Medical Malpractice |

$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.

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

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:

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

IRS Publishes 2014 Branded Prescription Drug Fee Guidance

August 5, 2013

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

Branded Prescription Drug Fee Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

2014 Deadlines & Procedures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

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

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

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 » | 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

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.

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 » | 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

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.

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.

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 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.

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

HHS/DOJ Partner With Private Health Plans To Further Ramp Up Health Care Fraud Heat!

July 30, 2012

Health care providers and payers should ensure that practices for billing private payers can withstand the scrutiny of federal and state health care fraud enforcers after the July 26, 2012 announcement of a ground-breaking new public-private antifraud initiative between federal and state health care fraud fighters and a private insurers under which private insurers will share an unprecedented amount of private health claims data, fraud detection practices, and other coöperation with federal and state official fraud prevention and prosecution efforts.

Government Health Care Fraud Fighters Partner With Private Insurers

The Federal health care fraud fighting departmental duo of the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) Justice (DOJ) last week expanded their network of fraud fighting resources by launching a “ground-breaking” partnership among the federal government, State officials, several leading private health insurance organizations, and other health care anti-fraud groups to prevent health care fraud. HHS and DOJ say the following organizations and government agencies are among the first to join this partnership:

America’s Health Insurance Plans
Amerigroup Corporation
Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Coalition Against Insurance Fraud
Federal Bureau of Investigations
Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General
Humana Inc.
Independence Blue Cross
National Association of Insurance Commissioners
National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units
National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association
National Insurance Crime Bureau
New York Office of Medicaid Inspector General
Travelers
Tufts Health Plan
UnitedHealth Group
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
U.S. Department of Justice
WellPoint, Inc.

HHS & DOJ Say Partnering With Private Insurers Will Give Ongoing Anti-Fraud Efforts Even More Punch

In announcing the new partnership on July 26, 2012, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Attorney General Eric Holder touted this new voluntary, collaborative public-private arrangement as the “next step” in the Obama administration’s efforts to combat health care fraud.

“This partnership is a critical step forward in strengthening our nation’s fight against health care fraud,” said Attorney General Holder. “This Administration has established a record of success in combating devastating fraud crimes, but there is more we can and must do to protect patients, consumers, essential health care programs, and precious taxpayer dollars. Bringing additional health care industry leaders and experts into this work will allow us to act more quickly and effectively in identifying and stopping fraud schemes, seeking justice for victims, and safeguarding our health care system.”

“This partnership puts criminals on notice that we will find them and stop them before they steal health care dollars,” Secretary Sebelius said. “Thanks to this initiative today and the anti-fraud tools that were made available by the health care law, we are working to stamp out these crimes and abuse in our health care system.”

Partnership Allows Feds To Use Private Payer Claims Data, Knowledge & Other Fraud Detection Resources

According to HHS and DOJ, the new partnership is designed to share information and best practices in order to improve detection and prevent payment of fraudulent health care billings. Its goal is to reveal and halt scams that cut across a number of public and private payers. HHS and DOJ say the partnership will private insurers to share their anti-fraud insights more easily with investigators, prosecutors, policymakers and other stakeholders and law enforcement officials more effectively to identify and prevent suspicious activities, better protect patients’ confidential information and use the full range of tools and authorities provided by the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) and other statutes to combat and prosecute illegal actions.

One unprecedented element of this partnership will involve the sharing of information on specific schemes, utilized billing codes and geographical fraud hotspots between the public and private partners. The partners say the planned sharing of claims data and other information will help partners prevent, detect and respond to potential health care billing fraud by:

Helping partners to take action, to prevent losses to both government and private health plans before they occur;
Improving their ability to spot and stop payments billed to different insurers for care delivered to the same patient on the same day in two different cities;
In the future to use sophisticated technology and analytics on industry-wide healthcare data to predict and detect health care fraud schemes.

Presumably, this will involve the extension of the use of state-of-the-art technology and data mining practices like those the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already uses to review claims, to track suspected fraud trends and flag suspected fraudulent activity.

Partnership Expands Use & Reach of New Affordable Care Act & Other Health Care Fraud Detection & Enforcement Tools & Collaboration

The partnership builds upon and extends the reach and use of expanded legal tools created by the Affordable Care Act and other laws that Federal and state officials are using in their highly publicized war against health care fraud, waste and abuse in Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and, increasingly, private insurance plans. Using these and other new tools, convictions under the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program increased by over 27% (583 to 743) between 2009 and 2011, and the number of defendants facing criminal charges filed by federal prosecutors in 2011 increased by 74% compared with 2008 (1,430 vs. 821).

