Home Health |

Chiropractor, Modern Vascular Office-Based Labs and Modern Vascular Corporate Entities Face False Claims Act Prosecution

December 19, 2022

Three consolidated False Claims Act (“FCA”) lawsuits against chiropractor Yury Gampel (“Gampel”), 15 Modern Vascular office-based labs owned primarily by Gampel located across the United States, and five Modern Vascular-affiliated companies owned by Gampel alert other chiropractic, physician and other medical providers using office-based labs send a clear warning to other health care providers and suppliers for services covered or billed to Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE or other federal health care programs about the necessity to ensure their arrangements don’t involve illegal financial relationships or transactions.

False Claims Act Liability Arising From Participation In Or Filing Claims Involving Improper Inducements

The Justice Department suit against the defendants alleges the defendants both arose from the defendants participation in arrangements involving the offering and payment of illegal remuneration in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) and that the claims for benefits made to Medicare and other federal programs for care provided involving the arrangement violated the FCA.

The AKS generally prohibits any person or entity from soliciting, receiving, offering, or paying any direct or indirect prohibited remuneration as an inducement or reward for referring, recommending, ordering, or arranging for the purchase of any item or service for which payment may be made in whole or in part by a federal health care program. Parties violating the AKS commit a felony punishable with a fine of up to $100,000, imprisonment for up to 10 years or both.

In addition to any criminal liability arising under the AKS, filing claims derived or involving transactions prohibited by the AKS also can trigger liability for violation of the FCA. The FCA makes it unlawful for any person to submit, directly or indirectly, false or fraudulent claims for payment to the Government by among other things:

Knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A) (the “presentment provision”); or
Knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B).

The FCA defines the term “knowingly” under the FCA very broadly. As defined, “knowingly” means that a person, with respect to information, (i) has actual knowledge of the information, (ii) acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information, or (iii) acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b). No proof of specific intent to defraud is required to show that a person acted knowingly under the FCA.

Violations of the FCA subject the defendant to mandatory civil penalties per FCA violation, plus three times the amount of damages that the Government sustains as a result of the defendant’s actions. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a). Under 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(b)(7), health care providers submitting claims to Medicare or other federal health care programs also can face exclusion from participation in federal health care programs for FCA violations.

Health care providers filing claims for Medicare or other federal health plans can violate the FCA by knowingly presenting or causing to be presented claims for items or services that the person knew or should have known were not medically necessary, or were false or fraudulent. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1320a-7a(a)(1).

Moreover, health care providers under the Medicare statute have an affirmative duty to familiarize themselves with the statutes, regulations, and guidelines regarding coverage for the Medicare services. As a condition of program participation, Medicare regulations require providers and suppliers to certify that:

The provider or supplier meets, and will continue to meet, the requirements of the Medicare statute and regulations, 42 C.F.R. § 424.516(a)(1), including that any claims and underlying transactions made in a claim for Medicare comply with the Federal anti-kickback statute and the Stark law), and on the supplier’s compliance with all otherwise applicable conditions of participation in Medicare; and
The provider or supplier will not knowingly to present or cause to be presented a false or fraudulent claim for payment by Medicare, or to submit claims with deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard of their truth or falsity.

Additional certifications of continued compliance with these requirements also are required when claims are filed. Accordingly, since health care providers and suppliers are responsible for taking appropriate steps to familiarize themselves with the rules and regulations applicable to their claim and the transactions underlying it and certify in connection with the filing of the claim that the claim and its underlying transactions comply with the law, health care providers filing claims involving prohibited financial incentives or other transactions prohibited by law risk FCA liability.

Gampel, Modern Vascular FCA Complaint

Derived from the Justice Department’s assumption and consolidation of various qui tam lawsuits separately brought by various physicians, the United States filed its complaint in three consolidated lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733 (“FCA”) which allow a private citizen to sue on behalf of the government and share in any recovery. The United States is also entitled to intervene in the lawsuits, as it did in these cases.

The resulting consolidated three consolidated Justice Department lawsuits seek to recover treble damages and civil penalties, and under common law and equitable theories of recovery from defendants for their billing of Medicare, TRICARE and other federal health care programs for claims resulting from transactions involving prohibited remuneration offered and provided in violation of the AKS under Gampel’s alleged schemes Nobility Management LLC; Modern Vascular LLC; Modern Vascular of South Florida LLC; Modern Vascular Management LLC; Modern Vascular Management – East LLC; Modern Vascular Management – West LLC; Modern Vascular Institute LLC; Modern Vascular of Mesa LLC; Modern Vascular of Glendale LLC; Modern Vascular of Sun City LLC; Modern Vascular of Tucson LLC; San Antonio Vascular Specialists Corp. dba Modern Vascular; Fort Worth Vascular Specialists Corp. dba Modern Vascular; Modern Vascular of Denver LLC; Modern Vascular – Navajo LLC; Modern Vascular of Fairfax LLC; Modern Vascular of Houston LLC; Modern Vascular of Indianapolis LLC; Modern Vascular of Southaven LLC; Modern Vascular of St. Louis LLC; and Modern Vascular of Kansas LLC.

The Justice Department complaint alleges Defendant Yury Gampel, a chiropractor, is the founder and former Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of a franchise of office-based labs (“OBL”) located in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Texas, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, and Virginia operating under the name Modern Vascular (collectively, the “Modern Vascular OBLs”). The Modern Vascular OBLs – each its own separate legal entity – focus on the treatment of peripheral arterial disease (“PAD”), particularly through an aggressive use of vascular intervention procedures, such as angioplasty and atherectomy. The complaint claims Gampel and the Modern Vascular defendants designed and promoted the franchises that incorporated a package of management and other services provided by various Modern Vascular defendant companies.

Defendant Nobility Management, LLC, provides management services to the Modern Vascular OBLs. Defendants Modern Vascular Management, LLC; Modern Vascular Management – East, LLC; and Modern Vascular Management – West, LLC, offer
IT and management support to Modern Vascular OBLs. Defendants Modern Vascular, LLC, and Modern Vascular of South Florida, LLC, are corporations controlled by Gampel that have various ownership interests in Modern Vascular OBLs. Through Modern Vascular, LLC, and Modern Vascular of South Florida, LLC, and in his own capacity, Gampel is the majority owner of the Modern Vascular OBLs. (These entities that own and manage the Modern Vascular OBLs are referred to collectively below as “Modern Vascular Corporate.”)

The complaint alleges that Gampel and Modern Vascular Corporate designed and implemented a fraud scheme at Modern Vascular OBLs at the expense of patients and federal payors from at least January 1, 2018 through June 30, 2022. Among other things, the complaint charges Gampel and the Modern Vascular defendants offered physicians the opportunity to invest in Modern Vascular office-based labs to induce them to refer their Medicare and TRICARE patients to Modern Vascular for the treatment of peripheral arterial disease. More specifically, Gampel and Modern Vascular Corporate opened Modern Vascular OBLs in new markets where referring physicians and vascular surgeons had established relationships. Prior to opening an OBL in a particular location, Gampel sought out up to 20 local physicians – usually podiatrists and pain management physicians – who traditionally referred to vascular surgeons and offered each up to a two percent ownership interest in the OBL in order to induce the physicians to refer to the OBL. Gampel and Modern Vascular Corporate selected these particular physicians (hereinafter “physician investors”) to offer ownership investment because Gampel and Modern Vascular Corporate identified them as potential high-referral sources. Once they invested in an OBL, Gampel and Modern Vascular Corporate further required the physician-investors to make referrals to Modern Vascular OBLs as a condition for remaining as a physician-investor. The complaint also alleges that Gampel pressured vascular surgeons and interventional radiologists employed at the Modern Vascular office-based labs to increase the number of invasive surgical procedures performed by tracking procedures and setting aggressive weekly and monthly goals for such procedures. In particular, Gampel and Modern Vascular Corporate provided remuneration to physician investors in Modern Vascular OBLs to induce those investors to refer patients to the Modern Vascular OBL.

The Justice Department charges that using this scheme, Defendants between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2022 submitted, and caused to be submitted, tens of millions of dollars in false or fraudulent claims to Medicare, TRICARE and other federal health care programs by offering and providing illegal remuneration to health care providers to induce referrals to the Modern Vascular OBLs in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”), 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b. To induce referrals, Gampel and Modern Vascular Corporate provided remuneration to physician-investors in the form of equity ownership interests in an OBL, which also included distributions, the prospect of future distributions, and/or the prospect of a cash-out of the equity ownership amounts when
the Modern Vascular OBLs were sold. During the relevant time period, the Justice Department also claims Modern Vascular
OBLs received over $50 million from Medicare Part B alone for claims submitted for patients referred by physician-investors in violation of the FCA.

Warning To Other Heath Care Providers & Suppliers

In announcing its filing of the Gambrel FCA lawsuit, the Justice Department warned other federal health program providers and suppliers and their business partners, investors, employees and agents from violating the AKS, FCA or both in the provision of or billing of health care services or supplies. “As part of our mission to protect the American people, the FBI remains committed to safeguarding patients who rely on our healthcare systems,” said Deputy Assistant Director Aaron Tapp of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division. “The FBI and our law enforcement partners will continue to investigate those who abuse our healthcare systems, place patients at risk, and waste taxpayer dollars.”

This warning, along with the ever-lengthening list of federal criminal and civil prosecutions, convictions and settlements by the Justice Department, the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General and other agencies provide a strong warning to health care providers, suppliers and others involved in creating or administering transactions and other arrangements for the delivery and billing for health are to be billed to Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE and other health care arrangements covered by the AKS, the FCA or other federal or state health care fraud laws to take well documented care to ensure the care delivery arrangement does not involve transactions prohibited under the AKS or other federal or state health care fraud transactions and the care billed qualifies for reimbursement before submitting the claim. Parties who know or suspect that they may have participated in an arrangement prohibited under these laws or submitted prohibited claims should contact experienced legal counsel within the scope of attorney-client privilege for assistance in reviewing those concerns and exploring options for correction or mitigation.

For More Information

If your organization would like to learn more about the concerns discussed in this update or seeks assistance auditing, updating, administering or defending its human resources, compensation, benefits, corporate ethics and compliance practices, or other performance related concerns, contact management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

An attorney Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer is recognized for work helping organizations management people, operations and risk as a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, a “Top Woman Lawyer,” “Top Rated Lawyer,” and “LEGAL LEADER™” in Labor and Employment Law and Health Care Law; a “Best Lawyers” in “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law.”

For 35 years, Ms. Stamer’s work has focused on advising and assisting businesses and business leaders with these and other employment and other staffing, employee benefit, compensation, risk, performance and compliance management and other operational solutions and concerns. Her experience includes helping management both manage performance and manage legal risk and compliance. While helping businesses define and manage the conduct and performance of their employees, contractors and vendors, she also assists employers and others about compliance with federal and state equal employment opportunity, compensation, health and other employee benefit, workplace safety, leave, and other labor and employment laws, advises and defends businesses against labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, fraud and other regulatory compliance and other related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations by the IRS, Department of Labor, Department of Justice, SEC, Federal Trade Commission, HUD, HHS, DOD, Departments of Insurance, and other federal and state regulators. Ms. Stamer also speaks, coaches management and publishes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see hereor contact Ms. Stamer directly.

Other Helpful Resources & Information

If you found this article of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other Breaking News, articles and other resources available 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. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, unsubscribe by updating your profile here.

NOTICE: Terms. These materials are for general informational and educational purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice, a substitute for legal advice, an offer or commitment to provide legal advice or an admission. The information and statements in these materials may not address all relevant issues or apply to any situation or circumstances. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law evolves and in ways that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author disclaims and has no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any time. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access of this publication. Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department 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. ©2022 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Nonexclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. All other rights reserved.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Anti-KickBack, ASC, billing, compensation, Conditions of Participation, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, Health IT, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Laboratory tests, Laws, long-term care, Medicaid, Medicaid Advantage, Medicare, Mergers and Acquisitions, nursing home, Outpatient, pain management, Pharmaceudical, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Reimbursement | Tagged: Anti-Kickback, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Reimbursement, Medicaid, Medicare, Office-based labs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Criminal IV Tampering Charges Against Anesthesiologist Highlight Exposures Providers And Their Facilities Can Face From Team Members Retaliatory or Other Misdeeds

September 15, 2022

The arrest and criminal charges against Dallas anesthesiologist Raynaldo Rivera Ortiz Jr. (“Dr. Ortiz”) announced September 15, 2022 highlight the advisability of health care facilities and providers to use care to use appropriate monitoring and other safeguards to protect patients and other critical operations against potential retaliatory misconduct during professional peer review or other investigation or discipline of health care professionals or other members of their workforces.

Dr. Ortiz was arrested in Plano, Texas on Wednesday, September 14, 2022 and is scheduled to make his initial court appearance on Friday, September 16, 2022 on federal felony criminal charges that he caused the death of a patient and surgical emergencies of other patients by intentionally tampering with a consumer product and intentional drug alteration.

According to the by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division, and U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas Chad E. Meacham, Dr. Ortiz was arrested and charged via criminal complaint with tampering with a consumer product causing death and intentional drug adulteration.

According the criminal complaint, on June 21, 2022, a 55-year-old female coworker of Dr. Ortiz, experienced a medical emergency and died immediately after treating herself for dehydration using an IV bag of saline taken from a Baylor Scott & White operated surgical center. An autopsy report revealed that she died from a lethal dose of bupivacaine, a nerve blocking agent that is rarely abused but is often used during the administration of anesthesia.

Two months later, on August 24, 2022, an 18-year-old male patient experienced a cardiac emergency during a routine sinus surgery. The teen was intubated and transferred to a local ICU. Chemical analysis of the fluid from a saline bag used during his surgery revealed the presence of bupivacaine, epinephrine (a stimulant), and lidocaine, drugs that could have caused the patient’s sudden symptoms.

According to the complaint, surgical center personnel concluded that the incidents involving both patients suggested a pattern of intentional adulteration of IV bags used at the surgical center.

The surgical center personnel also identified 10 additional unexpected cardiac emergencies that occurred during otherwise unremarkable surgeries between May and August 2022, which the criminal complaint alleges is an exceptionally high rate of complications over such a short period of time. According to the criminal complaint, medical personnel in each of those additional 10 cases only were able to stabilize the patient through use of emergency measures. Most of the incidents occurred during longer surgeries that used more than one IV bag, including one or more bags retrieved mid-surgery from a stainless steel bag warmer.

Surveillance video from the center’s operating room hallway allegedly also shows Dr. Ortiz placing IV bags into the stainless-steel bag warmer shortly before other doctors’ patients experienced cardiac emergencies. The complaint alleges that in one instance captured in the surveillance video, agents observed Dr. Ortiz walk quickly from an operating room to the bag warmer, place a single IV bag inside, visually scan the empty hallway, and quickly walk away. Just over an hour later, according to the complaint, a 56-year-old woman suffered a cardiac emergency during a scheduled cosmetic surgery after a bag from the warmer was used during her procedure. The complaint also states that in another instance, agents observed Dr. Ortiz exit his operating room carrying an IV bag concealed in what appeared to be a paper folder, swap the bag with another bag from the warmer, and walk away. Roughly half an hour later, a 54-year-old woman suffered a cardiac emergency during a scheduled cosmetic surgery after a bag from the warmer was used during her procedure.

According to the complaint, none of the cardiac incidents occurred during Dr. Ortiz’s surgeries, and that the series of emergencies began just two days after Dr. Oritz was notified of a disciplinary inquiry stemming from an incident during which he allegedly “deviated from the standard of care” during an anesthesia procedure when a patient experienced a medical emergency. The complaint alleges that all of the incidents occurred around the time Dr. Ortiz performed services at the facility, and no incidents occurred while Dr. Ortiz was on vacation.

The complaint further alleges that Dr. Ortiz, who had a history of disciplinary actions against him, expressed concern to other physicians over the disciplinary action at the facility and complained the center was trying to “crucify” him. A nurse who worked on one of Dr. Ortiz’s surgeries allegedly told law enforcement that Dr. Ortiz refused to use an IV bag she retrieved from the warmer, physically waving the bag off.

“Our complaint alleges this defendant surreptitiously injected heart-stopping drugs into patient IV bags, decimating the Hippocratic oath,” said U.S. Attorney Chad E. Meacham in the Department of Justice announcement of the charges. The criminal charges stemmed from these findings.

The Justice Department announcement reminds readers that a criminal complaint is merely an allegation of criminal conduct, not evidence. Dr. Ortiz is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. If convicted, however, Dr. Ortiz faces a maximum penalty of life in prison.

Both Dr. Ortiz and the surgical facility are exposed to potential liability as a result of the alleged charges. Aside from the pending criminal charges, Dr. Ortiz also almost certainly could face potential peer review and licensing board disciplinary investigation, as well as civil lawsuits.

In addition to these liability exposures for Dr. Ortiz, the surgical facility and other providers also could face civil or potentially even criminal liability.

It seems almost inevitable that the facility and potentially some other providers might be drawn into civil lawsuits brought by affected patients and their families allegedly injured or place at risk by the alleged actions by Dr. Ortiz, as well as licensing and/or accreditation investigation arising from the alleged events.

Because Dr. Ortez’s alleged Actions constitute federal felonies, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines sentencing and organizational liability rules apply. The Sentencing Guidelines will apply to determine the sentence imposed if Dr. Ortez ultimately is convicted. In addition, the Sentencing Guidelines organizational liability provisions also raise a risk of criminal charges against the facility or other parties with knowledge or other imputed responsibility. Under the organizational guidelines, organizations can have imputedliability for the criminal acts committed by the members of their workforce. However whether criminal charges will be pursued against the organization and the level of culpability and resulting liability is determined based upon both whether the organization took appropriate steps to prevent the misconduct before it happened and the extent to which the organization acted promptly in its investigation and redress of the conduct. The apparent actions of the surgical center and its leader ship to investigate, report, and cooperate in the investigation with federal officials are likely to mitigate if not resolve their criminal exposure.

Organizations and their leaders should treat the charges against Dr. Ortiz as a reminder, at minimum carefully to credential and monitor team members including doctors or other non-employer actors working in or with their facilities, to establish appropriate safeguards to prevent and identify quickly mistakes or intentional conduct, to monitor and enforce those safeguards, and to take appropriate prompt action to investigate concerns and redress and if necessary report misconduct with the advice of counsel.

When dealing with position performance and discipline concerns, facilities typically must carefully negotiate applicable contractual and workforce issues as well as the procedural and due process requirements of applicable medical staff bylaws and federal and state peer review and discipline statutes and regulations and medical staff discipline rules.

When a medical staff member protected by peer review or other procedural safeguards commits behaviors that raise a material and continuing threat to the health and safety of patients or the public, summary suspension may be necessary. When considering or taking an action to summarily suspend a healthcare provider, however, facilities and their medical staff leaders should document both the grounds for the patient safety concerns and need for immediate action and scrupulously follow the summary suspension procedures.

Along with seeking to prevent and mitigate these legal risks, Facilities and other providers also need to consider white reporting obligations they may bear under applicable statutes, regulations and contracts.

While managing these legal risks, facilities and other involved parties also need to anticipate media and public concern about the occurrences. Facilities and their leaders should anticipate and be prepared to work in conjunction with qualified legal counsel and experienced qualified public relations experts to decide when, what, and how to communicate with the public in the media about these types of events to avoid is there a bold minefield of traps created by privacy laws, evidentiary and other legal risk management concerns, and the management of relationships with other members of the medical staff and workforce, business partners, insurance, and the public.

More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.

About the Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Vice Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health and managed care industry legal, public policy and operational concerns.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 35 plus year career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. In the course of this work, she has worked extensively on workforce and medical staff credentialing, management, investigation, peer review and discipline, and reporting and remediation of criminal or other activity to regulatory officials.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access of this publication.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, Anethesiology, Conditions of Participation, Corporate Compliance, Credentialing, Doctor, Employer, Employment law, FDA, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, nursing home, OIG, Physician, Physician Licensing, physician licensure, Prescription Drugs, quality repoting, retaliation, Skilled Nursing Facility, Whistleblower | Tagged: ortiz | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Learn About DOJ Federal Antitrust Health Industry Market Competition Enforcement & Latest On $2.67 Billion BCBS Class Action Antitrust Settlement In 9/8 JCEB Webex

September 2, 2022

As qualifying individuals and companies that purchased or received health insurance await instructions on how to claim their share of the $2.67 billion In re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation private federal class action civil antitrust lawsuit settlement (“Settlement”) finally approved August 9, 2022 against the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (“BCBSA”) and other settling individual Blue Cross Plans, employers and other plan sponsors, health care systems and providers, health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers, brokerages, and other health and health insurance market participants need to keep in mind that the private antitrust judgements are not their only exposure under federal antitrust laws. Health insurance and health industry market participants that engage in anticompetitive conduct or business transactions also risk investigation and prosecution under federal antitrust laws by the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission and state regulators or attorneys general.

Market participants and others with health or health insurance industry market competitiveness concerns or interests should register and attend the September 8, 2022 Justice Department Health Industry Antitrust Enforcement Update to learn about key federal antitrust statutes regulating or prohibiting anticompetitive conduct and business transactions and hear how the Department of Justice uses these laws to promote market competition in the health care and health insurance marketplaces.

Hosted by the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, the webinar will feature a discussion by U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Healthcare and Consumer Products Section Antitrust Attorney Natalie Melada of basic federal antitrust rules and principles the Justice Department relies upon to safeguard market competitiveness and discusses selected Justice Department antitrust litigation and other compliance and enforcement initiatives the Department of Justice has undertaken to protect competition in the healthcare industry. Attorney and Solutions Law Press, Inc. editor and author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer also will provide an update on the In re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation and resulting $2.67 billion settlement approved August 9.

For more details and to register for the program, see here.

More Information

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and following and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.

About the Author

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 30 plus year career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Anethesiology, Antitrust, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Conditions of Participation, Cyber crime, data breach, Direct Primary Care, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Apps, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Insurance, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HHS, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, managed care, Medical Licensure, Medical Records, Medicare, Mental Health, Mental Heatlh, nursing home, occupational health, OCR, Outpatient, participating provider, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Physician Licensing, physician licensure, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Psychiatric, public health, Reproductive Rights, Rural Health Care, Self-Insured Group health Plans, Skilled Nursing Facility, substance abuse treatment | Tagged: Antitrust, Association, competition, Department of Justice, Employers, Group Purchasing Organizations, Health Care, Health Insurance, Health Plans, PBMs, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Protected Health Information | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HIPAA Covered Entity Nailed With $300,000+ HIPAA Settlement For Improper PHI Disposal

August 23, 2022

A Massachusetts dermatology practice’s Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) $300,000 plus settlement with the Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) reminds health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (“Covered Entities”) to use proper practices and safeguards when disposing of protected health information (“PHI”).

Following up on other OCR enforcement involving improper protection and disposal of paper and electronic PHI, the settlement with New England Dermatology P.C., d/b/a New England Dermatology and Laser Center (“NDELC”) OCR announced today (August 23, 2022) resolves charges that NDELC violated the HIPAA Privacy Rules when it placed specimen containers with patient identifying PHI in its parking lot garbage bin.

