, but the payments were made by a vendor of the device company, making it more difficult to trace the paper trail back to the device company. Cobb is also charged with violating the Anti-Kickback law. His plea hearing is set for April 19, 2012 at 3:15 p.m. before Judge George A. O’Toole, Jr.

Federal regulators credit sophisticated statistical profiling and other new fraud investigation tools with playing a key role in the federal health care fraud investigation that lead to the arrest on health care fraud indictments today (February 28, 2012) of a Dallas-area physician, the office manager of his medical practice, and five home health agency owners. The Dallas-area defendants charged in the indictments unsealed today face health care fraud charges related to their alleged participation in a nearly $375 million health care fraud scheme involving fraudulent claims for home health services. In a related action, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) suspended an additional 78 home health agencies (HHA) associated with defendant Roy based on what CMS views as credible allegations of fraud against them.

Federal officials say today’s arrests and CMS suspensions resulted from Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations conducted by the Health Care Fraud Prevention & Enforcement Action Team (HEAT). HEAT 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 anti-fraud laws around the country. Justice Department officials say the conduct charged in this indictment represents the single largest fraud amount orchestrated by one doctor in the history of the HEAT initiative.

Legal reforms and new resources granted under the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (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

Using these expanded tools, the HEAT Task Force and other federal health care fraud investigators are enjoying record successes in deploying these tools to achieve successful health care fraud prosecutions. Government’s health care fraud prevention and enforcement efforts recovered nearly $4.1 billion in taxpayer dollars in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 according to the FY 2011 Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program Report jointly released by HHS and the Justice Department on February 14, 2012.

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

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

Abbott Labs To Pay $1.5 Billion to Resolve Criminal & Civil Investigations Of Off-Label Promotion Of Depakote

May 18, 2012

Abbott Laboratories Inc.will pay $1.5 billion to resolve its criminal and civil liability after pleading guilty to federal charges it unlawfully promoted the prescription drug Depakote for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration.

According to a Justice Department announcement May 7, 2012 here, the resolution – the second largest payment by a drug company – includes a criminal fine and forfeiture totaling $700 million and civil settlements with the federal government and the states totaling $800 million. Abbott also will be subject to court-supervised probation and reporting obligations for Abbott’s CEO and Board of Directors.

Health Care Providers Must Act To Manage Risks

Over the past decade, Federal officials have stepped up enforcement of federal rules prohibiting off-label promotion of prescription drugs. Beyond the examples provided by the criminal and civil penalties assessed in these matters, the corporate integrity agreements that generally are imposed as part of the plea or other resolution agreements reached as part of these investigations provide insights about the types of mechanisms that Federal officials expect pharmacedical companies to implement and administer as part of their compliance efforts. Pharmaceudical companies and others involved in the marketing and promotion of medications should review and evaluate the adequacy of their existing compliance practices in light of these prosecutions and resulting corporate integrity and make appropriate adjustments to their practices, policies and management controls where warranted.

For Legal Representation or More Information

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, FDA, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, HEAT, licensure, Medicaid, Medical Board, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, physical therapy, Physician, Prescription Drugs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CMS Likely To Tighten Audits & Reimbursement After OIG Says “Extremely High” Retail Pharmacy Billings To Medicare Part D Warrant Close Scrutiny

May 18, 2012

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) is recommending a “strong response” to improve Medicare Part D oversight of retail pharmacy prescriptions by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) based on findings of a recent study. See here. OIG says that “extremely high” prescription drug billings by many retail pharmacies merit scrutiny under medical necessity or other grounds.

Under the Medicare Part D program, CMS contracts with private insurance companies, known as sponsors, to provide prescription drug coverage to beneficiaries who choose to enroll. According to OIG, OIG has issued several reports that OIG has found that Part D had limited safeguards in place in the 6 years since Part D began.

In response to these concerns, OIG recently conducted a study based on an analysis of prescription drug event records. Sponsors send these records to CMS for each drug dispensed to beneficiaries enrolled in their plans. Each record has information about the pharmacy, prescriber, beneficiary, and drug. OIG analyzed all of the records for drugs billed by retail pharmacies in 2009 and developed eight measures to describe Part D billing and to identify pharmacies with questionable billing.

Based on this study, OIG reports that retail pharmacies each billed Part D an average of nearly $1 million for prescriptions in 2009. According to OIG, the study revealed “questionable billing” by more than 2,600 of these pharmacies. OIG reports that these pharmacies had ‘extremely high billing” for at least one of the eight measures developed and applied by OIG For example, many pharmacies billed what OIG characterized as “extremely high” dollar amounts or numbers of prescriptions per beneficiary or per prescriber. The Miami, Los Angeles, and Detroit areas were the most likely to have pharmacies with questionable billing.

Although OIG concedes that some of this billing may be legitimate, OIG believes that pharmacies that bill for extremely high amounts call for further scrutiny The OIG report expresses concern that these high dollar prescription drug billings could mean that a pharmacy is billing for drugs that are not medically necessary or were never provided to the beneficiary.

Accordingly, OIG is recommending that CMS: (1) strengthen the Medicare Drug Integrity Contractor’s monitoring of pharmacies and ability to identify pharmacies for further review, (2) provide additional guidance to sponsors on monitoring pharmacy billing, (3) require sponsors to refer potential fraud and abuse incidents that may warrant further investigation, (4) develop risk scores for pharmacies, (5) further strengthen its compliance plan audits, and (6) follow up on the pharmacies identified as having questionable billing. CMS concurred with four of the recommendations and partially concurred with the other two.

Private health plans and other payers are likely to review the study to determine whether it provides justification for closer scrutiny of prescription drug claims made to private payers.

Whether or not private health plans follow suit, retail pharmacies and other providers should anticipate that CMS will increase scrutiny and challenges of prescription drug charges submitted to Medicare Part D. Accordingly, retail pharmacies and the physician and other providers prescribing medications likely to be billed should tighten documentation and other procedures to defend against possible medical necessity and other challenges.

The continuing focus and success of federal health care fraud and related 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. The prosecutions of Giventer and Shavabskaya highlight that health care providers and their leaders need to manage prosecution risks under a broad range of laws in addition to focusing on management of the widely recognized exposures to prosecution under federal health care fraud laws,

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 proper 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 Legal Representation or More Information

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, Medicare Part D, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, physical therapy, Physician, prescription drug, retail pharmacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Houston-Area Nurse Gets 97 Month Sentence For Role In $5.2 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme

May 18, 2012

A Houston-area home health nurse will serve a 97 month prison sentence for her participation in a $5.2 million Medicare fraud scheme according to a May 16, 2012 announcement by the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Health and Human Service (HHS). The sentence is the latest in a growing series of reminders to health care providers and others of the growing risk of imprisonment and other consequences that can result from the submission of inappropriate Medicare or other health program claims.

Ezinne Ubani, the former director of nursing at Family Healthcare Group, a Houston home health care company, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Nancy Atlas in the Southern District of Texas to 97 months in prison, followed by three years supervised release. Ubani also was ordered to pay $2.5 million in restitution jointly and severally with her codefendants. Ubani was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and two counts of making false statements following a May 2011 trial.

According to the evidence presented at trial and in court documents, Family Healthcare Group purported to provide skilled nursing to Medicare beneficiaries. Family Healthcare Group paid co-conspirators to recruit Medicare beneficiaries for the purpose of filing claims with Medicare for skilled nursing that was medically unnecessary and/or not provided. The evidence showed that Ezinne Ubani falsified documents to support the fraudulent payments. After the Medicare beneficiaries were recruited, other co-conspirators fraudulently signed plans of care stating that the beneficiaries needed home health care when in fact they knew the beneficiaries were not home-bound and not in need of skilled nursing.

Ubani is the seventh defendant sentenced in connection with this scheme. Three other defendants, Clifford Ubani, Princewill Njoku and Cynthia Garza Williams, await sentencing in the Southern District of Texas.

Feds Continue To Turn Up HEAT on Health Care Fraud

The investigation and prosecution that lead to Ubani’s sentence are part of a growing number of prosecutions and convictions resulting from the federal HEAT Task Force. Empowered with new data mining, statistical profiling and other new fraud fighting resources created under the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) and other recently enacted laws, the HEAT Task Force and other federal health care fraud investigators are enjoying record successes in deploying these tools to achieve successful health care fraud prosecutions.

according to Justice Department officials, since their inception in March 2007, Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations in nine locations have charged more than 1,330 defendants who collectively have falsely billed the Medicare program for more than $4 billion. Government’s health care fraud prevention and enforcement efforts recovered nearly $4.1 billion in taxpayer dollars in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 according to the FY 2011 Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program Report jointly released by HHS and the Justice Department on February 14, 2012. Furthermore, this trend is likely to continue. Federal officials say the HHS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, working in conjunction with the HHS-OIG, are taking steps to increase accountability and decrease the presence of fraudulent providers along side the ongoing investigatory and enforcement activities of the HEAT Task Force and other federal and state agencies.

Health Care Providers Must Act To Manage Risks

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 help 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 » | 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 Providers Get Nailed For Using False Statements To Defraud Medicaid, Bankruptcy Court

May 18, 2012

Two unrelated Federal felony prosecutions and convictions of Texas-based health care providers announced this week illustrate the risks that health care and other businesses and their leaders run for coloring the truth in health care billings, court filings or other dealings. The convictions highlight the advisability for health industry and other business leaders both to exercise care to avoid engaging in potentially actionable misrepresentations when signing billing, court pleadings or other official documents, as well as implement appropriate documentation and review procedures to minimize liability risks to their organizations and themselves that may arise from reliance upon represenations of staff or others which turn out to be untrue.

On May 16, 2012, Laredo, Texas dentist Dr. Carlos Armin Morales-Ryan and his wife orthodontist Dr. Nelia Patricia Garcia-Morales pleaded guilty to a criminal information admitting they made false statements on bills to Texas Medicaid. These guilty pleas follow the May 14, 2012 guilty plea entered by Michael Giventer to conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud by misrepresenting his ownership and control in health care businesses.

Texas Dentist/Orthodontist Couple Convicted of Making False Statements on Bills to Texas Medicaid

On May 16, 2012, dentist Morales-Ryan and his orthodontist wife Garcia-Morales pleaded guilty to a criminal information admitting they made false statements on bills to Texas Medicaid.