The Affordable Care Act and other legislative changes and related programs have significantly strengthened the powers of HHS, DOJ and other federal and state agencies to investigate and prosecute health care fraud. Among other things, these amendments and programs included :

Qui tam and other whistleblower incentives and programs that encourage employees, patients, competitors and others to report suspicious behavior;
Require providers, plans to self-identify, self-report and self-correct false claims and certain other non-compliance;
Increase the federal sentencing guidelines for health care fraud offenses by 20-50% for crimes that involve more than $1 million in losses;
Create penalties for obstructing a fraud investigation or audit;
Make it easier for the government to recapture any funds acquired through fraudulent practices;
Make it easier for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate potential fraud or wrongdoing at facilities like nursing homes;
Under the risk-based provider enrollment rules, providers and suppliers wishing to take part in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP who federal officials view as posing a higher risk of fraud or abuse now must undergo licensure checks, site visits and other heightened scrutiny including ongoing monitoring as part of the new Automated Provider Screening (APS) system CMS implemented 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 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.
Increased information sharing and coördination of investigations and enforcement among states, CMS, and its law enforcement partners at the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and DOJ including the highly publicized activities of the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT), a joint effort between HHS and DOJ to fight health care fraud.
The power of CMS, in consultation with OIG, to suspend Medicare payments and require States to suspend Medicaid and SCHIP payments to providers or suppliers during the investigation of a credible allegation of fraud;
The deployment and use of the sophisticated data collection and mining technologies of CMS’ new Fraud Prevention System, which since June 30, 2011 has used advanced predictive modeling technology to screen all Medicare fee-for-service claims before payment and target investigative resources on areas that this profile identifies as reflecting heightened risks of health care fraud vulnerability to allow regulators and prosecutors to more efficiently identify and respond to suspected fraudulent claims and emerging trends;
Focused fraud prevention, detection and enforcement activities on Home Health agencies, Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) suppliers and certain other categories of providers and suppliers that federal officials view as historically presenting heightened concerns;
Expansion of the overpayment detection and recovery activities ofthe Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) program to Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare Part D programs; and
Various other tools.

Health Plan Partnership Latest Wrinkle In Fed’s Efforts To Use Private Whistleblower & Other Resources To Find Fraud

The partnership with the health plans is the latest wrinkle in a growing network of private relationships and outreach that HHS and DOJ use to discover health care fraud. By partnering with health plans, HHS and DOJ have recruited the health plans to help federal officials find and redress potential fraud in public and private health plans.

HHS and DOJ already know the value of getting private citizens to watch for and report suspected illegal behavior. Indeed, expended qui tam and other whistleblower activities already are paying off big for federal officials. For example, a former executive’s qui tam claim helped bring about the settlement announced in June, 2012 under which Christus Spohn Health System Corporation recently paid more than $5 million to settle Justice Departmentclaims that it profited from violations of the False Claims Act by inappropriately admitted patients to inpatient status for outpatient procedures. The investigation leading to the settlement began in March 2008 after Christus – Shoreline’s former director of case management filed a lawsuit under seal under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act alleging the six hospitals were submitting false claims to the Medicare program by billing for services that should have been performed on an outpatient basis as if they were more expensive inpatient services. The allegations stated that these hospitals were routinely billing outpatient surgical procedures as if they required an inpatient level of care even though the patients often were discharged from the hospital in less than 24 hours. The federal False Claims Act empowers private citizens with knowledge of fraud against the United States to present those allegations to the United States by bringing a lawsuit on behalf of the United States under seal. If the government’s investigation substantiates those allegations, then the private citizen is entitled to share in any recovery. In this case, that person will receive 20% of the $5,100,481.74 recovery.

With qui tam and other reports of suspected fraud an increasingly frequent and valuable tool in the federal and state wars on health care fraud, officials have added a wide range of programs encouraging and in some cases financially rewarding individuals and businesses that report circumstances leading to fraud convictions. The partnership with health plans reflects the latest wrinkle in these efforts.

Health Care Providers & Health Plans Must Act To Manage Risks

In response to the growing emphasis and effectiveness of Federal officials in investigating and taking action against health care providers and organizations, health care providers covered by federal false claims, referral, kickback and other health care fraud laws should consider auditing the adequacy of existing practices, tightening training, oversight and controls on billing and other regulated conduct, reaffirming their commitment to compliance to workforce members and constituents and taking other appropriate steps to help prevent, detect and timely redress health care fraud exposures within their organization and to position their organization to respond and defend against potential investigations or charges. In light of the growing qui tam risks, health care providers also should tighten internal investigation, exit interview and other human resources and business partner oversight, reporting and investigation policies and practices to help find and redress potential fraud or other qui tam, retaliation and similar exposures early and more effectively.

For More Information Or Assistance

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 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 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 » | Academic medicine, Anti-KickBack, ASC, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, false claims act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Grants, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health IT, Medicaid, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Outpatient, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Rural Health Care, Stark, Uncategorized | Tagged: CMS, DOJ, false claims act, Health Care, health care feraud, Health claims, Health Plans, HHS, Hospitals, Justice Department, OIG, qui tam, Whistleblower | 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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, 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

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

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 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.

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, 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

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.

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, 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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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 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.

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: 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OCR Settlements Show Health Care & Disabled Housing Providers Face Growing Disability Discrimination Risks

October 19, 2011

A continuing series of federal investigations and enforcement actions highlight the need for health care providers and other health industry organizations to strengthen their disability discrimination management practices to defend against rising exposures to actions by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR) 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.

Federal Disability & Other Laws Prohibit Health Care Provider Discrimination

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 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 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.

Invest in Prevention To Minimize Liability 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 » | 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

Texas Doctor, Pharmacy Suspension Reminder of Pain Management Prescribing Risks

May 17, 2011

On January 14, 2011, a disciplinary panel of the Texas Medical Board (TMB) temporarily suspended the medical license of Julia Renee Ward, M.D. of Houston, after determining that Dr. Ward’s continuation in the practice of medicine presents a continuing threat to the public welfare. Physicians, pharmacists and others involved in pain treatment should resist the temptation to allow the allegations of extreme misconduct by Ward, others to blind them to the need for special precautions when prescribing or administering pain management or other controlled substance treatments.