OCR interprets HIPAA as requiring Covered Entities to appropriate steps to ensure that safeguards are in place when disposing of patient information to keep it from being accessible by the public. ”Improper disposal of protected health information creates an unnecessary risk to patient privacy,” said Acting OCR Director Melanie Fontes Rainer.

On May 11, 2021, NEDLC filed a breach report with OCR that reported empty specimen containers with the PHI on labels were placed in a garbage bin in their parking lot. The containers’ labels included patient names and dates of birth, dates of sample collection, and name of the provider who took the specimen. On March 31, 2021, a third-party security guard found one specimen container bearing a label containing patient names, dates of birth, dates of sample collection, and name of the provider who took the specimen. During the investigation, NEDLC stated that from February 4, 2011 until March 31, 2021, it regularly discarded specimen containers with an attached label that contained PHI as regular waste, bagged and placed in an exterior dumpster accessible via the parking lot, without alteration to the PHI containing label.

OCR’s New England Regional Office found the practice of disposing of specimen containers with their labels containing PHI violated the HIPAA Privacy Rule including the impermissible use and disclosure of PHI and failure to maintain appropriate safeguards to protect the privacy of PHI.

Under the NEDLC Resolution Agreement negotiated to settle the alleged violations, NEDLC paid $300,640 to OCR and agreed to implement a “robust” corrective action plan that includes two years of OCR monitoring. Among other things, the corrective action plan requires NEDLC to:

Within 60 days, develop, maintain, and revise, as needed and present for OCR review its written policies and procedures to comply with the physical safeguard and disposal of PHI created, received or maintained by or on behalf of NEDLC and all other HIPAA Privacy, Security and Breach Notification and training protocols to ensure workforce member compliance with these policies; and sanctions for workforce members violating these requirements;
Implement the updated policies and procedures within 30 days of receipt of HHS approval;
Distribute the policies to existing members of its workforce within 30 days of receipt of HHS approval of the policies and subsequently to new members of the workforce within 30 days of their beginning of service and obtain a signed written or electronic initial compliance certification from all members of the workforce and relevant business associates stating that the workforce members have read, understand, and shall abide by such policies and procedures;
Assess, update, and revise, as necessary, the policies and procedures at least annually or as needed, provide the revised policies and procedures to HHS for review and approval, and redistribute to and obtained new compliance certifications from workforce members and business associates within 30 days of HHS approval;
If it receives information during the Compliance Term that a workforce member or business associate may have failed to comply with its policies and procedures for safeguarding PHI, promptly investigate and it the investigation finds a violation, notify HHS within 30 days of the violation and corrective action taken;
Comply with specified breach investigation and notification requirements;
Provide reports certified by a designated leader of the organization its implementation of the corrective action plan, annually and upon the occurrence of certain other events during the two-year monitoring period.

The NEDLC Resolution Agreement is not the first time OCR has nailed a Covered Entity for improper disposal of PHI. In 2015 Cornell Prescription Pharmacy paid OCR $125,000 and implemented a correction action plan to correct alleged HIPAA violations after an OCR investigation of a local news report confirmed unsecured paper documents containing PHI of more than 1600 patients were disposed of in an unlocked, open container on Cornell’s premises. The documents were not shredded and contained identifiable information regarding specific patients. See Cornell Prescription Pharmacy Resolution Agreement. See also $800,000 HIPAA Settlement in Medical Records Dumping Case.

To reduce their own exposure to potential HIPAA liability arising from improper disposal of PHI, covered entities should evaluate the adequacy of the PHI handling, security and disposal policies, procedures, training and compliance for potential weaknesses and take appropriate, timely documented corrective action to tighten their compliance with OCR’s regulations, OCR’s Frequently Asked Questions About the Disposal and other OCR enforcement actions and guidance on PHI disposal.

Since these evaluations could uncover past or ongoing compliance concerns, Covered Entities and business associates should consider engaging legal counsel experienced with HIPAA compliance to advise and aid the Covered Entity to structure, conduct, evaluate findings and determine and implement any corrective actions that the review reveals as required or advisable within the scope of attorney client privilege.

Effective protection and disposal of PHI requires that Covered Entities recognize and keep track of all PHI in the various phases of its lifecycle in the organization including when it is being disposed or or migrating through various systems. Sanctions for disposal of specimen bottles containing PHI labels should raise the need for awareness of disposal practices for other patient labeled items including identification bracelets, medication containers and labels, meal trays and the plethora of other items containing patient specific information. PHI disposal issues also can arise out of the disposal of files, storage containers, computers, copiers or other devices. For instance, under the Affinity Health Plan, Inc. Resolution Agreement, Affinity Health paid OCR $1,215,780 to settle potential HIPAA Civil Monetary Sanctions after OCR found it exposed the PHI of up to 344,579 individuals by returning photocopiers to a leasing agent without erasing the data contained on the copier hard drives.

Because HIPAA obligations continue even when a Covered Entity or business associate goes out of business, Covered Entities also need to take appropriate steps to provide for ongoing management, protection and disposal of PHI when they or a business associate ceases business. Thus, in the FileFax Resolution Agreement, for instance the receiver appointed to liquidate the assets of Filefax, Inc. agreed to pay $ 100,000 out of the receivership estate to OCR to settle potential HIPAA violations after Filefax shut its doors during the course of OCR’s investigation into alleged HIPAA violations.

Covered Entities must understand that these responsibilities generally cannot be met merely through adoption of a standard set of policies and procedures from a third-party. The HIPAA Privacy Rule requires all Covered Entities to prepare and document risk assessments and develop and enforce appropriate privacy and security policies and procedures. Security and disposal practices and procedures are among the elements of HIPAA compliance that OCR expects Covered Entities to address in the documented risk assessments the regulations require Covered Entities to prepare and maintain. See $750,000 HIPAA Settlement Underscores the Need for Organization Wide Risk Analysis. As with other HIPAA compliance responsibilities, OCR regulations require that Covered Entities include their documented assessment and decision-making about the adequacy and reasonableness of their PHI protection and destruction practices under HIPAA as part of their overall HIPAA risk assessment plan and practices.

While OCR guidance provides some examples of several practices that a Covered Entity might use that could or could not meet the destruction standards, these examples are not safe harbors. The regulations and guidance expect Covered Entities to conduct a documented review and assessment “of their own circumstances to determine what steps are reasonable to safeguard PHI through disposal and develop and implement policies and procedures to carry out those steps.” OCR guidance directs that Covered Entities should assess potential risks to patient privacy, as well as consider such issues as the form, type, and amount of PHI to be disposed. Covered entities are responsible for conducting and documenting their analysis as well as their adoption, implementation and enforcement of the resulting policies and procedures.

If circumstances come to light that indicate a breach of the standards in the course of the disposal compliance assessment or otherwise, Covered Entities also promptly should work with legal counsel timely to investigate, determine and provide any required notifications or other corrective action and document their actions to meet applicable HIPAA and other legal obligations and mitigate liability.

Of course, Covered Entities and their leaders always must keep in mind that their responsibilities and potential liability for mishandling PHI could extend well beyond HIPAA. In addition to the civil monetary penalties HIPAA authorizes, mishandling the collection, protection or disposal of PHI or other sensitive data also can trigger other legal exposures. For instance, as HIPAA compliance is part of the Conditions of Participation that Medicare participating Covered Entities and Medicare Advantage Plans must meet to qualify for program participation, noncompliance could trigger program exclusion, False Claims Act or related exposures. Deficiencies in security or destruction of credit card, banking or other PHI that also qualifies as personal financial information could trigger exposure under Federal Trade Commission, state identity theft and privacy or other laws. Public companies and their leaders also may need to evaluate if deficiencies in their security or destruction protocols trigger investor disclosure obligations under Securities and Exchange Commission rules or other federal or state laws. Considering these and other exposures, documented, compliance and defensibility of PHI and other sensitive information use, protection, disclosure and destruction should rank high among the priorities of all Covered Entities and their leaders.

More Information

About the Author

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 30 plus year career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Anethesiology, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Conditions of Participation, Cyber crime, data breach, Direct Primary Care, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Health Apps, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Insurance, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HHS, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, managed care, Medical Licensure, Medical Records, Medicare, Mental Health, Mental Heatlh, nursing home, occupational health, OCR, Outpatient, participating provider, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Physician Licensing, physician licensure, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Psychiatric, public health, Reproductive Rights, Rural Health Care, Self-Insured Group health Plans, Skilled Nursing Facility, substance abuse treatment | Tagged: Abortion, dobbs, Health Care, HIPAA, Physician, Protected Health Information, Reproductive Rights | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Protect Remote Desktop Protocols From Malware Threat

July 1, 2022

As Americans prepare to celebrate the July 4th holiday, CISA, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) are warning of a cyber threat for Remote Desktop users. Health care, health plan, healthcare clearing houses, their business associates and other security sensitive organizations using remote access technology should perform and document their risk assessment and any corrective actions taken as part of their continuing Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), Fair and Accurate Credit Transactioms Act (FACTA”), government contracting, securities law, and other data security compliance.

The joint Cybersecurity Advisory (CSA), #StopRansomware: MedusaLocker, published July 1 alerts of the risk of MedusaLocker ransomware. MedusaLocker actors target vulnerabilities in Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) to access victims’ networks.

CISA, FBI, Treasury and FinCEN are encouraging network defenders to examine their current cybersecurity posture and apply the recommended mitigations in this joint CSA, which include:

Prioritize remediating known exploited vulnerabilities.
Train users to recognize and report phishing attempts.
Enable and enforce multifactor authentication.

When assessing Remote Desktop protocol risks, covered entities, business associates and other security concerned organizations also should examine their exposures to other vulnerabilities.

A key resource for monitoring some of these vulnerabilities is the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog, which lists exposures based on evidence of active exploitation. These types of vulnerabilities are a frequent attack vector for malicious cyber actors and pose significant risk federal enterprises. CISA strongly urges all organizations to reduce their exposure to cyberattacks by prioritizing timely remediation of Catalog vulnerabilities as part of their vulnerability management practice. CISA will continue to add vulnerabilities to the Catalog that meet the specified criteria.

The Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (‘“OCR”) guidance and enforcement makes clear covered entities and business associates must monitor and take appropriate actions to update their security in response to emerging cyber security threats.

Along with monitoring and responding to this and other security threats, covered entities also should add reviewing and updating their HI-AA practices in response to new guidance OCR issued this week in response to the Supreme Court Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortion ruling. The HIPAA Privacy Rule and Disclosures of Information Relating to Reproductive Health Care guidance generally addresses when the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule restricts or allows individuals’ private medical information (known as “protected health information” or “PHI”) relating to abortion and other sexual and reproductive health care. For more details, see here.

Beyond HIPAA, malware and other data or system security breaches and susceptibilities can create liability risks under tax, securities, government contracting, FACTA and a wide range of federal and state laws. For instance, with cybersecurity threats and compliance concerns growing, the SEC is prioritizing cybersecurity regulation, investigation and enforcement against public companies and other market participants for lack cybersecurity governance, safeguards or disclosures. See e.g., SEC Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations Cybersecurity and Resiliency Observations. Along announcing its commitment to hold market involved and impacting regulated entities accountable for failing to maintain and enforce appropriate internal and external controls to prevent, detect and redress cybersecurity threats, including appropriate board governance and risk management, access rights and controls, data loss prevention, mobile security, incident response and resiliency, vendor management, training and awareness, investor disclosures and other practices.

Healthcare providers and other covered entities, their business associates and others with data security responsibilities or sensitivities should respond promptly and carefully document their risk analysis and response in response to these emerging concerns.

More Information

About the Author

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 30 plus year career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ambulance, ASC, Conditions of Participation, Cyber crime, data security, Doctor, Electronic Health Records, Emergency Care, Employer, ERISA, FDA, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Fiduciary Responsibility, FTC, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Insurance, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, home health, Hospital, Medicaid Advantage, Medicare Advantage, NIST, nursing home, OCR, Privacy, Rural Health Care | Tagged: Cyber Security, Data Breach, Data Security, Health Care, HIPAA, Malware | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

6 Texas Physicians Face Federal Health Care Fraud Charges For Alleged Improper Kickbacks & Lab Testing Claims

May 29, 2022

The Department of Justice sent another strong warning to physicians and other health care provides not to violate the False Claims Act by making improper patient referrals in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law, billing federal health care programs for medically unnecessary laboratory testing or other services or both when charged six Texas physicians with federal health care fraud this week. The prosecution of the physicians for laboratory tests arranged and billed through management services organizations also reminds physicians and other providers that reliance upon management services or other third-party service providers generally does not protect a physician participating in prohibited laboratory or other testing, durable medical equipment, facility, physical therapy or other health care billing or referral arrangements from liability.

Charges Against Texas Physicians

This week, the Justice Department added the following six physicians as defendants to criminal charges filed in a False Claims Act complaint filed in January 2022 against former True Health Diagnostics LLC (THD) CEO Christopher Grottenthaler, former Boston Heart Diagnostics Corporation (BHD) CEO Susan Hertzberg, former LRH CEO Jeffrey Madison, and others:

Doyce Cartrett, Jr., M.D., of Silsbee, Texas, allegedly received over $320,000 from LRH and two management services organizations or “MSOs,” Ascend MSO of TX LLC (Ascend) and Eridanus MG LLC (Eridanus), in return for his referrals.
Elizabeth Seymour, M.D., of Corinth, Texas, allegedly received over $280,000 from two MSOs, Ascend and Eridanus, in return for her referrals.
Emanuel Paul “E.P.” Descant, II, M.D., of Spring, Texas, allegedly received over $125,000 from two MSOs, North Houston MSO and Tomball Medical Management Inc., in return for his referrals.
Frederick Brown, M.D., of Missouri City, Texas, allegedly received over $190,000 from two MSOs, Ascend and Indus MG LLC (Indus), in return for his referrals.
Heriberto Salinas, M.D., of Cleburne, Texas, allegedly received over $75,000 from two MSOs, Ascend and Herculis MG LLC (Herculis), in return for his referrals.
Hong Davis, M.D., of Lewisville, Texas, allegedly received over $70,000 from two MSOs, Ascend and Herculis, in return for her referrals.

The complaint in United States, et al. ex rel. STF, LLC v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, et al., No. 4:16-cv-547 (E.D. Tex.) charges that small Texas hospitals including Rockdale Hospital dba Little River Healthcare (LRH), THD, BHD, the six physicians and others conspired to pay physicians to induce referrals to the hospitals for laboratory testing performed by THD or BHD. The charges stem from allegations made under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act by STF LLC by Felice Gersh, M.D. and Chris Riedel. The United States intervened in the qui tam action in December 2021.

The complaint alleges the charged hospitals paid a portion of their laboratory profits to recruiters, who in turn kicked back those funds to the referring physicians through MSOs allegedly set up by the recruiters to make payments to referring physicians. The Justice Department charges the alleged kickbacks were disguised as investment returns but actually were based on, and offered in exchange for, the physicians’ referrals. The complaint alleges that laboratory tests resulting from this referral scheme were billed to various federal health care programs, and that the claims not only were tainted by improper inducements but, in many cases, also involved tests that were not reasonable and necessary.

The Justice Department reports that before adding charges against the six physicians to the complaint this week, the Justice Department recovered more than $31 million relating to conduct involving BHD, THD and LRH, including False Claims Act settlements with 29 physicians, two health care executives and a laboratory company.

Health Care Fraud Liability Under False Claims Act, Anti-Kickback Statute, Stark Law

The Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to induce referrals of items or services covered by Medicare, Medicaid and other federally-funded programs. The Stark Law forbids a hospital or laboratory from billing Medicare for certain services referred by physicians that have a financial relationship with the hospital or laboratory. The Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law seek to ensure that medical providers’ judgments are not compromised by improper financial incentives and are instead based on the best interests of their patients.

The False Claims Act prohibits health care providers from billing federal health care programs for services resulting from referrals prohibited by the Anti-Kickback Statute or the Stark law.

Under the False Claims Act, a private party can file an action on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of the recovery. The False Claims Act also allows the Justice Department to intervene in such lawsuits and add claims and defendants, as happened in this litigation. The qui tam case is captioned United States, et al. ex rel. STF, LLC v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, et al., No. 4:16-cv-547 (E.D. Tex.). If a defendant is found liable for violating the act, the United States may recover three times the amount of its losses plus applicable penalties.

The United States’ pursuit of this lawsuit illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud generally with a special emphasis on physicians. For instance, U.S. Attorney Brit Featherston is quoted as saying, “Schemes that funnel health care referrals do not work without the participation of physicians. … They are not merely passive players in these elaborate schemes, but an integral part, without which the scheme could not exist. Our office is committed to rooting out health care fraud by pursuing all players involved the scheme, from the laboratories and their leaders to the marketers and the physicians who make it all possible. Naming these physicians in the complaint is evidence of that commitment.”

Given this clear warning, physicians and other prescribers, as well as recruiting, billing and management services organizations, laboratories and others involved in recruiting and marketing, providing or billing for laboratory or other services to double check the appropriateness of their referral and other practices keeping in mind that the Anti-Kickback Statute and Stark Law prohibitions against direct and indirect compensation can reach to a wide range of subtle value and benefits in addition to the obvious payment of cash or gifts delivered in a multitude of ways. The prosecution of these physicians for referrals made and compensation delivered under management services contracts also clearly warns physicians and other providers against expecting their reliance upon billing, management services or other staff or management service providers to shield them from liability if an improper referral or payment happens.

More Information

About the Author

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 30 plus year career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Leave a Comment » | Anti-KickBack, billing, Centers For Disease Control, Conditions of Participation, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, false claims act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, healthcare, HHS, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Laboratory tests, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Money Laundering, nursing home, OIG, Opiates, Pharmaceudical, Physician, Physician Licensing, Reimbursement, Stark, Substance Abuse | Tagged: Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Opiate, pain management, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

SCOTUS: Emotional Injury Damages Not Recoverable In Patient’s Private Rehab Act and ACA Disability Discrimination Lawsuit But Other Significant Liability Risks Remain

May 2, 2022

Today’s Supreme Court ruling that emotional distress damages are not recoverable in a private action to enforce the disability discrimination and accommodation requirements of either the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Rehab Act”) or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) prevents health care and other businesses subject to these requirements against the risk of large emotional injury awards in private actions for discrimination based on these laws. However, health care providers and other organizations subject to these requirements should use care to maintain compliance to avoid large actual damage awards to plaintiffs bringing private lawsuits, program exclusion, penalties or other governmental sanctions or both.

Cummings Supreme Court Ruling

The May 1, 2022 United States Supreme Court ruling in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller authored by Supreme Court Justice John Roberts resulted from a suit that sought emotional distress damages brought by filed by a deaf and legally blind woman, Jane Cummings against Premier Rehab Keller after it denied her request that it provide an American Sign Language interpreter at her physical therapy sessions. Premier Rehab told Cummings the therapist could communicate with her through other means, Claiming Premier Rehab’s failure to provide an ASL interpreter constituted discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the Rehab Act and Section 1557 of the ACA, Cummings sued Premier Rehab seeking various damages and other relief, including emotional distress damages.

The Supreme Court took notice that Premier Rehab was subject to these laws because its receipt of Medicare and Medicaid payments qualified as federal financial assistance triggering their applicability.

The Supreme Court affirmed the previous District Court and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ rulings that emotional distress damages are not recoverable in a private action to enforce either the Rehab Act or the ACA.

The Supreme Court Majority based its decision on its finding that the Rehab Act and Act both are spending statutes that condition their offer of federal funding on a promise by the recipient not to discriminate creating what amounts essentially to a contract between the Government and the recipient of funds. Following previously established Supreme Court precedent for “private spending clause actions,” the Court ruled the emotional distress or other remedy is not available unless “the funding recipient is on notice that by accepting federal funding, it exposes itself to liability of that nature.”

To decide whether emotional distress damages are available under the Spending Clause statutes in this case, the Court therefore asked if a prospective funding recipient deciding whether to accept
federal funds would have had “clear notice” regarding that liability. Because the two statutes are silent on the availability of emotional injury damages, the Supreme Court followed prior precedent by looking to whether the emotional damages sought by Cummings were the type of damages traditionally available in suits for breach of contract so as to put Premier Rehab and other defendants on notice of their exposure to such damages from actions under the Rehab Act or ACA. While acknowledging some exceptional circumstances where punitive damages may be recovered where “the conduct constituting the breach is also a tort for which punitive damages are recoverable,” the Court found such damages “are generally not available for breach of contract.” Concluding that the recognized exception to the general rule was insufficient to give funding recipients the requisite notice that they could face such damages. the Supreme Court ruled that funding recipients under the Rehab Act and the ACA “have not, merely by accepting funds, implicitly consented to liability for punitive damages.”

To read the full Majority opinion and related consenting and dissenting opinions, see here.

Liability Risks Remain Substantial Despite Cummings Ruling

While the Supreme Court’s ruling means private litigants cannot recover emotional injury damages in discrimination actions brought to enforce the Rehabilitation Act or the ACA, health industry and other organizations remain subject to other substantial liability risks for improper discrimination in violation of those laws. Beyond recoveries for actual damages, attorneys’ fees and costs recoverable by private litigants, covered organizations also can face substantial civil monetary penalties, program disqualification, in some instances even False Claims Act liability for billing in violation of program conditions of participation and other risks. As federal agencies continue to make enforcement of these sanctions a priority, organization covered by either of these laws should use care to maintain appropriate compliance and risk management to ensure their ability to defend against any potential charges.

For instance, HHS recently reaffirmed its continued commitment and prioritization of protecting disabled individuals against disability discrimination by its publication of its February 4, 2022 FAQs for Healthcare Providers during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency: Federal Civil Rights Protections for Individuals with Disabilities under Section 504 and Section 1557. Published to remind health care providers of their obligations under law and provide examples of applicability, HHS clarifies in that guidance that federal civil rights laws apply to health care providers, including those administering COVID-19 testing, medical supplies, and medication. These rules also apply to entities providing hospitalization, long-term care, intensive treatments, and critical care, such as oxygen therapy and mechanical ventilators. HHS also confirm that federal civil rights laws apply to state Crisis Standard of Care plans, procedures, and related standards for triaging scarce resources that hospitals are required to follow. HHS Issues New Guidance for Health Care Providers on Civil Rights Protections for People with Disabilities. See also New Guidance to Boost Accessibility and Equity in COVID-19 Vaccine Programs (December 22, 2021); HHS Takes Action to Prevent Discrimination and Strengthen Civil Rights (November 18, 2021); HHS and DOJ Issue Guidance on “Long COVID” and Disability Rights Under the ADA, Section 504, and Section 1557 (July 26, 2021); OCR Provides Technical Assistance to the State of Arizona to Ensure Crisis Standards of Care Protect Against Age and Disability Discrimination (May 25, 2021); HHS Announces Prohibition on Sex Discrimination Includes Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (May 10, 2021); New Legal Guidance and Resources to Ensure — and Expand — Access to COVID-19 Vaccines for People with Disabilities and Older Adults (April 13, 2021).

HHS’ guidance announcements all include a warning like the one from OCR Director Lisa J. Pino in the February 4, 2022 announcment that “OCR will continue our robust enforcement of federal civil rights laws that protect people with disabilities from discrimination, including when Crisis Standards of Care are in effect.”