Morales-Ryan and Garcia-Morales owned and operated Orthogenesis International Centre, a Laredo dentistry and orthodontics business. A substantial portion of their business was targeted to rendering services to Medicaid-eligible children. Applicable Texas law and Medicaid regulations required the doctors to be present in their offices when services were rendered on Medicaid patients as a prerequisite to receiving payment for the services from Medicaid. Similar consumer protection laws and regulations are applicable to most types of physicians for many of the services they render in Texas, regardless of whether the patient is or is not a Medicaid beneficiary.

Morales-Ryan’s signed plea agreement states that though he and Garcia-Morales were in Hawaii on October 12, 2007, he falsely represented to Medicaid that he performed an evaluation and management of a new patient on that date claiming entitlement to payment. However, at the time he made this false representation to Medicaid, he and Garcia-Morales knew the statement was false and that neither of them performed that service on or about that date. Similarly, Garcia-Morales admitted that though she and Morales-Ryan were en route to the U.S. Virgin Islands on March 23, 2007, she falsely represented to Medicaid that she performed an orthodontic retention on that date claiming entitlement to payment. However, at the time she made this false representation to Medicaid, she and Morales-Ryan knew the statement was false and that neither of them performed an orthodontic retention on or about that date.

As a result of their plea agreements, they will be sentenced to five years probation and will pay restitution in the amount of $686,545 to the State of Texas Health and Human Services Commission – Office of Inspector General.

Court records reflect that this is not the first time Morales-Ryan has been in legal trouble. Morales-Ryan previously was convicted of 13 counts of practing medicine without a license for performing non-dentistry and non-non-oral and maxillofacial surgeriescosmetic surgery procedures including including: tummy tucks, liposuction, and breast augmentation. See here.

The Texas State Board of Dental Examiners previously suspended the license to practice dentistry of Morales-Ryanin Texas. See here.

Giventer Conspiracy To Commit Bankruptcy Plea

On May 14, 2012, Michael Giventer pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud. Giventer’s wife, Julia Shavabskaya, previously pleaded guilty to the same charge on April 30, 2012.

Justice Department officials charged that from on August, 2002 to July 2010, Giventer caused the incorporation of two business entities, Ambucare Inc. and Open Diagnostic Imaging Inc., as holding companies to receive income from clinics providing various forms of health care services to individuals who were covered by Workers’ Compensation insurance.

Ownership of both Ambucare and Open Diagnostic Imaging was placed solely in the name of Shvabskaya. Through these two companies, Giventer received income from a number of these clinics, such as Valley Center for Pain and Stress Management, Functional Pain Center, Palladium for Surgery and Valley Comprehensive Pain Management. Unrelated court records reflect that at least one of these organizations, Valley Center for Pain and Stress Management during the period was accused by insurer TML Intergovernmental Risk Pool of seeking worker’s compensation benefits for medically unnecessary services. Valley Comprehensive Pain Management v. TML Intergovernmental Risk Pool (May 19, 2004).

On November 4, 2005, Giventer filed for bankruptcy under chapter 7 in the Southern District of Texas. During the bankruptcy, Giventer was required to file under penalty of perjury various Schedules consisting of assets, debts, liabilities and a Statement of Financial Affairs in which he was required to disclose among other things, his income, debts, property and transfers of property. In some of the documents, Giventer indicated he did not own an interest in Ambucare, Open Diagnostic Imaging and other properties and assets. In truth, however Giventer controlled, managed and received income from these entities and made all decisions about how their income would be distributed. Shavabskaya falsely testified that she owned the companies and that Giventer did not own or operate them. Additionally, both Giventer and Shavabskaya knew and falsely denied under oath any ownership interest in these entities in order to deceive, frustrate and prevent creditors and the bankruptcy Trustee from identifying and collecting assets as part of the bankruptcy estate to be distributed for the benefit of creditors.

Sentencing of both Giventer and Shavabskaya on the bankruptcy fraud conspiracy guilty pleas is scheduled on September 24, 2012. Each faces a maximum sentence of up to five years in federal prison and a fine up to $250,000.

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 proper 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 Legal Representation or More Information

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

Texas Healthcare Operator’s Guilty Plea To Bankruptcy Fraud Conspiracy Highlights Broad Prosecution Risks

May 16, 2012

The recent guilty pleas of the former operator of Texas-based ambulance and imaging companies and his wife to conspiring to commit bankruptcy fraud shows the risks of misrepresentation in official documents, as well as the diverse range of tools and options that federal officials wield as part of their crusade against what they perceive as wrongdoers in the health care system.

Conspiracy To Commit Bankruptcy Plea

On May 14, 2012, Michael Giventer pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud. Giventer’s wife, Julia Shavabskaya, previously pleaded guilty to the same charge on April 30, 2012.

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 proper 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 Legal Representation or More Information

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

Orthofix Medical Device Exec Awaits Sentencing After Pleading Guilty To Violating Anti-Kickback Law

April 10, 2012

The conviction today of a former vice president of sales of the medical device company Orthofix shows the risks that health care providers, medical device, Pharma, and other health care suppliers, and their leaders risk when engaging in consulting arrangements or other dealings that could raise scrutiny as aggressive under federal or state anti-kickback or other health care laws. The prosecution and conviction shows the advisability for health care suppliers, providers and their leaders to carefully evaluate proposed consulting and other arrangements between health care providers and health care providers for potential exposures to prosecution under Federal and State Anti-Kickback, STARK and other health care fraud and referral laws.

Thomas P. Guerrieri, former vice president of sales of medical device company Orthofix, now faces sentencing on July 11 after pleading guilty earlier today (April 10, 2012) to violating the Anti-Kickback statute. At sentencing, Guerrieri faces up to five years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, a $250,000 fine and forfeiture.

Federal prosecutors charged that while serving as vice-president of sales at Orthofix, a manufacturer and provider of bone growth stimulator devices, Guerrieri facilitated signing up a surgeon in New York to a “consulting” agreement with the company to induce the surgeon to prescribe the company’s bone growth stimulators. According to federal officials, the company paid the surgeon tens of thousands of dollars when he provided little or no consulting services in return. Federal officials charged that although the surgeon was supposed to document his services in time sheets provided to the company, the company paid him monthly consulting fees for years even though Guerrieri did not fill out these forms or provide any legitimate consulting services.

Federal officials charged that after the surgeon became concerned about increased government scrutiny of consulting arrangements such as his in 2007, the surgeon, Guerrieri, and a territory manager for the company decided to create and backdate time sheets going back to 2006 to make it seem as though the surgeon filled out these forms contemporaneously and performed legitimate consulting services. In addition, at the surgeon’s request, Guerrieri and the territory manager obtained a letter from the company’s general counsel indicating that the surgeon was compliant under his consulting agreement, which was not true. Federal officials had charged that Guerrieri did these things to induce the surgeon to continue to order bone growth stimulators from the company.

Federal officials also charged that Guerrieri and others executed a scheme to pay Michael Cobb, a RI physician’s assistant, for each bone growth stimulator ordered by Cobb. The surgeon had delegated to Cobb the choice of which stimulator his patients received. For years, the device company paid Cobb $50-$100 for each stimulator that his surgeon prescribed. In Sept. 2008, the device company issued a policy expressly prohibiting any payments to anyone who works for a surgeon that prescribes the company’s products. Guerrieri and others worried that if they could no longer pay Cobb under the new policy, the company might lose Cobb’s business. Thus, Guerrieri, and others, devised a scheme where Cobb continued to be paid for each order, but the payments were made by a vendor of the device company, making it more difficult to trace the paper trail back to the device company. Cobb is also charged with violating the Anti-Kickback law. Cobb’s plea hearing is set for April 19, 2012. The continuing success of these and other federal health care fraud investigation and enforcement efforts continue to show 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

While media attention has focused most heavily on federal fraudulent claims enforcement, the conviction of Guerrieri and the prosecution of Cobb show that federal officials also remain committed to enforcement of the Anti-Kickback and STARK laws.

In light of the heightened enforcement risks, health care providers and others conducting business that may be affected by these laws should exercise care to adopt and administer effective policies to keep up compliance with these and other requirements. Health care providers and suppliers should consider auditing the adequacy of existing practices, tightening training, oversight and controls on marketing, consulting, referral and other business transactions, billing and other regulated conduct. In addition to constantly reviewing and enforcing policies designed to maintain compliance with these requirements, health care providers and suppliers also should consistently recommunicate and reaffirm their commitment to compliance to workforce members and constituents and take other appropriate steps to help prevent, detect and timely redress anti-kickback and other prohibited referrals and 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: aniti-kickback, 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, STARK | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Care Providers Also Should Guard Against Rising Exposures To State Health Care Fraud & Other Enforcement Risks

April 9, 2012

With all the media hype over federal health care fraud enforcement and prosecution, the growing emphasis and success of state regulators in finding and prosecuting health care fraud often goes relatively unnoticed. Health care providers concerned with managing their risks should exercise care to properly recognize and manage these state law exposures to promote an effective fraud compliance and risk management program.

Driven both by federal program mandates and daunting state health care entitlement program budget expenditures, state regulators and law enforcement teams across the United States increasingly are active and vital participants in the expanding federal and state war against health care fraud and other health care provider misconduct.