Ward Pain Management Suspension

According to a January 18, 2011 TMB Press Release, TMB issued the Order of Temporary Suspension (Without Notice of Hearing) based on Dr. Ward’s operation of a pain management clinic, Tejas Urgent Care Clinic, without the certification required by law; failure to practice medicine in an acceptable, professional manner; inappropriate prescribing of controlled substances; and unprofessional or dishonorable conduct. The suspension took immediate effect. Previously, the medical board denied certification of Tejas Clinic in Houston, based on the clinic’s partial ownership by a non-physician.

According to the Press Release, TMB and Texas State Board of Pharmacy investigators staked out the clinic and observed several vehicles, some with out-of-state license plates, dropping off and picking up small groups of patients throughout the day. TMB says investigators observed four men who appeared to be patrolling the parking lot, directing patients to Tejas Clinic and H&W Pharmacy. Investigators reported the dropped-off patients would enter the clinic, exit about 20 minutes later, and then go to the pharmacy next door, H&W Pharmacy, to fill their prescriptions. Most of the prescriptions written by Dr. Ward were for hydrocodone, and a large number of prescriptions were for Xanax and Soma as well. The three drugs are a well-known combination commonly abused and diverted for sale to addicts.

According to the TMB Press Release, H&W Pharmacy’s license has since been suspended by the Texas State Board of Pharmacy, as has the license of H&W pharmacist Victor Egbulefu.

The Temporary Suspension Hearing Without Notice took place under the Board’s authority, granted by the Medical Practice Act, to suspend or restrict a physician’s license without notice when it determines the physician’s continuation in practice would constitute a continuing threat to the public welfare. Under TMB procedures, Ward has the opportunity to have a Temporary Suspension Hearing With Notice at least 10 days after notice of the suspension.

Physician Precautions Recommended For Pain Management Activities

Physicians and other health care providers should not allow the egregiousness of allegations underlying suspensions like those alleged committed by Ward to blind them to the importance of exercising special care when engaging in pain management activities. While medical practitioners, medical boards, the Drug Enforcement Agency, accreditation agencies and others increasingly recognize the appropriateness and need for legitimate pain management, physicians, pharmacies and others prescribing and delivering pain management must conduct these activities in a defensible manner. Physicians prescribing pain management remain accountable for demonstrating and documenting the therapeutic appropriateness of prescribed management including appropriate procedures to monitor and redress potential concerns about patient medication abuse or addition. See Texas Medical Board Rules §§ 170.1-170.3. As many pain management medications both are controlled substances, physicians prescribing these medications often must comply with special prescribing, documentation and other requirements under DEA, state medical board and other rules and ethical standards. See, e.g, DEA Cautions Practitioners Must Restrict Delegation of Controlled Substance Prescribing.

Missteps by providers in the prescription, documentation, or administration of pain management or other controlled substance prescriptions and treatment are frequently the basis of medical board and other disciplinary actions and civil, criminal and administrative enforcement actions by the Justice Department, DEA, Department of Health & Human Services and others. See e.g., Quality, Recordkeeping & Unprofessional Conduct Lead Reasons For Medical Board Discipline of Physicians; Texas Pain Management Physician and Psychiatrist Arrested on Federal Health Care Fraud Inditement; Pain and The Law.

To defend against these and other exposures, physicians and practices, pharmacies and pharmacists, and the hospitals and other organizations involved in the operation or management of physicians or pharmacists prescribing or dispensing pain management treatments should implement written delegation policies and other procedures to facilitate their ability to withstand DEA, medical board and other scrutiny and defend against a claim of improper conduct. As part of these efforts, prescribing practitioners should consider include:

Carefully and fully document the therapeutic need and appropriateness of the prescribed treatment including the medical justification, patient counseling, adherence to DEA and other standards and procedures, and monitoring for effectiveness, patient compliance and potential patient abuse.
Strictly complying with DEA requirements when prescribing controlled substances;
Ensure appropriate and well-documented physician assessment of patient pain and pain management treatment;
Abstain from or restrict delegation of pain management assessments or prescription of controlled substance except in strict and clearly documented compliance with DEA rules and all otherwise applicable regulations and care standards;
Adopting and following written policies and procedures governing the prescription and handling of pain management and other controlled substances including the scope of allowable delegation of communication functions;
Requiring physicians, pharmacists and others participating in pain management or other controlled substance ordering or treatment to participate in specific, documented training and enter into signed written agreements acknowledging knowledge of and agreement to comply with pain management, controlled substance and other relevant policies and requirements;
Monitoring of prescribing and other dealings with controlled substances for potential noncompliance;
Careful documentation of all activities involved with the prescription and handling of controlled substances or their prescriptions;
Carefully restricting the individuals that with or without authorization could participate in the prescription or handling of controlled substance;
Requiring drug and alcohol testing of physicians and other staff with involvement in the prescription or handling of controlled substance or who otherwise might be in a position to access the materials used in this process;
Conducting appropriate training of DEA-authorized practitioners and their support staff regarding the appropriate procedures for handling and prescribing controlled substances;
Conducting periodic background checks of physicians, pharmacists, staff and others who might participate in the prescription of or otherwise be in a position to access controlled substances or the tools for their access or prescription pursuant to written authorizations designed to comply with applicable Federal Trade Commission credit check and other relevant laws;
Avoiding relationships and dealings involving prescribers, pharmacies, investors or others with questionable backgrounds or involving relationships that might create heightened exposures or appearances of impropriety; and
Investigating and promptly redressing any known or suspected violation of DEA mandated or other policies regarding the prescription or handling of controlled substances.