The current and historical enforcement record of HHS demonstrates the teeth behind this commitment. OCR has a long and continuing history of extracting substantial settlements or civil monetary penalties from health care or other organizations receiving Medicare, Medicaid or other federal funds administered by HSS for engaging in conduct OCR finds inconsistent with the ACA or Rehabilitation Act discrimination requirements. See, e.g., Settlement Agreement Reached with Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families to Address Discrimination Against Parents with Disabilities (March 30, 2022); Massachusetts Healthcare Provider Resolves Allegations of Discriminatory Practices Regarding Patients Needing Opioid Use Disorder Treatment (December 22, 2021); HHS Office for Civil Rights and U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts Settle Disability Discrimination Case with Baystate Medical Center (November 17, 2021); HHS Office for Civil Rights and U.S. Attorney’s Office Settle Disability Discrimination Case with Backus Hospital (October 5, 2021); Rhode Island, Massachusetts Healthcare Provider Resolves Allegations of Discriminatory Practices Regarding Patients Needing Opioid Use Disorder Treatment (August 9, 2021).

These OCR guidance and enforcement actions and similar activities by other federal agencies send a strong message that OCR and other federal agencies will continue and expand their zealous investigation and enforcement of disability and other violations by health care providers and other public and private organizations covered by the Rehabilitation Act, the ACA or other federal discrimination and civil rights laws. Health care providers and others regulated by these federal discrimination laws should consider auditing the adequacy of existing practices, reaffirming their own and their business partners’ compliance, retraining workforce and taking other appropriate steps to help prevent illegal discrimination within their organization and to position their organization to respond and defend against potential discrimination investigations or charges.

For Additional Information Or Assistance

If you need have questions or need assistance with health, health or other insurance, employee benefit, payroll, investment or other data, systems or other privacy or security related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help. Longtime scribe for the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits agency meeting with OCR and author of leading publications on HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns, Ms. Stamer regularly assists clients and provides input to Congress, OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and cybersecurity, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns.

Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

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. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance frequently appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications. She also is a highly-sought out speaker on privacy and data security who serves on the planning faculty and speaks for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others. You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters, e-mail Ms. Stamer or call (214) 452-8297.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Important Information About This Communication

Leave a Comment » | 1335 Waiver, Academic medicine, ADA, air ambulance, Ambulatory care, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Civil Rights, Conditions of Participation, Corporate Compliance, Covid, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, DME, early childhood education, Emergency Care, Employee Benefits, Employment, false claims act, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, health care reimbursement, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HHS, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Labor Law, Laws, Life Sciences, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Health, Mental Heatlh, nursing home, occupational health, OCR, OIG, Opiates, Outpatient, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Reimbursement, Section 1557 | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Federal Convictions Of Physicians Highlight Need For Care In Opiate & Other Pain Management Prescribing & Billing

March 4, 2022

Physicians and other health care prescribers must remain hyper vigilant when prescribing, documenting, billing and managing opiate and other pain management prescriptions and patients. That’s the clear message sent by the ever-growing wave of federal prosecutions and convictions like the March 2, 2022 federal conviction of Tennessee physician Mark Murphy and his wife, Jennifer Murphy and his wife for unlawfully distributing opioids, providing unnecessary services and defrauding insurers from their now-shuttered North Alabama Pain Services clinics (“NAPS”) and March 1, 2022 sentencing of former physician Patrick Titus to 20 years in prison for his conviction of unlawful distribution of opioid drug outside the usual scope of professional practice and not for legitimate medical purposes as part of the his internal medicine practice.

Tennessee Doctor & Wife Convicted of Pain Management Related Unlawful Opioid Distribution, Health Care Fraud & Other Criminal Charges

The March 2 federal jury conviction of Dr. and Ms. Murphy stemmed from their ownership and operation of their now-defunct pain management clinics resulted from evidence gathered through a joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Drug Enforcement Agency.

During the resulting jury trial, federal prosecutors presented evidence that during the five-year period leading up to the clinic closing its Alabama locations in 2017, Dr. Murphy and Ms. Murphy, who was the office manager, caused over $50 million in fraudulent or unnecessary medical services to be charged to Medicare, TRICARE, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama and others. Evidence at trial showed that NAPS provided pre-signed prescriptions to thousands of patients a month, including prescriptions written outside the usual course of professional practice without a legitimate medical purpose. Federal prosecutors also introduced evidence that the Murphys also solicited and received unlawful payments for referring fraudulent or unnecessary services to patients.

Based on the evidence, the jury found both Dr. and Ms. Murphy guilty on numerous criminal charges including:

Conspiracy to unlawfully distribute and unlawful distribution of controlled substances;
Conspiracy to commit and commission of health care fraud;
Conspiracy to defraud the United States; and
Receiving illegal kickbacks in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute.

Ms. Murphy also was convicted of tax-related charges for underreporting clinic income.

Currently scheduled for sentencing in June, the Murphys each face a maximum of 20 years in prison for the drug charges and a maximum of 10 years in prison for the health care fraud charges. Both defendants also face a maximum of five years in prison for charges stemming from violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute, and Ms. Murphy faces up to three years in prison for the tax charges.

Former Delaware Doctor Sentenced to 20 Years in Prison for Unlawful Opioid Distribution

The Murphy’s jury conviction came one day after the sentencing of former to 20 years in prison for his July 2021 federal jury conviction on 13 counts of unlawfully distributing and dispensing controlled substances and one count of maintaining a drug-involved premises.

Federal prosecutors presented evidence in court documents and trial that Dr. Titus unlawfully distributed or dispensed opioid drugs including fentanyl, morphine, methadone, OxyContin and oxycodone outside the usual scope of professional practice and not for legitimate medical purposes as part of the his internal medicine practice. The Justice Department charged Dr. Titus frequently prescribed these dangerous controlled substances in high dosages, sometimes in combination with each other or in other dangerous combinations, mostly in exchange for cash. Evidence at trial showed he distributed over 1 million opioid pills without providing any meaningful medical care and to patients he knew were suffering from substance use disorder and/or who demonstrated clear signs that the prescribed drugs were being abused, diverted or sold on the street.

Health Care Fraud Task Force Targeting Opioid Distribution, Billing, & Related Misconduct

Both the Murphy and Titus prosecutions and convictions are two of a growing series of convictions resulted from investigations into opioid and other pain management prescribing conducted as part of efforts targeting physicians and other health care providers involved in prohibited the federal Health Care Fraud Strike Force Program. See e.g., Medical Director Convicted in $110 Million Addiction Treatment Fraud Scheme.

The Federal agencies made a point of warning to other physicians not to overprescribe, bill or engage in other prohibited dealings involving opioids or other controlled substances when announcing the Titus sentencing.

“As we continue the fight against the opioid crisis, this case serves as an important reminder that health care professionals have a duty to prescribe medication responsibly to ensure the well-being of individuals under their care. Failing to do so can endanger patients and undermines critical, ongoing public health measures,” said Special Agent in Charge Maureen Dixon of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General (HHS-OIG). “HHS-OIG will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to hold bad actors accountable.”

“This sentence is a reminder that the Department of Justice will hold accountable those doctors who are illegitimately prescribing opioids and fueling the country’s opioid crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr. of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “Doctors who commit these unlawful acts exploit their roles as stewards of their patients’ care for their own profit.”

“DEA-registered medical practitioners have an important role in our communities to treat patients compassionately and responsibly,” said DEA Administrator Anne Milgram. “Today’s sentencing makes clear that medical professionals who recklessly prescribe opioids and endanger the safety and health of patients will be held accountable.”

More Information

About the Author

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 30 plus year career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Leave a Comment » | billing, Centers For Disease Control, Conditions of Participation, Controlled Substances, Corporate Compliance, DEA, Doctor, drug treatment, E-Prescribing, Evidence Based Medicine, false claims act, FDA, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, hemp, HHS, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Licensing, managed care, marijuana, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medical Records, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, Monopoly, OIG, Opiates, pain management, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Reimbursement, Substance Abuse | Tagged: Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Opiate, pain management, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Justice Department COVID & Other Health Care Fraud Enforcement Thriving Despite Pandemic Emergency

November 23, 2021

Federal health care fraud prosecution continues to thrive despite the ongoing COVID-19 health care emergency.

Recently announced prosecutions and other enforcement actions include Fraud & Abuse, False Claims Act and other health care fraud prosecutions commonly pursued by the Justice Department in recent decades as well as a host of new prosecutions of abuses of Covid-19 relief programs. Examples include:

These and other actions send a clear message to health care and life science organizations to continue vigorous health care fraud compliance and risk management activities as well as stay vigilant for signs of new audit and enforcement activities.

More Information

About the Author

Past Board President of the Richardson Development Program for Children ECE and Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health industry legal, public policy and operational concerns.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 30 plus year career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns.

As a part of this work, she has continuously and extensively worked with domestic and international health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, and insurers; managed care and insurance organizations; hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; consultants; investors; EHR, claims, payroll and other technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, self-insured health and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers and other payers, health industry advocacy and other service providers and groups and other health and managed care industry clients as well as federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies.

This involvement encompasses helping health care systems and organizations, schools, ECEs, group and individual health care providers, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients prevent, investigate, manage and resolve sexual assault, abuse, harassment and other organizational, provider and employee misconduct and other performance and behavior; manage Section 1557, Civil Rights Act and other discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; contracting and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other payers and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EHR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, ant kickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement; and other strategic and operational concerns.

Author of a multitude of health industry and other highly regarded publications and presentations, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Centers For Disease Control, Conditions of Participation, Coronavirus, Corporate Compliance, Covid, COVID-19, Electronic Health Records, Employer, false claims act, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, healthcare, HHS, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Life Sciences, long-term care, Medicaid, Medicaid Advantage, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Pandemic, Pharmacy, Physician, physician licensure, Reimbursement, retaliation, Skilled Nursing Facility, Stark, substance abuse treatment | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Biden-Harris Administration to Expand Vaccination Requirements for Health Care and Many Other Employers

September 9, 2021

All Medicare and Medicaid certified health care facilities, and a broad range of other employers must prepare to meet impending new federal COVID-19 vaccine mandates announced by the Biden-Harris Administration today.

According to today’s announcements all healthcare facilities participating in Medicare or Medicaid or employing 100 or more employees will be required to ensure all staff are vaccinated against COVID-19.

The Biden-Harris Administration says the new health industry COVID-19 vaccine mandates will be implemented through emergency regulations to be issued in October.

According to today’s announcement, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service (“CMS”) in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) is developing an Interim Final Rule with Comment Period that will be issued in October that will extend vaccine mandates originally announced last month for all Medicare and Medicaid participating nursing home workers to include hospitals, dialysis facilities, ambulatory surgical settings, and home health agencies, among others, as a condition for participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. See CMS/CDC Mandating COVID Vaccination For All Nursing Home Staff.

The announcement of the vaccine mandates for healthcare workers coincides with the Biden-Harris Administration’s announcement of sweeping new vaccine mandates for all government workers, government contractors and employers employing more than 100 employees.

The two mandates will force most health care facilities to impose mask mandates for all staff in order to meet the requirement all staff be vaccinated.

CMS and CDC say the decision was based on the continued and growing spread of the virus in health care settings, especially in parts of the U.S. with higher incidence of COVID-19. They claim the action will protect patients of the 50,000 providers and over 17 million health care workers in Medicare and Medicaid certified facilities.

According to the CDC, nursing homes with an overall staff vaccination rate of 75% or lower experience higher rates of preventable COVID infection. In CMS’s review of available data, the agency is seeing lower staff vaccination rates among hospital and End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) facilities. To combat this issue, CMS is using its authority to establish vaccine requirements for all providers and suppliers that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Vaccinations have proven to reduce the risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19 and are effective against the Delta variant.

In it’s announcement of the impending vaccination requirements, CDC urged health care facilities to prepare now to meet the new mandate in October. CMS expects certified Medicare and Medicaid facilities to act in the best interest of patients and staff by complying with new COVID-19 vaccination requirements.

CDC also urged any health care workers employed in these facilities who are not currently vaccinated are urged to begin the process immediately and facilities to use all available resources to support employee vaccinations, including employee education and clinics, as they work to meet new federal requirements.

While legal challenges to the mandate requirements are likely, most facilities that have not already adopted vaccine mandates are expected to adopt these mandates rather than risk losing eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement and other sanctions.

Beyondprogram disqualification and attendant financial pressures, announcement of the new vaccine mandates adds vaccination to the list of safety safeguards that healthcare facilities as employers can expect to be required to enforce as part of the occupational safety rules of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (”OSHA”).

OSHA already is sanctioning employers for violating COVID-19 related OSHA requirements. For instance, OSHA nailed Lakewood Resource and Referral Center Inc., dba Center for Education Medicine and Dentistry (CHEMED) with heavy fines for allegedly violating applicable COVID-19 safety guidelines in January, 2021.

In a July 23, 2021 citation letter, OSH proposes to fine CHEMED $273,064.00 for willfully violating OSHA by not providing a medical evaluation to determine each employee’s ability to use a N95 respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace to protect against SARS-CoV-2 virus while testing suspected COVID-19 individuals.

In addition to the proposed fine, the citation also orders CHEMED to take a series of corrective actions and to post notices in the workplace informing workers of the violation.

Along with the CHEMED citation, OSH also cited a staffing agency contracted to provide nursing staffing to CHEMED, Homecare Therapies for also failing to conduct medical evaluations and fit tests. It received two violations and a proposed fine of $13,653.

In the face of these potential consequences, most covered health care facilities and other employers impacted by the mandate are likely to implement mandates unless and until these requirements are struct down by the courts or withdrawn.

Assuming the Administration follows appropriate procedures to adopt the rules, most legal commentators do not expect the legal challenges opposing the mandate orders to be successful in the courts particularly after the Supreme Court refused to overturn or hear arguments for overturning a unanimous decision of a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Klassen v. Trustees of Indiana University that refused to enjoin a vaccine mandate imposed by Indiana University as a condition of student or staff in person participation in classes or other activities.

While most healthcare and other covered businesses are not expected to challenge the rules, compliance us likely to trigger backlash from some unvaccinated workers strongly opposed to becoming vaccinated. Employers may find that some employees will resign their employment or take other tactics to avoid becoming vaccinated. Even those who elect to become vaccinated to retain their employment are likely to express opposition and dissatisfaction that could create liability exposures for the employers if it becomes a basis for retaliation claim.

Employers in Texas and certain other states that have adopted rules restricting or prohibiting vaccine, mask or other mandates also may face challenges based on the state rules.

In light of these and other uncertainties and challenges, Healthcare and Other or Employers generally should seek legal advice and assistance from legal counsel experienced with the relevant health care, labor and employment, privacy and other concerns.

More Information

This article is republished by permission of the author, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. To review the original work, see here.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to receive future updates by registering here and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy. 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 your profile here. For specific information about the these or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

Most widely recognized for her work with health care, life sciences, insurance and data and technology organizations, she also has worked extensively with health plan and insurance, employee benefits, financial, transportation, manufacturing, energy, real estate, accounting and other services, public and private academic and other education, hospitality, charitable, civic and other business, government and community organizations. and their leaders.

Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising, representing, defending, and training domestic and international public and private business, charitable, community and governmental organizations and their leaders, employers, employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries and service providers, insurers, and others has published and spoken extensively on these concerns. As part of these involvements, she has worked, published and spoken extensively on these and other human resources, employee benefits, compensation, worker classification and other workforce and other services; insurance; health care; workers’ compensation and occupational disease; business reengineering, disaster and distress; and many other performance, risk management, compliance, public policy and regulatory affairs, and other operational concerns.

A former lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its pension project, Ms. Stamer also has worked internationally and domestically as an advisor to business, community and government leaders on these and other legislative, regulatory and other legislative and regulatory design, drafting, interpretation and enforcement, as well as regularly advises and represents organizations on the design, administration and defense of workforce, employee benefit and compensation, safety, discipline, reengineering, regulatory and operational compliance and other management practices and actions.

Ms. Stamer also serves in leadership of a broad range of professional and civic organizations and provides insights and thought leadership through her extensive publications, public speaking and volunteer service with a diverse range of organizations including as Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Vice Chair of the International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee, Past ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group Chair and Council Representative and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, past Region IV Chair and national Society of Human Resources Management Consultant Forum Board Member, past Texas Association of Business BACPAC Chair, Regional Chair and Dallas Chapter Chair, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation and many others.

For more information about these concerns or Ms. Stamer’s work, experience, involvements, other publications, or programs, see www.cynthiastamer.com, on Facebook, on LinkedIn or Twitter or e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Accreditation, ambulance, Ambulatory care, Anethesiology, Biological Warfare, CDC, Centers For Disease Control, Child Care, Conditions of Participation, Coronavirus, Corporate Compliance, Covid, Direct Primary Care, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, early childhood education, Emergency Care, Employer, Employment law, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, Health Plan, healthcare, HHS, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Laboratory tests, Life Sciences, Medicaid, Medicaid Advantage, Medical Licensure, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Mental Heatlh, nursing home, occupational health, OSHA, Pandemic, Peer Review, Physician, Reimbursement, Union, vaccination | Tagged: ARRA, Corporate Compliance, Covid, DOJ, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, HEAT, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Fraud Task Force, OCR, Pharma, pharmacist, pharmacy, Physician, Physicians, Privacy, Reimbursement, vaccine, vaccine mandate | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CMS Updates COVID-19 Accelerated and Advance Payments FAQs

July 8, 2021

Providers that received COVID-19 accelerated and advance payments should read the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) updated FAQs (PDF) about repayment of COVID-19 accelerated and advance payments to learn how recoupment works and how it affects the provider’s Medicare claims payment amounts.

The new FAQ updates the Repayment of COVID-19 Accelerated and Advance Payments Began on March 30, 2021 (PDF) guidance.

For more information and to follow future updates, see the COVID-19 Accelerated and Advance Payments webpage or contact the author of this update.

More Information

If you are interested in a more detailed description of this or other developments discussed in this article, see here.

If you 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 your profile here. For specific information or counsel about the these or other legal, management or public policy developments, Ms. Stamer’s work, experience, involvements, other publications, or programs, contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297, follow her on Facebook, LinkedIn or Twitter or see Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. Website.

About the Author

Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising, representing, defending and training domestic and international public and private health care and life sciences, charitable, community and governmental, and other business organizations and their leaders, employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries and service providers, insurers, and others. A widely published author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer also has published and spoken extensively on wage and other and other health care, human resources, employee benefits and other workforce and services; insurance; workers’ compensation and occupational disease; business reengineering, disaster and distress; and many other compliance, governance, risk management, operational and public and regulatory affairs concerns.

A former lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its pension project, Ms. Stamer also has worked internationally and domestically as an advisor to health, managed care, insurance, and other business, community and government leaders on these and other legislative, regulatory and other legislative and regulatory design, drafting, interpretation and enforcement, as well as regularly advises and represents organizations on the design, administration and defense of workforce, employee benefit and compensation, safety, discipline, reengineering, regulatory and operational compliance and other management practices and actions.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here. ©2021 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, Anti-KickBack, billing, Centers For Disease Control, compensation, Conditions of Participation, Coronavirus, Corporate Compliance, COVID-19, Doctor, E-Prescribing, Emergency Care, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HHS, Home Health, home health, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, OIG, Pandemic, Physician, public health, Reimbursement, Uncategorized | Tagged: COVID-19, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Medicare, Physician, recoupment, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Comment & Begin Preparation For Compliance With Proposed HIPAA Privacy Rule Changes

December 21, 2020

Health care providers, health plans and health insurers, health care clearinghouses (“Covered Entities”) and their business associates should budget and begin compliance plans, even as they comment on proposed changes to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule announced by the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) in its December 10, 2020 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Proposed Rule). While the official Federal Register publication date has yet to be announced, OCR already is accepting comments pending the official publication. To assure consideration, comments must be received by OCR no later than 60 days from that official Federal Register publication date.

More than 300 pages in length, the proposed HIPAA Privacy Rule changes include changes OCR intends to strengthen individuals’ rights to access their own electronic and other health information; improve information sharing for care coordination and case management for individuals; facilitate greater family and caregiver involvement in the care of individuals experiencing emergencies or health crises; enhance flexibilities for disclosures in the Opioid and COVID-19 public health emergencies or other emergency or threatening circumstances; and reduce administrative burdens on HIPAA covered health care providers and health plans. Highlights of some of the more significant proposed changes that the Proposed Rule will make if adopted as proposed include:

Individual Access Rights Expanded

The Proposed Rule includes a number of changes that if adopted as proposed, will increase significantly the burdens upon Covered Entities of complying with the individual access requirements of the Privacy Rule. Among other things, these include the following:

Responding To Access Requests. The Proposed Rule calls for:
Reducing the maximum period that Covered Entities have to respond to requests to “as soon as practicable,” but in no case later than 15 calendar days after receipt of the request” instead of current 30 calendar days;
Clarifying the current requirement for Covered Entities to provide PHI in the form and format requested by the individual if “readily producible” in that form and format by providing that “readily producible” includes secure, standards-based APIs using applications chosen by the individuals, such as a “personal health application” and protect individual’s rights to take notes, videos, and photographs, or use other personal resources to view or capture PHI in person;
Requiring Covered Entities to allow individuals access to inspect or obtain copies of their own PHI Free of charge when inspecting in person or accessing PHI on the internet, but continue to permit certain fees for labor, supplies, and postage for certain other means of access in accordance with Privacy Rules parameters. In acquiescence to the District Court’s January, 2020 holding that the prohibition against Covered Entities charging for third party copies in the current regulations exceeded its statutory authority in Ciox Health, LLC v. Azar, however the Proposed Rule would allow Covered Entities to charge limited fees to an individual directing transmission of an electronic copy of PHI to a third party under specified circumstances. The Proposed Rule also would require Covered Entities to provide advance notice of estimated fee schedules on their websites (if they have one) for common types of requests for copies of PHI and, upon request, provide individualized estimates of fees for copies and an itemized list of actual costs for requests for copies.
Right to Direct Copies to Third Parties. The Proposed Rule will require Covered Entities to transmit electronic PHI in an electronic health record to another Covered Entity as part of the individual’s access right. In addition, also in response to the Coix Health, LLC ruling, the Proposed Rule will limit the current right of an individual to direct a copy of PHI to a third party to an electronic copy and will specify that third party direction request need not be in writing as long as it is “clear, conspicuous, and specific.”
Verification. The Proposed Rule also would prohibit a Covered Entity from imposing “unreasonable” identity verification measures on an individual, including notarization of requests, requiring the individual to provide proof of identity in person when remove verification would be practicable, or requiring the individual to complete a full HIPAA authorization form for an access request.