Highlights of some of the more significant state health care fraud enforcement activities over the past month include:

On April 4, a Gwinnett County Georgia Grand Jury indicted the former owner of a company known as Diversified Family Solutions and three employees for unlawfully obtaining approximately $980,000.00 in Medicaid payments through a fraudulent billing scheme. See Owner and Employees of Metro Atlanta Mental Health Services Company Indicted for Stealing Nearly $1 Million from Medicaid
In a series of announcements made on April 4-5, 2012, 9 states and the federal government announced a massive settlement with WellCare Health Plans, Inc., which resolves Medicare Fraud allegations against Wellcare by the states and federal regulators. See e.g., Indiana Medicaid to receive $922K in WellCare settlement; Connecticut Benefits From Settlement With WellCare on Medicaid Fraud Charges; Florida Recovers More Than $54 Million From WellCare in Medicaid Fraud Settlement
On April 5, 2012, the Oklahoma Attorney General announced that an Oklahoma City counselor has been named in a multicounty grand jury indictment unsealed in Oklahoma County District Court. Vickie Rhea Yearwood, 53, a licensed professional counselor through Beacon Pointe LLC and Specialized Alternatives for Families and Youth, was indicted on two counts of Medicaid fraud. See, OKC Counselor Indicted for Medicaid Fraud
On April 4, 2012, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announced the arrests and indictment of four ringleaders of a massive scheme to distribute black market prescription HIV drugs and defraud the Medicaid Program of $155 million. After an investigation code-named “Operation Black Market Meds,” the Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit shut down an illegal operation that was distributing HIV prescription drugs obtained on the black market through MOMS pharmacy, a high-volume pharmacy with satellites in Suffolk County and Brooklyn. MOMS, and its parent company Allion Healthcare, then dispensed the illegally obtained drugs to Medicaid recipients, and billed the New York State Medicaid program for these un-sellable drugs. See, A.G. Schneiderman Announces Arrests in $274 Million Black Market Prescription Drug Operation
On April 3, 2012, Tennessee officials announced charges against a Montgomery County woman for TennCare fraud in a case involving prescription drugs. See, Montgomery County Woman Charged With Tenncare Drug Fraud
On March 30, 2012, Massachusetts officials announced that a medical testing company will pay $20 million in restitution to resolve allegations of an elaborate kickback scheme that cost the Massachusetts Medicaid program (MassHealth) millions of dollars for unnecessary urine drug screens. See, Calloway Laboratories Pays $20 Million to Resolve Allegations of Kickbacks and Fraud on State Medicaid Program
On March 27, 2012, Texas Attorney General announced a Texas court’s approval of “The largest recovery of taxpayer funds in a Texas civil Medicaid fraud case.”Under an agreed final judgment entered this morning, Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries must pay $158 million to resolve the State’s enforcement action charging Janssen Pharmaceutica with defrauding the taxpayer-funded Texas Medicaid program. See, Statement Regarding Final Agreed Judgment in State’s Medicaid Fraud Case Against Johnson & Johnson

Between March 22 and March 27, 2012, the Tennessee Department of Finance & Administration filed charges against a variety of individuals for TennCare fraud arising out of alleged misrepresentations and billings for prescription drugs to get healthcare benefits. See, Williamson County Woman Charged With TennCare Fraud ; Two Mid-State Residents Charged With TennCare Fraud Involving Prescription Drugs Two Women Plead Guilty To TennCare Drug Fraud
On March 22, 2012, Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell announced the trial setting in the state’s lawsuit against more than 100 drug manufacturers beginning on n March 4, 2013, June 17, 2013, and October 7, 2013. See Trial Dates Set in Cases Against Drug Manufacturers
On March 22, 2012, the Georgia Attorney General announced the sentencing of Leetra Dometric Langston to five years of probation and restitution for following his plea to one count of Medicaid Fraud for his role in a scheme involving a businesses that purported to be a residential treatment program for homeless teenage girls. Langston was the last of three defendants to plead guilty to the scheme. See Final Defendant Pleads Guilty to Medicaid Fraud in Scheme Involving Homeless and Pregnant Teenagers
On March 22, 2012, Louisiana announced that a Delhi woman has been arrested and charged with three-counts of Exploitation of the Infirmed. Delhi Woman Arrested for Exploitation of the Infirmed
On March 21, 2012, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit announced it filed charges against the owner of a Midwest City youth counseling agency for billing services to children that parents say didn’t happen. See, AG Pruitt Charges MWC Counselor with Medicaid Fraud
On March 20, 2012, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange announced that a former bookkeeper employed by a Wetumpka nursing home was sentenced to prison for the theft of $115,734 of residents’ funds from the facility. See, AG Announces Prison Sentence Of Former Bookkeeper For Theft Of $115,734 From Wetumpka Nursing Home
On March 19, 2012, the Tennessee Department of Finance & Administration brought charges against a Davidson County woman is charged with TennCare fraud involving “doctor shopping,” or using TennCare to go to multiple doctors in a short time period to obtain controlled substances. See, Davidson Co. Woman Charged With TennCare “Doctor Shopping”
On March 19, 2012, Tennessee Department of Finance & Administration charged an Anderson County woman is charged with TennCare fraud for using TennCare benefits to pay for what officials say was a fraudulent prescription. See, Anderson County Woman Charged With TennCare Fraud
On March 19, 2012, Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen announced that Wisconsin has joined other states and the federal government and reached an agreement in principle with KV Pharmaceutical Company to settle allegations that the company failed to tell the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that two unapproved products did not qualify for coverage under federal and state health care programs. See, St. Louis-based KV Pharmaceutical to Settle Medicaid False Claims Allegations
On March 16, 2012, Attorney General Jeffrey S. Chiesa announced that the owner of a now-defunct Newark mental health and substance abuse counseling center was sentenced to state prison after being convicted of defrauding Medicaid. See, Former Owner of Counseling Center Sentenced to State Prison for Defrauding Medicaid
On March 15, 2012, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine said that Alicia K. Mahone, of Cleveland, was convicted of billing for home health care not provided for $20,000. Mahone regularly submitted bills, from April to December 2010, to the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services claiming to have provided 35 hours of patient care to a Medicaid recipient, while only having provided 15 hours. See, Attorney General DeWine Announces Conviction in Medicaid Billing Fraud
Also on March 15, 2012, New Jersey Attorney General Jeffrey S. Chiesa announced that a certified nursing assistant who worked at a Livingston nursing home was charged with allegedly conspiring to take a photograph of an elderly resident’s genitalia and have the photograph posted on Facebook. Her friend, and co-defendant, was charged on March 14 in the alleged scheme. See, Certified Nursing Assistant Among Two Charged with Invasion of Privacy After Photo of a Nursing Home Resident’s Genitalia Posted on Facebook
On March 13, 2012, Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne announced that a Glendale man has been sentenced to prison and probation for prescription drug fraud. See, Horne Announces Prison Sentence For Glendale Man Convicted Of Prescription Drug Fraud
Also on March 13, 2012, New Jersey Attorney General Jeffrey S. Chiesa announced that a former Matawan doctor pleaded guilty to dispensing controlled dangerous substances by writing prescriptions for medically unnecessary pharmaceutical narcotics in return for cash payments. See, Former Matawan Doctor Pleads Guilty to Dispensing Pharmaceutical Narcotics for Cash
On March 13, 2012, Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne announced that a guilty verdict in the health care fraud trial of Julianne Mari Lane, a home health worker in Tucson. See, Home Health Care Worker Convicted For Fraud Of Vulnerable Adult
On March 13, 2012, New Jersey Attorney General Jeffrey S. Chiesa announced that a Newark pharmacist has pleaded guilty for his role in a scheme in which pharmacy owners and employees purchased prescriptions including HIV/AIDS drugs from indigent patients so Medicaid could be billed for medications that were never actually dispensed. See, Essex County Pharmacist Pleads Guilty to Medicaid Fraud in False Billing Scheme
On March 7, 2012, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, Michigan Department of Human Services Director Maura D. Corrigan and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General announced that the Attorney General’s Public Integrity Unit charged a former City of Detroit employee with one felony count of fraud. See, Schuette, Corrigan Announce Fraud Charge against Ex-City of Detroit DHS Social Worker
On March 7, 2012, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine announced that Janet Root, 35, was sentenced for theft of patient funds at the Arcadia Nursing Center in Coolville, Ohio. Root was sentenced to five years of community control and ordered to pay $31,471 in restitution. She also received a nine-year suspended sentence after she pled guilty last November to four counts of Theft from the Elderly, fourth-degree felonies, and two counts of Forgery, fourth-degree felonies. See, Attorney General DeWine Announces Sentencing in Theft from Nursing Center Residents
On March 7, 2012, Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler today announced that Maryland, along with multiple states and the federal government, has reached agreements with K-V Pharmaceutical Company to settle allegations that the company caused false claims to be submitted to the Medicaid program. Under the K-V agreement, K-V will pay the states and the federal government a total of $17 million to compensate Medicaid and various federal health care programs for the violations. The federal share of the settlement is $10,158,695, and the states’ share of the settlement is $6,841,305. Maryland will receive $36,377. See, AG Gansler Secures Settlement with K-V Pharmaceutical
Also on March 7, 2012, Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler announced Dava Pharmaceuticals, Inc. agreement, (“Dava”) had agreed to a settlement of the State’s allegations that Dava failed to pay required rebates to the Medicaid program. Dava will pay $11 million to Medicaid and other government health care programs. Maryland will receive $7,054 from the settlement. See, AG Gansler Secures Recovery from Dava Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

This lengthy and growing list of state prosecution and other enforcement actions encompass both fraudulent billing activities of the nature commonly drawing the attention of federal health care fraud enforcement teams, as well as a wide range of other misconduct often not targeted by federal investigators.

Coupled with the growth and success of 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. When taking these efforts, the lengthy and growing list of successful state prosecutions show the need for health care providers and payers to make sure their compliance and risk management activities provide adequate protection of their organizations and people against both the highly publicized federal health care fraud war, and the much quieter, but equally active state health care fraud effort.

Health Care Providers Must Act To Manage Risks

In response to the growing emphasis and effectiveness of Federal and state officials in investigating and taking action against health care providers and organizations, health care providers should constantly work to keep up and strengthen their defensive shield against health care fraud.

Among other things, health care providers 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 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 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 set up and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to Board of Medicine, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns.

If you 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

Halfway House Owner Gets 24 Months Imprisonment For Health Care Fraud & Kickback Conviction

March 14, 2012

Broward County, Florida halfway house owner and operator Barry Nash was sentenced to to 24 months in prison followed by three years of supervised relief for his role in a Medicare fraud kickback scheme that funneled patients through a fraudulent mental health company, the Department of Justice, the FBI and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced today (March 13, 2012).

Nash pleaded guilty on Jan. 9, 2012, to one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud. In his guilty plea, Nash admitted that, in exchange for illegal health care kickbacks, he agreed to refer Medicare beneficiaries who resided at Starter House to American Therapeutic Corporation (ATC) and American Sleep Institute (ASI), a company related to ATC. Nash knew that ATC and ASI fraudulently billed Medicare for partial hospitalization program (PHP) services and sleep treatment purportedly provided to his referrals.