For Help With Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

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

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, Health Care, licensure, Medical Board, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Texas Doctor, Pharmacy Suspension Reminder of Pain Management Prescribing Risks

January 18, 2011

rd Pain Management Suspension

According to the TMB Press Release, H&W Pharmacy’s license has since been suspended by the Texas State Board of Pharmacy, as has the license of H&W pharmacist Victor Egbulefu.

Physician Precautions Recommended For Pain Management Activities

Carefully and fully document the therapeutic need and appropriateness of the prescribed treatment including the medical justification, patient counseling, adherence to DEA and other standards and procedures, and monitoring for effectiveness, patient compliance and potential patient abuse.
Strictly complying with DEA requirements when prescribing controlled substances;
Ensure appropriate and well-documented physician assessment of patient pain and pain management treatment;
Abstain from or restrict delegation of pain management assessments or prescription of controlled substance except in strict and clearly documented compliance with DEA rules and all otherwise applicable regulations and care standards;
Adopting and following written policies and procedures governing the prescription and handling of pain management and other controlled substances including the scope of allowable delegation of communication functions;
Requiring physicians, pharmacists and others participating in pain management or other controlled substance ordering or treatment to participate in specific, documented training and enter into signed written agreements acknowledging knowledge of and agreement to comply with pain management, controlled substance and other relevant policies and requirements;
Monitoring of prescribing and other dealings with controlled substances for potential noncompliance;
Careful documentation of all activities involved with the prescription and handling of controlled substances or their prescriptions;
Carefully restricting the individuals that with or without authorization could participate in the prescription or handling of controlled substance;
Requiring drug and alcohol testing of physicians and other staff with involvement in the prescription or handling of controlled substance or who otherwise might be in a position to access the materials used in this process;
Conducting appropriate training of DEA-authorized practitioners and their support staff regarding the appropriate procedures for handling and prescribing controlled substances;
Conducting periodic background checks of physicians, pharmacists, staff and others who might participate in the prescription of or otherwise be in a position to access controlled substances or the tools for their access or prescription pursuant to written authorizations designed to comply with applicable Federal Trade Commission credit check and other relevant laws;
Avoiding relationships and dealings involving prescribers, pharmacies, investors or others with questionable backgrounds or involving relationships that might create heightened exposures or appearances of impropriety; and
Investigating and promptly redressing any known or suspected violation of DEA mandated or other policies regarding the prescription or handling of controlled substances.

For Help With Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

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, Health Care, licensure, Medical Board, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DEA Cautions Practitioners Must Restrict Delegation of Controlled Substance Prescribing Functions, Urges Adoption of Written Policies & Agreements

November 2, 2010

Physicians, dentists, veterinarians, hospitals, and other persons prescribing or managing practitioners that prescribe controlled substances should require written agreements with staff and others communicating controlled substance prescriptions on their behalf and implement other suitable controls to ensure compliance with Drug Enforcement Administration requirements for prescribing controlled substances according to a new DEA Statement of Policy On Role of Authorized Agents in Communicating Controlled Substance Prescriptions To Pharmacies (Statement) published by the Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) on October 6, 2010.

The Statement reflects that the DEA is concerned that about practitioners improperly delegating medical need determinations and other responsibilities for prescribing controlled substances. The Statement indicates that practitioners using agents to communicate controlled substance prescriptions should ensure that their delegations are appropriately documented by written agreements with the agents detailing the scope of their authority and implement background checks, monitoring, written and operational policies and procedures governing delegations and other controlled substance prescribing and other controls to appropriately comply with DEA controlled substance prescription mandates.

Under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (CSA) and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (CSIEA) (21 U.S.C. 801-971), a valid prescription issued by a DEA-registered practitioner is required for dispensing a controlled substance. Existing rules prohibit DEA-registered practitioners from delegating their authority to prescribe controlled substances. To be effective (i.e., valid), a DEA-registered practitioner must issue the required prescription for a controlled substance for a legitimate medical purpose as determined by the practitioner acting in the usual course of professional practice. The registered practitioner actually must make the required determination of legitimate medical purpose underlying a controlled substance prescription. He cannot delegate responsibility for determining the legitimacy of the medical purpose for a controlled substance prescription or other core responsibilities.

While DEA rules prohibit a registered practitioner from delegating his core responsibilities pertaining to prescribing controlled substances to anyone else, DEA rules allow an individual practitioner to authorize an agent to perform a limited role in communicating controlled substance prescriptions to a pharmacy in order to make the prescription process more efficient. The ability to delegate these communication responsibilities is very restricted and requires that the practitioners apply appropriate controls to prevent delegation of core prescribing responsibilities.