Encouraging Care Coordination and Case Management Activities

The Proposed Rule also would make a number of changes that OCR believes will remove the barriers created in the current Privacy Rule to Covered Entities, whether a health care provider or health plan, engaging in individual-level care coordination and case management activities. Some of the key elements of these changes include the following:

Clarification of Rules For Individual-Level Care Coordination. The Proposed Rule would revise existing rules regarding sharing of information for individual-level care coordination to apply to Covered Entities involved in such coordination activities, whether or not the participating Covered Entity is participating in the actual care or treatment of the individual by:
- Revising the definition of “health care operations” in the current version of the Privacy Rule to clarify that the Privacy Rule allows sharing of PHI for individual-level care coordination among Covered Entities whether or not the participating Covered Entity is one involved in treatment or non-treatment involved Covered Entities such as health plans;
- Revises the current minimum necessary restriction on the disclosure of PHI for purposes of individual-level care coordination to treat all Covered Entities engaging in individual-based care coordination and case management activities the same, regardless of whether performing the activities under the “treatment” or “health care operations” functions as defined by HIPAA. Currently non-treatment involved Covered Entities participating in care coordination and case management can only receive and share the minimum necessary PHI as their lack of involvement in treatment disqualifies them for reliance upon the treatment exception to the Privacy Rule’s general requirement to limit disclosures to the minimum necessary.
- The Proposed Rule also would allow Covered Entities to disclose PHI to community-based organizations, home and community-based services (HCBS) providers, social services agencies, and other similar third parties providing health-related services for individual-level care coordination and case management without obtaining a valid authorization from the individual.

Required Updates To Notices of Privacy Practices

The Proposed Rule also would change the Privacy Rule Notice of Privacy Practices (“NPP”) requirements in a manner that would require most Covered Entities to update their NPPs and associated privacy policies. In the Proposed Rule, OCR proposes:

Replacing the requirement that certain Covered Entities that have a direct treatment relationship with an individual obtain, and retain copies of, written acknowledgements from that individual confirming their receipt of the NPP with a right for the individual to discuss the NPP with a designee of the Covered Entity.
- Modification of the required NPP content to include an additional description and instruction as to how individuals can exercise their access rights and a new, more detailed and instructive, required header meeting new specifications about the information the NPP provides to individuals with respect to their rights, how to exercise them, and the availability of the Covered Entity’s designated contact person.

Disclosures to Family Members and Other Caretakers in Certain Situations

Continuing a trend that OCR has followed over the past several years in its other guidance, the Proposed Rule also would modify the Privacy Rule under specified conditions to facilitate if not encourage health care providers more broadly to disclose PHI to family members or other caretakers of individuals with substance use disorders (SUD) or serious mental illness (SMI) and in emergency situations with less concern about exposing themselves to liability under HIPAA. The key elements of these changes are accomplished as follows:

The Proposed Rule would replace the current language that allows Covered Entities to make certain uses and disclosures of PHI based on their “exercise of professional judgment” with language allowing disclosure based on a Covered Entity’s “good faith belief” that the use or disclosure is in the best interests of the individual and add a presumption of good faith by the health care provider for this purpose.
- The Proposed Rule would enable Covered Entities to disclose PHI to avert a threat to the health or safety of a person or the public when a harm is “serious and reasonably foreseeable,” instead of the current stricter requirement that the Covered Entity see a “serious and imminent” threat to health or safety.

Clarification Regarding Disclosures to TRS Providers

The Proposed Rule also would amend the current Privacy Rules to remove telephone relay service providers (“TRS providers”) from the definition of “business associates” and expressly to allow disclosures to TRS communications assistants for persons who are deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or who have a speech disability.

Act Now

HIPAA Covered Entities, business associates and other concerned or impacted persons immediately should begin evaluating the Proposed Rule as soon as possible. As the current comment will end 60 days after the impending publication of the Proposed Rule in the Federal Register, concerned persons desiring a change to any provision of the Proposed Rule should prepare and submit appropriate comments to OCR in a timely fashion within the comment period. In addition, all Covered Entities and their business associates should review the rule in preparation for its provisions taking effect with a particular eye toward understanding the actions necessary to comply with the modified rules and to budget the financial and operational resources likely to be required to accomplish that compliance.

More Information

About the Author

Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health and other privacy and data security and other health industry legal, public policy and operational concerns. This involvement encompasses helping health care systems and organizations, group and individual health care providers, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients prevent, investigate, manage and resolve sexual assault, abuse, harassment and other organizational, provider and employee misconduct and other performance and behavior; manage Section 1557, Civil Rights Act and other discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; contracting and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other payers and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, ant kickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement; and other strategic and operational concerns.

Author of leading works on HIPAA and a multitude of other health care, health plan and other health industry matters, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | 21st century cures act, Academic medicine, ambulance, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Coronavirus, Corporate Compliance, COVID-19, data breach, data security, Direct Primary Care, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, Electronic Medical Records, Emergency Care, Employee Benefits, Employer, FDA, Federal Health Center, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Human Subjects Research, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Life Sciences, long-term care, managed care, medical devices, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare, Mental Health, Mental Heatlh, nursing home, occupational health, OCR, Pandemic, participating provider, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy, Psychiatric, public health, Rural Health Care, Skilled Nursing Facility, transplant, Uncategorized, Veterans Health Administration, Wellness | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Pennsylvania OCR Settlement Warns Others Against Disability Or Other Civil Rights Discrimination In COVID-19 Resource Allocation & Other Response

April 30, 2020

OCR Says “No” To Allocating Respirators & Other Scarce COVID-19 Care Based On Pre-Existing Medical Conditions

This week’s Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) announcement of that the Pennsylvania Department of Health (PDH) has agreed to using a list of preexisting health care conditions to decide patient priority for access to respirators and other scarce resources during the COVID-19 health care emergency flags potential civil rights discrimination violations by the multitude of other State, local, tribal, and territorial public health policymakers, healthcare systems leadership, and other public emergency decision-makers and other public or private HHS funds recipients (collectively “COVID responders”) whose pandemic emergency response plans call for the use pre-existing health conditions or other civil rights act protected status of patients to ration scarce medical resources like ventilators or other scarce resources.

Coupled with other recent guidance warning COVID responders against discrimination and to provide all legally required accommodations for individuals with pre-existing conditions or disorders constituting disabilities, English as a second language, religion, age or other protected status under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Section 1557”) and other federal civil rights laws, health care providers, public health authorities and other COVID-19 responders should act immediately to review and take any action needed to correct civil rights law deficiencies in their own COVID-19 emergency policies or operations.

PDH Enforcement Shows Agencies’ Serious About COVID-19 Civil Rights Enforcement

OCR’s April 28, 2020, OCR announcement of PDH’s agreement to revise its Interim Pennsylvania Crisis Standards of Care for Pandemic Guidelines (CSC Guidelines) to revolve an April 3, 2020 civil rights complaint that PDH’s COVID-19 pandemic response plan illegally discriminated against patients with disabilities by denying or lowing the care priority of patients with certain listed preexisting health conditions shows that OCR and other federal agencies are carrying through on promises to take quick enforcement action against COVID-19 responders that violate federal discrimination and other civil rights laws when dealing with the COVID-19 public health emergency in the March 14, 2020 Crisis Standards of Care and Civil Rights Laws guidance (“CSC Guidelines”) and in OCR’s March 28, 2020 Civil Rights, HIPAA, and the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Bulletin (the “Bulletin”).

The CSC Guidelines jointly issued by the Health Care Resilience Taskforce (composed of HHS, FEMA, and the Army Corps of Engineers) warned public health, health care providers and other pandemic decisionmakers against adopting or applying policies in for managing ventilators or other constricted resources during the COVID-19 or other emergencies that negatively impact vulnerable populations (e.g., older adults and persons with disabilities). After reminding state, local, tribal, and territorial policymakers, healthcare systems leadership, and other decision-makers that civil rights laws are not suspended or waived in times of disaster, the CSC Guidelines cautioned “Federal civil rights laws and regulations apply, and have not been suspended, during the COVID19 national health emergency. Federal fund recipients must comply with those requirements.”

OCR reaffirmed the CSC Guidelines warnings in its March 28, 2020 Bulletin reminding health care providers and other HHS fund recipients the laudable goal of providing care quickly and efficiently during the COVID-19 health care emergency still must comply with federal civil rights prohibitions against disability discrimination in HHS funded programs under Section 1557, Section 504, and other civil rights laws, stating:

“persons with disabilities should not be denied medical care on the basis of stereotypes, assessments of quality of life, or judgments about a person’s relative “worth” based on the presence or absence of disabilities or age. Decisions by covered entities concerning whether an individual is a candidate for treatment should be based on an individualized assessment of the patient based on the best available objective medical evidence.”

The PDH disability discrimination investigation and resolution announced April 28^th resulted from OCR’s investigation of a civil rights complaint filed less than a week after OCR released the Bulletin by Disability Rights Pennsylvania and other disability rights groups. Like many other regional and facility pandemic response plans, the CSC Guidelines listed specific impairments or disabilities that would lead to greater deprioritization of patients for care during a pandemic emergency. The April 3 complaint against PDH charged that Pennsylvania’s CSC Guidelines violated Section 504, Title II, and Section 1557 by unlawfully authorizing the denial of treatment to individuals with disabilities when prioritizing access to critical care and ventilators. The complaint also alleged that the guidelines did not require an individualized assessment, but instead used “preexisting conditions that are disabilities” to determine a priority score.

OCR PDH COVID-19 Civil Rights Investigation & Settlement

Consistent with the warning provided in the Bulletin, OCR moved with rare speed to investigate the complaint and notify PDH of its civil rights concerns. To resolve potential OCR civil rights charges, OCR announced April 28, 2020 that PDH agreed to accept technical assistance from OCR and make the following revisions to its CDC guidelines:

Remove criteria that automatically deprioritized persons on the basis of particular disabilities,
Require individualized assessments based on the best available, relevant, and objective medical evidence to support triaging decisions, and
Ensure at no one is denied care based on stereotypes, assessments of quality of life, or judgments about a person’s “worth” based on the presence or absence of disabilities.

Based on these “responsive actions and the revisions” to its guidelines in response to OCR’s concern, the OCR announcement states that OCR is closing its complaint investigation as satisfactorily resolved without a finding of liability while noting that this does not preclude future OCR enforcement in cases of potential discriminatory implementation of Pennsylvania’s policies by any covered health care provider.

Other Public Health, Health Care & Other COVID Responders Should Confirm COVID-19 Civil Rights Response Compliance

The PDH announcement provides a strong warning to health care providers, public health authorities and other COVID-19 responders to act quickly to evaluate and make any necessary adjustments to redress any questionable disability or other civil rights concerns in their own COVID-19 or other emergency response plans or practices.

Even before the COVID-19 health care emergency, disability and other civil rights law enforcment already was a high priority for OCR and other federal agencies. See e.g., Civil Rights Settlement Highlights Health Industry Discrimination Risks As OCR Prepares To Broaden Requirements; OCR’s Proposed Sex & Other Discrimination Rules Spell Headaches & New Risks For Health Care Providers, Insurers & Others; Check Defensibility Of Policies & Practices Given New HHS/DOJ Joint Disability Law Technical Assistance; Important Lessons For Health Care Providers From Michigan State Settlement Of OCR Larry Nassar Sexual Abuse Investigation; Cognitive Disability Exclusion from Heart Transplant List Placement Prohibited.

The PDH announcement clearly alerts other health care providers and COVID-19 responders that OCR does not plan to slacken civil rights discrimination investigation or enforcement against health care providers or others because of the COVID-19 health care emergency. Rather, the PDH investigaiton and resolution make clear that COVID-19 responders need to use particular care take the well-documented steps necessary to ensure they can defend their ongoing compliance with disability discrimination and other federal civil rights laws throughout the COVID-19 health care emergency.

In this respect, OCR’s PDH announcement makes a point of clearly warning other public health, health care providers and other recipients of HHS funding across the nation against using preexisting conditions or other prohibited stereotypes or classifications of patients without individual assessments to triage and prioritize access to care or other resources for purposes of their COVID-19 or other pandemic planning or response. To emphasize the importance of continued compliance with these civil rights laws, the Bulletin quotes OCR Director Roger Severino, as stating: “Triage decisions must be based on objective and individualized evidence, not discriminatory assumptions about the prognoses of persons with disabilities” and “we must ensure that triage decisions are free from discrimination both in their creation and their application, and we will remain vigilant in achieving that goal.”

These warnings and OCR’s quick enforcement action make clear that OCR’s commitment to hold health care providers, state and local public health, and other COVID-19 responders accountable for ensuring their COVID-19 pandemic plans and operations don’t impermissibly discriminate against individuals with or needing accommodations for disabilities, limited English skills, religious beliefs, age or other status protected by HHS’ civil rights rules. Meanwhile, OCR’s reported willingness to accept PHD’s prompt corrective action without imposing financial sanctions also signals the probable willingness of OCR to show similar leniency to other health care providers or COVID-19 responders that for acting promptly to self-identify and redress potentially questionable past COVID-19 restricted resource allocation practices in response to the PDH announcement and other COVID-19 civil rights compliance guidance.

Given the often multimillion dollar penalties and other heavy sanctions that OCR already regularly imposes against a long and ever-growing list of state and other health care, child care, elder care, insurance and other entities for violating its civil rights nondiscrimination and accommodation requirements and the often significant judgements awarded to private litigant victims, state and local public health, health care providers and other COVID providers generally will want to review and tighten as advisable their existing practices to reduce the risk of being incuring penalties or judgments, being sanctioned, excluded or a combination of these consequences for violation of these nondiscrimination and other civil rights requirements by among other things:

Auditing the adequacy of their pandemic response and other plans, policies, practices and actions for allocating scarce resources and care during the COVID-19 health emergency and in other scarce resource situations;
Developing a strategy and procedures for receiving, investigating and responding with appropriate documentation to complaints or other indicators of potential civil rights violations or risks;
Taking prompt, documented action to reform and strengthen civil rights policies, practices and controls, training, investigations and other compliance and risk management;
Explore potential strategies, if any, to mitigate potential liability exposure to OCR or private litigant investigations or enforcement from past, ongoing or future policies or actions; and
Other actions to maintain and demonstrate their organization-wide culture of compliance with applicable civil rights laws.

Since organization and their leaders likely will be required to uncover and discuss legally and politically sensitive information in the course of these activities, public health, health care and other COVID responders are encouraged to consider engaging qualified legal counsel with relevant experience to advise and guide them in conducting, maintaining and using attorney-client privilege and other procedures to safeguard sensitive analysis, discussions and work product from avoidable discovery and other processes to promote the legal effectiveness and defensibility of their actions.

More Information & Resources

We hope this update is helpful. 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. In addition to this update, the author of this article also is extensively published and frequent speaker on pandemic and other infectious disease, and other health industry crisis preparedness and response, and many other regulatory compliance, risk management and operations, public policy and other concerns. For more information about the these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. also invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.

About the Author

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney, management and regulatory affairs consultant, author and lecturer, who has worked extensively on pandemic and other crisis planning, preparedness and response and other business change, risk, compliance and operation management throughout her 30 plus year career.

Her experience includes extensive work domestically and internationally with hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing and other long term care, rehabilitation and other health care facilities; physicians, medical staff and other health care providers and organizations; accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; health care management and technology and other health and managed care industry clients; self-insured and insured health and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, insurers and service providers and other payers; employers; billing, utilization management, quality, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; consultants; investors; EHR, claims, payroll and other technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; health industry advocacy and other service providers and groups and other health and managed care industry clients as well as federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies.

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and the author of “Privacy and the Pandemic Workshop” for the Association of State and Territorial Health Plans and a multitude of other publications and workshops on health and other disaster and other crisis preparedness, risk management and response, as well as a multitude of other health care, workforce and other management and regulatory affairs publications and presentations, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership through her extensive and diverse involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. Examples of these involvements include her service as the current American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former JCEB Council Representative; past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group; former ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group Chair and Past Chair and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefits Committee; former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former technical advisor to the National Physicians Council on Health Care Policy; former member of the Stem Cell Advisory Committee; and in a multitude of other professional, trade, civic and community service organizations . For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides consulting, publications and other information, education, coaching, training, tools and other resources on leadership, governance, health care, human resources, employee benefits, insurance, public policy and regulatory affairs, data security and privacy and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:

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 your profile here. ©2020 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Limited non-exclusive license to republish granted to SOlSolutions Law Press, Inc.™ All other rights reserved.

Leave a Comment » | 21st century cures act, ADA, air ambulance, Biological Wafar3e, Civil Rights, Consumer Driven Health Care, Coronavirus, Corporate Compliance, COVID-19, Cultural diversity, Diabetes, Disability Discrimination, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, ebola, Emergency Care, English as A Second Language, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, healthcare, HHS, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Life Sciences, long-term care, managed care, medical devices, Pandemic, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CME Credit Offered For Providers Completing Online Replay Of 4/16 CDC Training On Certifying COVID-19 Deaths

April 16, 2020

Healthcare providers, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) can get continuing education credit for completing free heath care provider training available online on “Guidance for Certifying Deaths Due to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)” originally presented by CDC live on April 16, 2020.

In addition to providing training about proper classification of COVID-19 related deaths on death certificates, health care providers participating in the call may qualify for continuing education credit.

About CDC’s 4/16 COVID-19 Death Reporting Training

The training covers updated rules on completing death certificates for patients believed to have died when infected with COVID-19 published April 2. Monitoring the emergence of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and guiding public health response requires accurate and timely mortality data. As death certificates are one of the few sources of health-related data that are comparable for small geographic areas and are available over a long time period in the United States, mortality data from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) derived from information reported on death certificates to monitor deaths due to COVID-19 versus other causes of death.

During this COCA Call, the following presenters from the CDC provide an overview of the importance of mortality data, discuss the NCHS publication and the guidance it provides to clinicians who may need to certify a death involving COVID-19, and present a summary of COVID-19 surveillance through the NVSS.

Robert N. Anderson, PhD, Chief, Mortality Statistics Branch, National Center for Health Statistics;
Margaret Warner, PhD, Injury Epidemiologist, National Center for Health Statistics;
Lee Anne Flagg, PhD, Statistician (Health), National Center for Health Statistics; and
Farida Ahmad, MPH, Mortality Surveillance Lead, National Center for Health Statistics.

An advance copy of the program Slides is currently available on the CDC website and CDC plans to post a transcript of the program following the presentation.

Continuing Education Credit

Health care providers participating in today’s training may be able to qualify for continuing education credit. CDC says that health care providers wishing to receive continuing education for participation should complete the online between May 19, 2020, and May 19, 2022, and use course code WD2922. The access code is COCA041620. Continuing education certificates can be printed immediately upon completion of your online evaluation. A cumulative transcript of all CDC/ATSDR CEs obtained through the CDC Training & Continuing Education Online System will be maintained for each user.

Interested providers and others can learn mre at this CDC Clinician Outreach and Communication Activity (COCA) here.

More Information

We hope this update is helpful. In addition to this update, the author of this article also is extensively published and frequent speaker on HIPAA and other medical privacy and security, pandemic and other infectious disease, and other health industry crisis preparedness and response, regulatory compliance, risk management and operations, public policy and other concerns. For more information about the these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297. Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, and a Fellow in the American Bar Foundation, the Texas Bar Foundation and the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her career long pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership domestic and international, public and private sector health care and managed care, workforce and employee benefits, insurance and financial services, their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors, and governments domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As a part of this work, she has continuously and extensively worked with domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care facilities; physicians, medical staff and other health care providers and organizations; creditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; health care management and technology and other health and managed care industry clients; self-insured and insured health and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, insurers and service providers, and other payers; employers; billing, utilization management, quality, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; consultants; investors; EHR, claims, payroll and other technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; health industry advocacy and other service providers and groups and other health and managed care industry clients as well as federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies.

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and the author of “Privacy and the Pandemic Workshop” for the Association of State and Territorial Health Plans and a multitude of other publications and workshops on health and other disaster and other crisis preparedness, risk management and response, as well as a multitude of other health care, workforce and other management and regulatory affairs publications and presentations, Ms. Stamer also shares her thoughtleadership through her extensive and diverse involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. Examples of these involvements include her service as the current American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former JCEB Council Representative; past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group; former ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group Chair and Past Chair and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefits Committee; former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former technical advisor to the National Physicians Council on Health Care Policy; former member of the Stem Cell Advisory Committee; and in a multitude of other professional, trade, civic and community service organizations . For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here. ©2020 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Limited non-exclusive license to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ All other rights reserved.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ASC, Border Health, Childrens Health Insurance Program, COVID-19, data breach, data security, Direct Primary Care, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Federal Health Center, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, Health Policy, healthcare, HIPAA, Home Health, home health, Hospital, Indian Health, medical devices, Medical Licensure, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Mental Health, occupational health, Pandemic, Privacy, public health, Uncategorized, Veterans Health Administration | Tagged: cme, Complaince, COVID-19, Data Security, Health Care, HIPAA, Labs, medical, Pandemic, pharmacy, Privacy, Risk Management | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

4/15 ONC Briefing Covers New Health IT Funding Opportunities

April 14, 2020

Working or interested in working on the development and testing of data sharing functionalities to support clinical care, research, and improved health care outcomes? Listen in tomorrow (April 15, 2020) at 1:30 p.m. Eastern, 12:30 p.m. Central time to an informational briefing about newly announced funding opportunities issued by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology under its Leading Edge Acceleration Projects (LEAP) in Health Information Technology (Health IT) whose specific aims address one of the following areas:

Advancing Registry Infrastructure for a Modern API-based Health IT Ecosystem
Cutting Edge Health IT Tools for Scaling Research
Integrating Health Care and Human Services Data to Support Improved Outcomes

The new funding opportunities are part of efforts to promote the interoperability of heath care data to enhance health care quality and affordability that continues to be a top ONC priority since ONC released its 2018 Report to Congress: Annual Update on the Adoption of a Nationwide System for the Electronic Use and Exchange of Health Information (“Report”).

Under the 21st Century Cures Act, Congress gave ONC authority to enhance innovation, scientific discovery, and expand the access and use of health information through provisions related to:

The development and use of upgraded health IT capabilities;
Transparent expectations for data sharing, including through open application programming interfaces (APIs); and
Improvement of the health IT end user experience, including by reducing administrative burden.

The Report describes barriers, actions taken, and recommendations as well as ONC’s path forward to implement the 21st Century Cures Act and to increase nationwide interoperability of health information and reduce clinician burden.

ONC’s resulting emphasis on health data interoperability raises new business and compliance planning opportunities and challenges for health care providers, health insurers and other payers, health data and information technology (IT) providers and others. The new funding opportunities are intended to produce new capabilities for achieving these objectives.

For more information, visit LEAP in Health IT.

More Information

About the Author

This involvement encompasses helping health care systems and organizations, group and individual health care providers, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients prevent, investigate, manage and resolve sexual assault, abuse, harassment and other organizational, provider and employee misconduct and other performance and behavior; manage Section 1557, Civil Rights Act and other discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; contracting and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other payers and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EHR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, ant kickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement; and other strategic and operational concerns.