PHP is a form of intensive mental health treatment.

According to court documents, ATC’s principals paid kickbacks to owners and operators of assisted living facilities and halfway houses and to patient brokers in exchange for delivering ineligible patients to ATC and ASI. In some cases, the patients received a portion of those kickbacks. Throughout the course of the ATC conspiracy, millions of dollars in kickbacks were paid in exchange for Medicare beneficiaries who did not qualify for PHP services.

Ultimately, the Justice Department alledges ATC and ASI billed Medicare for more than $200 million in medically unnecessary services.

According to the plea agreement, Nash’s participation in the fraud resulted in more than $959,901 in fraudulent billing to the Medicare program.

ATC, its management company Medlink Professional Management Group Inc., and various owners, managers, doctors, therapists, patient brokers and marketers of ATC, Medlink and ASI, were charged with various health care fraud, kickback, money laundering and other offenses in two indictments unsealed on Feb. 15, 2011. ATC, Medlink and nine of the individual defendants have pleaded guilty or have been convicted at trial. Other defendants are scheduled for trial April 9, 2012, before U.S. District Judge Patricia A. Seitz.

Feds Continue To Turn Up HEAT on Health Care Fraud

The prosecution of Nash and other defendants charged in connection with the Florida mental health investigation are one of a growing number of prosecutions and convictions resulting from the federal HEAT Task Force health care fraud enforcement efforts empowered with new data mining, statistical profiling and other new fraud fighting resources created under the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) and other recently enacted laws. Using these new tools, the HEAT Task Force and other federal health care fraud investigators are enjoying record successes in deploying these tools to achieve successful health care fraud prosecutions. Government’s health care fraud prevention and enforcement efforts recovered nearly $4.1 billion in taxpayer dollars in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 according to the FY 2011 Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program Report jointly released by HHS and the Justice Department on February 14, 2012.

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

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

Comment Period Extended To 3/21 On Proposed Extension Of Minimum Wage, Overtime To In-Home Caregivers

March 9, 2012

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) has extended until March 12 the comment period for its proposed rule to provide minimum wage and overtime protections for nearly 2 million workers who provide in-home care services. See here.

In December, 2011, the WHD published a proposed rule that would expand minimum wage and overtime protections to all home care workers employed by third parties, such as staffing agencies. It also would clarify that individuals performing skilled in-home care work are entitled to minimum wage and overtime pay. However, individuals engaged by families for true companionship or fellowship activities, such as visiting with friends or pursuing hobbies, still would be considered “companions” and not be required to meet the act’s labor standards provisions. See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [1] (NPRM).

Among other things, the NPRM proposes to revise the companionship and live-in worker regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):

To more clearly define the tasks that may be performed by an exempt companion;
To limit the companionship exemption to companions employed only by the family or household using the services; and
To provide that third party employers, such as in-home care staffing agencies, could not claim the companionship exemption or the overtime exemption for live-in domestic workers, even if the employee is jointly employed by the third party and the family or household.

When Congress expanded protections to “domestic service” workers in 1974, it exempted casual babysitters and companions for the aged and inform from both the minimum wage and overtime pay requirements of the FLSA and exempted live-in domestic workers from the overtime pay requirement only. While WHD has left regulations governing this exemption substantially unchanged since first issued in 1975, it now believes the in-home care service industry. workers employed by in-home care staffing agencies are not the workers that Congress envisioned in enacting the companionship exemption (i.e., neighbors performing elder sitting).

As a result of these determines, WHD is moving to modify its existing rules to broaden protections for professionally employed home care workers as well as outreaching to inform employers and workers about the requirements that it perceives employers of these workers must meet.

The proposed tightening of regulations for home health workers follows a general toughening by WHD of its regulation and enforcement of wage and hour laws in the health care industry. 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.

Many have expressed concerns about the potential added costs that changes proposed in the NPRM would trigger in providing in home health and companion care for aging and disabled family members. The extension of the comment deadline provides added time for members of the public concerned about these rules to share their input.

Whether or not the proposed rule is adopted, the growing aggressiveness of the WHD and private plaintiffs to bring actions against employers violating minimum wage and overtime rules means 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 modifications 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 frequently worked by home care givers, their employers also generally should pay particular attention to the adequacy of practices for recordkeeping.

For More Information Or Assistance

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

If you 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, FLSA, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, HEAT, Home Care, home health, licensure, Medicaid, Medical Board, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, physical therapy, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

2 Doctors, 4 Nurses Join 11 Defendants Charged in $20M Home Health Fraud, Kickback, Money Laundering & Tax Evasion Sting

March 8, 2012

Federal officials continued their battle against health care fraud in the home health care industry, federal prosecutors added two physicians and four registered nurses to the growing list of defendants indicted for their participation in what federal prosecutors claim was a Chicago area home health care fraud scam that allegedly swindled Medicare of at least $20 million over five years. The Justice Department’s announcement of the new Chicago indictments follows their February 28, 2012 announcement of indictments against a Dallas-area physician, his medical practice office manager and five home health agency owners on charges of submitting more than $375 million in fraudulent Medicare claims for home health services.

Chicago Home Health Fraud Sting

With the new indictments announced in Chicago today, a total of 12 defendants are now face federal criminal charges in connection with a health care fraud investigation into the operations of two suburban Chicago home health care businesses operated by the initial defendant, Jacinto “John” Gabriel, Jr. Federal officials charge that 9 of the 11 new defendants allegedly conspired with Gabriel to bill millions of dollars in false claims for reimbursement of home health care services purportedly provided to Medicare beneficiaries, which federal official allege never were provided or were not medically necessary. Prosecutors claim Gabriel and his co-schemers allegedly used the proceeds for various purposes, including: using cash to gamble at casinos in the Chicago area and Las Vegas, and to buy automobiles, jewelry and real estate in the United States and the Philippines; to perpetuate the businesses by paying his employees and providing them with gifts, and to bribe physicians and pay kickbacks to others in exchange for patient referrals.

Gabriel, who has no formal medical training, medical degrees, or licenses to practice as a health care professional, initially was arrested and charged alone in a 15-count indictment last summer. Following the issuance of a superseding indictment on March 7, he now is charged with one count of health care fraud conspiracy, 43 counts of health care fraud, 11 counts of money laundering, and four counts of federal income tax evasion.

According to the indictment, Gabriel did not identify himself as an owner, but in fact exercised ownership and control over Perpetual Home Health, Inc., based in Oak Forest, and Legacy Home Healthcare Services, which was located on the city’s north side. Both firms now have ceased operating and no longer receive Medicare payments. Between May 2006 and January 2011, federal prosecutors allege Perpetual submitted more than 14,000 Medicare claims seeking reimbursement for services allegedly provided to beneficiaries. As a result of those claims, Perpetual received more than $38 million in Medicare payments. Between 2008 and January 2011, Legacy submitted more than 2,000 claims for Medicare reimbursement and received more than $6 million. Neither Perpetual nor Legacy had any sources of revenue other than Medicare funds, the indictment states.

In addition to the charges against Gabriel, the 69-count superseding indictment returned March 7, 2012 by a federal grand jury charges:

Jassy Gabriel, Gabriel’s brother, the nominal majority owner of Perpetual and its president, as well as a registered nurse faces one count of health care fraud conspiracy and one count of filing a false federal income tax return;
Stella Lubaton, a registered nurse who was minority owner, officer and administrator of Perpetual with one count of health care fraud conspiracy, 16 counts of health care fraud, one count of filing a false federal income tax return, and one count of violating the medical anti-kickback statute;
Nessli Reyes, a registered nurse who was President and a part-owner of Legacy with one count of health care fraud conspiracy and nine counts of health care fraud;
Charito Dela Torre, a physician charged with one count of health care fraud conspiracy, 12 counts of health care fraud, and three counts of federal income tax evasion;
Ricardo Gonzales, a physician charged with one count of health care fraud conspiracy, 19 counts of health care fraud, and one count of violating the medical anti-kickback statute;
Rosalie Gonzales, a registered nurse and Ricardo Gonzales’ daughter, charged with one count of violating the medical anti-kickback statute;
Perpetual data entry employees James Davis, Francis Galang, and Michael Pacis each face one count each of health care fraud conspiracy;
Regelina “Queenie” David,a Perpetual quality assurance employee, faces charges of one count of health care fraud conspiracy;
Kennedy Lomillo, who provided bookkeeping and payroll services to Perpetual and prepared a corporate tax return for Perpetual, as well as an individual return for Lubaton, was charged with two counts of aiding and abetting the preparation of false income tax returns; and
The indictment also seeks forfeiture of $20 million against the Gabriel brothers and Lubaton.

Federal officials charge that as part of the conspiracy, Gabriel, acting in various combinations with the nine co-conspirator, allegedly obtained personal information of Medicare beneficiaries to bill Medicare without the beneficiaries’ knowledge or consent; paid bribes and kickbacks in cash and by check, directly and indirectly, to physicians and others in exchange for referrals of patients to Perpetual and Legacy; created false patient files to support fraudulent Medicare claims and submitted false claims based on those records; used Medicare proceeds to pay themselves and others who assisted in carrying out the scheme; and concealed the fraud proceeds by directing Perpetual and Legacy to issue checks payable to fictitious entities, John Gabriel’s friends and associates.

Among other details, the indictment alleges that John and Jassy Gabriel, Lubaton, and Reyes authorized Perpetual and Legacy to pay various amounts, ranging between $200 and $800, to employees and others, including indirectly to Ricardo Gonzales, for each patient they referred and enrolled in home health care services. John Gabriel and others also cold-called Medicare beneficiaries to try to persuade them to enroll with Perpetual and Legacy.

As part of allegedly falsifying patient records, John Gabriel directed Perpetual and Legacy employees, including Davis, Galang, and Pacis, to systematically complete standard forms by listing the same false diagnoses, including arthropathy (joint disease) and hypertension, which enabled them to claim a higher level of Medicare reimbursement, according to the charges.