In the Statement, the DEA cautions that DEA requires that DEA registered practitioners must be prepared to demonstrate that the registered practitioner alone makes all required medical determinations to prescribe the communicated controlled substances when delegating responsibility to communicate controlled substance prescriptions to pharmacies on their behalf to nurse or other person acting as the practitioner’s agent. The Statement warns that delegation must be limited to participation in the communication of the prescription in accordance with DEA requirements. The Statement urges practitioners allowing agents to participate in the communication of controlled substance prescriptions to make those delegations pursuant to written agreements with t he agent and to adopt other safeguards to maintain compliance with DEA rules. To learn more, see here

For More Information Or Assistance

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

Other Recent Developments

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

For More Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you need assistance evaluating or responding to the Health Care Reform Law or health care compliance, risk management, transactional, operational, reimbursement, or public policy concerns, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, at (469) 767-8872, cstamer@Solutionslawyer.net.

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

Leave a Comment » | Controlled Substances, Corporate Compliance, DEA, Doctor, Electronic Medical Records, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Hospital, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Substance Abuse | Tagged: Controlled Substances, DEA, Health Care, Physicians, practitioners, prescribing, prescriptions | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer Speaks On “Sex, Drugs & Rock ‘N Role: Personal Misconduct In Health Care” July 21, 2010 In Dallas

July 5, 2010

From substance abuse to stress, medical staff and other health care workforce personal misconduct creates major liability and management challenges for health care organizations and their licensed providers. Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will speak about “Sex Drugs & Rock ‘N Role: Personal Misconduct in Health Care” at the Wednesday, July 21, 2010 monthly meeting of the Dallas Bar Association Health Law Section.

Former Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, attorney and author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for her legal work, publications and programs, and advocacy on health industry performance management and other health industry matters. Ms. Stamer works extensively with health care organizations, managed care and health insurance organizations, governments and others to manage performance and legal risks. Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer combines her more than 23 years of health industry regulatory and risk management experience with an in-depth knowledge of workforce management and regulation to help clients manage performance and legal and operational risks. Her experience includes advising public and private health industry clients domestically and internationally on a wide range of matters. A widely published author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer’s insights on health industry matters also are quoted in HealthLeaders, Managed Care Executive, the Wall Street Journal and many other national popular, business and industry publications. She also conducts continuing medical education and other health industry compliance and risk management training for many organizations on a wide range of topics.

The program will be held from Noon to 1:00 p.m. Central Time at the Dallas Bar Association Belo Mansion located at 2101 Ross Avenue, Dallas Texas. For additional information, visit www.dallasbar.org.

For additional information, call the Dallas Bar Association at 214-220-7400 or see http://www.dallasbar.org.

Other Recent Developments

If you are interested in this health industry development, you also may be interested in reviewing some of our other recent updates available at https://slphealthcareupdate.wordpress.com including:

For More Information

We hope that this information is useful to you. If you need assistance with medical staff credentialing or discipline, employment, benefits and compensation, reimbursement, health care fraud or other health care compliance, risk management, transaction or operations concerns, please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail to here.

You can review other recent health care and internal controls resources and get additional information about the health industry and other experience of Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, register or update your profile – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information to here.

Leave a Comment » | Employment, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Hospital, Medical Malpractice, Peer Review, Physician, Physician Licensing, Substance Abuse | Tagged: Credentialing, Disruptive Physician, Drug Testing, Employment, Medical Staff, Peer Review | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HHS Invites Comments On Health Center Program Federal Tort Claims Policy Manual

July 1, 2010

The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) Policy Manual (Manual) posted here that the Department of Health & Human Services intends to serve as the primary policy source for information on FTCA for Health Center Program grantees funded under section 330 (Section 330) of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act. August 6, 2010 is the deadline to share feedback on the Manual in response to an invitation from HHS published in the July 1, 2010 Federal Register. See here.

The Manual is intended to consolidate, update and replace a variety of guidance previously issued by HHS about the FTCA Medical Malpractice program for participating Health Center Program grantees. HHS previously has issued numerous Program Information Notices (PINs) and Program Assistance Letters (PALs) related to the Health Center FTCA Medical Malpractice Program. HHS consolidated these PINs and PALs to create the Manual. HHS intends for the Manual to convey guidance about existing policy and current processes, and to serve as the principal policy resource on FTCA matters for Health Center Program grantees and related stakeholders. HHS going forward plans to update the Manual as it issues new policy and program guidance.

The Health Center Program supports more than 1,100 organizations operating almost 8,000 health care delivery sites, including community health centers, migrant health centers, health care for the homeless centers, and public housing primary care centers. Health centers serve medically underserved communities delivering preventive and primary care services to patients regardless of their ability to pay.

Health Center Program grantees funded under section 330 of the PHS Act, including Community Health Centers, Migrant Health Centers, Health Care for the Homeless Health Centers, and Public Housing Primary Care Health Centers, have access to medical malpractice coverage under the FTCA. FTCA is the legal mechanism for compensating people who have suffered personal injury due to the negligent or wrongful action of employees of the U.S. Government.

Under section 224 of the PHS Act, as amended by the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act (FSHCAA) of 1992 and 1995, a section 330-funded health center, as well as its officers, directors, employees, and certain contractors, may be considered deemed to be Federal employees for the purpose of medical malpractice coverage under the FTCA. Accordingly, they are immune from personal liability for claims of medical malpractice arising from their deemed employment, contract for services, or duties as an officer or director of the deemed health center. FSHCAA requires health centers to apply for deemed status in order for FTCA coverage to be effective.