Author of “Privacy and the Pandemic Workshop” for the Association of State and Territorial Health Plans, as well as a multitude of other health industry matters, workforce and health care change and crisis management and other highly regarded publications and presentations, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here. ©2020 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Limited non-exclusive license to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ All other rights reserved.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ASC, Border Health, Childrens Health Insurance Program, COVID-19, data breach, data security, Direct Primary Care, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Federal Health Center, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, Health Policy, healthcare, HIPAA, Home Health, home health, Hospital, Indian Health, medical devices, Medical Licensure, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Mental Health, occupational health, Pandemic, Privacy, public health, Uncategorized, Veterans Health Administration | Tagged: Complaince, COVID-19, Data Security, Health Care, HIPAA, Labs, medical, Pandemic, pharmacy, Privacy, Risk Management | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR Adds HIPAA Privacy Rule Enforcement Relief For Community-Based COVID-19 Testing Sites; Updated HIPAA Risk Assessments Advisable For COVID-19 Impacted Operational Changes

April 9, 2020

All Health Care Providers & Business Associates Reminded To Conduct Documented Risk Assessments In Response To COVID-19 Operational Changes

The U.S Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act Privacy Rule 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) emergency enforcement relief for certain covered health care providers and their business associates participating in the operation of mobile, drive-through, or walk-up COVID-19 specimen collection and testing sites that only provide COVID-19 specimen collection or testing services to the public (Community-Based Testing Sites, or CBTS). The Notification of Enforcement Discretion ON CBTS During The COVID-19 Nationwide Public Health Emergency (“Notice”) expands upon the series of HIPAA enforcement relief and other flexibility OCR has granted to health care providers and other HIPAA-covered entities and business associates when dealing with the COVID-19 National Health Emergency declared by President Trump on March 13, 2020.

While welcome relief for those health care providers and business associates that qualify for this relief, it is critical that all health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates do not overlook the importance of ensuring their HIPAA obligations are fulfilled amid the frenzy of coping with the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. Like OCR’s previously announced March 30, 2020 Notification of Enforcement Discretion for Telehealth Remote Communications During the COVID-19 Nationwide Public Health Emergency (“Telehealth Relief”) and the COVID-19 related flexibilities granted by OCR in its February 2020 Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services BULLETIN: HIPAA Privacy and Novel Coronavirus (“OCR COVID-19 HIPAA Bulletin”), the CBTS Notice provides valuable flexibility and relief for HIPAA covered entities and business associates that qualify for the granted relief. While welcoming this relief, all covered entities and business associates need to keep in mind that the shifting of care locations, systems, affiliations and other arrangements to deal with the COVID-19 national health emergency generally are accompanied by changes in the collection, use, access, disclosure, storage and transmission of protected health information generally and electronic protected health information and its associated devices and systems. Except to the extent protected by COVID-19 or other specific disaster relief from OCR, covered entities and business associates need to use care to conduct appropriately documented risk assessments and take other necessary steps to maintain HIPAA compliance in these operations and systems throughout the emergency. See also COVID-19 Telehealth Relief; CMS ESRD, General Practitioner Telehealth Toolkits Released; OCR Grants HIPAA Telemedic ine Relief During COVID-19 Crisis.

April 9 HIPAA Enforcement Relief For Certain COVID-19 Testing Related Activities

According to Director Roger Severino, the limited enforcement relief in the Notice is intended “to encourage the growth of mobile testing sites so more people can get tested quickly and safely.” Under the April 9, 2020 Notice, OCR will not impose penalties for violations of HIPAA regulatory requirements committed by covered entities or business associates in connection with their good faith participation in the operation of COVID-19 testing sites during the COVID-19 nationwide public health emergency. The enforcement relief provided by the s retroactive to violations committed on or after March 13, 2020 even though just announced on April 9.

The enforcement relief applies to all HIPAA covered health care providers and their business associates when such entities are, in good faith, participating in the operation of a CBTS. According to the Notice, operation of a CBTS includes all activities that support the collection of specimens from individuals for COVID-19 testing. Covered entities and business associates intending to rely upon the enforcement relief need to understand its limited scope. The relief only applies to health care providers or their business associates when participating in CBTS related activities. It does not apply to non-CBTS related activities of health care providers or their business associates including the handling of PHI outside of the operation of a CBTS or to health plans, health care clearinghouses, or their business associates performing health plan and clearinghouse functions. To the extent that an entity performs both plan and provider functions, the Notice says the relief only applies to the entity in its role as a covered health care provider and only to the extent that it participates in a CBTS. Covered entities and business associates not covered by the CBTS relief provided by the Notice generally remain subject to all otherwise applicable HIPAA requirements except as otherwise provided in the Telehealth Relief or other COVID-19 related flexibilities granted by OCR in the OCR COVID-19 HIPAA Bulletin or other previously issued HIPAA guidance for dealing with public emergencies,

While committing that OCR will not take HIPAA enforcement action against covered entities or business associates for violating HIPAA’s regulatory requirements during the COVID-19 emergency, the Notice nevertheless encourages covered entities and business associates participating in the good faith operation of a CBTS to implement reasonable safeguards to protect the privacy and security of individuals’ PHI including:

Using and disclosing only the minimum PHI necessary except when disclosing PHI for treatment.
Setting up canopies or similar opaque barriers at a CBTS to provide some privacy to individuals during the collection of samples.
Controlling foot and car traffic to create adequate distancing at the point of service to minimize the ability of persons to see or overhear screening interactions at a CBTS. (A six foot distance would serve this purpose as well as supporting recommended social distancing measures to minimize the risk of spreading COVID-19.)
Establishing a “buffer zone” to prevent members of the media or public from observing or filming individuals who approach a CBTS, and posting signs prohibiting filming.
Using secure technology at a CBTS to record and transmit electronic PHI.
Posting a Notice of Privacy Practices (NPP), or information about how to find the NPP online, if applicable, in a place that is readily viewable by individuals who approach a CBTS.

While OCR says the Notice’s enforcement relief for CBTS related activity is not conditional upon adherence to these recommendations, CBTS involved covered entities and business associations should keep in mind that the OCR relief does not necessarily affect their otherwise applicable requirements, if any, to comply to these and other health or medical privacy, data security, confidentiality or other similar requirements applicable under otherwise applicable state statutory or common laws, regulations, accreditation or credentialing, contractual or other legally relevant requirements or standards.

Covered Entities & Business Associates Should Conduct Documented Risk Assessment To Verify Compliance Taking Into Account COVID-19 Operational Changes & Relief

Health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates hoping to rely upon the relief in the CBTS Notice, the Telehealth Relief, the OCR COVID-19 HIPAA Bulletin or other previously issued HIPAA guidance for dealing with public emergencies, need to verify their qualification and compliance with that guidance. In the meantime, all HIPAA covered entities and business associates also should be cognizant of the advisability of also conducting timely, documented risk assessments and taking other necessary steps to ensure that they can demonstrate that their ongoing operations, taking into account any COVID-19 specific changes in operations, systems, locations, business associates or other HIPAA relevant arrangements or operations, comply with all remaining relevant requirements of HIPAA or other relevant federal or state statutory, regulatory, common law, ethical, contractual or other requirements. This is particularly important with respect to modification locations, equipment, or other COVID-19 related changes may impact or disrupt usual operations or involve the use, access, disclosure, retention or transmission of protected health information or other sensitive data outside of processes, systems or location previously subject to a risk assessment to confirm and document adequate compliance with HIPAA or other relevant requirements. To the extent that any deficiencies may have occurred, timely action should be taken to conduct an appropriate documented investigation and risk assessment, and provide any necessary breach notification or other corrective action necessary to correct or mitigate those events. Because of the potential sensitivity of these activities, health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associations should consider contacting experienced legal counsel to arrange for those activities to be structured to preserve the possibility of using attorney-client privilege or other legal privileges to help defend sensitive communications or evaluations against discovery in the event of a future litigation or administrative investigation.

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here. ©2020 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Limited non-exclusive license to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ All other rights reserved.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ASC, Border Health, Childrens Health Insurance Program, COVID-19, data breach, data security, Direct Primary Care, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Federal Health Center, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, Health Policy, healthcare, HIPAA, Home Health, home health, Hospital, Indian Health, medical devices, Medical Licensure, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Mental Health, occupational health, Pandemic, Privacy, public health, Uncategorized, Veterans Health Administration | Tagged: Complaince, COVID-19, Data Security, Health Care, HIPAA, Labs, medical, Pandemic, pharmacy, Privacy, Risk Management | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

COVID-19 Telehealth Relief; CMS ESRD, General Practitioner Telehealth Toolkits Released

March 24, 2020

April 9 HIPAA Enforcement Relief For Certain COVID-19 Testing Related Activities

Using and disclosing only the minimum PHI necessary except when disclosing PHI for treatment.
Setting up canopies or similar opaque barriers at a CBTS to provide some privacy to individuals during the collection of samples.
Controlling foot and car traffic to create adequate distancing at the point of service to minimize the ability of persons to see or overhear screening interactions at a CBTS. (A six foot distance would serve this purpose as well as supporting recommended social distancing measures to minimize the risk of spreading COVID-19.)
Establishing a “buffer zone” to prevent members of the media or public from observing or filming individuals who approach a CBTS, and posting signs prohibiting filming.
Using secure technology at a CBTS to record and transmit electronic PHI.
Posting a Notice of Privacy Practices (NPP), or information about how to find the NPP online, if applicable, in a place that is readily viewable by individuals who approach a CBTS.

Today, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released two comprehensive toolkits on telehealth:

The Telehealth Toolkit for General Practitioners available here;
The End-Stage Renal Disease Providers Toolkit available here .

The Toolkits’ release follows up on last week’s Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services (“CMS”) loosening of requirements for Medicare coverage of telehealth services and privacy and data security requirements so that beneficiaries can receive a wider range of services from their doctors without having to travel to a healthcare facility on a temporary and emergency basis under the 1135 waiver authority and Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act.

COVID-19 Emergency TeleHealth Waivers & Rules

Under this temporary new waiver, Medicare can pay for office, hospital, and other visits furnished via telehealth across the country and including in patient’s places of residence starting March 6, 2020. The waiver applies to a range of providers, such as doctors, nurse practitioners, clinical psychologists, and licensed clinical social workers, will be able to offer telehealth to their patients.

New TeleHealth Toolkits

Each of the telehealth toolkits released today contains electronic links to reliable sources of information on telehealth and telemedicine, which will reduce the amount of time providers spend searching for answers and increase their time with patients. HHS intends these links to help providers choose learn about the general concept of telehealth, choose telemedicine vendors, initiate a telemedicine program, monitor patients remotely, and develop documentation tools. Additionally, the information contained within each toolkit also outlines temporary virtual services that could be used to treat patients during this specific period of time.

COVID-19 Temporary Limited Scope HIPAA Privacy Telehealth Relief

The HHS COVID-19 emergency teleheath waivers follow up on the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) March 20, 2020 Notification of Enforcement Discretion on Telehealth Remote Communications (the “Notice”) announcing temporary, limited scope enforcement relief from some, but not all of the requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Rules for health care providers using “non-public facing” communication technologies to provide telemedicine services during the COVID-19 health care emergency

Intended to allow health care providers greater latitude under HIPAA to communicate with patients and provide telehealth services through remote communications technologies during the COVID-19 national emergency, the Notice allows covered health care providers wishing to use audio or video communication technology to provide telehealth to patients during the COVID-19 nationwide public health emergency the option to any availabe “non-public facing” remote communication product to communicate with patients if the platform by verifying the platform is HIPAA compliant and securing the necessary business associate agreement (“BAA”) with the communication provider.

Specifically the Notice announces OCR is exercising its enforcement discretion not to impose penalties for noncompliance with the HIPAA Rules in connection with the good faith provision of telehealth using non-public facing audio or video communication products during the COVID-19 nationwide public health emergency in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Notice. The non-enforcement policy applies to telehealth provided for any reason, regardless of whether the telehealth service is related to the diagnosis and treatment of health conditions related to COVID-19. During the COVID-19 emergency, this relief for non-public facing remote communications allows a health care providers the flexibility when it determines appropriate in his or her professional judgement to request to examine a patient using a video chat application connecting the provider’s or patient’s phone or desktop computer in order to assess a greater number of patients while limiting the risk of infection of other persons who would be exposed from an in-person consultation.

The relief does not apply to “public facing” remote communications however, Facebook Live, Twitch, TikTok, and similar video communication applications are considered “public facing.” The OCR bulletin states health care providers should not use any of these or other public facing remote communications to provide telehealth services under the Bulletin.

The Notice also alerts health care providers providing telemedicine services under the Notice need to ensure they have in place appropriate business associate agreements {“BAAs”) with each technology vendors used to conduct these communications and that the vendor is otherwise HIPAA compliant. The Notice lists the following as some vendors that have represented to OCR that they provide HIPAA-compliant video communication products and that they will enter into a HIPAA BAA include:

Skype for Business
Updox
VSee
Zoom for Healthcare
me
Google G Suite Hangouts Meet

Providers should note that the Notice also states that OCR does not endorse, recommend or certify any of these vendors or the adequacy of their BAAs. Consequently, providers intending to use any of thes platforms should conduct their own documented due diligence to confirm that the necessary HIPAA requirements are met. Providers also should keep in mind that the OCR Notice does not modify any otherwise applicable federal or state law, contractual or ethical requirements that may apply to their use of these telemedicine platforms. As many provider’s HIPAA notices may have included statements inconsistent with the use of these technologies, the provider should consider providing notification of the change of its practices that includes disclosures about potentially lower privacy protections. Because the relief is limited in scope and duration, providers relying on the relief also will need to closely monitor developments and adjust practices as necessary when the emergency waivers expire or are modified.

Covered Entities & Business Associates Should Conduct Documented Risk Assessment To Verify Compliance Taking Into Account COVID-19 Operational Changes & Relief

More Information & Resources

We hope this update is helpful. 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. To learn more about Ms. Stamer, her services, experience, publications or involvements; to review or request other developments, publications, resources and tools; or to register for future updates, see www.cynthiastamer.com, see www.cynthiastamer.com; connect on LinkedIn or Facebook; or contact us via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297

About The Author

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Centers For Disease Control, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Conditions of Participation, Coronavirus, COVID-19, Disease Management, Doctor, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Emergency Care, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plan, HIPAA, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Licensing, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Mental Health, Pandemic, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Prohibited Transaction, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Uncategorized, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Care | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Gastroenterology Practices Pays $100K For HIPAA Noncompliance

March 3, 2020

The $100,000 settlement payment the medical practice of Steven A. Porter, M.D., has agreed to pay $100,000 to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to settle a potential violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security Rule Serves as a warning to other physicians and healthcare providers that they too could pay big bucks for failing to comply with HIPAA. The resolution agreement and corrective action plan may be found here.

Dr. Porter’s medical practice provides gastroenterological services to over 3,000 patients per year in Ogden, Utah.

OCR began investigating Dr. Porter’s medical practice after it filed a breach report with OCR related to a dispute with a business associate. OCR’s investigation determined that Dr. Porter had never conducted a risk analysis at the time of the breach report, and despite significant technical assistance throughout the investigation, had failed to complete an accurate and thorough risk analysis after the breach and failed to implement security measures sufficient to reduce risks and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level.

Many physician and other small healthcare providers underestimate their responsibilities or their exposure for noncompliance. Many have never conducted the necessary risk analysis or initially adopted the requisite policies and procedures to comply. Furthermore, practices relying upon outsourced management or compliance services for their HIPAA compliance need to ensure that they have appropriate business associates agreements with those and all other service providers. While OCR typically takes into account efforts to obtain services as evidence of a culture of compliance, when breaches happen in the practice or at the business associate, A physician or other healthcare provider can expect OCR to investigate their compliance and potentially their culpability for the breach. physicians and other healthcare providers also should not assume that their engagement of a service HIPAA to comply with or provide HIPAA compliant services equates to making that service provider accountable for the quality in adequacy of the services.Typically service providers and consultants limit their liability contractually and otherwise when providing these services, often do not have adequate compliance themselves, or both. Licensing agreements and other services contracts typically include various provisions excusing or limiting the service provider from liability for deficiencies in compliance resulting from inadequacies in their procedures, operational noncompliance or both. In some instances, business associates may include provisions in their business associate agreement or other related agreements that actually obligate the healthcare provider to defend and indemnify the service provider for breaches and other liabilities arising out of HIPAA noncompliance. Since the cost of investigating and defending an alleged complaint can be very expensive even if no penalties are sought by OCR, most physicians and other healthcare providers should explore the availability of insurance coverage to help protect against these expenses.

“All health care providers, large and small, need to take their HIPAA obligations seriously,” said OCR Director Roger Severino. “The failure to implement basic HIPAA requirements, such as an accurate and thorough risk analysis and risk management plan, continues to be an unacceptable and disturbing trend within the health care industry.”

In addition to the monetary settlement, Dr. Porter will undertake a corrective action plan that includes two years of monitoring.

Physicians and other healthcare providers need to keep in mind that OCR penalties are not the only risk of HIPAA violations. Noncompliance with these requirements also commonly gives rise to licensing board, peer review, and other professional, employment or contractual consequences as well as negative publicity.

The resolution agreement demonstrates OCR requires physicians shouldn’t expect OCR to look the other way when they violate HIPAA. Given the potential professional and monetary liability risk that result from complaints and violations, physicians and other healthcare Should consult with qualified legal counsel for assistance with assessing the adequacy of their current clients within the scope of attorney-client privilege. Additionally, in the event of a complaint or threaten complaint, physicians and other healthcare providers should take appropriate steps to conduct a documentary investigation. As discussions and activities conducted in association with such investigations can involve sensitive communications and information, it also is advisable to consult with legal counsel at the beginning of an issue to determine whether the investigation or other activities should be conducted within the scope of attorney-client privilege so as to minimize exposure of sensitive communications as admissions or another discoverable evidence for administrative or litigation proceedings.

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | ambulance, ASC, data security, Direct Primary Care, Doctor, drug treatment, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Emergency Care, FACTA, Federal Health Center, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health IT, HHS, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Licensing, long-term care, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, OCR, participating provider, Pharmacy, Physician, Physician Licensing, Privacy, Substance Abuse, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

ONC Adds Reducing Provider EHR Burdens & Promoting Electronic Health Data Use In Research To Health IT Priorities

February 25, 2020

Reducing health care providers burdens from using electronic health records (“EHRs”) and promoting the better uses of electronic medical data in medical research are the focus of two new health information technology (“health IT”) policy documents released this week by the Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”) Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (“ONC”). Health care providers, health researchers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and other health data collectors or users, as well as health IT providers and other interested persons will want to evaluate carefully these new ONC releases for insights about policy and other efforts ONC is promoting to shape the use of health IT and data.

Reducing Health IT and EHR Burdens On Providers

On February 21, 2020, ONC moved forward on its efforts to implement “a comprehensive strategy to reduce the regulatory and administrative burden related to the use of health IT, including EHRs” by publishing its “Strategy on Reducing Regulatory and Administrative Burdens Relating to the Use of Health IT and EHRs” (the “EHR Report”) targets burdens tied to regulatory and administrative requirements that HHS can directly impact through the rulemaking process. A collaborative effort between ONC and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the report’s strategies was developed in response to a Congressional mandate in the 21^st Century Cures Act, which directed HHS to develop a plan of action to reduce regulatory and administrative burden relating to the use of health IT and EHRs and finalizes the draft version of this strategy ONC released in November 2018. Based on stakeholder input, the final HER Report outlines three overarching goals designed to reduce clinician burden:

Reduce the effort and time required to record health information in EHRs for clinicians;
Reduce the effort and time required to meet regulatory reporting requirements for clinicians, hospitals, and healthcare organizations; and
Improve the functionality and ease of use of EHRs.

ONC says reducing unnecessary regulatory burden will alleviate time spent on administrative tasks. For example, during listening sessions with clinicians, we heard criticism that the documentation guidelines for Evaluation and Management (E/M) visits were a source of EHR-related burden and overly complicated. They told us these requirements result in “pajama time,” where physicians spend hours after clinic sessions and on weekends entering data to satisfy billing and quality reporting requirements. Poor usability features within EHRs can further exacerbate this issue, as clinicians find it difficult to navigate long records within the EHR interface. Based on this feedback, the report covers four key areas:

Clinical documentation
Health IT usability (or ease of use of health IT tools and systems)
Federal health IT and EHR reporting requirements
Public health reporting (including coordination with prescription drug reporting programs and electronic prescribing of controlled substances).

In addition to responding to the direction included in the EHR Report, health care and health IT providers also will want to continue to monitor and communicate with ONC. While moving forward on the implementation of the objectives identified in the EHR Report, ONC says it plans to continue to reach out and engage the clinician community and other key stakeholder communities and to monitor emerging and ongoing burdens related to the use of EHRs, such as burdens related to EHR inbox management and other efforts to enable further automation in health care, with a focus on prior authorization, quality reporting, and other aspects of our current system that can reduce time spent using health IT.

Leveraging Health IT For Research

On February 24, 2020, ONC followed up by releasing its National Health IT Priorities for Research: A Policy and Development Agenda. The Agenda articulates its latest vision of a health information technology infrastructure that supports alignment between the clinical and research ecosystems in research.

The Agenda identifies two overarching goals along with nine associated priority areas ONC believes stakeholders can take to achieve the respective visions more quickly and effectively:

Read the Agenda here.

More Information

The Agenda is the latest in a series of priorities, agendas and other initiatives adopted by ONC since its establishment in furtherance of its legislative mandate under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act) of 2009 to improve the health and well-being of individuals and communities through the use of technology and health information.

Health care providers, plans, technology vendors and providers and other stakeholders impacted by ONC and other electronic medical record or health IT systems should take into account the likely implications of these and other ONC pronouncements on their programs and practices when planning and updating them.

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on ONC Adds Reducing Provider EHR Burdens & Promoting Electronic Health Data Use In Research To Health IT Priorities | Academic medicine, ambulance, Conditions of Participation, Consumer Driven Health Care, Corporate Compliance, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Evidence Based Medicine, FDA, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, health care reimbursement, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, Health Policy, healthcare, HHS, HITECH Act, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Human Subjects Research, Meaningful Use, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Health, NIOSH, occupational health, OCR, ONC, Outcomes Data, pain management, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Prospective Payment, public health, Public Policy, quality reporting, Reimbursement, research, Technology, Telemedicine, Uncategorized, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Care, Wellness | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR Warns HIPAA Entities To “Get Serious” About HIPAA Compliance In Announcing Latest Settlement Against Ambulance Company

December 31, 2019

The $65,000 payment and corrective action plan commitments West Georgia Ambulance, Inc. (“West Georgia”) is making to settle Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) charges it recurrently violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) Security Rule sends a warning to all oher HIPAA-covered health care providers, health plans, health care clearighouses and their business associates (“covered entities”)maintain and be prepared to defend their own HIPAA compliance under a Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan (“Resolution Agreement”) OCR announced on December 30, 2019.

The Resolution Agreement resolves charges resulting from an OCR investigation initiated in response to a HIPAA breach report the Georgia based ambulance company filed in 2013 in which the company, which provides emergency and non-emergency ambulance services in Carroll County, Georgia, disclosed the loss of an unencrypted laptop containing the protected health information (PHI) of 500 individuals. The breach occurred when an unencrypted laptop fell off the back bumper of an ambulance. The laptop was not recovered. West Georgia reported that exactly 500 individuals were affected by the breach.