In addition to the fraud counts, the money laundering charges allege that between October and December 2010, Gabriel cashed 11 checks in amounts under $10,000 — usually $9,000 and all involving fraud proceeds — to avoid federal currency transaction reporting requirements.

The four tax evasion counts against John Gabriel allege that for calendar years 2006 through 2009, he failed to pay taxes totaling approximately $889,062 on gross income totaling more than $2.82 million. The three tax evasion counts against Dela Torre allege that for calendar years 2005 through 2007, she failed to pay taxes totaling approximately $158,405 on gross income totaling more than $560,000.

Lubaton was charged with filing a false tax return for 2007 for allegedly failing to report all of her income, which was in excess of the $546,442 that she reported, and Lomillo was charged with aiding and abetting the preparation of her false return. Jassy Gabriel was charged with filing a false tax return for 2007 for allegedly failing to report all of his adjusted gross income, which exceeded the $603,974 that he reported, and Lomillo was charged with aiding and abetting the preparation of his false return.

Health care fraud conspiracy and each count of health care fraud carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000, or an alternate fine totaling twice the loss or twice the gain, whichever is greater, as well as mandatory restitution. Each count of money laundering carries a maximum 20-year prison term and a maximum fine of $500,000. Violating the medical anti-kickback statute carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Each count of tax evasion carries a five-year maximum prison term, while each count of filing a false income tax return carries a three-year maximum, and a $250,000 fine. In addition, defendants convicted of tax offenses must pay the costs of prosecution and remain liable for any and all back taxes, as well as a potential civil fraud penalty of 75 percent of the underpayment plus interest. If convicted, the Court must impose a reasonable sentence under federal statutes and the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines.

HEAT Task Force Honing In On Home Health Care Fraud

In recent months, federal health care fraud investigators have used statistical profiling and other tools to find and target fraudulent practices in the home health industry. The Chicago indictments announced March 8 follow the Justice Department’s February 28, 2012 indictment of a Dallas-area physician, the office manager of his medical practice, and five home health agency owners for involvement in a home health care fraud conspiracy that federal prosecutors allege defrauded Medicare of $375 million. Justice Department officials say the conduct charged in the Dallas indictment represents the single largest fraud amount orchestrated by one doctor in the history of the HEAT initiative. Both the Chicago and Dallas indictments resulted from the efforts of Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations conducted by the Health Care Fraud Prevention & Enforcement Action Team (HEAT). HEAT 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 anti-fraud laws around the country. Federal prosecutors and investigators credit statistical profiling and other new tools in their fraud detection and enforcement efforts. See, e.g., Data Mining, Statistical Profiling Play Key Role In Arrest of Dallas Doctor, Office Manager & 5 Home Health Agency Owners.

These home health care fraud prosecutions are part of the ongoing and expanding Federal health care fraud enforcement effort that Federal officials credit with having recovered nearly $4.1 billion in taxpayer dollars in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011. See FY 2011 Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program Report. The Justice Department and HHS credit this fraud investigation and enforcement success to their vigorous use of enhanced fraud investigation and enforcement tools created under the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) and other recently enacted laws. 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.

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 prepare 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

Data Mining, Statistical Profiling Play Key Role In Arrest of Dallas Doctor, Office Manager & 5 Home Health Agency Owners

February 29, 2012

Volume, Cutting Edge Treatment or Other Statistical Variations in Care Patterns

Increasingly Raise Potential Fraud Examination Risk

Dallas Home Health Care Indictments

Filed in the Northern District of Texas, the indictment unsealed February 28, 2012 charges Jacques Roy, M.D., 54, of Rockwall, Texas; Cynthia Stiger, 49, of Dallas; Wilbert James Veasey Jr., 60, of Dallas; Cyprian Akamnonu, 63, of Cedar Hill, Texas; Patricia Akamnonu, RN, 48, of Cedar Hill; Teri Sivils, 44, of Midlothian, Texas; and Charity Eleda, RN, 51, of Rowlett, Texas, each with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud. Roy also is charged with nine counts of substantive health care fraud. Veasey, Patricia Akamnonu and Eleda each are charged with three counts of health care fraud. Eleda also is charged with three counts of making false statements related to a Medicare claim

According to the indictment, Dr. Roy owned and operated Medistat Group Associates P.A. in the Dallas area. Medistat was an association of health care providers that primarily provided home health certifications and performed patient home visits. Federal officials charge that Dr. Roy allegedly certified or directed the certification of more than 11,000 individual patients from more than 500 HHAs for home health services during the past five years. Between January 2006 and November 2011, Medistat certified more Medicare beneficiaries for home health services and had more purported patients than any other medical practice in the United States. Federal officials charge these certifications allegedly resulted in more than $350 million being fraudulently billed to Medicare and more than $24 million being fraudulently billed to Medicaid by Medistat and HHAs.

The indictment charges Dr. Roy used HHAs as recruiters so that Medistat could bill unnecessary home visits and medical services. The indictment charges three of the HHAs Dr. Roy used as part of the scheme were Apple of Your Eye Healthcare Services Inc., owned and operated by Stiger and Veasey; Ultimate Care Home Health Services Inc., owned and operated by Cyprian and Patricia Akamnonu; and Charry Home Care Services Inc., owned and operated by Eleda. According to the indictment, Veasey, Akamnonu, Eleda and others recruited beneficiaries to be placed at their HHAs so that they could bill Medicare for the unnecessary and not provided services. As part of her role in the scheme, Eleda allegedly visited The Bridge Homeless Shelter in Dallas to recruit homeless beneficiaries staying at the facility, paying recruiters $50 per beneficiary they found at The Bridge and directed to Eleda’s vehicle parked outside the shelter’s gates.

According to the indictment, Medistat maintained a “485 Department,” named for the number of the Medicare form on which the plan of care was documented. Dr. Roy allegedly instructed Medistat employees to complete the 485s by either signing his name by hand or by using his electronic signature on the document. Federal officials claim Dr. Roy and other Medistat physicians used this process to certify and recertify plans of care so that HHAs also were able to bill Medicare for home health services that were not medically necessary and not provided. In addition, Dr. Roy allegedly performed unnecessary home visits and ordered unnecessary medical services.

Apple allegedly submitted claims to Medicare from Jan. 1, 2006, through July 31, 2011, totaling $9,157,646 for home health services to Medicare beneficiaries that were medically unnecessary and not provided. Dr. Roy or another Medistat physician certified the services. From Jan. 1, 2006, to Aug. 31, 2011, Ultimate submitted claims for medically unnecessary home health services totaling $43,184,628. Charry allegedly submitted fraudulent claims from Aug. 1, 2008, to June 30, 2011, totaling $468,858 in medically unnecessary and not provided home health services.

The indictment alleges that Sivils, as Medistat’s office manager, helped facilitate the fraud scheme by, among other actions, supervising the processing of thousands of plans of care that contained Dr. Roy’s electronic signature and other Medistat physicians’ signatures, permitting HHAs to bill Medicare for unnecessary home health services and accepting cash payments from Cyprian Akamnonu in exchange for ensuring plans of care contained Dr. Roy or another Medistat physician’s signature.

As outlined in the government’s request to the court to detain Dr. Roy, in June 2011, CMS suspended provider numbers for Dr. Roy and Medistat based on credible allegations of fraud, thus ensuring Dr. Roy did not receive payment from Medicare. Immediately after the suspension, nearly all of Medistat’s employees started billing Medicare under the provider number for Medcare House Calls. The court document alleges that Dr. Roy was in fact in charge of day-to-day operations at Medcare, and that Dr. Roy continued to certify patients for home health despite the suspension.

Each charged count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and substantive health care fraud carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Each false statement charge carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The indictment also seeks forfeiture of numerous items including funds in bank accounts, a sailboat, vehicles and multiple pieces of property.

In announcing the indictment, Federal officials said an indictment is merely an allegation and defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

New Data Mining & Other Anti-Fraud Tools Credited

In announcing the indictments, federal officials credited new data analysis mining and other fraud fighting tools with playing a key role in uncovering the alleged misconduct leading to the indictment against the Medistat defendants and as well as growing list of other federal health care fraud defendants.

Of particular note in the Medistat investigation and a growing number of other cases are new data mining tools. To target resources to highly suspect behaviors, CMS has implemented the new Fraud Prevention System, which uses advanced predictive modeling technology to fight fraud. The system has been screening all Medicare fee-for-service claims before payment is made since June 30, 2011. Much like the predictive technologies used in the credit card industry, the Fraud Prevention System uses advanced technology to identify “suspicious behavior and billing irregularities.” By streaming claims on a prepayment basis, CMS and its investigative partners are able to more efficiently identify fraudulent claims and respond quickly to emerging trends.

The Medistat indictments illustrate how the HEAT team is using these new tools. “Using sophisticated data analysis we can now target suspicious billing spikes,” said HHS Inspector General Levinson. “In this case, our analysts discovered that in 2010, while 99 percent of physicians who certified patients for home health signed off on 104 or fewer people – Dr. Roy certified more than 5,000.”

In addition to the data mining tools highlighted in the Medistat indictments, other new tools helping to boost the success of federal health care fraud investigation and prosecution 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

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

3 Comments | 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

DOJ & HHS Health Care Fraud Enforcement Nets $4 Billion + In 2011

February 21, 2012

Government’s health care fraud prevention and enforcement efforts recovered nearly $4.1 billion in taxpayer dollars in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 according to the FY 2011 Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program Report jointly released by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) and the Justice Department on Valentines Day. This is the highest annual amount ever recovered from individuals and companies who attempted to defraud seniors and taxpayers or who sought payments to which they were not entitled. These latest statistics should leave little room for doubt that health care providers need to exercise care to manage fraud investigation and exposures risks.