The author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers and other health industry clients with reimbursement, compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management matters. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Other Recent Developments

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

For More Information

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. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry and human resources matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about health industry and other related concerns. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, her experience, involvements, programs or publications, see here.

Leave a Comment » | Federal Health Center, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Medical Malpractice, Physician | Tagged: Federal Health Center, FTCA, Health Care, health care access, HHS, Malpractice, Public Health Service, Section 330 | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OIG Touts Expanding Health Care Fraud Enforcement Success & Launches New Health Care Fraud Hotline

May 20, 2010

Continuing expansion of health care fraud enforcement initiatives, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) recently released its Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program Report and launched a new online Fraud Hotline Website to allow individuals the option of reporting federal health care fraud suspicions to OIG online.

The May 12 launch of the Fraud Hotline Website means whistleblowers now can report suspected federal health care fraud to OIG over the Internet, by telephone or by mail. CMS hopes the addition of online fraud reporting capability will lead to more investigations, audits and/or monetary recoveries.

OIG followed up May 13, by releasing its latest Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program Report, In addition to detailing 2009 healthcare fraud enforcement activities and accomplishments, the Report also highlights the continuing success of its HEAT initiative as well as new enforcement tools created by the recent health care reform legislation, the “Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009”(FERA) and other recent developments that facilitate the ability of OIG and the Justice Department to prosecute and secure larger fines and penalties from healthcare providers engaging in health care fraud. For more information, read the OIG Press Release here.

The heightened emphasis by federal officials on enforcement of federal health care fraud laws and the implementation of tools like the new Fraud Hotline Website increase the likelihood both that whistleblowers will turn in health care providers and other individuals and organizations that file false claims in violation of the FCA and the liability that violators may incur for that misconduct. These and other activities are part of a significant ramp up in federal emphasis on the detection and prosecution of violations of federal health care fraud laws by both the Administration and Congress. Many state agencies also are stepping up their health care fraud investigations and enforcement. In light of this new emphasis upon health care fraud detection and enforcement, health care providers now more than ever need to prepare to demonstrate the appropriateness and defensibility of their health care billing and other compliance efforts.

The author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, has extensive experience advising and assisting health care practitioners and other businesses and business leaders to establish, administer, investigate and defend health care fraud and other compliance and internal control policies and practices to reduce risk under federal and state health care and other laws. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Other Recent Developments

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

For More Information

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 22 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry and human resources matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about these and other related concerns. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, 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. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, her experience, involvements, programs or publications, see here.

Leave a Comment » | Affordable Care Act, America's Healthy Futures Act, American's Affordable Health Choices Act, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Centers For Disease Control, Corporate Compliance, Durable Medical Equipment, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, HITECH Act, Hospital, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Money Laundering, OCR, OIG, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Public Policy, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark, Substance Abuse, Telemarketing, Uncategorized, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Care | Tagged: Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Medicaid, Medicare, OIG | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

House Could Vote On Health Care Reform As Early As Sunday

March 19, 2010

By Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

The stage now appears to be set for the House of Representatives to vote as early as Sunday on the latest version of health care reform backed by President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other key Congressional Democrats, the Reconciliation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4872). The impending deadline means that health industry providers and other Americans concerned about the potential outcome of the impending vote need to act quickly if they wish to attempt to influence the decision. For tips about sharing your input with Congress effectively, see Getting Your Health Care Reform Message Heard By Key Congressional Leaders.

Developments Today Start Clock Running For Vote

On Thursday, March 18, 2010, two key developments set the stage for a vote on H.R. 4871 as early as Sunday:

The House Rules Committee posted the text of H.R. 4872 on its website; and
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) delivered its scoring of H.R 4872 to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The delivery of CBO scoring started the clock running on the 72 hour mandatory period between the release of the CBO scoring and any final vote on the bill. This means the House could vote on H.R. 4872 as early as Sunday, March 21.

If passed by the House, H.R. 4872 would make sweeping changes to the U.S. health care system impacting virtually every American patient, health care provider, employer and taxpayer. To learn the facts about these proposed changes, read the full text of H.R. 4872 here.

According to the CBO, H.R. 4872 will cost $940 billion over 10 years to extend coverage to 32 million uninsured people. To learn more specifics about these cost and other determinations, review the CBO scoring here.

This Is Only The Beginning: Stay Involved

The outcome of this latest health care reform push is only a small part of a continuing process. Whether or not the President’s proposal or some other version of health care reform passes this week, Congress already has and will continue to consider other legislation impacting health care reform. This reality is demonstrated by Congressional actions recently taken on the COBRA premium subsidy extension, Medical reimbursement for physicians, continuing federal efforts to develop and implement federal health care quality and technology standards, and other legislative, regulatory and enforcement actions taken while public attention has been focused largely only on the broader health care reform debate.

Upcoming mid-term elections will significantly impact the nature and scope of these upcoming efforts. Perhaps even more significantly, the enactment of legislation is only a beginning point. The real meaning of these or other health care reforms will be determined largely by the shaping and implementation of regulations and enforcement actions which generally are conducted outside the public eye. Monitoring and staying active in these ongoing processes provides a critical opportunity to continue to monitor your issues and provide input to shape how they are addressed.