In the course of its investigation of the breach report, OCR’s investigation uncovered long-standing noncompliance with the HIPAA Rules, including failures to conduct a risk analysis, provide a security awareness and training program, and implement HIPAA Security Rule policies and procedures. Specifically, the Resolution Agreement states that West Georgia:

Did not conduct an accurate and thorough risk analysis of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all of its ePHI. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A);
Failed to have a HIPAA security training program, and failed to provide security training to its employees. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(5);
Failed to implement Security Rule policies or procedures. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.316; and
Despite OCR’s investigation and technical assistance, “did not take meaningful steps to address their systemic failures.”

To resolve its exposure to the substantially higher civil monetary penalties that OCR could impose for violations of this nature, West Georgia agreed to pay a $65,000 resolution payment to OCR and implement and comply with a corrective action plan that in addition to requiring West Georgia to correct the compliance deficiencies, also subjects West Georgia to two years of OCR monitoring and oversight.

The Resolution Agreement and corrective action plan carry a number of important messages for other health care providers and other Covered Entities. First, the OCR enforcement action against West Georgia coming at the end of yet another heavy HIPAA enforcement year by OCR reminds Covered Entities that OCR is serious about HIPAA enforcement on the heels of its 2018 HIPAA record setting collection of $28.7 million in civil monetary penalties and resolution payments including the single largest individual HIPAA settlement in history of $16 million with Anthem, Inc. See OCR Concludes 2018 with All-Time Record Year for HIPAA Enforcement. While not topping this record, OCR during 2019 now has collected civil monetary penalties and resolution payments totaling more than $15 million from HIPAA Covered Entities and their business associates including:

Second, the Resolution Agreement and various other smaller settlements during the year show HIPAA compliance and enforcement is a concern for smaller provideres and other covered entities, not juswt the huge ones. While the $65,000 settlement payment required by the Resolution Agreement is substantially smaller than the amounts of the civil monetary penalties and many of resolution payments OCR collected in its other 2019 enforcement actions, the West Georgia and other 2019 enforcement actions demonstrate the teeth behind the warning in the OCR Press Release announcing the West Georgia Resolution Agreement from OCR Director Roger Severino that“All providers, large and small, need to take their HIPAA obligations seriously.” With OCR promises to keep up its vigorous investigation and enforcement of the HIPAA requirements, every Covered Entity and business associate should take the necessary steps to verify and maintain their HIPAA compliance and to be prepared to defend their compliance under the Privacy, Security, Breach Notification and HIPAA access and other individual rights mandates of HIPAA.

Third, OCR’s statement in the Resolution Agreement about the failure by West Georgia to meaningfully act to correct compliance deficiencies and cooperate in other corrective action during the period following the breach report highlights the importance for covered entities involved in a breach or other dealings with OCR on a potential compliance concern to behave appropriately to express and exhibit the necessary concern OCR expects regarding the compliance issue to position themselves to request and receive the clemency OCR is empowered under HIPAA to extend when deciding the sanctions for any noncompliance.

Of course meeting the requirements of HIPAA is not the only concern that covered entities should consider as they review and tightened their HIPAA and other privacy and data security procedures. Health care providers and other covered entities also should keep in mind their other obligations to protect patient and other confidential information under other federal laws, the requirements of which also are ever-evolving. For instance, on January 1, 2020 Texas providers like other Texas businesses will become subject to a shortened deadline for providing notice of data breaches under a new law enacted by the Texas Legislature in its last session. Arrangements should be designed to fulfill all of these requirements as well as any ethical or contractual.

Covered entities also should keep in mind that violations of HIPAA can have implications well beyond HIPAA.ramifications beyond HIPAA itself. For instance, heath care providers can face disqualification from federal program participation, licensing and ethics discipline and other professional consequences. Health plans and their fiduciaries also may face Department of Labor and other fiduciary claims, while insurers can face licensing and other regulatory consequences.

For More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about this or other labor and employment developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer has extensive legal, operational, and public policy experience advising and representing health care, health care and other entities about HIPAA and other privacy, data security, confidentiality and other matters.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 30 plus year career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services, public and private primary, secondary, and other educational institutions, and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As a part of this work, she has recurrently worked extensively with public school districts and public and private primary and secondary schools, colleges and universities, academic medical, and other educational institutions, insured and self-insured health plans; domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; consultants; investors; EMR, claims, payroll and other technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, employers; and federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies on health care, education, and other data privacy, security, use, protection and disclosure; disability and other educational rights; workforce, and a host of other risk management and compliance concerns.

Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades-long leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health and other privacy and data security and other health industry legal, public policy and operational concerns. This involvement encompasses helping health care systems and organizations, group and individual health care providers, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients prevent, investigate, manage and resolve sexual assault, abuse, harassment and other organizational, provider and employee misconduct and other performance and behavior; manage Section 1557, Civil Rights Act and other discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; contracting and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other payers and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, ant kickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement; and other strategic and operational concerns.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

©2019 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

1 Comment | air ambulance, ambulance, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, Home Health, home health, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Medical Privacy, Physician, Privacy, Rural Health Care, Uncategorized, Veterans Health Care | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New Texas Law Requiring Anti-Retaliation Policies For Nonprofit Healthcare Org’s Takes Effect 1/1

December 27, 2019

Nonprofit health organizations must develop anti-retaliation policies for doctors and submit biennial reports to the Texas Medical Board in response to a House Bill 1532 mandate that takes effect January 1, 2020.

Passed by the Texas Legislature on September 1, 2019, the Bill also amends the Medical Practice Act to require the Texas Medical Board to accept and process complaints against a certified nonprofit health organization in the same manner it would handle complaints against a health professional.

For More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

1 Comment | Corporate Compliance, Doctor, Employer, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, healthcare, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Licensing, managed care, Nonprofits, participating provider, Peer Review, Physician, Physician Licensing, Provider contracting, retaliation, Uncategorized, Whistleblower | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$1.6M HIPAA Penalty Mostly Due To Inadequate Security Assessment & Oversight

December 16, 2019

The $1.6 million civil monetary penalty (“CMP”) assessed against the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (“TX HHSC”) for violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) Privacy and Security Rules between 2013 and 2017 committed by a predecessor agency, the Department of Aging and Disability Services (“DADS”) illustrates the critical need for all HIPAA covered entities and business associates to confirm the adequacy of their enterprise wide security assessment, oversight, and other HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance and risk management including documentation of the reassessment and updating of these materials and assessments in connection with any update or change in software, systems or other system and security relevant developments.

OCR imposed the CMPs against TX HHSC for violations of HIPAA OCR found DADS committed from 2015 to 2017, before it was reorganized into TX HHSC in September 2017. Like most other large HIPAA CMPs and settlements paid to avoid CMPs, a review of the TX HSSC CMP events makes clear that the large penalty resulted mostly because of inadequate assessment and oversight of security, rather than the actual breach itself that prompted the investigation leading to the CMP assessment.

Before its merger into TX HHSC, DADS was the Texas agency primarily responsible for providing and administering the state’s long-term care services for aging and intellectually and physically disabled people. TX HHSC now administers and provides the services previously provided by DADS as part of its broader operation of state supported living centers; provision of mental health and substance use services; regulation of child care and nursing facilities; and administration of hundreds of other programs for people needing supplemental nutrition benefits, Medicaid and certain other assistance including those previously provided by DADS.

DADS Breaches & Violations

The $1.6 million CMPs assessment against TX HHSC resulted after OCR investigated a 2015 breach report made by DADS. On June 11, 2015, DADS submitted a Breach Notification Report (“Report”) notifying OCR that on April 21, 2015 names, addresses, social security numbers, treatment information and other electronic protected health information (“ePHI”) of 6,617 individuals was viewable over the internet when a software coding flaw allowed prohibited access to ePHI with access credentials when DADS moved an internal application from a private, secure server to a public server. OCR’s investigation determined that, in addition to that impermissible disclosure, DADS violated the HIPAA Security Rule by failing to conduct an enterprise-wide risk analysis and implement access and audit controls on Community Living Assistance and Support Services and Deaf Blind with Multiple Disabilities (“CLASS/DBMD”) program information systems and applications intended to collect and report information about “Utilization Management and Review” activities to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) for the CLASS/DBMD waiver programs.. The CMS waiver programs required DADS to collect and report to CMS applicant and enrollee community and institutional service choice, Level of Care, Plan of Care, waiver provider choice and other waiver program performance data for CLASS and DBMD as part of a required evidentiary report on all §1915(c) waiver programs. The CLASS/DBMD application glitch compromised the ePHI by allowing an undetermined number of unauthorized users to view the ePHI without verifying user credentials. TX HHSC learned of the breach from an unauthorized user who accessed ePHI in the application without being required to input user credentials. Because of inadequate audit controls, DADS was unable to determine how many unauthorized persons accessed individuals’ ePHI.

OCR initiated a compliance review of DADS on June 23, 2015 in response to the breach notification. As HIPAA Security Rule at 45 C.F.R. ·§ 164.312(a)(l) requires a covered entity to implement technical policies and procedures for electronic information systems that maintain ePHI to allow access only to those persons or software programs properly granted access rights under HIPAA Security Rule § 164.308(a)(4), OCR found that by placing the CLASS/DBMD application on their public server without requiring users to provide access credentials, TX HHSC violated HIPAA by failing to implement access controls on all of its systems and applications throughout its enterprise in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.312(a)(l).

The HIPAA Security Rule at 45 C.F.R. § 164.312(b) requires a covered entity to implement hardware, software, and/or procedural mechanisms that record and examine activity in information systems that contain or use ePHI. In the course of its investigation, OCR requested in its June 23, 2015 Data Request that DADS provide a copy of its current HIPAA administrative and technical policies and procedures. As DADS provided no evidence that the application was capable of auditing user access after it was moved to the unsecure public server as required by 45 C.F.R. § 164.312(b) with its response, OCR also concluded from its investigation that TX HHSC failed to implement audit controls to all of its systems and applications, like the application involved in the breach, as required by 45 C.F.R. § 164.312(b).

Beyond these violations, OCR also found that DADS also violated the HIPAA Security Rule by failing to conduct the required accurate and thorough enterprise wised risk analysis required by the HIPAA Security Rule. In this respect, the HIPAA Security Rule at 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A) requires a covered entity to conduct an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI it holds. In its August 31, 2015 response to OCR’s Data Request dated July 23, 2015, DADS acknowledged that, while it had performed ”risk assessment activities” on individual applications and servers, it never performed an “agency-wide” security risk analysis. On July 28, 2017, OCR received the documentation that DADS represented to be the documentation of its risk analysis. After reviewing this evidence, OCR additionally found DADS violated the HIPAA Security Rule by failing to conduct an enterprise-wide risk analysis and implement access and audit controls.

Calculation & Assessment CMPs Totaling $1.6 Million

On May 23, 2018, OCR issued a Letter of Opportunity and informed TX HHSC that OCR’s investigation indicated that TX HHSC failed to comply with the Privacy and Security Rules, which remained unresolved despite OCR’s attempts to do so. The letter stated that pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 160.312(a)(3), OCR was informing TX HHSC of the preliminary indications of non-compliance and providing TX HHSC with an opportunity to submit written evidence of mitigating factors under 45 C.F.R. § 160.408 or affirmative defenses under 45 C.F.R. § 160.410 for OCR’s consideration in making a CMP determination under 45 C.F.R. § 160.404. The letter identified each area of noncompliance. It also stated that TX HHSC also could submit written evidence to support a waiver of a CMP for the indicated areas of non-compliance.

Although the designated representative for TX HHSC as DADS successor received the Letter of Opportunity on May 24, 2018, . TX HHSC did not provide any written evidence of mitigating factors under 45 C.F.R. § 160.408 or affirmative defenses under 4S C.F.R. § 160.410 for OCR’s consideration in making the CMP determination or submit any written evidence to support a waiver of a CMP for the indicated areas of non-compliance. Accordingly, after securing the requisite approval from the Justice Department, OCR issued a Notice of Proposed Determination of Civil Monetary Penalties (“Proposed CMP”) on July 29, 2019.

As explained by the Proposed CMP, as amended by the HITECH Act, Section 13410, 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-5(a)(3), HIPAA authorizes OCR as the designated representative of the Secretary of HHS to impose CMPs against a covered entity for post-February 18, 2009 HIPAA Privacy or Security Rule violations. These current CMP provisions provide the following rules for the assessment of CMPs for such violations:

A minimum of$100 for each violation where the covered entity or business associate did not know and, by exercising reasonable diligence, would not have known that the covered entity or business associate violated such provision, except that the total amount imposed on the covered entity or business associate for all violations of an identical requirement or prohibition during a calendar year may not exceed $25,000.
A minimum of$1,000 for each violation due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect, except that the total amount imposed on the covered entity or business associate for all violations of an identical requirement or prohibition during a calendar year may not exceed $100,000. Reasonable cause means an act or omission in which a covered. entity or business associate knew, or by exercising reasonable diligence would have known, that the act or omission violated an administrative simplification provision, but in which the covered entity or business associate did not act with willful neglect.
A minimum of $10,000 for each violation due to willful neglect and corrected within 30 days, except that the total amount imposed on the covered entity or business associate for all violations of an identical requirement or prohibition during a calendar year may not exceed $250,000.
A minimum of$50,000 for each violation due to willful neglect and uncorrected within 30 days, except that the total amount imposed on the covered entity or business associate for all violations of an identical requirement or prohibition during a calendar year may not exceed $1,500,000.

By law, OCR adjusts the CMP ranges and calendar year cap for each penalty tier for inflation. The adjusted amounts are applicable only to CMPs whose violations occurred after November 2, 2015.

The Proposed CMP included notice of the CMPs OCR intended to impose CMPs totaling $1.6 million for the violations. Characterizing each of the violations as due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect, the Proposed CMP Notice made note that OCR was authorized by statute to assess penalties of up to $50,000 per day for each day of the identified violations due for reasonable cause, rather than willful neglect, but authorized OCR to adjust the penalties in light of aggravating and mitigating factors. The Proposed CMP stated that in arriving at the lesser daily penalty amount, OCR considered as mitigating factors that:

The violations did not result in any known physical, financial, or reputational harm to any individuals nor did it hinder any individual’s ability to obtain health care; and
TX HHSC immediately removed the application once it received a report that unauthorized users could access the ePHI of individual beneficiaries.

However, OCR also took note that it viewed DADS failure to act promptly to remediate the breach and to keep a commitment made to OCR in August, 2015 timely to conduct and complete the agency wide risk analysis by August 31, 2016 as an aggravating factor. Considering these factors, the Proposed CMP notified TX HHSC that OCR intended to assess a daily penalty amount of$1,000 per day ($1,141 after November 2, 2015) per violation capped at $100,000 per calendar year per violation. Applying these amounts, the CMP notified TX HHSC that OCR intended to impose CMPs totaling $1.6 million, as follows:

Impermissible disclosures in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.502(a), a $100,000 CMP
Inadequate access controls in violation of 45 C.F .R. § 164.312(a)(l), a $500,000 CMP
Inadequate audit controls in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.312(b), a $500,000 CMP
Failure to perform required enterprise wide risk analysis in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(l)(ii)(a), a $500,000.

After TX HHSC , as successor to DADS, did not file a request for hearing before an administrative law judge within the 90 days, OCR imposed the $1.6 million CMP in dated October 25, 2019 made public on November 7, 2019.

Lessons For Other Health Care Providers, Health Plans, Clearinghouses & Business Associates

The latest in a growing series of multimillion dollar CMPs and Resolution Payments assessed and collected by OCR, the TX HHSC CMP illustrates the critical necessity for all covered entities and business both to take appropriate, well-documented action to prevent, timely discover and redress, and report ePHI breaches and otherwise comply with the otherwise applicable requirements of the HIPAA Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Rules including the conduct and continuous maintenance of appropriate enterprise wide security assessments, audits, and oversight. With OCR promising to continue its enforcement, all covered entities and business associates should verify the existence and adequacy of their existing enterprise wide risk assessments and safeguards and procedures for monitoring, investigating potential security risks and other breaches and other HIPAA compliance oversight. Beyond these compliance efforts, the TX HHSC and other CMP actions also drive home the strong advisability for covered entities or business associates that experience a known or potential breach or other violation promptly to investigate and mitigate potential breaches and other violations. As part of these efforts, covered entities and business associates should seek assistance in conducting their assessments as well as responding to any preexisting and emergent breach or other compliance concerns within the scope of attorney-client privilege from qualified legal counsel with the necessary knowledge and experience of HIPAA and other federal and state laws, regulations and administrative and judicial decisions that define and shape their exposure. In the event of a breach or other compliance concern, timely guidance and representation by legal counsel with both experience of these requirements and with dealing with OCR and other agencies may help mitigate exposures by expediting timely and appropriate response.

For More Information

Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades-long leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health and other privacy and data security and other health industry legal, public policy and operational concerns. This involvement encompasses helping health care systems and organizations, group and individual health care providers, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients prevent, investigate, manage and resolve sexual assault, abuse, harassment and other organizational, provider and employee misconduct and other performance and behavior; manage Section 1557, Civil Rights Act and other discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; contracting and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other payers and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, antikickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement; and other strategic and operational concerns.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Electronic Health Records, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Policy, healthcare, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, Home Health, home health, Hospital, Indian Health, Medical Privacy, Medicare, Medicare Fee Schedule, Mental Health, occupational health, Privacy, public health, Rural Health Care, Uncategorized, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Administration, Veterans Health Care | Tagged: Data Breach, Data Security, HIPAA, OCR, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

University of Rochester Medical Center Paying $3 Million For Unencrypted Laptop & Flash Drive

November 6, 2019

$3 million is the hefty price that the University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC) has agreed to pay to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to settle potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules arising from the loss of unencrypted laptops and other mobile devices containing protected health information (PHI). Like prior settlements and civil monetary penalties OCR previously assessed against HIPAA-covered entities for using or storing electronic protected health information (ePHI) on unencrypted mobile devices, the $3 million sanction and other requirements imposed in the URMC Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan made public after the close of business on November 5 reaffirm OCR’s readiness to sanction harshly health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and businesses associates for the loss or compromise of ePHI due to the covered entity’s failure to appropriately encrypt mobile devices. Any HIPAA covered entity or business associate that has not already done so must act to avoid a similar fate by establishing and enforcing systematic procedures to ensure all mobile devices using, accessing, storing or otherwise dealing with ePHI are properly encrypted at all times.

URMC Breach & Resolution Agreement

The URMC Resolution Agreement resolves potential charges resulting from an OCR investigation commenced in response to breach reports UMRC filed with OCR in 2013 and 2017. The breach reports disclosed UMRC’s discovery of the impermissible disclosure of PHI through the loss of an unencrypted flash drive and theft of an unencrypted laptop, respectively. URMC includes healthcare components such as the School of Medicine and Dentistry and Strong Memorial Hospital. URMC is one of the largest health systems in New York State with over 26,000 employees.

OCR’s investigation revealed that URMC failed to conduct an enterprise-wide risk analysis; implement security measures sufficient to reduce risks and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level; utilize device and media controls; and employ a mechanism to encrypt and decrypt electronic protected health information (ePHI) when it was reasonable and appropriate to do so. Of note, in 2010, OCR investigated URMC concerning a similar breach involving a lost unencrypted flash drive and provided technical assistance to URMC. Despite the previous OCR investigation, and URMC’s own identification of a lack of encryption as a high risk to ePHI, URMC permitted the continued use of unencrypted mobile devices.

OCR made a point of reaffirming the requirement to encrypt laptops and other mobile devices containing ePHI when announcing the new Resolution Agreement. “Because theft and loss are constant threats, failing to encrypt mobile devices needlessly puts patient health information at risk,” said Roger Severino, OCR Director. “When covered entities are warned of their deficiencies, but fail to fix the problem, they will be held fully responsible for their neglect.”

As part of its punishment for allowing the ePHI breaches by failing to encrypt mobile devices, URMC must pay a $3 million monetary settlement as well as undertake a corrective action plan that includes two years of monitoring their compliance with the HIPAA Rules.

Mobile Device Encryption Requirement Well-Established

OCR repeatedly through published guidance and reported sanctions repeatedly has warned covered entities and business associates not to permit ePHI to be used, accessed or stored on unencrypted laptops or other mobile devices. In 2017, Children’s Medical Center of Dallas (Children’s) paid a $3,217,000.00 Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) after OCR issued its January 18, 2017 Final Determination that Children’s for years knowingly violated HIPAA by failing to encrypt or otherwise properly secure ePHI on laptops and other mobile devices and failing to comply with many other HIPAA requirements. See Learn From Children’s New $3.2M+ HIPAA CMP For “Knowing” Violation of HIPAA Security Rules. An OCR Newsletter Article on Guidance on Mobile Devices and Protected Health Information (PHI), for instance, states:

Entities regulated by the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification Rules (the HIPAA Rules) must be sure to include mobile devices in their enterprise-wide risk analysis and take action(s) to reduce risks identified with the use of mobile devices to a reasonable and appropriate level.
The article also shared insights about some of the steps OCR considers necessary to meet this expectation, as including:

Implement policies for use of mobile devices that are used to handle PHI;
Consider using Mobile Device Management (MDM) software to secure mobile devices;
Install or enable automatic lock/logoff functions;
Require authentication to access devices;
Keep devices’ security features updated;
Procure encryption, anti-virus/anti-malware software, and remote wipe capabilities;
Use a privacy screen to prevent viewing by third-parties;
Assure that Wi-Fi networks used are secure;
Use a secure Virtual Private Network (VPN);
Institute policies regarding downloading third-party apps on devices which access PHI;
Delete all PHI from device before disposing of; and
Provide training on secure use of mobile devices for all employees.

Covered entities and business associates should promptly and continuously act to ensure on a systematic and carefully documented basis that their organization is taking these and and other steps necessary to ensure that all mobile device with ePHI are always appropriately encrypted.

We hope this information was helpful. For more information about HIPAA or other related concerns, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates and join discussions about these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group and registering for updates on our Solutions Law Press Website.

About the Author

As a primary focus of this work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; consultants; investors; technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers, health industry advocacy and other service providers and groups and other health industry clients as well as federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies.

Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer is noted for her decades-long leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health and other privacy and data security and other health industry legal, public policy and operational concerns. This involvement encompasses helping health care systems and organizations, group and individual health care providers, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients prevent, investigate, manage and resolve sexual assault, abuse, harassment and other organizational, provider and employee misconduct and other performance and behavior; manage Section 1557, Civil Rights Act and other discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; contracting and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other payers and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, antikickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement; and other strategic and operational concerns.

Author of leading works on HIPAA and a multitude of other health care, health plan and other health industry matters, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her services, experience and involvements, e-mail Ms. Stamer here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or see here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides legal risk management and compliance, business strategy and operations, management, leadership and other publications, coaching, , training and education tools and other resources on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, we invite you to register to receive other updates and review our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here.