The Justice Department and HHS credit this fraud investigation and enforcement success to their vigorous use of enhanced fraud investigation and enforcement tools created under the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) and other recently enacted laws, including:

Tough New Rules and Sentences for Criminals: The Affordable Care Act increases the federal sentencing guidelines for health care fraud offenses by 20-50 percent for crimes that involve more than $1 million in losses. The law establishes penalties for obstructing a fraud investigation or audit and makes it easier for the government to recapture any funds acquired through fraudulent practices. The law also makes it easier for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate potential fraud or wrongdoing at facilities like nursing homes. Convictions under the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program increased by over 27 percent (583 to 743) between 2009 and 2011, and the number of defendants facing criminal charges filed by federal prosecutors in 2011 increased by 74 percent compared with 2008 (1430 vs. 821).
Enhanced Screening and Other Enrollment Requirements:Last year CMS published rules to enforce some of the Affordable Care Act’s most powerful new fraud prevention tools.
- New requirements for providers and suppliers wishing to participate in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP who may pose a higher risk of fraud or abuse are now required to undergo a higher level of scrutiny. This scrutiny includes licensure checks and site visits to confirm legitimacy and location.
- To support the Affordable Care Act’s new requirements for risk-based provider enrollment CMS implemented a new Automated Provider Screening (APS) system in December 2011. The APS uses existing information from public and private sources to automatically and continuously verify information submitted on a provider’s Medicare enrollment application including licensure status. The new system replaces the time- and resource-intensive process of manual review of the enrollment application.
- In addition to the enhanced enrollment and screening requirements, the Affordable Care Act also allows the Secretary to impose a temporary moratorium on newly enrolling providers or suppliers of a particular type or in certain geographic areas if necessary to prevent or combat fraud, waste, and abuse. CMS will publish a Federal Register notice to announce any enrollment moratorium and to explain the agency’s rationale for its action.
Increased Coordination of Fraud Prevention Efforts: Many of the Affordable Care Act antifraud provisions increase coordination among states, CMS, and its law enforcement partners at the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and DOJ. For instance, the law expressly authorizes CMS, in consultation with OIG, to suspend Medicare payments to providers or suppliers during the investigation of a credible allegation of fraud. This initiative reverses a long-standing Medicare practice of paying claims then attempting to recoup funds if the claim is found to be an error or fraudulent. States must also withhold payments to Medicaid providers where there is a pending investigation of a credible allegation of fraud unless the State Medicaid agency has good cause not to do so. The Affordable Care Act also ensures that fraudulent providers and suppliers cannot move easily from state to state or between Medicare and Medicaid by requiring all states to terminate anyone whose billing privileges have been revoked by Medicare or who has been terminated by another state Medicaid program for cause.
Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT): One of the most visible examples of increased collaboration is the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT), a joint effort between HHS and DOJ to fight health care fraud. It has engaged law enforcement and professional staff at the highest levels of HHS and DOJ to increase coordination, intelligence sharing, and training among investigators, agents, prosecutors, analysts, and policymakers. A key component of HEAT is the Medicare Strike Force: interagency teams of analysts, investigators, and prosecutors who can target emerging or migrating fraud schemes, including fraud by criminals masquerading as health care providers or suppliers. In 2011, HEAT coordinated the largest-ever federal health care fraud takedown. In one action, Strike Force teams charged 115 defendants in nine cities, including doctors, nurses, health care company owners and executives, for their alleged participation in Medicare fraud schemes involving more than $240 million in false billing. In another takedown, Strike Force prosecution teams charged 91 defendants in eight cities for their alleged participation in a Medicare fraud scheme involving more than $290 million in false billings.
Use of State-of-the-Art Fraud Detection Technology: To target resources to highly suspect behaviors, CMS has implemented the new Fraud Prevention System, which uses advanced predictive modeling technology to fight fraud. The system has been screening all Medicare fee-for-service claims before payment is made since June 30, 2011. Much like the predictive technologies used in the credit card industry, the Fraud Prevention System uses advanced technology to identify suspicious behavior and billing irregularities. This targets investigative resources on areas of vulnerability that demand immediate attention and response. By streaming claims on a prepayment basis, CMS and its investigative partners are able to more efficiently identify fraudulent claims and respond quickly to emerging trends.
New Focus on Compliance and Prevention: Under the new law, some preventive measures focus on certain categories of providers and suppliers that historically have presented concerns, including Home Health agencies, and Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) suppliers. On November 17, 2010, CMS published final regulations authorized under the Affordable Care Act requiring physician certification of a patient’s “face-to-face” visit with an appropriate health care professional to ensure Medicare only pays for necessary and covered Medicare home health and hospice services. On July 12, 2011, CMS proposed “face-to-face” encounter requirements for Medicaid home health including medical supplies, equipment and appliances. Additional face-to-face requirements to combat fraud among Medicare DME suppliers will be proposed later this year.
Expanded Overpayment Recovery Efforts: The Affordable Care Act expands the Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) program to Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare Part D programs. The Medicaid RAC program became effective on January 1, 2012 and is projected to save $2.1 billion over the next five years, of which $900 million will be returned to states. These efforts build on the success of the Medicare fee-for-service RAC program which in fiscal year 2011 recouped nearly $800 million in overpayments.
New Durable Medical Equipment (DME) Requirements: Under a new risk-based approach to fighting fraud, CMS has focused its efforts on combating fraud among DME suppliers by instituting enhanced enrollment standards and screening requirements. On August 27, 2010, CMS issued final rules enhancing Medicare enrollment standards for DME suppliers such as more stringent operations and facilities requirements to ensure only legitimate suppliers can participate in Medicare. Additionally, the competitive bidding program is expected to save the Medicare program and its beneficiaries $28 billion over 10 years. The second phase of the program will be expanded from 9 to 100 metropolitan areas across the country.
New Resources to Fight Fraud: The Affordable Care Act provides an additional $350 million over 10 years to ramp up anti-fraud efforts, including increasing scrutiny of claims before they’ve been paid, investments in sophisticated data analytics, and an increased number of law enforcement agents and others to fight fraud in the health care system.
Greater Oversight of Private Insurance Abuses: The new law also provides enhanced tools and authorities to address abuses of multiple employer welfare arrangements and protect employers and employees from insurance scams. It also gives new powers to the Secretary and Inspector General to investigate and audit the health insurance exchanges. This, plus the new rules to ensure accountability in the insurance industry, will protect consumers and increase the affordability of health care.
Senior Medicare Patrols: As a part of the new resources dedicated to fighting fraud, the Obama Administration has significantly expanded funding for Senior Medicare Patrols – groups of senior citizen volunteers to educate and empower their peers to identify, prevent and report health care fraud. The 75 percent increased funding from FY2008 to FY 2011 has helped thousands of Medicare beneficiaries host thousands of community meetings and educational events to increase awareness of fraud among people with Medicare and to solicit their help in preventing fraud.

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

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

Texas Physicians Get New Option For Resolving Some Medical Board Complaints

January 19, 2012

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

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

Dismissal; or
Imposing public discipline.

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

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

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

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

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

For Help With Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

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

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Doctor, Employment, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Hospital, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Mental Heatlh, Peer Review, Physician, Physician Licensing | Tagged: discipline, Health Care, Medical Licensure, Physician, Sexual Misconduct | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Broad-Reaching Prosecution Of Individuals Participating In Operations Of Companies Convicted Of Fraud Shows Risks Of Participation

January 18, 2012

Convictions Show Growing Fraud Enforcement Risks Reach Broadly To Broad Range Of Actors

Health care owners and employees at all levels should heed the lesson shown from the continuing successful prosecution by the Justice Department against individuals ranging from owners to marketing employees for their participation in a Medicare fraud scheme allegedly orchestrated by the owners and operators of American Therapeutic Corporation (ATC); its management company, Medlink Professional Management Group Inc.; and the American Sleep Institute (ASI). The mounting guilty pleas and convictions obtained from individuals who participated in the execution of the scheme since the Justice Department secured guilty pleas from ATC, ASI and their owners shows that individuals electing to take part in aggressive Medicare referral or billing practices by their health care companies or other business partners stand a high risk of criminal prosecution if their organizations get caught engaging in health care fraud. The successful prosecutions shows the readiness of the Justice Department to prosecute individuals at all levels of organizations for their participation in health care fraud activities even after obtaining criminal convictions against the corporations and principles who were the primary actors in the scheme.

Health Care Fraud Scheme Prompts Continuing Series of Prosecutions

ATC and Medlink pleaded guilty in May 2011 to conspiracy to commit health care fraud. ATC also pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States and to pay and receive illegal health care kickbacks. On Sept. 16, 2011, the two corporations were sentenced to five years of probation per count and ordered to pay restitution of $87 million. While both corporations have been defunct since their owners were arrested in October 2010, the Justice Department has continued its prosecution of a broad range of other individuals that it charges participated in the scheme.

Following the announcement of a January 17, 2012 guilty plea from Miami-area health care marketing representative Sandra Jimenez, Federal officials credit the investigation and prosecution activities of the Health Care Fraud Task Force with netting guilty pleas or trial convictions from ATC, Medlink and nine of the individual defendants indicted in February 2011 for their involvement in the alleged health care fraud conspiracy that the Justice Department claims resulted in the submission of $200 million in fraudulent Medicare claims. Other defendants are scheduled for trial on April 9, 2012. In addition to the prosecution of the criminal indictments, the Justice Department’s Civil Division also has filed a related civil action.

The guilty pleas, criminal convictions and other ongoing prosecutions stem from charges made against ATC, Medlink, ASI, Jimenez and several other parties in indictments unsealed on February 15, 2011 in the Southern District of Florida. Jimenez was indicted along with ATC, Medlink, and various owners, managers, doctors, therapists, patient brokers and marketers of ATC, Medlink and ASI for various health care fraud, kickback, money laundering and other offenses in the February 15, 2011 indictments.

According to court filings, ATC, Medlink and ASI were all Florida corporations headquartered in Miami. ATC operated purported partial hospitalization programs (PHPs) – a form of intensive treatment for severe mental illness – in seven different locations throughout South Florida and Orlando. ASI purported to provide diagnostic sleep disorder testing. ATC’s owners and operators paid kickbacks to owners and operators of assisted living facilities (ALFs) and halfway houses and to patient brokers in exchange for delivering ineligible patients to ATC and ASI. In some cases, Justice Department officials say the patients received a portion of those kickbacks. Throughout the course of the ATC and ASI conspiracy, Justice Department officials say millions of dollars in kickbacks were paid in exchange for Medicare beneficiaries, who did not qualify for PHP services, to attend treatment programs that were not legitimate PHPs. ATC and ASI then billed Medicare for the medically unnecessary services. According to court filings, to obtain the cash required to support the kickbacks, the co-conspirators laundered millions of dollars of payments from Medicare.