Individuals concerned about these and other health care reform proposals and concerns are invited to stay involved in the discussion by sharing their input with Congress, regulators. Concerned individuals also are invited to stay involved in the discussion by joining the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Reform Group on Linkedin and registering to receive these updates here. The author of this article, Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP Health Care Practice Chair Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health industry clients and others about a diverse range of health care policy, regulatory, compliance, risk management and operational concerns. You can get more information about her health industry experience here.

Help Monitoring & Responding To Developments

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

From her extensive involvement with federal and state legislative and regulatory licensing, telemedicine, managed care, privacy and other health, pension and other reforms in the U.S. to her involvement as a lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its pension privatization legislation, Ms. Stamer’s experience includes significant experience working with clients domestically on key health care and other public policy matters. 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 Chairman of the Board of Richardson Development Center for Children and past Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer couples her policy experience with her extensive experience working with health industry clients on regulatory, staffing, reimbursement, risk management and compliance and other operational matters. She has more than 22 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry matters, Ms. Stamer advises hospitals and other health industry clients about responding to and using these and other quality measures and other related concerns. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry quality, regulatory, reimbursement, and other operations, risk management and public policy 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. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, her experience, involvements, programs or publications, see here.

Other Recent Developments & Resources

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

For More Information

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

Leave a Comment » | Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Consumer Driven Health Care, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Employment, Evidence Based Medicine, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, Hospital, Indian Health, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Public Policy, Reimbursement, Stark, Tax, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Care | Tagged: H.R. 4872, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, Health insurer, Health IT, Health Plans, Payer, Physician, Provider, Reconciliation Act of 2010 | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

AHRO Invites Comments On Project To Develop & Test Hospital Toolkit Intended To Guide Hospitals In Using AHRQ Quality Indicators

March 15, 2010

By Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

April 12, 2010 is the deadline for interested person to comment on the request by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) for approval of its proposed “Development and Evaluation of AIIRQ’s Quality Indicators Improvement Toolkit” information collection project.

AHRO’s mission under 42 U.S.C. 299(b)(1)(F); 299a(a)(1) and (2) is to disseminate information and tools that can support improvement in quality and safety in the U.S. health care community. In furtherance of this mission, AHRQ has developed sets of Quality Indicators (QIs) for use by AHRO and others to document quality and safety conditions at U.S. hospitals. These and other federally established quality standards are a key part of ongoing government efforts to promote quality and cost effectiveness in the U.S. medical system, as well as to tie reimbursement to the satisfaction of these or other government-adopted quality standards.

To encourage broader use and adoption of its QIs by hospitals and others, AHRO now is working on developing and evaluating a toolkit to help hospitals to effectively use AHRQ’s QIs. The proposed AHRO toolkit would use two sets of QIs already developed and evaluated by AHRO:

The Inpatient Quality Indicators (IQIs), which contain measures of volume, mortality, and utilization for common medical conditions and major surgical procedures; and
The Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs), which are a set of measures to screen for potentially preventable adverse events that patients may experience during hospitalization.

The QIs and supportive documentation on how to work with them are posted on AHRQ’s Web site here. Many of the QIs have been endorsed by the National Quality Forum through its consensus review process.

To promote the appropriate use of these tools, AHRO plans to develop and then field test an alpha version of the Quality Indicators Improvement Toolkit with six hospitals. The currently open invitation to comment invites public comment on the proposed information collection efforts to be conducted as part of this phase of the project.

To review the pending request for comment for additional details or instructions on submitting comments, see here.

For Assistance With These Or Other Health Industry Concerns

If your organization needs advice or assistance with commenting on the AHRO proposal or to respond to other health care quality or other health care matters, consider contacting the author of this article, Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (214) 270-2402 or via e-mail here.

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 22 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry matters, Ms. Stamer advises hospitals and other health industry clients about responding to and using these and other quality measures and other related concerns. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry quality, regulatory, reimbursement, and other operations, risk management and public policy 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. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, her experience, involvements, programs or publications, see here.

Other Recent Developments & Resources

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

For More Information

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

Leave a Comment » | Evidence Based Medicine, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, Hospital, Medicaid, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Outcomes Data, Physician, Public Policy, Reimbursement | Tagged: AHRO, health care quality, Health Care Reform, Health Carfe, Managed Care, Medicaid, Medicare, Quality Indicators | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

October 22, 2009

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

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

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

For More Information

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

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

Health Care Providers & Other HIPAA-Covered Entities & Their Business Associates Must Comply With New HHS Health Information Data Breach Rules By September 24

August 24, 2009

Register Now To Participate in September 9 “HITECH Act Health Data Security & Breach Update”

Health care providers, health clearinghouses, health plans and their business associates generally must start complying with new federal data breach notification rules on September 24, 2009.

The new “Breach Notification For Unsecured Protected Health Information” regulation (Breach Regulation) published here in today’s Federal Register requires health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (Covered Entities) covered under the personal health information privacy and security rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) to notify affected individuals following a “breach” of “unsecured” protected health information. The Breach Regulation is part of a series of guidance that HHS is issuing to implement new and stricter personal health information privacy and data security requirements for Covered Entities added to HIPAA under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act signed into law on February 17, 2009 as part of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

You are invited to catch up on what these new rules mean for your organization and how it must respond by participating in the “HITECH Act Health Data Security & Breach Update” on Wednesday, September 9, 2009 from Noon to 1:30 P.M. Central Time.

HITECH Act Data Breach and Unsecured PHI Rules

Scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on August 24, 2009, the new Breach Regulation implements the HITECH Act requirement that Covered Entities and their business associates notify affected individuals, the Secretary of HHS, and in some cases, the media, when a breach of “unsecured protected health information” happens and the form, manner, and timing of that notification. Covered Entities must begin complying with the new Breach Regulation on September 24, 2009.

Part of a series of new HHS rules implementing recent changes to HIPAA enacted under the HITECH Act to strengthen existing federally mandates requiring Covered Entities to safeguard protected health information, the Breach Regulation will obligate Covered Entities and business associates to provide certain notifications following a breach of “protected health information” that not secured at the time of the breach through the use of a technology or methodology meeting minimum standards issued by HHS pursuant to other provisions of the HITECH Act.

Under the HITECH Act, the breach notification obligations contained in the Breach Notification only apply to a breach of “unsecured protected health information.” The Breach Regulation exempts breaches of protected health information that qualify as “secured” under separately issued HHS and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) standards for encryption and destruction of protected health information from its breach notification requirements.

For purposes of the HITECH Act, electronic protected health information is considered “unsecured” unless the Covered Entity has satisfied certain minimum standards for the protection of that data established pursuant to the HITECH Act. Earlier this year, HHS and the FTC issued interim rules defining the minimum encryption and destruction technologies and methodologies that Covered Entities must use to render protected health information unusable, unreadable, or indecipherable to unauthorized individuals for purposes of determining when protected health information is “unsecured” for purposes of the HITECH Act. Concurrent with its publication of the Breach Regulation, HHS also released guidance updating and clarifying this previously issued guidance.

Read the Breach Regulation here. To review the HITECH Act Breach Notification Guidance and Request for Information, see here.

September 9 “HITECH Act Health Data Security & Breach Update” Briefing

Interested persons are invited to register here now to learn what these new rules mean for your organization and how it must respond by participating in the “HITECH Act Health Data Security & Breach Update” on Wednesday, September 9, 2009 from Noon to 1:30 P.M. Central Time. For a registration fee of $45.00, registrants will have the option to participate via teleconference or in person at the offices of Curran Tomko Tarski LLP, 2001 Bryan Street, Suite 2050, Dallas Texas 75201. For information about registering for this program or other questions here.

Conducted by Curran Tomko and Tarski LLP Partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, the briefing will cover:

Who must comply
What your organization must do
How to qualify protected health information as exempt from the breach regulations as “secure” protected health information
What is considered a breach of unsecured protected health information
What steps must a covered entity take if a breach of unsecured protected information happens
What liabilities do covered entities face for non-compliance
What new contractual requirements, policies and procedures Covered Entities and Business Associates will need
How the Breach Regulation, the Privacy Regulation, impending FTC red flag rules and state data breach and privacy rules interrelate
Other recent developments
Practical tips for assessing, planning, moving to and defending compliance
Participant questions
More

About The Presenter

The program will be presented by Curran Tomko Tarski LLP Partner Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Ms. Stamer is nationally known for her work, publications and presentations on privacy and security of health and other sensitive information in health and managed care, employment, employee benefits, financial services, education and other contexts.

Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association and Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, and Former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 20 years experience advising clients about health and other privacy and security matters. A popular lecturer and widely published author on privacy and data security and other related health care and health plan matters, Ms. Stamer is the Editor in Chief of the forthcoming 2010 edition of the Information Security Guide to be published by the American Bar Association Information Security Committee in 2010, as well as the author of “Protecting & Using Patient Data In Disease Management: Opportunities, Liabilities And Prescriptions,” “Privacy Invasions of Medical Care-An Emerging Perspective,” “Cybercrime and Identity Theft: Health Information Security Beyond HIPAA,” and a host of other highly regarded publications. She has continuously advises employers, health care providers, health insurers and administrators, health plan sponsors, employee benefit plan fiduciaries, schools, financial services providers, governments and others about privacy and data security, health care, insurance, human resources, technology, and other legal and operational concerns. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management matters. Her insights on health care, health insurance, human resources and related matters appear in the Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, her experience, involvements, programs or publications, see here.

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

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

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

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

Leave a Comment » | ARRA, Disease Management, Doctor, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, FACTA, FDA, Health Care, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Hospital, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, OCR, Outcomes Data, Peer Review, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Reimbursement, Tax | Tagged: ARRA, Corporate Compliance, Data Security, Doctor, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reimbursement, HHS, HIPAA, Hospital, Identity Theft, Long Term Care Hospital, Medicare, Medicare Part B, Physician, Physicians, Privacy, public health, Public Policy, Red Flag Rules, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

August 5, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information

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

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

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

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

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

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

July 20, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Blue Dog Members and their telephone numbers are :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

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

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

July 15, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Helpful Resources & Other Information

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

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

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

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Partnership Expands Use & Reach of New Affordable Care Act & Other Health Care Fraud Detection & Enforcement Tools & Collaboration

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