Leave a Comment » | 21st century cures act, Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, ASC, Centers For Disease Control, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Civil Rights, Corporate Compliance, Cyber crime, data security, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, health care reimbursement, Health Insurance, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Joint Commission, medical devices, Medical Privacy, NIST, Skilled Nursing Facility, Technology, Telemedicine, Uncategorized | Tagged: cyber cybersecurity, Data Breach, Data Privacy, HIPAA, medical, patient | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Jackson Health System Nailed With $2.15 Million Plus Penalty For Violating HIPAA

October 23, 2019

Jackson Health System (JHS) has paid a heavy price for violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Security and Breach Notification Rules between 2013 and 2016.

The $2,154,000 civil monetary penalty the Miami, Florida-based nonprofit academic medical system paid to the Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to settle OCR charges it violated the HIPAA Security & Breach Notifications= Rules makes clear the urgent need for other health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and their business associates to verify the adequacy of their organizations with HIPAA’s privacy, security and breach notification rules currently and on an ongoing basis.

The $2.1 million plus payment was required to satisfy a civil monetary penalty assessment OCR imposed in a Notice of Proposed Determination and Notice of Final Determination made public by OCR on October 23, 2019 in response to findings from a series of investigations of HIPAA breach and compliance concerns raised between 2013 and 2016 raised by various HIPAA-mandated breach reports and media reports that raised concerns about improper access disclosure and use of patient PHI between 2013 and 2016. When JHS did not challenge the findings or determination became final. OCR reports JHS has paid the specified $2.154,000 civil monetary penalties.

JHS HIPAA Violations Found By OCR

JHS operates six major hospitals, a network of urgent care centers, multiple primary care and specialty care centers, long-term care nursing facilities, and corrections health services clinics, provides health services to approximately 650,000 patients annually, and employs about 12,000 individuals. The OCR investigation stemmed from a series of breach and media reports spanning several years and revealed a host of long standing violations of long-standing HIPAA requirements and a failure to accurately disclose or correct those or other violations of a nature that likely continue to exist in many health care systems and other covered entities.

On August 22, 2013, JHS submitted a breach report to OCR stating that its Health Information Management Department lost paper records containing the protected health information (PHI) of 756 patients in January 2013. JHS’s internal investigation determined that an additional three boxes of patient records also were lost in December 2012; however, JHS did not report the additional loss or the increased number of individuals affected to 1,436, until June 7, 2016.

In July 2015, OCR initiated an investigation following a media report that disclosed the PHI of a JHS patient. A reporter had shared a photograph of a JHS operating room screen containing the patient’s medical information on social media. JHS subsequently determined that two employees had accessed this patient’s electronic medical record without a job-related purpose.

On February 19, 2016, JHS submitted a breach report to OCR reporting that an employee had been selling patient PHI. The employee had accessed inappropriately over 24,000 patients’ records since 2011.

According to OCR Director Roger Severino, “OCR’s investigation revealed a HIPAA compliance program that had been in disarray for a number of years. …This hospital system’s compliance program failed to detect and stop an employee who stole and sold thousands of patient records; lost patient files without notifying OCR as required by law; and failed to properly secure PHI that was leaked to the media.”

These and other findings led to the OCR determination in the Notice of Proposed Determination and Notice of Final Determination that JHS failed to provide timely and accurate breach notification to the Secretary of HHS, conduct enterprise-wide risk analyses, manage identified risks to a reasonable and appropriate level, regularly review information system activity records, and restrict authorization of its workforce members’ access to patient ePHI to the minimum necessary to accomplish their job duties. OCR assessed the $2.1 million civil monetary penalty based on these determinations.

Lessons For Other Health Providers & HIPAA Covered Entities Likely Similarly Exposed

The JHS civil monetary penalty is the latest in a growing series of OCR enforcement and regulatory actions that drive home the perils HIPAA-covered health care, health plan, healthcare clearinghouse and business associates risk by failing to responsibly and effectively manage their HIPAA compliance. A review of the available JHS record reveals that like all too many HIPAA-covered entities, JHS never adequately implemented appropriate measures to operationally comply with many of the original HIPAA requirements and perpetuated those deficiencies despite the series of breaches. Sadly, many other health care systems and other HIPAA-covered entities are subject to the same practices. Failing to address these compliance issues makes these non-compliant entities susceptible to the same type of enforcement and other liabilities that JHS now has experienced.

OCR enforcement data documents a steady rise in OCR investigation and enforcement activity. OCR set all-time records for HIPAA Enforcement in 2018. Heavy enforcement activity has continued in 2019. Before its October 23, 2019 announcement of the JHS civil monetary penalties, OCR already had announced:

A $10,000 resolution agreement with a dental practice for improperly disclosing patient PHI on social media at the beginning of October;
Its first HIPAA right of access resolution agreement against a health care provider for violating HIPAA’s right of access rules on September 9, 2019 as part of its recently announced HIPAA access rule enforcement initiative;
A $100,000 resolution payment from an Indiana Medical Records Service resulting from a breach of electronic protected health information at a business associate;
The collection of a $3 million resolution payment collected from a Tennessee diagnostic medical imaging services company to settle HIPAA civil monetary penalty exposures arising from a breach that exposed the protected health information of more than 300,000 patients; and
A multitude of other audits and enforcement activities resolved through corrective action without collection of any resolution payment or civil monetary penalties.

Given these and other previously announced enforcement initiatives and actions, all HIPAA covered entities and their business associates are urged to maintain hyper-vigilance about their own HIPAA compliance with long standing as well as emerging HIPAA requirements taking into account old, recent, and emerging guidance and enforcement activities of OCR. Given the almost certain discovery or discussion of known or uncovered compliance concerns and other sensitive information, covered entities are cautioned that these activities generally should be undertaken under the guidance of an experienced attorney within the scope of attorney client privilege.

For More Information

About the Author

Author of leading works on HIPAA and a multitude of other health care, health plan and other health industry matters, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Conditions of Participation, continuing medical education (CME), Corporate Compliance, Cultural diversity, Discrimination, Doctor, Employer, Employment law, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Home Health, Hospital, hospitals, Immigration, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Labor Law, Laws, Life Sciences, Medical Privacy, Patient Empowerment, Peer Review, Psychiatric, Section 1557, Sexual Abuse, Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Proposes Easing Disclosure Requirements For Certain Tax-Exempt Entities

October 9, 2019

December 10, 2019 is the deadline for charitable and other tax-exempt organizations to comment on proposed regulations the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) intends to use to implement clarify the reporting requirements generally applicable to tax-exempt organizations as they apply to returns filed after September 6, 2019.

The proposed regulations officially published by the IRS in the September 10, 2019 Federal Register implement changes in response to various statutory amendments and certain grants of reporting relief announced by the Treasury Department and the IRS in prior guidance to help many tax-exempt organizations generally find the reporting requirements in one place. Among other provisions, the proposed regulations incorporate the existing exception from having to file an annual return for certain organizations that normally have gross receipts of $50,000 or less, which is found in Revenue Procedure 2011-15.

In addition, the proposed regulations also reissue relief for certain tax-exempt entities from requirements to report contributor names and addresses on annual returns filed by certain tax-exempt organizations. Originally announced last year in Revenue Procedure 2018-38, the relief was invalidated by a district court ruling that the Treasury Department and the IRS failed to follow required notice and comment procedures. Under the proposed regulations, filing requirements for Section 501(c)(3) organizations and Section 527 political organizations remain unchanged, and all organizations are required to keep the contributor information and make it available to the IRS upon request.

Additionally, the IRS issued Notice 2019-47 (PDF) providing penalty relief for certain exempt organizations that, consistent with the 2018 guidance from the IRS, do not report the names and addresses of contributors on annual returns for tax years ending on or after December 31, 2018, but on or before July 30, 2019.

Need more information or help evaluating or responding to this or developments? Contact the author licensed attorney experienced in FDA and other health care and other regulatory affairs matters.

About the Author

In these and other legal, management, governmental affairs work and speaking and publications, Ms. Stamer When working with these and other clients, Ms. Stamer merges a talent for creative problem solving with her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience to help her clients develop and use legally defensible, pragmatic, client-centric law, performance and risk management tools and processes to manage people, performance, quality, compliance, risk and other operational needs on a real-time, “on demand” basis as well as outsourced general, operations, regulatory affairs or other special counsel capacity on an interim, special project, or ongoing basis. Her clients have included domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; consultants; investors; technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers; and other health industry clients.

Her involvement encompasses helping health care systems and organizations, group and individual health care providers, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients prevent, investigate, discipline and defend sexual assault, abuse, harassment and other organizational, provider and employee misconduct and other performance and behavior; manage Section 1557, Civil Rights Act and other discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; contracting and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other payers and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, antikickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement; and other strategic and operational concerns.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Conditions of Participation, continuing medical education (CME), Corporate Compliance, Cultural diversity, Discrimination, Doctor, Employer, Employment law, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Form 990, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Home Health, Hospital, hospitals, Immigration, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Labor Law, Laws, Life Sciences, Medical Privacy, Patient Empowerment, Peer Review, Psychiatric, Rural Health Care, Section 1557, Sexual Abuse, Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, Tax, Tax-Exemption, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Important Lessons For Health Care Providers From Michigan State Settlement Of OCR Larry Nassar Sexual Abuse Investigation

August 12, 2019

Health care providers should review and tighten their policies and practices for conducting therapies or other procedures on children and other procedures on any patient involving the exposure of the breasts, genitalia or rectum where a patient is fully or partially disrobed as well as sexual assault, abuse and harassment policies and procedures in light of a resolution agreement between the Board of Trustees of Michigan State University (“MSU”) d/b/a Michigan State University and MSU HealthTeam (“MSU HealthTeam”) and MSU Health Care, Inc. (“MSU Health Care”) announced by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) arising from a civil rights compliance review OCR initiated after federal and state criminal investigations found that an osteopathic physician Larry Nassar sexually abused gymnasts and others while employed as an associate professor by MSU.

OCR opened a compliance review of MSU to determine if its doctors’ offices and clinics violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”) and Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Section 1557”) after federal and state criminal investigations found Nassar sexually abused hundreds of women and girls under his care over decades while an associate professor at MSU.

Considered alone or in conjunction with the growing awareness and concern fueled by the #me too movement, widespread publicity about the sexual misconduct of Nassar alleged Bill Cosby, billionaire Jeffrey Einstein, who died in prison while awaiting trial last Saturday and others, and OCR’s reaffirmation of its commitment to vigorously enforce civil rights laws in connection with its May 24, 2019 proposal of changes to its Section 1557 implementing regulations, the Resolution Agreement sends a strong signal to health care organizations and individual physician and other health care providers of the advisability of proactively preventing and managing their exposure to potential sexual abuse, assault and harassment complaints brought by patients, caregivers, employees and others.

The OCR investigation that led to the Resolution Agreement arose from a compliance review OCR started after Nassar was sentenced to 40 to 125 years in prison on February 5, 2018, after entering a guilty plea to seven counts of felony criminal sexual conduct in the first degree in Eaton County, Michigan. He also has been convicted to various other federal and state sexual offenses. Additionally, the former dean of MSU’s College of Osteopathic Medicine, William Strampel, was convicted of felony misconduct stemming from a charge that he used his public office to sexually harass students and a separate charge of willfully neglecting to monitor Nassar after an earlier investigation.

Title IX and Section 1557 are two of a multitude of federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination enforced by OCR, Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in federally assisted education programs or activities while Section 1557 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, age and disability in certain health programs or activities.

The Resolution Agreement resolves potential additional enforcement action by OCR against MSU arising from the investigation commenced in response to the Nassar convictions as well as enforcement actions OCR had initiated against the MSU Entities for failing to comply with an earlier OCR resolution agreement.

In return for OCR’s agreement to close its investigation, the Resolution Agreement requires the MSU Entities to implement specific procedures for conducting examinations and procedures involving children as well as procedures and therapies conduct on patients of any age and gender s where the patient is disrobed, in full or in part, and there is exposure of the breasts, genitalia or rectum (“sensitive examinations”) as well as strengthen its other policies, notices and practices impacting the prevention, investigation and redress of sexual abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment and other sex discrimination against patients, staff, employees and others.

Notably, to help safeguard patients from future sexual assault or abuse, the Resolution Agreement requires the MSU Entities to adopt, communicate to patients and staff and enforce specific policies patient privacy, chaperones and informed consent and patient privacy including

Requiring that staff always follow Universal Precautions with conducting “sensitive examinations,” which the Resolution Agreement defines as “procedures or therapies where the Patient is disrobed, in full or in part, and there is exposure of the breasts, genitalia or rectum);
Require that staff provide the patient with: an explanation of the required examination, procedure or therapy before beginning the procedure and secure informed consent from the patient or if the patient lacks decision making capacity, the consent of the patient’s guardian before conducting any sensitive examination;
Always honor the Patient’s request to have a parent, relative or friend present as a support person present during any sensitive examination;
Requiring a chaperone for all sensitive examinations;
For sensitive examinations of patients of 10 years of age or greater that the chaperone be an authorized member of the health care team and in other cases allow patients and/or their parent or other support person, as well as providers to request a chaperone at any time;
Require that physical examinations of an infant, toddler or child always be performed in the presence of a patient or guardian unless the parent or guardian or, if the parent is unavailable or in situations involving suspected abuse, mental health or other instances where the parental presence would interfere with the examination, another member of the health care team;
Require the use of a chaperone for sensitive examinations be documented in the patient record or where a patient declines or refuses a chaperone for an examination where one is required, require that the provider document the offer and its declination in the record and have the patient or guardian sign a waiver;
Always honor a patient’s request to have a chaperone present even when the patient also has a support person present when conducting a sensitive examination; and
Allow the patient’s wishes and comfort to determine the sex of the chaperone and accommodate, to the extent practicable, a patient’s request for a same sex chaperone

Moreover, the Resolution Agreement also dictates that the MSU Entities ensure that staff always provide patients undergoing sensitive examinations with an appropriate gown, privacy for undressing and dressing, and sensitive draping to maximize physical privacy.

In addition to these specified required procedures for the actual conduct of sensitive medical examinations, the Resolution Agreement also requires that the MSU Entities significantly strengthen their policies, notifications, procedures, and training regarding sexual assault, sexual abuse, sexual harassment and sex discrimination including to:

Revise their existing non-discrimination notices and sexual misconduct policies to clarify Title IX’s and Section 1557’s prohibitions against sex discrimination, including sex discrimination, sexual harassment, sexual abuse and sexual assault, against men and women;
In the revised non-discrimination notices and sexual misconduct policies clearly communicate that patient, staff or individuals who believe they are victims of sexual harassment, abuse, assault or other sexual harassment are “encouraged” to report their concerns to the designated MSU Entities’ Title IX and Section 1557 compliance team, the MSU police and OCR and explains the procedures for making those reports;
Conspicuously post and distribute the revised nondiscrimination and sexual misconduct policy notices which clearly communicate the clarified non-discrimination and sexual harassment policies;
Improve their processes for notifying students, staff, patients and others about reporting and for investigating and resolving Title IX and Section 1557 complaints (including for MSU-students, non-MSU-student patients, faculty and staff) including specific requirements concerning reporting to and coordination between MSU Entities’ compliance staff and law enforcement;
Designate a responsible official to coordinate the acceptance, investigation and resolution of Title IX and Section 1557 complaints;
Conduct all-staff training, planning and coordination between MSU Entities’ compliance and investigation teams and law enforcement, and provide bi-annual reports to OCR during the three year term of the agreement;
Require that all grievances or complaints alleging sexual assault, sexual abuse, sexual harassment or other sex discrimination filed by any patient, staff or other individual related to the MSU Health Team, be reviewed and investigated by, or under the supervision of, a dedicated independent health care investigator approved by OCR, who MSU may only terminate for cause with OCR’s consent.

While neither exhaustive nor binding on any other health care providers, the conditions (CR imposed against MSU under the Resolution Agreement are concrete steps other health care organizations and providers, academic institutions and other organizations and individuals at risk of claims directly or vicariously should consider using as part of their efforts to prevent and defend themselves against potential exposures to sexual misconduct charges.

With the #metoo movement and other widespread media coverage of the Nassar, Jeffery Epstein, Bill Cosby and other sex scandals fueling growing awareness and discussion about sexual abuse, assault and harassment, physicians and other individual health care providers as well as the health care systems, clinics and other health industry organizations, educational institutions and businesses generally face heightened risks of accusations by patients, caregivers, employees, and others of sexual misconduct. Whether founded in fact, hypersensitivity, or independent agenda, recent history proves the potentially financially costly civil judgments or settlements, as well as career if not freedom ending consequences health care providers and institutions if unable to defend these claims. In addition to the criminal sentences imposed upon Nassar and, for instance, MSU previous entered into a civil settlement with more than 300 alleged victims of 332 women and girls who alleged they were Nassar sexual assault victims. See MSU reaches $500M settlement with Nassar victims. This huge civil liability and the fact that MSU accepteed it rather than risk a potential jury verdict reflects the significance of the this liability risk.

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Cognitive Disability Exclusion from Heart Transplant List Placement Prohibited

February 13, 2019

Exclusion of a cognitively impaired patient from its heart transplant list landed University of North Carolina Healthcare System (“UNC Healthcare”) in hot water with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR). The OCR enforcement action highlights the need for health care organizations to re-evaluate long-standing practices for limiting or denying access to transplants, research or other restricted treatment based on cognitive, mental or other impairments of the patient.

OCR announced February 12 that it resolved a complaint against UNC Health Care alleging that it unlawfully denied an individual the opportunity to be placed on the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) list on the basis of their disability. UNC Health Care is a public academic medical center comprised of North Carolina Memorial Hospital, North Carolina Children’s Hospital, North Carolina Neurosciences Hospital, and North Carolina Women’s Hospital.

Federal law generally prohibits health care providers from discriminating against patients based on disability. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (“Section 504”) prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by recipients of Federal financial assistance.

In addition, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“ADA”), prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by both public and private entities, whether or not they receive Federal financial assistance. Providers covered by Section 504 and/or the ADA may not deny benefits or services to qualified individuals with disabilities or provide lesser benefits than they provide to others. In general, an individual with a disability is “qualified” if that person meets the essential eligibility requirements for receipt of services or participation in the program or activity with or without reasonable modification to rules, policies or practices. The purpose of these laws is to ensure that covered programs are as accessible to persons with disabilities as they are to nondisabled individuals.

In September 2018, OCR received a complaint alleging that an individual with an intellectual disability was in need of a heart transplant, but a doctor on staff at UNC Health Care determined that they were not a good candidate for heart transplant because of their developmental learning disabilities and because they do not live independently. The complainant asserted that without the transplant, they would eventually die.

OCR used the Early Complaint Resolution (ECR) process to achieve a successful resolution of this matter. ECR is a facilitated negotiation between the parties to an OCR complaint with the goal of achieving a resolution that quickly provides a remedy to the individual that has been allegedly discriminated against as well as securing additional measures that can be implemented to reduce the likelihood of future incidents of alleged discrimination.

In January 2019, UNC Health Care agreed that the individual’s medical records will be amended to clarify that they are eligible to be considered for placement on the UNOS transplant list. OCR will provide technical assistance to UNC Health Care in the development of their transplant eligibility policy.

The UNC Healthcare enforcement and resolution is the latest in a lengthy and growing list of disability discrimination enforcement actions OCR has taken against health care providers and plans. Cognitive disorders and mental disabilities are frequently the basis of these actions. Additionally health care providers and health plans also can incur liability from private lawsuits for prohibited discrimination. In the light of growing awareness and enforcement of these disability discrimination prohibitions, health care providers should review and correct procedures to mitigate risks.

About the Author

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer has been continuously involved the design, regulation, administration and defense of managed care and other health and employee benefit, health care, human resources and other staffing and workforce arrangements, contracts, systems, and processes. As a continuous component of this work, Ms. Stamer has worked closely with these and other clients on the design, development, administration, defense, and breach and data recovery of health care, workforce, insurance and financial services, trade secret and other information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations throughout her career.

Scribe of the ABA JCEB annual Office of Civil Rights agency meeting, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive work and leadership on leading edge health care and benefit policy and operational issues.

Ms. Stamer’s clients include public and private, domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long-term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, health care accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; employers and other workforce management organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers and their management; managed care organizations, insurers, third-party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations; group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; claims, billing and other health care and insurance technology and data service organizations; other health, employee benefit, insurance and financial services product and solutions consultants, developers and vendors; and other health, employee benefit, insurance, technology, government and other management clients.

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas, Ms. Stamer has been extensively involved in U.S. federal, state and local health care and other legislative and regulatory reform impacting these concerns throughout her career. Her public policy and regulatory affairs experience encompasses advising and representing domestic and multinational private sector health, insurance, employee benefit, employer, staffing and other outsourced service providers, and other clients in dealings with Congress, state legislatures, and federal, state and local regulators and government entities, as well as providing advice and input to U.S. and foreign government leaders on these and other policy concerns.

Beyond her public policy and regulatory affairs involvement, Ms. Stamer also has extensive experience helping these and other clients to design, implement, document, administer and defend workforce, employee benefit, insurance and risk management, health and safety, and other programs, products and solutions, and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government; accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Ms. Stamer’s experience in these matters includes supporting these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis with crisis preparedness, intervention and response as well as consulting and representing clients on ongoing compliance and risk management; plan and program design; vendor and employee credentialing, selection, contracting, performance management and other dealings; strategic planning; policy, program, product and services development and innovation; mergers, acquisitions, and change management; workforce and operations management, and other opportunities and challenges arising in the course of their operations.

Ms. Stamer also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending plan sponsors, administrators, insurance and managed care organizations, health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and employer and association group and other health benefit programs and coverages including but not limited to advising public and private payers about coverage and program design and documentation, advising and defending providers, payers and systems and billing services entities about systems and process design, audits, and other processes; provider credentialing, and contracting; providers and payer billing, reimbursement, claims audits, denials and appeals, coverage coordination, reporting, direct contracting, False Claims Act, Medicare & Medicaid, ERISA, state Prompt Pay, out-of-network and other nonpar insured, and other health care claims, prepayment, post-payment and other coverage, claims denials, appeals, billing and fraud investigations and actions and other reimbursement and payment related investigation, enforcement, litigation and actions. Scribe for the ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with HHS OCR, she also has worked extensively on health and health benefit coding, billing and claims, meaningful use and EMR, billing and reimbursement, quality measurement and reimbursement, HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical, workforce, consumer financial and other data confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security, data breach and mitigation, and other information privacy and data security concerns.

Author of leading works on a multitude of health care, health plan and other health industry matters, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting, former Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, past ABA JCEB Council Representative and CLE and Marketing Committee Chair, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer’s health industry clients include public health organizations; public and private hospitals, healthcare systems, clinics and other health care facilities; physicians, physician practices, medical staff, and other provider organizations; skilled nursing, long-term care, assisted living, home health, ambulatory surgery, dialysis, telemedicine, DME, Pharma, clinics, and other health care providers; billing, management and other administrative services organizations; insured, self-insured, association and other health plans; PPOs, HMOs and other managed care organizations, insurance, claims administration, utilization management, and other health care payers; public and private peer review, quality assurance, accreditation and licensing; technology and other outsourcing; healthcare clearinghouse and other data; research; public and private social and community organizations; real estate, technology, clinical pathways, and other developers; investors, banks and financial institutions; audit, accounting, law firm; consulting; document management and recordkeeping, business associates, vendors, and service providers and other professional and other health industry organizations; academic medicine; trade associations; legislative and other law making bodies and others.