Owners To Serve 91 Months To 50 Years In Prison & Ordered To Pay Millions In Restitution

Not surprisingly, the owners and principles of the convicted corporations were the first parties individually convicted for their involvement in the alleged scheme.

Co-conspirator Margarita Acevedo, pleaded guilty on April 7, 2011, for her role in the fraud scheme. Acevedo was sentenced to 91 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release and ordered to pay more than $72 million in restitution, jointly and severally with her co-defendants.

On August 23, 2011, a jury found co-conspirator Judith Negron, one of the owners of ATC, guilty of all 24 felony counts charged in the February 2011 superseding indictment.

In September, 2011, Marianella Valera, the owner of ATC, was sentenced to 35 years in prison and ordered to pay more than $87 million in restitution, jointly and severally with her co-defendants. Valera was also sentenced to three years of supervised release following her prison term. Meanwhile, another ATC owner, Lawrence Duran, was sentenced on Sept. 16, 2011, to 50 years in prison for his role in the fraud scheme. Duran’s sentence is the longest prison sentence ever imposed in a Medicare Fraud Strike Force case. The sentencing came after Valera pleaded guilty in April, 2011 to 21 felony counts and Duran to 38 felony counts, including conspiracy to commit health care fraud, health care fraud, conspiracy to pay and receive illegal health care kickbacks, conspiracy to commit money laundering, money laundering and structuring to avoid reporting requirements.

In pleading guilty, Duran and Valera admitted that they orchestrated and executed a scheme to defraud Medicare beginning in 2002 and continuing until they were arrested in October 2010. Duran and Valera submitted false and fraudulent claims to Medicare through ATC. Duran and Valera also admitted to using the related company, ASI, to submit fraudulent Medicare claims.

According to court documents, Duran, Valera and others paid bribes and kickbacks to recruit Medicare beneficiaries to attend ATC and ASI and billed Medicare for treatments purportedly provided to these recruited patients. According to court documents, the treatments were medically unnecessary or never provided at all. Duran and Valera supported the kickbacks through an extensive money laundering scheme that aimed to hide the illicit conversion of Medicare payments to cash. The defendants and their co-conspirators used advanced measures to hide their fraudulent activities from Medicare and from law enforcement.

As part of the fraud scheme, Duran, Valera and others paid kickbacks to owners and operators of assisted living facilities (ALFs) and halfway houses and to patient brokers in exchange for delivering ineligible patients to ATC and ASI. In some cases, the patients received a portion of those kickbacks. The defendants and their co-conspirators actively recruited ALF and halfway house owners and operators and patient brokers to take part in the scheme. Throughout the course of the ATC and ASI conspiracy, millions of dollars in kickbacks were paid in exchange for Medicare beneficiaries, who did not qualify for PHP services, to attend treatment programs that were not legitimate PHP programs so that ATC and ASI could bill Medicare for more than $205 million in medically unnecessary services.

According to the superseding indictment to which they pleaded guilty, Duran, Valera and others caused the alteration of patient files and therapist notes for the purpose of making it falsely seem that patients being treated by ATC qualified for PHP treatments. According to court documents, Duran and Valera also instructed employees and doctors to alter diagnoses and medication types and levels to make it falsely seem that ATC patients qualified for PHP services. Duran, Valera and co-conspirators caused doctors to refer ATC patients to ASI even though the patients did not qualify for sleep studies.

According to the superseding indictment to which they pleaded guilty, the defendants also engaged in a money laundering conspiracy to enrich themselves and to provide cash for the millions of dollars in kickbacks paid to recruit Medicare beneficiaries. According to court documents, Duran and Valera used another company they owned and operated, Medlink Professional Management Inc., to hide the health care fraud and kickbacks from Medicare and law enforcement. Once Medicare paid ATC and ASI for the fraudulently billed services, Duran, Valera and others transferred millions of dollars to Medlink. They and others opened phony corporations to receive checks and wire transfers from both ATC and Medlink to convert that money into cash for their personal enrichment and for the payment of kickbacks. According to court documents, Duran, Valera and others cashed checks at different bank branches and different locations to conceal the true purpose of their activities and to evade reporting requirements.

Referring Facility Owner Pompano Faces Up To 10 Years Imprisonment & $250,000 Fine At Sentencing

Previously in November, 2011, Justice Department officials announced that the owner and operator of a Florida assisted living facility, Joseph B. Williams, pleaded guilty for his role in the Medicare fraud kickback scheme associated with the ATC fraud scheme. Williams admitted that in exchange for illegal health care kickbacks, he agreed to provide Medicare beneficiaries who resided at Avondale to ATC for mental health treatment through partial hospitalization program services. According to court documents, Williams was paid approximately $30 per beneficiary per day the beneficiary attended ATC. In his plea, Williams knew that ATC fraudulently billed Medicare for the partial hospitalization program treatment that his referrals purportedly received. Williams also admitted that he billed Medicaid for assisted living services purportedly provided at Avondale when, in fact, those services were never provided. Justice Department allegations reflect Williams paid owners and operators of halfway houses to obtain the personal identifiers of Medicaid enrollees who resided in those halfway houses and used that information to bill Medicaid fraudulently and also also billed Medicaid for assisted living services provided to residents of Avondale at times when they were not receiving any services.

According to the plea agreement, Williams’s participation in the fraud resulted in more than $2 million in fraudulent billing to the Medicare and Medicaid programs. At sentencing, scheduled on February 8, 2012, Williams faces a maximum of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for each count.

Starter House Owner Nash Faces Up To 10 Years Imprisonment and $250,000 Fine When Sentenced

Barry Nash, the owner and operator of the Broward County, Florida-area halfway house, Starter House, pleaded guilty on January 5, 2012 to one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud for his role in funneling patients through a fraudulent mental health company under the alleged fraud scheme.

In his plea, Nash admitted that, in exchange for illegal health care kickbacks, he agreed to refer Medicare beneficiaries who resided at Starter House to ACT for purported intensive mental health treatment through a partial hospitalization program and to ATC for purported sleep treatment. Nash admitted that he knew that ATC and ASI would fraudulently bill Medicare for the PHP treatment and sleep studies that his referrals would purportedly receive.

According to the plea agreement, Nash’s participation in the fraud resulted in more than $959,901 in fraudulent billing to the Medicare program. At sentencing, scheduled for March 8, 2012, Nash faces a maximum of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Marketing Representative Jimenez Faces Up To 15 Years In Prison When Sentenced

Most recently, the Justice Department, HHS and FBI jointly announced on January 17, 2012 that marketing representative Sandra Jimenez admitted she participated in the alleged fraud scheme involving ATC, ASI and Medlink when she pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to pay and receive illegal health care kickbacks.

In pleading guilty, Jimenez admitted that while serving as a marketer for ATC and ASI, she solicited beneficiaries and paid kickbacks to assisted living facility owners in exchange for the beneficiaries. The amount of the kickback was based on the number of days each patient spent at ATC. Jimenez also admitted that she participated in a separate Medicare fraud scheme through Priority Home Health, a Miami home health agency that submitted fraudulent claims to Medicare for home health services . Jimenez and her co-conspirators recruited Medicare beneficiaries to Priority Home Health who did not qualify for home health services.

According to the plea agreement, Jimenez’s participation in the ATC fraud and the Priority Home Health fraud resulted in $46 million in fraudulent billings to the Medicare program.

Sentencing for Jimenez is scheduled for June 27, 2012. She faces up to 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine after pleading guilty to participating in a Medicare fraud scheme that Justice Department officials say resulted in the submission of more than $200 million in fraudulent Medicare claims.

Prosecutions & Convictions Show Participants In Health Care Fraud Activities Face High Risks

The zealous prosecution by the Justice Department of these and other parties who participated in the operation and furtherance of the health care fraud scheme highlights the advisability for all health care organizations and each individual working in or with health care organizations to exercise care to fully understand, and avoid participation, in aggressive activities that could be considered health care fraud.

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 and other individuals involved in their operations, health care providers covered by federal false claims, referral, kickback and other health care fraud laws as well as other parties who participate in their operations should act to manage their exposures.

Health care organizations should take clear steps to manage compliance. Their management should make clear by policy and action their organization’s commitment to compliance. They also 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.

Meanwhile, individuals also need to assume responsibility for managing their own involvement to avoid stepping into the potential health care fraud fire.

Individuals should not assume that the prosecution of their corporations or their management leaders will insulate them from prosecution for their own participation in potential fraudulent activities will escape notice or prosecution.

Parties participating in health care marketing, billing or other activities that may give rise to potential fraud activities should take steps to develop their own strong understanding of the types of conduct that HHS or federal or state fraud investigators or prosecutors are likely to consider fraud and to avoid participating in these activities. Participants should take steps to resolve concerns about potential activities before engaging in conduct that might expose them or their companies to criminal or civil prosecution.

Individuals and corporations who participate in the conduct of activities targeted for audit or enforcement scrutiny also should consider planning in advance for the possible need to defend their actions by documenting the appropriateness of their actions as well as planning for the costs of defense that are likely to arise if their actions are called into question by making arrangements for insurance, indemnification or other sources to adequately fund these costs.

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 » | Academic medicine, Anti-KickBack, DME, Doctor, E-Prescribing, false claims act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Money Laundering, 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

Hospitals Can Expect CMS To Add Hospital Incident Reporting To Surveys In Response To OIG Report

January 6, 2012

Hospitals should prepare to face greater scrutiny from the Centers From Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) of the adequacy of their patient harm incident reporting.

CMS reportedly is preparing standards for its surveyors to use to assess the quality for hospital safety reporting in response to an Office of Inspector General (OIG) a report highly critical of the adequacy of hospital patient harm incident reporting systems. See Report here.

As a condition of participation in the Medicare program, Federal regulations require that hospitals develop and maintain a Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program. To satisfy QAPI requirements, hospitals must “track medical errors and adverse patient events, analyze their causes, and carry out preventive actions and mechanisms that include feedback and learning throughout the hospital.” To standardize hospital event reporting, AHRQ developed a set of event definitions and incident reporting tools known as the Common Formats.

According to the OIG Report, hospital incident reporting systems captured only an estimated 14 percent of the patient harm events experienced by Medicare beneficiaries. The Report found hospitals investigated those reported events that they considered most likely to lead to quality and safety improvements and made few policy or practice changes as a result of reported events. Hospital administrators classified the remaining events (86 percent) as either events that staff did not perceive as reportable (61 percent) or as events that staff commonly report but did not report in this case (25 percent).

Because hospitals rely on incident reporting systems to track and analyze events, OIG believes that improving the usefulness of these systems is critical to hospitals’ efforts to improve patient safety.

Based upon concerns about the adequacy in hospital incident reporting in the Report, OIG is recommending various steps be taken to improve the quality of hospital incident reporting. Among other things, OIG is recommending that:

AHRQ and CMS collaborate to create and promote a list of potentially reportable events for hospitals to use;
CMS provide guidance to accreditors regarding their assessments of hospital efforts to track and analyze events;
CMS suggest that surveyors evaluate the information collected by hospitals using AHRQ’s Common Formats
CMS scrutinize survey standards for assessing hospital compliance with the requirement to track and analyze events and reinforce assessment of incident reporting systems as a key tool to improve event tracking.

According to OIG, CMS has responded that it is developing draft guidance for surveyors regarding assessment of patient safety improvement efforts within hospitals as part of its continuing quality inititives. Hospitals participating in the Medicare program can anticipate tighter oversight of the adequacy of their incident reporting will be forthcoming.

For More Information Or Assistance

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

If you 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

DFW Hospital Council Foundation Among 26 Organizations Selected To Lead Quality Effort

December 15, 2011

Affordable Care Act funding seeks to help health providers identify and spread local ideas to improve care, reduce preventable healthcare acquired conditions

The Dallas-Fort Worth Hospital Council Foundation, the Texas Center for Quality & Patient Safety Hospitals and Lifepoint Hospitals, Inc. are three of the 26 state, regional, national, or hospital system organizations selected as Hospital Engagement Networks by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

As part of the Partnership for Patients initiative, a nationwide public-private collaboration to improve the quality, safety, and affordability of health care for all Americans, the selected entities will share in $218 million in funding to help find solutions already working to reduce healthcare acquired conditions, and work to spread them to other hospitals and health care providers across the country.

Learn more at http://wp.me/psDUd-3B.

For More Information Or Assistance

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

If you 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

Texas Medical Board Suspends Child Psychiatrist For Sexual Misconduct

November 22, 2011

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

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

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

Unprofessional personal misconduct presenting a right to public health and safety is a common trigger for discipline by the Texas Medical Board and other licensing boards. See, e.g. Quality, Recordkeeping & Unprofessional Conduct Lead Reasons For Medical Board Discipline of Physicians. Although complaints based on sexual misconduct occur much less frequently than substance abuse or other types of personal misconduct, the Texas Medical Board and other medical licensing bodies view sexual misconduct as among the most serious types of violations. The prevalence rate of sexual misconduct in physicians is estimated at 6-10 percent but this phenomenon is likely under-reported in physician surveys and by patients. It is believed that the number of false claims made by patients is very low. A 1992 study indicates that only 4-8 percent of patients report a doctor’s sexual misconduct. Physicians found guilty of engaging in prohibited sexual misconduct typically are male, have a mean age of 53, practice in private practice, and have a history of substance abuse, are in the midst of a divorce, separation or other life crisis and tend to engage in higher than typical nonsexual patient touch with patients.

Because of their special role and responsibility with respect to patients and the community, the law, the profession and the public impose high expectations upon physicians and other health care professionals in relation to their sexual conduct toward patients and others. State medical practices and other medical licensure bodies, the American Medical Association Code of Conduct, the Joint Commission, peer review and other disciplinary boards and other regulatory and administrative policies and bodies generally prohibit both sexual assault, sexual harassment, and a broad range of other conduct of a sexual nature considered to be inconsistent with the special relationship of trust occupied by the health care professional.

Sexual misconduct charges that can result in discipline can include clear atrocities such as rape or other sexual assaults, as well as engagement in inappropriate sexual relationships or overtures to current or former patients, as well as sexual harassment and certain other types of sexual relationships or conduct involving staff or others. See, e.g., Ringer v. Texas State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 8214 (Tex. App. 1999); Texas State Board of Medical Examiners v. Haynes, 388 S.W.2d 258, 261 (Tex. App. 1965); Texas State Board of Medical Examiners v. Koepsel, 159 Tex. 479 (Tex. 1959). In addition discipline by the Board of Medicine, physicians or other health care providers typically also face other consequences such as medical malpractice, sexual harassment or other similar claims or charges, peer review discipline, data bank reports, employment termination or discipline, practice expulsion, and criminal prosecution. Even if a physician or other heath care provider dodges formal discipline, accusations of sexual misconduct by a physician or other health care provider tends to permanently damage the practice and reputation of the health care.

Sexual misconduct by a physician or other health care provider or workforce member also can create significant exposures for hospitals, clinics, affiliated physicians and health care professionals associated with a physician or health care provider found to have engaged in sexual misconduct. Among other things, the failure of these third parties to take adequate steps to prevent, investigate, report or redress another health care provider’s sexual misconduct or harassment may result in malpractice or other civil litigation, licensure or other professional investigation or discipline, reputational damages and other consequences.

To guard against these exposures, physicians and other health care providers should exercise care to avoid engaging in actions that might expose them to charges of sexual assault, harassment or other inappropriate sexual conduct and should adopt policies, adopt procedures and practices to prohibit and provide training and other oversight to encourage other health care providers and staff to avoid such conduct. If a physician or other health care provider or organization observes, receives a report or charge or otherwise becomes aware of information indicating that a potential sexual assault or other inappropriate sexual conduct may have occurred, it should act promptly and appropriately to investigate and redress the conduct or suspected conduct in a manner designed to strengthen their defenses against possible disciplinary action or other liabilities and risks. Because of the legal sensitivity and risk associated with the allegations of sexual misconduct and the investigation of those charges, physicians and other health care providers and organizations involved in these concerns generally should engage competent legal counsel as soon as possible when these concerns come to light for assistance in responding to the concerns, as well as the ability to use attorney-client privilege and work product, peer review, quality, and other legal privileges and other legal rules and safeguards to help promote confidentiality and defensibility of sensitive communications and conduct in connection with the investigation and response to these concerns.

For Help With Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

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

About Solutions Law Press

100,000+ Primary Care Providers Signed Up To Get EHRs Regional Extension Centers

November 17, 2011

The HHS Office for the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology announced today that nearly one-third of all primary care providers -plan to work with their Regional Extension Center (REC) to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Programs as a way to transition from paper records to certified EHRs.

Designed to jump start EHR adoption, the Health Information Technology Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act of 2009, part of the Recovery Act, created a nationwide network of RECs comprised of local nonprofits, to provide guidance and resources to help eligible professionals make the transition from paper records to certified EHRs. Eligible providers that meet meaningful use of certified EHRs criteria may be eligible for incentive payments under the Recovery Act.

The 62 RECs focus on assisting primary care providers and those providers serving traditionally medically underserved populations as they take part in the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs and meaningfully use EHRs in ways that can reduce health care costs, increase patient safety, and improve the overall quality of patient care. These providers face challenges in EHR adoption including tight budgets, over-stretched health information technology staff, and limited broadband access.

One-half of the providers committed to making the transition to certified EHRs are in small group practices or consortia of small group practices. The remaining providers focus on the underserved with 18 percent in community health centers, 11 percent in public hospitals, and 21 percent in other underserved settings, such as critical access hospitals, rural health clinics, and practices in medically underserved areas.

RECs serve the majority of primary care providers in small practices in rural areas. Today’s figures include over half of the targeted 1,776 critical access and rural hospitals in 41 states and throughout Indian Country.

A complete listing of REC grant recipients and additional information about Regional Extension Centers may be found at http://www.HealthIT.hhs.gov/REC/.

For information about the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs, see http://www.cms.gov/EHRIncentivePrograms.

For information about HHS Recovery Act health IT programs, see http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/announcements/by_topic.html#hit.

For Help With Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

If you need assistance understanding, managing or defending licensing board, peer review or other requirements or actions, providing compliance or other training, reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 23 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer medical privacy and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns/ She also regularly designs and presents risk management, compliance and other training for health care providers, professional associations and others including highly popular programs on “Sex Drugs & Rock ‘N Role: Managing Personal Misconduct in Health Care,” “Managing Physician Performance” and others.. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Corporate Compliance, Doctor, Employer, Employment, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Peer Review | Tagged: Credentialing, death certificates, EHR, Electronic Medical Records, EMR, licensing, Medical Ethics, Medical Licensure, Peer Review, Physician, Sexual Harassment, Sexual Misconduct | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Houston Doctor Gets 135 Month Health Care Fraud Sentence

November 6, 2011

Conviction Highlights Growing Fraud Enforcement Risks Reach Broadly

A Houston Federal Court recently sentenced Houston doctor Christina Joy Clardy to 135 months in federal prison for her conviction on charges arising from a health care fraud conspiracy that federal officials charged resulted in false billings to Medicare and Texas Medicaid programs for $45,039,230 over a 2 ½-year-period. Clardy, who was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, 14 counts of health care fraud and three counts of mail fraud on May 27, 2011, after an 18-day trial in front of U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon, also was ordered to pay $15,626,084.01 in restitution to Medicare and Medicaid.

Federal prosecutors had charged that Clardy was a key player in a massive federal health care fraud scheme under which City Nursing Services of Texas, Inc (City Nursing Services) billed more than $25 million worth of physical therapy services under Clardy’s physician provider numbers between January 2007 and August 2008.

Clardy is the third defendant to be sentenced in this matter.

The charges against Clardy and others convicted in the City Nursing Services action are one of a growing number of health care fraud prosecutions resulting from the actions of the Medicare Fraud Strike Force that are conducted as part of the Health Care Fraud Prevention & Enforcement Action Team (HEAT). 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. In their September 7, 2011 announcement, HHS and DOJ credited Strike Force Operations in nine locations with resulting in charges against more than 1,140 defendants who the government charged collectively falsely billed the Medicare program for more than $2.9 billion. Learn more here.,

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.

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

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

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

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