A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about contracting, credentialing and quality assurance, compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, privacy and data security, and other risk management and operational matters. Author of works on Payer and Provider Contracting and many other managed care 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.

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

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

©2019. Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ADA, ASC, Conditions of Participation, Cultural diversity, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, DME, Doctor, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, HHS, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Mental Health, OCR, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, research, transplant, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Year-End $3 Million HIPAA Settlement Pushes 2018 OCR HIPAA Recoveries Over $28 Million; Act Promptly To Strengthen Compliance & Share Ideas For Simplification

February 7, 2019

Health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouse and their business associates (“Covered Entities”) should reconfirm the adequacy of their organization’s Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) compliance in light the U.S Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) February 7, 2019 announcement that OCR reached a 2018 year-end $3 Million Resolution Agreement with California-based Cottage Health that pushed OCR’s already record-setting 2018 enforcement HIPAA recoveries to more than $28.7 million in a year already distinguished by OCR’s record-setting $16 million resolution payment collection from Anthem.

Along with acting to ensure their own organization’s ability to defend their HIPAA compliance, Covered Entities and their leaders also should take advantage of the opportunity to provide input to OCR on opportunities for simplifying and improving OCR’s HIPAA regulations and enforcement by submitting relevant comments by February 12, 2019 in response to a Request for Information published by OCR in December that invites public input.

Learn more de

2018 Cottage Health Resolution Agreement

According to OCR’s February 7, 2019 announcement, Cottage Health agreed in OCR’s final settlement of 2017 to pay OCR $3 million and to adopt a substantial corrective action plan to settle charges of HIPAA violations resulting from OCR’s investigations into two HIPAA Breach notifications Cottage Health filed regarding breaches of unsecured electronic protected health information (ePHI) affecting over 62,500 individuals.

A December 2, 2013 breach notification that the removal of electronic security protections by a Cottage Health contractor rendered ePHI such as patient names, addresses, dates of birth, diagnoses/conditions, lab results and other treatment information of 33,349 individuals on a Cottage Health server accessible for download without a username or password from the internet to anyone outside Cottage Health. In an update to its original report filed on July 2, 2014, Cottage Health increased the number of individuals affected by this breach to 50,917. OCR’s investigation determined that security configuration settings of the Windows operating system permitted access to files containing ePHI without requiring a username and password. As a result, patient names, addresses, dates of birth, diagnoses, conditions, lab results and other treatment information were available to anyone with access to Cottage Health’s server.
A December 1, 2015, that the misconfiguration of a server following an IT response to a troubleshooting ticket, exposed unsecured ePHI including patient names, addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, diagnoses, conditions, and other treatment information of 11,608 individuals over the internet.

Based upon its investigation into the two breach reports, OCR concluded Cottage Health violated HIPAA by failing to conduct an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the ePHI; failed to implement security measures sufficient to reduce risks and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level; failed to perform periodic technical and non-technical evaluations in response to environmental or operational changes affecting the security of ePHI; and failed to obtain a written business associate agreement with a contractor that maintained ePHI on its behalf.

To resolve its exposure to potentially must greater civil monetary sanctions that OCR might seek for such potential violations under HIPAA’s civil monetary sanction rules, Cottage Health entered into December, 2018 Resolution Agreement to pay the $3 million settlement and undertake what OCR characterizes as “a robust corrective action plan to comply with the HIPAA Rules.” Among other things, the corrective action plan requires Cottage Health to:

Conduct an enterprise-wide risk analysis of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI held by Cottage Health (“Risk Analysis”) that OCR views as satisfactory to meet the requirements of 45 CFR 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A);
Develop and implement a risk management plan to address and mitigate any security risks and vulnerabilities identified in the Risk Analysis acceptable to OCR;
Implement a process for regularly evaluating environmental and operational changes that affect the security of Cottage Health’s ePHI;
Develop, maintain, and revise, as necessary, written policies and procedures to comply with the Federal standards that govern the privacy and security of individually identifiable health information under 45 C.F.R. Part 160 and Subparts A, C, and E of Part 164 (the “Privacy Rule” and “Security Rule”).
Distribute to and conduct training on the HIPAA policies and procedures from all existing and new members of the Cottage Health workforce with access to PHI. Additionally, Cottage Health require all workforce members that have access to PHI to certify their receipt of, understanding and commitment to comply with the HIPAA Policies before allowing access to PHI and must deny access to PHI to any workforce member that has not provided the required certification.
Submit to ongoing notification and reporting requirements to keep OCR informed about its compliance efforts.

2018 Record Setting HIPAA Enforcement Year

The final Resolution Agreement negotiated by OCR in 2018, the $3 million Cottage Health Resolution Agreement signed on December 11, 2018 added to an already record-setting year of HIPAA enforcement recoveries by OCR. In addition to recovering the single largest individual HIPAA settlement in history of $16 million with Anthem, Inc. OCR’s recovery of the following HIPAA settlements and fines totaling nearly $28.7 million surpassed its previous 2016 record of $23.5 million by 22 percent.

Date	Name	Amount
Jan. 2018	Filefax, Inc (settlement)	$ 100,000
Jan. 2018	Fresenius Medical Care North America (settlement)	$ 3,500,000
June 2018	MD Anderson (judgment)	$ 4,348,000
Aug. 2018	Boston Medical Center (settlement)	$ 100,000
Sep. 2018	Brigham and Women’s Hospital (settlement)	$ 384,000
Sep. 2018	Massachusetts General Hospital (settlement)	$ 515,000
Sep. 2018	Advanced Care Hospitalists (settlement)	$ 500,000
Oct. 2018	Allergy Associates of Hartford (settlement)	$ 125,000
Oct. 2018	Anthem, Inc (settlement)	$ 16,000,000
Nov. 2018	Pagosa Springs (settlement)	$ 111,400
Dec. 2018	Cottage Health (settlement)	$ 3,000,000
Total (settlements and judgment)		$ 28,683,400

Aside from the previously discussed Cottage Health Resolution Agreement OCR announced on February 7, 2019, these OCR 2018 enforcement recoveries included:

FileFax Resolution Agreement. In January 2018, OCR settled for $100,000 with Filefax, Inc., a medical records maintenance, storage, and delivery services provider. OCR’s investigation found that Filefax impermissibly disclosed protected health information (PHI) by leaving the PHI in an unlocked truck in the Filefax parking lot, or by granting permission to an unauthorized person to remove the PHI from Filefax, and leaving the PHI unsecured outside the Filefax facility.
Fresenius Medical Care North America Resolution Agreement. In January 2018, OCR also settled for $3.5 million with Fresenius Medical Care North America (FMCNA), a provider of products and services for people with chronic kidney failure. FMCNA filed five breach reports for separate incidents occurring between February 23, 2012 and July 18, 2012, implicating the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of five FMCNA owned covered entities. OCR’s investigation revealed that FMCNA failed to conduct an accurate and thorough risk analysis of potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all of its ePHI. Additional potential violations included failure to implement policies and procedures and failure to implement a mechanism to encrypt and decrypt ePHI, when it was reasonable and appropriate to do so under the circumstances.
MD Anderson ALJ Ruling. In June 2018, an HHS Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of OCR and required The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (MD Anderson), a Texas cancer center, to pay $4.3 million in civil money penalties for HIPAA violations. OCR investigated MD Anderson following three separate data breach reports in 2012 and 2013 involving the theft of an unencrypted laptop from the residence of an MD Anderson employee and the loss of two unencrypted universal serial bus (USB) thumb drives containing the unencrypted ePHI of over 33,500 individuals. OCR’s investigation found that MD Anderson had written encryption policies going back to 2006 and that MD Anderson’s own risk analyses had found that the lack of device-level encryption posed a high risk to the security of ePHI. Despite the encryption policies and high risk findings, MD Anderson did not begin to adopt an enterprise-wide solution to encrypt ePHI until 2011, and even then it failed to encrypt its inventory of electronic devices containing ePHI between March 24, 2011 and January 25, 2013. This matter is under appeal with the HHS Departmental Appeals Board.
MMC/BWH/MGH Resolution Agreements. In September 2018, OCR announced that it has reached separate settlements totaling $999,000, with Boston Medical Center (BMC), Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) for compromising the privacy of patients’ PHI by inviting film crews on premises to film an ABC television network documentary series, without first obtaining authorization from patients.
ACH Resolution Agreement. In September 2018, OCR also settled with Advanced Care Hospitalists (ACH), a contractor physician group, for $500,000. ACH filed a breach report confirming that ACH patient information was viewable on a medical billing services’ website. OCR’s investigation revealed that ACH never had a business associate agreement with the individual providing medical billing services to ACH, and failed to adopt any policy requiring business associate agreements until April 2014. Although ACH had been in operation since 2005, it had not conducted a risk analysis or implemented security measures or any other written HIPAA policies or procedures before 2014.
Allergy Associates Resolution Agreement. In October 2018, OCR settled with Allergy Associates, a health care practice that specializes in treating individuals with allergies, for $125,000. In February 2015, a patient of Allergy Associates contacted a local television station to speak about a dispute that had occurred between the patient and an Allergy Associates’ doctor. OCR’s investigation found that the reporter subsequently contacted the doctor for comment and the doctor impermissibly disclosed the patient’s PHI to the reporter.
Anthem Resolution Agreement. In October 2018, Anthem, Inc. also paid $16 million to OCR and agreed to take substantial corrective action to settle potential violations of the HIPAA Rules after a series of cyberattacks led to the largest U.S. health data breach in history. Anthem filed a breach report after discovering cyber-attackers had gained access to their IT system via an undetected continuous and targeted cyberattack for the apparent purpose of extracting data, otherwise known as an advanced persistent threat attack. After filing their breach report, Anthem discovered cyber-attackers had infiltrated their system through spear phishing emails sent to an Anthem subsidiary after at least one employee responded to the malicious email and opened the door to further attacks. OCR’s investigation revealed that between December 2, 2014 and January 27, 2015, the cyber-attackers stole the ePHI of almost 79 million individuals, including names, social security numbers, medical identification numbers, addresses, dates of birth, email addresses, and employment information.
Pegosa Springs Medical Center. In November 2018, Pagosa Springs Medical Center (PSMC), a critical access hospital, paid $111,400 to OCR to resolve potential violations concerning a former PSMC employee that continued to have remote access to PSMC’s web-based scheduling calendar, which contained patients’ ePHI, after separation of employment. OCR’s investigation revealed that PSMC impermissibly disclosed the ePHI of 557 individuals to its former employee and to the web-based scheduling calendar vendor without a business associate agreement in place.

These 2018 Resolution Agreements reaffirm the growing risks that Covered Entities and their business associates run by failing to take adequate steps to prevent and respond to breaches of ePHI and otherwise to maintain their compliance with HIPAA. Covered entities and business associates and their leaders should recognize and respond to these growing risks by reevaluating and strengthening their HIPAA compliance and risk management efforts to minimize the likelihood of violations and enhance their ability to mitigate potential liability that can result from breaches of HIPAA by responding efficiently and effectively.

Other Regulatory & Enforcement Developments

In addition to reaffirming their ongoing compliance with the longstanding requirements of HIPAA and other related federal and state laws, Covered Entities also should use care to carefully monitor and respond to new regulatory and other developments that might create new responsibilities or new opportunities to simplify their HIPAA compliance. In this respect, Covered Entities should take note of the 2018 and ongoing efforts by OCR to develop and publish new rules and other guidance intended to help health care providers and other Covered Entities, patients and caregivers and others understand their rights and responsibilities when dealing with protected health information in relation to patients afflicted with substance abuse and mental illness. Undertaken as part of the Trump Administration’s broader effort to combat opiate and other substance abuse within the United States, OCR in October published a package of guidance on How HIPAA Allows Doctors To Respond To The Opioid Crisis. Covered Entities and others concerned with the management of patients afflicted with substance abuse and mental illness should evaluate this guidance to understand and tailor their practices to respond to OCR’s perspectives of how HIPAA impacts the use, access and disclosure of protected health information as part of these efforts.

Covered Entities and others concerned about HIPAA compliance and interpretation also should carefully monitor and provide appropriate and timely input on developing HIPAA guidance that could impact their operations. In this regard, Covered Entities with ideas about opportunities for improving existing HIPAA guidance are encouraged to submit comments to OCR by February 12, 2019 in response to its Request for Information on improving care coordination and reducing the regulatory burdens of the HIPAA Rules published on December 12, 2018. In that RFI, OCR invites input from the public on how the HIPAA Privacy Rule, could be modified to:

Encourage information-sharing for treatment and care coordination;
Facilitate parental involvement in care;
Address the opioid crisis and serious mental illness;
Account for disclosures of PHI for treatment, payment, and health care operations as required by the HITECH Act;
Change the current requirement for certain providers to make a good faith effort to obtain an acknowledgment of receipt of the Notice of Privacy Practices; and/or
Otherwise simplify or improve the existing HIPAA rules.

As a part of these efforts, Covered Entities and other concerned parties also should anticipate that OCR will be focusing heavily in the upcoming year on the potential HIPAA privacy and security implications of efforts by its sister agency, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (“ONC”), to promote greater interoperability of electronic medical records discussed in ONC’s recent 2018 Report to Congress: Annual Update on the Adoption of a Nationwide System for the Electronic Use and Exchange of Health Information (“Report”).

Under the 21st Century Cures Act, Congress gave ONC authority to enhance innovation, scientific discovery, and expand the access and use of health information through provisions related to:

The development and use of upgraded health IT capabilities;
Transparent expectations for data sharing, including through open application programming interfaces (APIs); and
Improvement of the health IT end-user experience, including by reducing administrative burden.

These priorities seek to increase nationwide interoperability of health information and reduce clinician burden. The Report says increases in the adoption of health IT means most Americans receiving health care services now have their health data recorded electronically. However, this information is not always accessible across systems and by all end users—such as patients, health care providers, and payers—in the market in productive ways. While the Report states ONC intends to move forward to promote efforts to help ensure that electronic health information can be shared safely and securely where appropriate to improve the health and care of all Americans, these activities inherently will raise many HIPAA concerns and challenges. Covered Entities and others concerned with these activities will want to carefully monitor the concurrent activities of OCR and ONC as these efforts progress, both to help tailor their planning and compliance efforts to respond to the anticipated demand for greater interoperability as required by ONC and to help shape these rules by providing timely input as appropriate in response to these developments.

About the Author

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Leave a Comment » | 21st century cures act, Academic medicine, ADA, ASC, Consumer Driven Health Care, Controlled Substances, Corporate Compliance, Cyber crime, data breach, Direct Primary Care, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, ERISA, Evidence Based Medicine, FACTA, FDA, Federal Health Center, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, Health Insurance, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HHS, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Human Subjects Research, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Joint Commission, Laws, legal epidemiology, managed care, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, medical devices, Medical Licensure, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Mental Health, Mental Heatlh, NIOSH, NIST, OCR, Opiates, Outpatient, participating provider, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Prospective Payment, Provider contracting, public health, Public Policy, quality reporting, quality repoting, Reimbursement, research, Skilled Nursing Facility, Substance Abuse, Technology, Telemedicine, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Care, Wellness | Tagged: Health Care, Health IT, Medicare, ONC, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

ONC Report Signals New Interoperability Demands Coming

January 8, 2019

Interoperability will be a key priority for the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (“ONC”) going forward.

That’s the message in the just released 2018 Report to Congress: Annual Update on the Adoption of a Nationwide System for the Electronic Use and Exchange of Health Information (“Report”).

The plan to promote interoperability raises new business and compliance planning opportunities for health care providers, health insurers and other payers, health data and information technology (IT) providers and others.

The Report describes barriers, actions taken, and recommendations as well as ONC’s path forward to implement the 21st Century Cures Act.

Under the 21st Century Cures Act, Congress gave HHS authority to enhance innovation, scientific discovery, and expand the access and use of health information through provisions related to:

The development and use of upgraded health IT capabilities;
Transparent expectations for data sharing, including through open application programming interfaces (APIs); and
Improvement of the health IT end user experience, including by reducing administrative burden.

These priorities seek to increase nationwide interoperability of health information and reduce clinician burden..

Current Status

The Report says increases in the adoption of health IT means most Americans receiving health care services now have their health data recorded electronically. However, this information is not always accessible across systems and by all end users—such as patients, health care providers, and payers—in the market in productive ways. For example:

Despite the individual right to access health information about themselves established by the HIPAA Privacy Rule, patients often lack access to their own health information, which hinders their ability to manage their health and shop for medical care at lower prices;

Health care providers often lack access to patient data at the point of care, particularly when multiple health care providers maintain different pieces of data, own different systems, or use health IT solutions purchased from different developers; and

Payers often lack access to clinical data on groups of covered individuals to assess the value of services provided to their customers.

The Report says these limitations create several problems, including:

Patients should be able to easily and securely access their medical data through their smartphones. Currently, patients electronically access their health information through patient portals that prevent them from easily pulling from multiple sources or health care providers. Patient access to their electronic health information also requires repeated use of logins and manual data updates.

For health care providers and payers, interoperable access and exchange of health records is focused on accessing one record at a time.
Payers cannot effectively represent their members if they lack computational visibility into which health care providers offer the highest quality care at the lowest cost. Without the capability to access multiple records across a population of patients, health care providers and payers will not benefit from the value of using modern computing solutions—such as machine learning and artificial intelligence—to inform care decisions and identify trends.
Payers and employer group health plans which purchase health care have little information on health outcomes. Often, health care providers and payers negotiate contracts based on the health care provider’s reputation rather than on the quality of care that health care provider offers to patients. Health care providers should instead compete based on the entire scope of the quality and value of care they provide, not on how exclusively they can craft their networks. Outcome data will allow payers to apply machine learning and artificial intelligence to have better insight into the value of the care they purchase.

Current Barriers

According to the Report, HHS heard from stakeholders over the past year that barriers to interoperable access to health information remain, including technical, financial, trust, and business practice barriers. These barriers impede the movement of health information to where it is needed across the care continuum. In addition, burden arising from quality reporting, documentation, administrative, and billing requirements that prescribe how health IT systems are designed also hamper the innovative usability of health IT.

Current and Upcoming Actions

The Report states HHS has many efforts to help ensure that electronic health information can be shared safely and securely where appropriate to improve the health and care of all Americans.

ONC also reports Federal agencies, states, and industry have taken steps to address technical, trust, and financial challenges to interoperable health information access, exchange, and use for patients, health care providers, and payers (including insurers). HHS aims to build on these successes through the ONC Health IT Certification Program, HHS rulemaking, health IT innovation projects, and health IT coordination.

In accordance with the Cures Act, HHS is actively leading and coordinating a number of key programs and projects. These include continued work to deter and penalize poor business practices and that HHS conducted multiple outreach efforts to engage the clinical community and health IT stakeholders to better understand these barriers, challenges, and health care provider burden.

Recommendations

The Report makes the following overarching recommendations for future actions HHS plans to support through its policies and that the health IT community as a whole can take to accelerate progress:

Focus on improving interoperability and upgrading technical capabilities of health IT, so patients can securely access, aggregate, and move their health information using their smartphones (or other devices) and health care providers can easily send, receive, and analyze patient data.

Increase transparency in data sharing practices and strengthen technical capabilities of health IT so payers can access population-level clinical data to promote economic transparency and operational efficiency to lower the cost of care and administrative costs.

Prioritize improving health IT and reducing documentation burden, time inefficiencies, and hassle for health care providers, so they can focus on their patients rather than their computers.

The Report also says interoperable access underpins HHS’s efforts to pursue a health care system where data are available when and where needed.

ONC intends to particularly focus on promoting open APIs. Open APIs are technology that allow one software program to access the services provided by another software program and can improve access and exchange of health information. ONC says APIs can:

Support patients’ ability to have more access to information electronically through, for example, smartphones and mobile applications. HHS applauds the emergence of patient-facing applications that allow patients to access, aggregate, and act on their health information; and

Allow payers to receive necessary and appropriate information on a group of members without having to access one record at a time.
Increase institutional accountability, support value- based care models, and lead to competitive medical care pricing that benefits patients.

The Report claims patients, health care providers, and payers with appropriate access to health information can use modern computing solutions to generate value from the data. Improved interoperability can strengthen market competition, result in greater quality, safety, and value for the healthcare system, and enable patients, health care providers, and payers to experience the benefits of health IT.

Prepare For Enhanced Operability Requirements

ONC’s plan to achieve greater interoperability presents new business and compliance planning opportunities and challenges for health care providers, health insurers and other payers, health data and information technology (IT) providers and others. Among other things, participants in the healthcare system and their suppliers will need to prepare to comply with new expectations and mandates for interoperability. Meeting these demands will require financial expenditures as well as present technological challenges.The increased availability and access to electronica medical records and information resulting from these changes also a can be expected to drive new challenges and demands. Among other things, businesses relying on control of health information or records to influence or control patience, reimbursement, or other business value need to reevaluate and adjust their business models accordingly.

Improve accessibility and interoperability also is likely to create new expectations and demands by patients, payers, other providers and perhaps most significantly for providers and payers, regulators. Participants in the system will need to understand these applications and prepare to both defend their business performance as well as their compliance taking into account these new demands.

Amid all of this, of course, providers, pears, and their business associates can anticipate continued if not enhanced demands for enhanced data security and privacy protections and accompanying enforcement of these standards.

As ONC move forward on its plans to enhance interoperability, all concerned stakeholders will want to monitor developments and provide thoughtful and timely input. The time to get started is now. ONC and it’s sister agency, the Office of Civil Rights currently are inviting public comments about how to achieve these and other health IT and privacy improvements. Those interested in providing input should make sure their comments are submitted by the applicable deadlines next month.

Read the full Report here and share your input by the specified deadlines.

About the Author

Ms. Stamer’s clients include employers and other workforce management organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers and their management; public and private, domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long-term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, health care accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; managed care organizations, insurers, third-party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations; group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; claims, billing and other health care and insurance technology and data service organizations; other health, employee benefit, insurance and financial services product and solutions consultants, developers and vendors; and other health, employee benefit, insurance, technology, government and other management clients.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

2/11/19 Deadline To Comment On Reducing HIPAA Regulatory Burden

December 13, 2018

February 12, 2019 is the deadline for health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, health care consumers, employer and other plan sponsors and fiduciaries, and other concerned persons to provide input on reducing the regulatory burdens of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Rules in response to the December 12, 2018 invitation of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

OCR issued the invitation for public comm

False Claims Act Liability Arising From Participation In Or Filing Claims Involving Improper Inducements

Gampel, Modern Vascular FCA Complaint

Warning To Other Heath Care Providers & Suppliers

For More Information

Other Helpful Resources & Information

Share this:

Like this:

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Share this:

Like this:

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Share this:

Like this:

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Share this:

Like this:

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Share this:

Like this:

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Share this:

Like this:

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Important Information About This Communication

Share this:

Like this:

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Share this:

Like this:

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

All Health Care Providers & Business Associates Reminded To Conduct Documented Risk Assessments In Response To COVID-19 Operational Changes

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: