| Page 6

Fresenius Medical Care Pays $3.5 Million HIPAA Settlement

February 2, 2018

Fresenius Medical Care North America (FMCNA) is paying $3.5 million to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and adopting a comprehensive corrective action plan, under a voluntary resolution agreement that settles FMCNA exposures to OCR for violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules OCR asserts it found from an investigation it conducted into five separate HIPAA breach reports FMCNA filed in January 21, 2017.

Widespread publicity and fallout from data breaches involving Equifax, Blue Cross, the Internal Revenue Service and many other giant organizations have ramped up public awareness and government concern about health care and other data security. The resulting pressure is adding additional fuel to the already substantial concern of OCR and other agencies about compliance with HIPAA and other data security and breach laws. Like the $2.3 million HIPAA resolution agreement OCR announced with now bankrupt radiation oncology and cancer care provider 21st Century Oncology, Inc. (21CO) earlier this year, see, e.g., $23M Penalty Small Part of 21st Century’s Data Breach Fallout; Offers Data Breach Lessons For Other Businesses, the growing list of OCR resolution agreements and other enforcement actions against FMCNA, 21CO and other covered entities and other legal and market fallout that covered entities and other organizations experience following the announcement of breaches or other security deficiencies make the case for why HIPAA-covered health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (covered entities) must prioritize HIPAA compliance and other medical and other data security protection, privacy and risk management a top priority in 2018.

HIPAA Privacy, Security & Breach Notification Rule Responsibilities & Risks

The Privacy Rule requires that health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses (covered entities) and their vendors that qualify as “business associates” under HIPAA comply with detailed requirements concerning the protection, use, access, destruction and disclosure of protected health information. As part of these requirements, covered entities and their business associates must adopt, administer and enforce detailed policies and practices, assess, monitor and maintain the security of electronic protected health information (ePHI) and other protected health information, provide notices of privacy practices and breaches of “unsecured” ePHI, afford individuals that are the subject of protected health information certain rights and comply with other requirements as specified by the Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Rules. In addition, covered entities and business associates also must enter into a written and signed business associate agreement that contains the elements specified in Privacy Rule § 164.504(e) before the business associate creates, uses, accesses or discloses PHI of the covered entity. Furthermore, the Privacy Rule includes extensive documentation and keeping requirements require that covered entities and BAs maintain copies of these BAAs for a minimum of six years and to provide that documentation to OCR upon demand.

Violations of the Privacy Rule can carry stiff civil or even criminal penalties. Pursuant to amendments to HIPAA enacted as part of the HITECH Act, civil penalties typically do not apply to violations punished under the criminal penalty rules of HIPAA set forth in Social Security Act , 42 U.S.C § 1320d-6 (Section 1177).

Resolution Agreements like the $3.2 million FMCNA resolution agreement allow covered entities and business associates to resolve potentially substantially larger civil monetary penalty liabilities that OCR can impose under the civil enforcement provisions of HIPAA. As amended by the HITECH Act, the civil enforcement provisions of HIPAA empower OCR to impose Civil Monetary Penalties on both covered entities and BAs for violations of any of the requirements of the Privacy or Security Rules. The penalty ranges for civil violations depends upon the circumstances associated with the violations and are subject to upward adjustment for inflation. As most recently adjusted here effective September 6, 2016, the following currently are the progressively increasing Civil Monetary Penalty tiers:

A minimum penalty of $100 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations which the CE or BA “did not know, and by exercising reasonable diligence would not have known” about using “the business care and prudence expected from a person seeking to satisfy a legal requirement under similar circumstances;”
A minimum penalty of $1,000 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations for “reasonable cause” which do not rise to the level of “willful neglect” where “reasonable cause” means the “circumstances that would make it unreasonable for the covered entity, despite the exercise of ordinary business care and prudence, to comply with the violated Privacy Rule requirement;”
A minimum penalty of $10,000 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations attributed to “willful neglect,” defined as “the conscious, intentional failure or reckless indifference to the obligation to comply” with the requirement or prohibition; and
A minimum penalty of $50,000 and a maximum penalty of $1.5 million per violation, for violations attributed to “willful neglect” not remedied within 30 days of the date that the covered entity or BA knew or should have known of the violation.

For continuing violations such as failing to implement a required BAA, OCR can treat each day of noncompliance as a separate violation. However, sanctions under each of these tiers generally are subject to a maximum penalty of $1,500,000 for violations of identical requirements or prohibitions during a calendar year. For violations such as the failure to implement and maintain a required BAA where more than one covered entity bears responsibility for the violation, OCR an impose Civil Monetary Penalties against each culpable party. OCR considers a variety of mitigating and aggravating facts and circumstances when arriving at the amount of the penalty within each of these applicable tiers to impose.

In addition to these potential civil liability exposures, however, covered entities, their business associates and other individuals or organizations that wrongfully use, access or disclose electronic or other protected health information also can face civil liability under various circumstances. The criminal enforcement provisions of HIPAA authorize the Justice Department to prosecute a person who knowingly in violation of the Privacy Rule (1) uses or causes to be used a unique health identifier; (2) obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an individual; or (3) discloses individually identifiable health information to another person, punishable by the following criminal sanctions and penalties:

A fine of up to $50,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both;
If the offense is committed under false pretenses, a fine of up to $100,000, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both; and
If the offense is committed with intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm, a fine of up to $250,000, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

Because HIPAA Privacy Rule criminal violations are Class A Misdemeanors or felonies, Covered Entities and business associates should include HIPAA compliance in their Federal Sentencing Guideline Compliance Programs and practices and need to be concerned both about criminal exposure for their own direct violations, as well as imputed organizational liability for violations committed by their employees or agents under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, particularly where their failure to implement or administer these required compliance policies and practices or failure to properly investigate or redress potential violations enables, perpetuates or covers up the criminal breach.

Fresenius Breach, Charges & Settlement Agreement Illustrate Civil Exposures

The FMCNA resolution agreement is another example of a growing list of resolution agreements various HIPAA covered entities have entered into to resolve their exposure to potentially greater liability should OCR assess civil monetary penalties under HIPAA’s civil sanction scheme.

The breach reports filed on January 21, 2017 reported five separate breach incidents occurring between February 23, 2012 and July 18, 2012 implicating the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of five separate FMCNA owned covered entities (FMCNA covered entities): Bio-Medical Applications of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care Duval Facility in Jacksonville, Florida (FMC Duval Facility); Bio-Medical Applications of Alabama, Inc. d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care Magnolia Grove in Semmes, Alabama (FMC Magnolia Grove Facility); Renal Dimensions, LLC d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care Ak-Chin in Maricopa, Arizona (FMC Ak-Chin Facility); Fresenius Vascular Care Augusta, LLC (FVC Augusta); and WSKC Dialysis Services, Inc. d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care Blue Island Dialysis (FMC Blue Island Facility).

OCR concluded its investigation showed the breaches resulted because 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. OCR also concluded:

The FMCNA covered entities impermissibly disclosed the ePHI of patients by providing unauthorized access for a purpose not permitted by the Privacy Rule.
FMC Ak-Chin failed to implement policies and procedures to address security incidents.
FMC Magnolia Grove failed to implement policies and procedures that govern the receipt and removal of hardware and electronic media that contain ePHI into and out of a facility; and the movement of these items within the facility.
FMC Duval and FMC Blue Island failed to implement policies and procedures to safeguard their facilities and equipment therein from unauthorized access, tampering, and theft, when it was reasonable and appropriate to do so under the circumstances.
FMC Magnolia Grove and FVC Augusta failed to implement a mechanism to encrypt and decrypt ePHI, when it was reasonable and appropriate to do so under the circumstances.

In addition to a $3.5 million monetary settlement, a corrective action plan requires the FMCNA covered entities to complete a risk analysis and risk management plan, revise policies and procedures on device and media controls as well as facility access controls, develop an encryption report, and educate its workforce on policies and procedures.

HIPAA Enforcement A Growing Risk

Covered entities, their business associates and members of their workforce need to recognize that the FMCNA and other resolution agreements are part of a growing trend, rather than isolated incidents of enforcement.

While civil monetary penalty enforcement remains much more common than criminal prosecution, covered entities, their business associates and members of their workforce must understand that HIPAA enforcement and resulting liability is growing.

While Department of Justice federal criminal prosecutions and convictions under HIPAA remain relatively rare, they occur and are growing. See e.g., Former Hospital Employee Sentenced for HIPAA Violations (Texas man sentenced to 18 months in federal prison for obtaining protected health information with the intent to use it for personal gain); Three Life Sentences Imposed On Man Following Convictions For Drug Trafficking, Kidnapping, Using Firearms and HIPAA Violations (drug king pin gets multiple 10 year consecutive prison terms for unauthorized access to private health information in violation of HIPAA; his health care worker friend sentenced for accessing electronic medical files and reporting information to him); Former Therapist Charged In HIPAA Case; Hefty Prison Sentence in ID Theft Case (former assisted living facility worker gets 37 months in prison after pleading guilty to wrongful disclosure of HIPAA protected information and other charges); Hefty Prison Sentence in ID Theft Case (former medical supply company owner sentenced to 12 years for HIPAA violations and fraud). While the harshest sentences tend to be associated with health care fraud or other criminal conduct, lighter criminal sentences are imposed against defendants in other cases as well. See e.g., Sentencing In S.C. Medicaid Breach Case (former South Carolina state employee sentenced to three years’ probation, plus community service, for sending personal information about more than 228,000 Medicaid recipients to his personal e-mail account.); HIPAA Violation Leads To Prison Term (former UCLA Healthcare System surgeon gets four months in prison after admitting he illegally read private electronic medical records of celebrities and others.)

While criminal enforcement of HIPAA remains relatively rare and OCR to date only actually has assessed HIPAA civil monetary penalties against certain Covered Entities for violating HIPAA in a couple isolated instances, the growing list of multi-million dollar resolution payments that FMCNA and other covered entities caught violating HIPAA make clear that HIPAA enforcement is both meaningful and growing. See e.g., Learn From Children’s New $3.2M+ HIPAA CMP For “Knowing” Violation of HIPAA Security Rules ($3.2 million Children’s Medical Center HIPAA Civil Monetary Penalty); 1st HIPAA Privacy Civil Penalty of $4.3 Million Signals CMS Serious About HIPAA Enforcement; $400K HIPAA Settlement Shows Need To Conduct Timely & Appropriate Risk Assessments; $5.5M Memorial HIPAA Resolution Agreement Shows Need To Audit. For more examples, also see here.

Coming on the heels of an already lengthy and growing list of OCR high dollar HIPAA enforcement actions, the FMCNA and other resolution agreements and civil monetary penalties these and other announced enforcement actions clearly reflect that OCR takes HIPAA compliance seriously and stands ready to impose substantial penalties when it finds violations in connection with breach notice investigations. Viewed in the context of these and other enforcement actions, the FMCNA Resolution Agreement and others clearly reflect the time for complacency in HIPAA compliance and leniency in HIPAA HIPAA enforcement are passed. Rather, these and other enforcement actions make clear why health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and their business associates must make HIPAA compliance a priority now.

Covered entities and business associates also should recognize their potential responsibilities and risks for breaches or other improper conduct concerning patient or other sensitive personal financial information, trade secrets or other data under a wide range of laws beyond HIPAA and its state law equivalents. As documented by the media coverage of the legal and business woes of Alteryx, eBay, Paypal owner TIO Networks, Uber, Equifax and a long list of other previously trusted prominent businesses have and continue to incur from data breaches within their organizations, health care or other covered entities experiencing breaches often also face FTC or other government investigations and enforcement under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) and other federal or state identity theft, data privacy and security, electronic crimes and other rules as well as business losses and disruptions; civil litigation from breach victims, shareholders and investors, and business partners as well as OCR, FTC, and state data security regulation enforcement. Amid this growing concern, OCR has indicated that it intends to continue to diligently both seek to support and encourage voluntary compliance by covered entities and their business associates and investigate and enforce HIPAA against HIPAA covered entities and their business associates that fail to adequately safeguard PHI and ePHI in accordance with HIPAA. In the face of these growing risks and liabilities, covered entities and their business leaders face a strong imperative to clean up and maintain their HIPAA compliance and other data security to minimize their exposure to similar consequences.

In light of these rises, leaders, investors, insurers, lenders and others involved with covered entities and their business associates should take steps to verify that the covered entities and their business associates not only maintain compliance with HIPAA, but also comply with data security, privacy and other information protection requirements arising under other laws, regulations, and contracts, as well as the practical business risks that typically follow the announcement of a breach. Considering these risks, covered entities and their business associates must recognize and take meaningful, documented action to verify their existing compliance and ongoing oversight to ensure their organizations can demonstrate appropriate action to maintain appropriate practices, insurance and other safeguards to prevent, respond to and mitigate exposures in the event of a breach of protected health information or other sensitive data.

In response to these growing risks and concerns, covered entities and their business associates should ensure that they have conducted, and maintain and are ready to produce appropriate policies and procedures backed up by a well documented, up-to-date industry wide risk assessment of their organization’s susceptibility to breaches or other misuse of electronic or other protected health information. The starting point of these efforts should be to adopt and enforce updated written policies, procedures, technical and physical safeguards, processes and training to prevent the improper use, access, destruction or disclosure of patient PHI. Processes also should create, retain and be designed to cost effectively track, capture, and retain both all protected health information, its use, access, protection, destruction and disclosure, and the requisite supportive documentation supporting the appropriateness of those action to position the organization cost-effectively and quickly to fulfill required accounting, reporting and other needs in the event of a data breach, audit, participant inquiry or other event.

As part of this process, covered entities and business associates should start by reviewing and updating their policies, HIPAA audits and assessments and other documentation and processes. In doing so, they must use care to look outside the four corners of their Privacy Policies and core operating systems to ensure that their policies, practices, oversight and training address all protected health information within their operations on an entity wide basis. This entity-wide assessment should include both communications and requests for information normally addressed to the Privacy Officer as well as requests and communications that could arise in the course of media or other public relations, practice transition, workforce communication and other operations not typically under the direct oversight and management of the Privacy Officer.

In connection with these efforts, the enforcement actions make clear that Covered Entities and business associates should adopt, implement and monitor PHI privacy, and security on an entity wide basis. These efforts should include both general policies, practices and procedures as well as specifically tailored policies, processes and training to protect PHI and preserve HIPAA compliance throughout their organization as well as the business associate agreements and other processes to provide for HIPAA compliance with respect to protected health information created, used, accessed or disclosed to business associates or others not part of their direct workforce or operating outside the core boundaries of their facilities.

Covered entities and their business associates also must recognize and design their compliance efforts and documentation recognizing that HIPAA compliance is a living process, which require both constant diligence about changes in systems or other events that may require reevaluation or adjustments, whether from changes in software, systems or processes or external threats.

Because the cost of responding to and investigating breaches or other compliance concern can be quite burdensome, covered entities and their business associates also generally will want to pursue options to plan for and minimize potential expenses in the design and administration of their programs as well as to minimize and cover the potentially extraordinary costs of breach or other compliance investigation and results that commonly arise following a breach or other compliance event. As a part of this planning, covered entities and their business associates also generally will want to add consideration of changes to federal tax rules on the deductibility of compliance penalty and other related compliance expenditures.

While the Internal Revenue Code traditionally has prohibited businesses and individuals from deducting penalties, fines and other expenditures arising from violations of federal or state laws under Section 162(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, Section 13306 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Creation Act creates a new exception for amounts (other than amounts paid or incurred any amount paid or incurred as reimbursement to the government or entity for the costs of any investigation or litigation) that a taxpayer establishes meet the following requirements:

Constitute restitution (including remediation of property) for damage or harm which was or may be caused by the violation of any law or the potential violation of any law, or
Are paid to come into compliance with any law which was violated or otherwise involved in the investigation or inquiry into a violation or potential violation of any law;
Are identified as restitution or as an amount paid to come into compliance with such law, as the case may be, in the court order or settlement agreement, and
In the case of any amount of restitution for failure to pay any tax imposed under this title in the same manner as if such amount were such tax, would have been allowed as a deduction under this chapter if it had been timely paid.

Because the true effect of these modifications will be impacted by implementing regulations and a number of other special conditions and rules may impact the deductibility of these payments and the reporting obligations attached to their payment, covered entities will want to consult with legal counsel about these rules and monitor their implementation to understand their potential implications on compliance expenditures and penalties.

About The Author

Repeatedly 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, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation and board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney, management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for health and managed care, employee benefits, insurance and financial services, data and technology and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. Nationally recognized for her work, experience, leadership and publications on HIPAA and other medical privacy and data use and security, FACTA, GLB, trade secrets and other privacy and data security concerns, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with clients and the government on cybersecurity, technology and processes and other issues involved in the use and management of medical, insurance and other financial, workforce, trade secrets and other sensitive data and information throughout her career. Scribe or co-scribe of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR since 2011 and author of a multitude of highly regarded publications on HIPAA and other health care, insurance, financial and other privacy and data security, Ms. Stamer is widely known for her extensive and leading edge experience, advising, representing, training and coaching health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses, business associates, their information technology and other solutions providers and vendors, and others on HIPAA and other privacy, data security and cybersecurity design, documentation, administration, audit and oversight, business associate and other data and technology contracting, breach investigation and response, and other related concerns including extensive involvement representing clients in dealings with OCR and other Health & Human Services, Federal Trade Commission, Department of Labor, Department of Treasury, state health, insurance and attorneys’ general, Congress and state legislators and other federal officials.

Ms. Stamer also has an extensive contributes her leadership and insights with other professionals, industry leaders and lawmakers. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance often appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, SHRM, HIMMS, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of 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. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see here, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (214) 452-8297.

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 here 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 your profile here.

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.

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.

©2018 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, ARRA, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, Cyber crime, data breach, data security, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, FACTA, Federal Health Center, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, Health Policy, healthcare, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospital, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Joint Commission, Laws, Licensing, managed care, Meaningful Use, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Mental Health, Mental Heatlh, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy, Psychiatric, public health, Rural Health Care, Skilled Nursing Facility, Technology, Telemedicine, Uncategorized, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Administration, Veterans Health Care, Wellness | Tagged: Compliance, Corporate Compliance, Crisis preparedness, Cybercrime, dta breach, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, HIPAA, Medical Privacy, OCR, Privacy, public health, SEC | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CDC Director Fitzgerald Resigns

January 31, 2018

‭The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced the resignation of Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald as Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

HHS’s announcement states Dr. Fitzgerald owns certain complex financial interests that have imposed a broad recusal limiting her ability to complete all of her duties as the CDC Director. Due to the nature of these financial interests, Dr. Fitzgerald could not divest from them in a definitive time period. After advising Secretary Azar of both the status of the financial interests and the scope of her recusal, Dr. Fitzgerald tendered, and the Secretary accepted, her resignation.

The resignation follows a resignation of the former secretary of HHS Tom Price, Who resigned after criticism about what was perceived to be high travel spending. The Trump Administration’s ability to appoint and keep key leadership in other departments also has been impacted by withdrawals of nominations or resignations by its nominees. The resulting interruptions or delays in leadership have undermined the ability of the Trump Administration to advance many key regulatory agenda as well as triggered credibility attacks against the Administration. This latest resignation likely will add additional fodder and distraction from the Trump Administration healthcare agenda only one day after the President’s State of the Union Address highlighted several key healthcare initiatives.

About the Author

Ms. Stamer’s legal, management, governmental affairs work and speaking and publications have focused on helping health industry, health benefit and other organizations and their management use the law, performance and risk management tools and process to manage people, performance, quality, compliance, operations and risk.

Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer supports these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis as well as outsourced operations or special counsel on an interim, special project, or ongoing basis with strategic planning and product and services development and innovation; workforce and operations management, crisis preparedness and response as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

As core components of this work, Ms. Stamer helps health industry, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients manage regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other private payer and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, 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; 1557 and other Civil Rights; 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.

Her 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, 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 to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; 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 investigation, enforcement including insurance or other liability management and allocation; process and product development, contracting, deployment and defense; evaluation, commenting or seeking modification of regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement, and a host of other related concerns for public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, employers, and others.and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management 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.

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 also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and 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.

Heavily involved in health care and health information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations innovation and a Scribe for ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with OCR for many years who has authored numerous highly-regarded works and training programs on HIPAA and other data security, privacy and use, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive work and leadership on leading edge health care and benefit policy and operational issues including meaningful use and EMR, billing and reimbursement, quality measurement and reimbursement, HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security and data breach and other information privacy and data security rules and many other concerns. Her work includes both regulatory and public policy advocacy and thought leadership, as well as advising and representing a broad range of health industry and other clients about policy design, drafting, administration, business associate and other contracting, risk assessments, audits and other risk prevention and mitigation, investigation, reporting, mitigation and resolution of known or suspected violations or other incidents and responding to and defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, DOJ, OCR, FTC, state attorneys’ general and other federal or state agencies, other business partners, patients and others.

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.

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; a 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 (469) 767-8872 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 » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Development of Potentially Preventable Hospitalization Measures for Home Health Agencies Panelist Nominations Due 9/22

January 24, 2018

Nominations are due February 22, 2018 for a Technical Expert Panel (TEP) to develop potentially preventable hospitalization/readmission measures for Home Health Agencies (HHAs) including standardized items and specifications such as inclusion/exclusion criteria, and patient and facility characteristics–factors associated with outcome measures (risk adjusters).

Visit the Technical Expert Panels webpage for more information.

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 (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | home health, quality repoting, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

MAC Operations Continue During Shutdown

January 22, 2018

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services confirmed today that Medicare Administrative Contractors will continue to perform all functions related to Medicare fee-for-service claims processing and payment while the partial government shutdown is in effect. See CMS MLN Special Edition, MAC Operations Continue During Shutdown (January 22, 2018).

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 (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HHS Proposes “Conscience Rule” Expanding Abortion And Other Religious Choice

January 19, 2018

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) today (January 19, 2018) announced two additional actions to protect life and the conscience rights of Americans.

First, HHS’ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued new guidance to state Medicaid directors restoring state flexibility to decide program standards. The letter to State Medicaid Directors issued today rescinds 2016 guidance that specifically restricted states’ ability to take certain actions against family-planning providers that offer abortion services.

Additionally, HHS’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also announced it is issuing a new proposed s rule (“Conscience Rule”) to enforce 25 existing statutory conscience protections for Americans involved in HHS-funded programs, which protect people from being coerced into participating in activities that violate their consciences, such as abortion, sterilization, or assisted suicide.

Modeled on existing regulations for other civil rights laws, the proposed rule provides protections for Americans’ conscience rights. Interested persons will have 60 days to comment on the proposed rule. However since President Trump took office OCR already has stepped up enforcement of these conscience statutes, many of which saw little to no enforcement activity under the previous administration.

The proposed rule when finalized will apply to entities that receive funds through programs funded or administered in whole or in part through HHS. It requires, for instance, that entities applying for federal grants certify that they are complying with the above-mentioned conscience-protection statutes.

The release of the proposed rule was accompanied by the rescission by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services of a letter to State Medicaid Directors rescinding restrictions on state flexibility to decide when and how their state Medicaid programs cover abortion and certain other reproductive care. It also follows the Trump Administration’s announcement of plans to found a new division within the Office of Civil Rights that will focus on enforcement of conscience and religious rights.

About the Author

Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers and other plan sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA, FACTA, trade secret and other information privacy and data security rules, including the establishment, documentation, implementation, audit and enforcement of policies, procedures, systems and safeguards, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others. In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, MGMA, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations 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 (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Abortion, Birth Control, Civil Rights, Cultural diversity, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, health care reimbursement, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HHS, home health, Hospital, hospitals, Medicaid, Medicare, Mental Heatlh, OCR, Physician, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New Medicaid Guidance Gives States More Flexibility On Abortion

January 19, 2018

On Friday, January 19, 2018, The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a State Medicaid Director Letter restoring state flexibility to establish reasonable standards for their Medicaid programs regarding abortion.

The letter rescinds State Medicaid Directors Letter #16-005 that limited states’ long-standing authority to regulate providers operating within their states issued in April 2016.

The 2016 letter had said that states that attempted to protect the integrity of their program standards by disqualifying abortion providers from their Medicaid programs would come under CMS scrutiny, and would be required to present to CMS evidence of criminal action or unfitness to perform healthcare services.

The letter to State Medicaid directors published Friday states CMS is concerned that the 2016 letter may have gone beyond merely interpreting what the statute and current regulations require.

The new letter returns CMS policy to what it was prior to the issuance of the 2016 letter while requiring States to comply with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, including the requirement that provider qualification standards be reasonable.

Concurrent with the issuance of the letter, CMS also is issuing new regulations requiring certain conscience protections in programs and facilities funded in whole or part by the Department of Health and Human Services and follows the Trump Administration’s announcement Thursday of a new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division within the HHS Office of Civil Rights.

In addition to these regulatory actions, legislation regarding Medicaid abortion coverage also has been introduced. See, e.g., H.R. 4848 (requiring States Report Medicaid payments for abortion); H.R. 4844 (to ensure that women seeking an abortion receive an ultrasound and the opportunity to review the ultrasound before giving informed consent to receive an abortion).

About the Author

As core components of this work, Ms. Stamer helps U.S. and international private sector and government health industry, health and managed care plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other clients manage regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other private payer and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, 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; 1557 and other Civil Rights; 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.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Abortion, Ambulatory care, Birth Control, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Civil Rights, Conditions of Participation, Corporate Compliance, Cultural diversity, Doctor, Federal Health Center, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, health care reimbursement, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HHS, Home Health, home health, Hospital, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Reimbursement, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New Trump Executive Order Directs More Veterans Health Care Choice, Mental Health Care

January 10, 2018

Veterans transitioning back to civilian life can look forward to expanded mental health services, more choices for accessing care under some circumstances and other expanded assistance and support transitioning to civilian life under the Presidential Executive Order on Supporting Our Veterans During Their Transition From Uniformed Service to Civilian Life President Donald J. Trump signed this morning (January 9, 2018) to ensure veterans have the resources they need as they transition back to civilian life..

The Executive Order declares, “t is the policy of the United States to support the health and well-being of uniformed service members and veterans. After serving our Nation, veterans deserve long, fulfilling civilian lives. Accordingly, our Government must improve mental healthcare and access to suicide prevention resources available to veterans, particularly during the critical 1-year period following the transition from uniformed service to civilian life,

The Executive Order acknowledges the current system fails adequately to care for veterans transitioning to civilian life. It states, “Unfortunately, in some cases within the first year following transition, some veterans can have difficulties reintegrating into civilian life after their military experiences and some tragically take their own lives. Veterans, in their first year of separation from uniformed service, experience suicide rates approximately two times higher than the overall veteran suicide rate.” To help prevent these tragedies, the Executive Order states all veterans should have seamless access to high-quality mental healthcare and suicide prevention resources as they transition, with an emphasis on the 1-year period following separation.”

In announcing the Executive Order, President Trump said caring for veterans is a “top priority.”

“We want them to get the highest care and the care that they so richly deserve,” he said.

To implement the necessary improvements to improve veterans care, the Executive Order direct the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and the Secretary of Homeland Security to collaborate to address the complex challenges faced by our transitioning uniformed service members and veterans to accomplish the following:

Within 60 days, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and the Secretary of Homeland Security must submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, a Joint Action Plan that describes concrete actions to provide, to the extent consistent with law, seamless access to mental health treatment and suicide prevention resources for transitioning uniformed service members in the year following discharge, separation, or retirement.
Within 180 days, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, a status report on the implementation of the Joint Action Plan and how the proposed reforms have been effective in improving mental health treatment for all transitioning uniformed service members and veterans that addresses progress on certain specific reforms and any additional reforms that could help further address the problems that obstruct veterans’ access to resources and continuous mental healthcare treatment, including any suggestions for legislative and regulatory reforms; and
A timeline describing next steps and the results anticipated from continued and additional reforms.

The actual Executive Order tells little about how the Trump Administration intends to implement these directives. The White House press release about the Executive Order states President Trump believes that our veterans deserve the best healthcare in the world, and is working with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to expand and modernize their care including through four already announced initiatives to expand healthcare access for our veterans through technological innovation:

An expansion of the VA’s “Anywhere to Anywhere” healthcare, which allows VA providers to use tele-health technology to remotely treat veterans regardless of geographic location.
A greater adoption of VA Video Connect, an application for mobile phones and computers, which directly connects veterans and healthcare providers from anywhere in the country.
At over 100 VA sites across the nation, a rollout of the new Online Scheduling Tool, which enables veterans to schedule appointments from their mobile devices or computers.
A launch of the VA’s “Access and Quality Tool,” which allows veterans to view online both wait times at VA locations and important quality-of-care data.

The press release also states President Trump has ensured continued access to care in the Veterans Choice Program by signing the VA Choice and Quality Employment Act, authorizing $2.1 billion in additional funds for the Veterans Choice Program (VCP).

The VCP gives eligible veterans their choice of private care if they live more than 40 miles from the closest eligible VA facility, experience wait times over 30 days from the clinically indicated date, or face an excessive burden in accessing VA care.

On addition, the press release states the Department of Veterans Affairs will adopt the same Electronic Health Record (EHR) as the Department of Defense (DOD) so all patient data will reside in one common system, enabling the immediate availability of service member’s medical records and seamless care between the departments.

Concerning veterans mental health, President Trump notes that Secretary Shulkin already expanded access to urgent mental healthcare to former service members with other-than-honorable (OTH) discharges.

As in the past, the effect of these promises remains to be seen. The announced changes only provide a portion of the reforms needed and past reform programs have promised much but have failed to resolve access issues and failed to address notorious neglect and abuse recurrently uncovered in many veterans hospitals and other care facilities across the nation. Veterans, their families and treating physicians and others concerned with veterans health issues should monitor proposed changes and provide input as needed to ensure these reforms are properly designed and implemented as well as recommend other improvements.

About The Author

She is nationally recognized for her more than 30 years on involvement through her profession practice and pro bono work with PROJECT COPE and others she is recognized for her work, experience, leadership and publications on veterans and other health and workforce policy and law and regulation for more than 30 years.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Electronic Medical Records, Evidence Based Medicine, Federal Health Center, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, healthcare, Hospital, hospitals, Medical Records, Mental Health, Physician, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Administration, Veterans Health Care | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Bankrupt Oncology Provider’s $2.3M Settlement Payment & Other HIPAA Breach Consequences Shows Why To Prioritize HIPAA Compliance In 2018

December 29, 2017

The just-announced agreement $2.3 million (Resolution Amount) settlement by now bankrupt radiation oncology and cancer care provider 21st Century Oncology, Inc. (21CO) is paying to settle Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules violation charges and other continuing post-breach fallout that helped push 21CO to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection demonstrates again why HIPAA-covered health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (covered entities) must make HIPAA compliance and risk management a high priority in 2018.

Distinctive as the first HIPAA resolution agreement requiring bankruptcy court approval and for the bankruptcy court’s order including a direction to the covered entity’s cyber liability insurer to pay the Resolution Payment and other investigation defense expenses, the 21CO resolution agreement resolves potential civil monetary penalty exposures the Fort Myers, Florida based provider of cancer care services and radiation oncology could have faced from the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR) charges it violated HIPAA’s Privacy and Security Rules arising from the hacking and misappropriation of records containing sensitive electronic protected health information (ePHI) of up to 2,213597 individuals.

When their own 2018 HIPAA or other compliance investigation activities or planning HIPAA compliance and risk management activities, covered entities and their business associates and their leaders should use 21CO’s painful post-breach lessons experience to minimize their own HIPAA breach exposures, as well as consider how amendments to Internal Revenue Code Section 162(f) might impact the tax deductibility of certain compliance expenditures.

21CO HIPAA Breaches & Fallout

The OCR charges against 21CO arose from an OCR investigation commenced after the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) notified 21CO on November 13, 2015 and a second time on December 13, 2015 than unauthorized third-party illegally obtained 21CO sensitive patient information and produced 21CO patient files purchased by a FBI informant. As part of its internal investigation, 21CO hired a third party forensic auditing firm in November 2015. 21CO determined that the attacker may have accessed 21CO’s network SQL database as early as October 3, 2015, through Remote Desktop Protocol from an Exchange Server within 21CO’s network. 21CO determined that it is possible that 2,213,597 individuals may have been affected by the impermissible access to their names, social security numbers, physicians’ names, diagnoses, treatment and insurance information.

Although it knew of the breaches in November and December, 2015, 21CO delayed notifying patients of the data breach for more than three months after the FBI notified it of the breaches before it sent HIPAA or other breach notifications about the data breach to patients or notified investors in March, 2016. Its March 4, 2016 Securities and Exchange Commission 8-K on Data Security Incident (Breach 8-K) states 21CO delayed notification at the request of the FBI to avoid interfering in the criminal investigation of the breach.

When announcing the breach, 21CO provided all individuals affected by the breach with a free one-year subscription to the Experian ProtectMyID fraud protection service. At that time, 21CO said it had no evidence that any patient information actually had been misused. However victims of the breach subsequently are claiming being victimized by a variety of scams since the breach in news reports and lawsuits about the breach.

At the time of the breach and its March 4, 2016 announcement of the breach, 21CO already was working to resolve other compliance issues. On December 16, 2015, 21CO announced that a 21CO subsidiary had agreed to pay $19.75 million to the United States and $528,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs and comply with a corporate integrity agreement related to a qui tam action in which it was accused of making false claims to Medicare and other federal health programs. See 21CO 8-K Re: Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement (December 22, 2015). Among other things, the corporate integrity agreement required by that settlement required 21CO to appoint a compliance officer and take other steps to maintain compliance with federal health care laws. In addition, five days after releasing the March 4, 2017 Breach 8-K, 21CO notified investors that its subsidiary, 21st Century Oncology, Inc. (“21C”), had agreed to pay $37.4 million to settle health care fraud law charges relating to billing and other protocols of certain staff in the utilization of state-of-the-art radiation dose calculation system used by radiation oncologists called GAMMA. See 21CO 8-K Re: GAMMA Settlement March 9, 2016 ; See also United States Settles False Claims Act Allegations Against 21st Century Oncology for $34.7 Million.

As the breeches impacted more than 500 individuals, 21CO’s HIPAA breaches were considered large breaches for purposes of the Breach Notification Rules. It is the policy of OCR to investigate all large breach notifications filed under the HIPAA Breach Notification Rules.

Based on OCR’s subsequent investigation into these breaches, OCR found:

21CO impermissibly disclosed certain PHI of 2,213,597 of its patients in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.502(a);
21CO failed to conduct an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the electronic protected health information (ePHI) held by 21CO in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A);
21CO failed to implement certain security measures sufficient to reduce risks and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level to comply with 45 C.F.R. § 164.306(A) in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(B);
21CO failed to implement procedures to regularly review records of information system activity, such as audit logs, access reports, and security incident tracking reports as required by 45 C.F.R. §164.308(a)(1)(ii)(D);
21CO disclosed protected health information to a third-party vendors, acting as its business associates, without obtaining satisfactory assurances in the form of a written business associate agreement in violation of HIPAA’s business associate rule requirements under 45 C.F.R. §§ 164.502(e) and 164.308(b)(3).

The Resolution Agreement settles potential charges and exposures to potentially much higher civil monetary penalties that 21CO could have faced had OCR successfully prosecuted charges against 21CO for the breaches. In return for OCR’s agreement not to further pursue charges or penalties relating to the breach investigation, the Resolution Agreement requires that 21CO pay OCR a $2.3 million Resolution Amount and implement to OCR’s satisfaction a corrective action plan that among other things requires that 21CO complete the following corrective actions to the satisfaction of OCR:

To complete a risk analysis and risk management plan;
To revise its HIPAA policies and procedures regarding information system activity review to require the regular review of audit logs, access reports, and security incident tracking reports pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(D);
To revise its policies and procedures regarding access establishment and modification and termination pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(4)(ii)(C) and 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(3)(ii)(C) to include protocols for access to 21CO’s e-PHI by affiliated physicians, their practices, and their employees.
To distribute its policies to and educate its workforce on the updated and other HIPAA policies and procedures;
To provide OCR with an accounting of 21CO’s business associates that includes names of business associates, a description of services provided, a description of the business associate’s handling of 21CO’s PHI, the date services began and copies of the actual business associate agreement with each business associate; and
Submit an internal monitoring plan to OCR.

In addition to the OCR investigation that lead to the new HIPAA resolution agreement announced by OCR on December 28, 2017, 21CO experienced other fallout following its March 4, 2016 public disclosure of the breach. Not surprisingly, the breach notification led to a multitude of class-action civil lawsuits by breach victims and shareholders. See, e.g., 16 Data Breach Class Action Lawsuits Filed Against 21st Century Oncology Consolidated; 21st Century Oncology data breach prompts multiple lawsuits. Reports of spoofing and other misleading contacts made to 21CO patients following the breach prompted the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to issue a specific notice alerting victims about potential false breach notifications and other misleading contacts. See April 4, 2016 FTC Announcement Re: 21st Century Oncology breach exposes patients’ info.

These and other developments also had significant consequences on 21CO’s financial status and leadership. By March 31, 2015, 21CO notified the SEC and investors that it needed added time to complete its financial statements. Subsequent SEC filings document its restatement of financial statements, the departure of board members and other leaders, default on credit terms, and ultimately its filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on May 25, 2017.

Insurer Funding $2.3 Million Settlement Payment For Bankrupt 21CO

The 21CO resolution agreement required bankruptcy court approval, Funds for payment of the required $2.3 million resolution payment and other charges associated with the investigation apparently are being provided in part from breach liability insurance coverage provided under a policy issued by Beazley Insurance, as the Bankruptcy Court order directs Beazley Breach Response Policy No. W140E2150301 to make immediate payment to the OCR of the resolution amount and the payment of fees incurred by 21CO in connection with regulatory defense issues.

Settlements Highlight Growing Risks Of Noncompliance, Lack Data Security

One of a growing multitude of multimillion dollar HIPAA resolution agreements to avoid HIPAA civil monetary sanctions that OCR already has announced, the 21CO resolution agreement announcement also comes when a steady stream of reports of massive data breaches at Alteryx, eBay, Paypal owner TIO Networks, Uber, Equifax and a long list of other previously trusted prominent businesses are stoking government and public awareness and concern over health care and other data privacy and cybersecurity. Beyond their potential HIPAA enforcement exposures, health care or other covered entities experiencing breaches often also face FTC or other government investigations and enforcement under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) and other federal or state identity theft, data privacy and security, electronic crimes and other rules as well as business losses and disruptions; civil litigation from breach victims, shareholders and investors, and business partners as well as OCR, FTC, and state data security regulation enforcement. Amid this growing concern, OCR has indicated that it intends to continue to diligently both seek to support and encourage voluntary compliance by covered entities and their business associates and investigate and enforce HIPAA against HIPAA covered entities and their business associates that fail to adequately safeguard PHI and ePHI in accordance with HIPAA. In the face of these growing risks and liabilities, covered entities and their business leaders face a strong imperative to clean up and maintain their HIPAA compliance and other data security to minimize their exposure to similar consequences.

As a part of this planning, covered entities and their business associates also generally will want to add consideration of changes to federal tax rules on the deductibility of compliance penalty and other related compliance expenditures. While the Internal Revenue Code traditionally has prohibited businesses and individuals from deducting penalties, fines and other expenditures arising from violations of federal or state laws under Section 162(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, Section 13306 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Creation Act creates a new exception for amounts (other than amounts paid or incurred any amount paid or incurred as reimbursement to the government or entity for the costs of any investigation or litigation) that a taxpayer establishes meet the following requirements:

Constitute restitution (including remediation of property) for damage or harm which was or may be caused by the violation of any law or the potential violation of any law, or
Are paid to come into compliance with any law which was violated or otherwise involved in the investigation or inquiry into a violation or potential violation of any law;
Are identified as restitution or as an amount paid to come into compliance with such law, as the case may be, in the court order or settlement agreement, and
In the case of any amount of restitution for failure to pay any tax imposed under this title in the same manner as if such amount were such tax, would have been allowed as a deduction under this chapter if it had been timely paid.

About The Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

©2017 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.

Review Your Provider Performance Data

December 13, 2017

January 3 is Deadline for Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) and Long-term Care Hospital (LTCH) providers to review their Medicare performance data on each quality measure based on Quarter 2 -2016 to Quarter 1 – 2017 data, before the March 2018 IRF and LTCH Compare refresh, during which this data will be publicly displayed.

Providers have until January 3, 2018 to review their performance data.

Corrections to the underlying data will not be permitted during this time. However, providers can request a CMS review during the preview period if they believe their data is inaccurate.

For more information, see:

IRF Quality Public Reporting webpage, IRF Compare, and Preview Report Access Instructions
LTCH Quality Public Reporting webpage, LTCH Compare and Preview Report Access Instructions

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 (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Clinical pathway, Electronic Medical Records, Health care coding, health care reimbursement, HHS, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Medicare Fee Schedule, quality reporting, Reimbursement, Uncategorized | Tagged: CMS, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Policy, health care quality, Health Care Reimbursement, Hospitals, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

1/18 Comment Deadline on Office Of Child Care Guidance That Allows Background Check Requirement Delays

December 13, 2017

January 8, 2018 is the deadline to comment on the Office of Child Care (OCC) FY 2019–2021 Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Plan Preprint including plans to grant waivers for childcare background checks.

The Preprint introduces the process and criteria for requesting additional time to complete background check requirements for interstate check components and for addressing the backlog of completing background checks for existing providers.

According to the Request for Comments, OCC is committed to granting additional waivers of up to 2 years, in 1-year increments (i.e., potentially through September 30, 2020), for background check requirements only in recognition of the significant challenges to implementing the CCDF background check requirements, . To receive these time-limited waivers, states and territories will have to meet milestones to ensure that they have requirements in place for a particular portion of the components and that they are conducting checks for new staff on those components (i.e., FBI fingerprint checks and the three in-state checks). The details on the milestone prerequisite and how to apply for the waiver are included in section 5.4 of the FY 2019–2021 CCDF Plan.

OCC has requested that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) grant approval under procedures for emergency processing of the FY 2019–2021 CCDF State/Territory Plan Preprint to ensure that states and territories have sufficient time to complete the OMB-approved Plan Preprint by July 1, 2018. The emergency clearance provides for a single 30-day comment period. Both the Federal Register announcement and a copy of the draft FY 2019–2021 CCDF Plan Preprint are posted on the OCC website. Accordingly, Comments are due no later than January 8, 2018,

About The Author

Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management and other performance and operations management and compliance. Her day-to-day work encompasses both labor and employment issues, as well as independent contractor, outsourcing, employee leasing, management services and other nontraditional service relationships. She supports her clients both on a real-time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with all aspects for workforce and human resources management, including, recruitment, hiring, firing, compensation and benefits, promotion, discipline, compliance, trade secret and confidentiality, noncompetition, privacy and data security, safety, daily performance and operations management, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy.

Well-known for her extensive work with health, insurance, financial services, technology, energy, manufacturing, retail, hospitality, governmental and other highly regulated employers, her nearly 30 years’ of experience encompasses domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes.

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 concerns by her service as a management consultant, business coach and consultant and policy strategist as well through her leadership participation in professional and civic organizations such her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association; Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Gulf Coast TEGE Council Exempt Organization Coordinator; a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; former board member and Vice President of the Managed Care Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; a member and policy adviser to the National Physicians’ Council for Healthcare Policy; 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; ABA Real Property Probate and Trust (RPTE) Section former Employee Benefits Group Chair, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, and Defined Contribution Committee Co-Chair, past Welfare Benefit Committee Chair and current Employee Benefits Group Fiduciary Responsibility Committee Co-Chair, Substantive and Group Committee member, Membership Committee member and RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council; past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a former member of the Board of Directors, Treasurer, Member and Continuing Education Chair of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author, highly popular lecturer, and serial symposia chair, who publishes and speaks extensively on human resources, labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation, occupational safety and health, and other leadership, performance, regulatory and operational risk management, public policy and community service concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

▪DOL Proposes Changing FLSA Tipped Employee Pay Rules

▪Consider Internal Investigation & Defense Costs When Administering Compliance Programs

▪Recruiting Qualified Workers Biggest Challenge US Manufacturers See In Otherwise Optimistic 3rd Quarter 2017

▪Government Retirees Get New Thrift Plan Distributing Choices

▪Jennifer A. Abruzzo Named NLRB Acting General Counsel

▪Bill Mandating E-Verify, Raising Employer I-9 Penalties Approved By House Judiciary Committee

▪Address Workplace Harassment During October Stop Bullying Month

▪NIOSH Proposed Updated Occupational Safety Chemical Monitoring Rules

▪2018 Social Security COLAs Set

▪IRS Updates Defined Benefit Plan Guidance

▪Read Trump Health Care Executive Order

▪Dealing With HR, Benefits & Other Headaches From Equifax and Other Data Breach

▪Employers Should Manage Potential Unfair Labor Practice Risks From Recording, Acceptable Use, Fighting, Integrity & Other Employment Policies

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please provide your current contact information and preferences including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not 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 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 » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Bill Allowing FDA Emergency Use Authorizations To Protect Military From Biological Warfare Threats Sent to President

December 5, 2017

Legislation amending the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 360bbb–3 (FDCA), to allow the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to expedite the availability and emergency use of FDA regulated drugs and devices in response to military threats from germ and other biological warfare threats is awaiting President Trump’s signature. The legislation is intended to help better protect U.S. military personnel from exposures to germ and other biological warfare risks.

Passed by Congress on November 16 and presented for signature to President Trump on November 30, 2017, H.R.4374 will amend Section 564 of the FDCA to authorize the Secretary of Defense to request, and the FDA to authorize emergency use of a controlled substance or other regulated drug when the Secretary of Defense determines there exists a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to United States military forces from:

A biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; or
An agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated with, an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to United States military forces;”; and

The Act contemplates that FDA consideration of approval of expedited emergency use under these circumstances will be initiated in response to a request from the Secretary of Defense. The Act authorizes the Secretary of Defense to ask the FDA to expedite the development of a medical product, review of investigational new drug applications under section 505(i) of the FDCA, review of investigational device exemptions under section 520(g) of the FDCA and review of applications for approval and clearance of medical products under sections 505, 510(k), and 515 of the FDCA and section 351 of the Public Health Service Act including applications for licensing of vaccines or blood as biological products, for review of regenerative medicine advanced therapy products when there is a military emergency, or significant potential for a military emergency, involving a specific and imminently life-threatening risk to United States military forces of attack with an agent or agents, and the medical product that is the subject of such application, submission, or notification would be reasonably likely to diagnose, prevent, treat, or mitigate such life-threatening risk.

If the Secretary of Defense makes such a request, the Act requires the FDA to expedite the development and review of an applicable application or notification with respect to the medical product including, as appropriate by:

Holding meetings with the sponsor and the review team throughout the development of the medical product;
Providing timely advice to, and interactive communication with, the sponsor regarding the development of the medical product to ensure that the development program to gather the nonclinical and clinical data necessary for approval or clearance is as efficient as practicable;
Involving senior managers and experienced review staff, as appropriate, in a collaborative, cross-disciplinary review;
Assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the review team to facilitate an efficient review of the development program and to serve as a scientific liaison between the review team and the sponsor;
Taking steps to ensure that the design of the clinical trials is as efficient as practicable, when scientifically appropriate, such as by minimizing the number of patients exposed to a potentially less efficacious treatment;
Applying any applicable Food and Drug Administration program intended to expedite the development and review of a medical product; and
In appropriate circumstances, permitting expanded access to the medical product during the investigational phase, in accordance with applicable requirements of the Food and Drug Administration.

To facilitate enhanced collaboration and communication with respect to the most current priorities of the Department of Defense, unless the Secretary of Defense determines unnecessary, the Act also requires:

The FDA to meet with the Department of Defense and any other appropriate development partners, such as the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, on a semi-annual basis for the purposes of conducting a full review of the relevant products in the Department of Defense portfolio; and
The Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research shall meet quarterly with the Department of Defense to discuss the development status of regenerative medicine advanced therapy, blood, and vaccine medical products and projects that are the highest priorities to the Department of Defense (which may include freeze dried plasma products and platelet alternatives).

In light of the enactment of these provisions, the Act also retroactively repeals to subsection (d) of section 1107a of title 10, United States Code, as added by section 716 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.

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 (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OIG Tells Texas Stop Paying Medicaid MCOs For Dead Patients

December 1, 2017

Texas has agreed to take steps to redress and prevent future Medicare capitation payments to Medicare managed care organization organization in response to an audit by the Department of Health & Human Services Office Of Inspector General (OIG).

A recently released OIG report says OIG found Texas Medicaid did not always stop making capitation payments after a beneficiary’s death, despite its efforts to identify and recover any unallowable payments. Specifically, Texas Medicaid paid $6.4 million for 8,496 capitation payments made between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2015, for beneficiaries with death dates reported as prior to this period. While Texas recovered some of these payments, OIG determined that $1.8 million remains unrecovered and that Texas paid $840,587 for beneficiaries who OIG could not determine to be deceased.

Based on these findings, OIG recommended that Texas Medicaid:

Identify and recover unallowable payments totaling $1.8 million from MCOs and refund $1 million (Federal share) to the Federal Government,
Review capitation payments before and after the OIG audit period for additional unallowable payments for the deceased beneficiaries,
Work with the Social Security Administration to determine whether the 77 beneficiaries whose status could not be verified are deceased and recover any unallowable payments, and
Strengthen its policies and procedures for identifying deceased beneficiaries and denying Medicaid benefits and ending eligibility to prevent future unallowable payments. Texas Medicaid agreed with our findings and provided information on actions that it had taken or planned to take to address OIG’s recommendations.

The report and Texas’ response sends a strong signal to Texas and other Medicaid managed care organizations to clean up their eligibility tracking and billing to avoid billing for or accepting capitation payments after beneficiaries die as well as prepare to make repayments if they receive those payments.

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

1/19 Deadline To Comment On Proposed FDA Premarket Notice Exemption For Over-The-Counter Dental Repair Kits

November 18, 2017

January 19 is the deadline to comment on a petition asking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to exempt over-the-counter (OTC) denture repair kits from the premarket notification requirements.

OTC denture repair kits consist of material, such as a resin monomer system of powder and liquid glues, which is intended to be applied permanently to a denture to mend cracks or breaks.

The FDA published a notice to obtain comments in accordance with procedures established by the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA). Interested persons must comment by January 19, 2018.

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 (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Michigan Doctor Pleads Guilty To Billing Medicare For Illegally Prescribed Drugs

November 14, 2017

Physician Abdul Haq faces sentencing on May 29, 2018 after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud on October 3 for his role in an approximately $19 million Medicare fraud scheme involving billing Medicare for providing medically unnecessary controlled substances, including Oxycodone, Hydrocodone and Opana, to narcotic addicted Medicare beneficiaries. See Doctor Pleads Guilty to Health Care Fraud Conspiracy for Role in $19 Million Detroit Area Medicare Fraud Scheme. Haq’s prosecution and guilty plea is one of a growing federal prosecutions of health care providers involving billing of Medicare or other health payers for prescribing medically unnecessary controlled substances to Medicare or other health plan beneficiaries.

According to court documents, Haq admitted he participated in a schedule where he and his co-conspirators prescribed and billed Medicare for medically unnecessary controlled substances, including Oxycodone, Hydrocodone and Opana, to Medicare beneficiaries, many of whom were addicted to narcotics. Haq also admitted in court that he and his co-conspirators required some Medicare beneficiaries to undergo and billed Medicare for medically unnecessary facet joint injections if the beneficiary wished to obtain prescriptions for controlled substances.

According to the Justice Department, in furtherance of the conspiracy, Haq and others referred Medicare beneficiaries to specific third party home health agencies, laboratories and diagnostic providers even though those referrals were medically unnecessary. Haq also admitted to serving as the straw owner of various pain clinics owned and/or controlled by Rashid, and submitted false and fraudulent enrollment materials to Medicare that failed to disclose the ownership interest of Rashid, as it was illegal for Rashid – a non-physician – to own medical clinics under Michigan law. In total, Haq admitted that he submitted or caused the submission of approximately $19,322,846.60 in false and fraudulent claims to Medicare.

Haq was charged along with Michigan residents Mashiyat Rashid, Joseph Betro, Tariq Omar and Mohammed Zahoor and Ohio resident Yasser Mozeb, Ohio under inditements unsealed on July 6. Haq is scheduled to be sentenced for his guilty plea on May 29, 2018. Rashid, Mozeb, Pappas, Betro, Omar and Zahoor are awaiting trial.

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 (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Anethesiology, Controlled Substances, drug treatment, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, home health, Money Laundering, pain management, Sober Homes, Uncategorized | Tagged: Chatman, drug treatment, Health Care Fraud, Reflections Treatment Centers, Sober Homes | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Anesthesiology Practice Nailed For Improperly Billing For Moderate Sedation

November 14, 2017

A recently announced health care fraud settlement involving New York Anesthesiology Medical Specialties, P.C. reminds anesthesiology practices and their billing and management companies to double check the defensibly their practices for billing for moderate sedation procedures.

On October 3, 2017; for instance, Acting United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York Grant C. Jaquith and New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announced that New York Anesthesiology Medical Specialties, P.C. d/b/a New York Spine and Wellness Center (New York Spine & Wellness) would pay $1,941,850.29 to resolve claims that it improperly billed for moderate sedation services by routinely billing for moderate sedation services when its physicians spent less than the required 16 minutes with the patient.

The fraud charges stemmed from an investigation started after a private insurance company rejected two of New York Spine & Wellness’s claims for moderate sedation services in January, 2015 because, as described by New York Spine & Wellness’s billing company, the “Medicare 16 minute span rule to bill [the] code” was not satisfied. In mid-June 2015, the same private insurance company performed an audit and rejected New York Spine & Wellness’s claims for moderate sedation services where the documentation did not support that the procedure lasted more than 16 minutes.

Under 2011 American Medical Association guidance on the billing requirements for moderate sedation services adopted and enforced by Medicare billing intermediaries and many private payers, moderate sedation services are billable only when the physician spends at least 16 minutes face-to-face with the patient. The billing company advised New York Spine & Wellness to review the audit findings concerning moderate sedation services. New York Spine & Wellness continued to bill for moderate sedation services after mid-June 2015 without the required 16 minutes of face-to-face time. The improper billing stopped after New York Spine & Wellness was contacted by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of New York in connection with this investigation. See Syracuse Area Medical Practice to Pay Nearly $2 Million to Resolve False Claims Act Exposure.

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 (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Anethesiology, drug treatment, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, home health, Money Laundering, pain management, Sober Homes, Uncategorized | Tagged: Chatman, drug treatment, Health Care Fraud, Reflections Treatment Centers, Sober Homes | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Florida Doctor Sentenced For Multi-Million Dollar Drug & Alcohol Addiction Treatment Health Care Fraud, Money Laundering & Forced Prostitution Scheme

November 14, 2017

Florida physician Joaquin Mendez was sentenced to serve 48 months in prison, followed by one year of supervised release and pay $2,198,520.37 in restitution for participating in a now notorious multi-million dollar health care fraud and money laundering scheme under which Mendez, along with co-defendants Kenneth Chatman, Fransesia Davis, and Michael Bonds defrauded public and private payers by giving free or reduced rent and other benefits as kickbacks and bribes to individuals with insurance who agreed to reside at Reflections Treatment Center sober homes, attend drug treatment, and submit to regular drug testing that members of the conspiracy could bill to the residents’ insurance plans. A Southern District of Florida Judge on Thursday, November 9, 2017 imposed the sentence as punishment for Mendez’s previously entered guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1347; all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349.

The case is notable not only for its colorful facts, but also broad reaching participation and collaboration of federal and state law enforcement and other agencies that collaborated in the investigations and prosecutions that lead to the prosecution and conviction of Mendez and his co-defendants.

Mendez’s sentencing wraps up the last prosecutions arising from a now notorious federal health care fraud scheme under which federal prosecutors charged Mendez and the other co-defendants referred the sober homes’ residents who had insurance to Reflections Treatment Centers that purportedly offered clinical treatment services for persons suffering from alcohol and drug addiction while continuing to allow residents to use drugs and in some cases forcing female patients into prostitution.

According to prosecutors, Reflections Treatment Centers owner defendant Chatman hired defendant Mendez and other doctors to serve as medical directors of his treatment centers. As medical director, Mendez was purportedly responsible for evaluating patients and prescribing medically necessary treatment and testing. Instead of Mendez using his medical expertise and his individual assessments of patients to decide what type of laboratory testing was needed by each patient, co-defendant Chatman dictated the type and frequency of different types of lab testing that would be performed based upon the kickbacks and bribes that he was receiving from different clinical laboratories. Mendez facilitated this testing by signing doctor’s orders for urine drug tests and certificates of medical necessity for saliva drug tests, although Mendez had never seen some of the patients. Prosecutors also charged Mendez signed off on hundreds of “certificates of medical necessity” for urine and saliva tests after the testing had already been done including some tests ordered after the patients already had been discharged from Reflections Treatment Centers. When he examined treatment center patients, Mendez billed those patients’ insurance plans using procedure codes that reflected more complex and lengthier examinations than Mendez actually performed. Prosecutors charge that Mendez knew that insurance claims for the medically unnecessary tests that he prescribed would be submitted to the patients’ insurance companies.

Beyond fraudulently billing public and private health plans for health care services, federal prosecutors also charged that Mendez’s failure to properly evaluate and supervise patients facilitated Chatman’s commission of other crimes besides health care fraud through his operation of the Reflections Treatment Centers. According to federal prosecutors, had Mendez properly supervised the drug test results for the tests that he ordered, he would have noticed that drug use was rampant among patients in residence at the facilities. Federal prosecutors charge that 90 percent of the people in residence at Reflections Treatment Centers continued to actively use drugs during their stay. According to federal prosecutors, at least four people died of overdoses while Reflections Treatment Centers residents.

Aside from his fraudulent billing scheme, Federal prosecutors also charged that Chatman restrained some female patients and forced them into prostitution.

Mendenz’s sentencing wraps up the final prosecution of defendants arising from the Reflections Treatment Centers sting. Chatman previously was sentenced to 27½ years in prison in May. All of the other defendants also took plea deals, including another doctor and Chatman’s wife.

The prosecution of Mendez and his co-defendants resulted from an investigation conducted by the Greater Palm Beach Health Care Fraud Task Force. Agencies of the task force include the FBI, IRS-CI, the Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office Sober Homes Task Force, Florida Division of Investigative and Forensic Services, Martin County Sheriff’s Office, Amtrak-Office of Inspector General, the Department of Labor Inspector General and Employee Benefit Security Administration, the National Insurance Crime Bureau, the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, the West Palm Beach Police Department, the Delray Beach Police Department, the Florida Attorney General Office of Statewide Prosecution, and the Office of Personnel Management Office of Inspector General.

The cases against Mendez and his co-defendants were prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney A. Marie Villafaña; Benjamin G. Greenberg, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; Robert F. Lasky, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Miami Field Office; Kelly R. Jackson, Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI); Dave Aronberg, State Attorney, Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office; Jimmy Patronis, Florida Chief Financial Officer; William D. Snyder, Sheriff, Martin County Sheriff’s Office; George L. Dorsett, Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, Amtrak Office of Inspector General; Rafiq Ahmad, Special Agent in Charge, United States Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General ; Isabel Colon, Regional Director, United States Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; Dennis Russo, Director of Operations, National Insurance Crime Bureau; Ric Bradshaw, Sheriff, Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office; Sarah J. Mooney, Chief, West Palm Beach Police Department; Jeffrey S. Goldman, Chief, Delray Beach Police Department; Pam Bondi, Florida Attorney General; and Scott Rezendes, Special Agent in Charge, Office of Personnel Management, Office of Inspector General.

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 (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | drug treatment, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, home health, Money Laundering, Sober Homes, Uncategorized | Tagged: Chatman, drug treatment, Health Care Fraud, Reflections Treatment Centers, Sober Homes | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CMS Announces New Medicare Provider Ombudsman

November 13, 2017

Dr. Eugene Freund will serve as the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Provider Ombudsman, CMS announced today.

As the Provider Ombudsman, Dr. Freund is charged with serving as the CMS resource responsible for listening to physician concerns about implementation problems experienced by clinicians, hospitals, suppliers, and other providers. Dr. Freund also will communicate about the New Medicare Card to providers and collaborate with CMS components to develop solutions to any implementation problems that arise.

Providers wishing to reach the Ombudsman may go here.

Providers considering contacting the Provider Ombudsman should ensure they understand the potential benefits and risks. Before contacting the Provider Ombudsman, providers need to understand the Provider Ombudsman does not have power directly to change requirements or compel performance. Rather, the Provider Ombudsman’s role primarily is to listen. The Provider Ombudsman primarily helps by promoting understanding and getting the right people involved to listen and resolve problems based on misunderstandings.

Even more importantly, providers should carefully evaluate their concern and weigh whether the discussion with the provider on buds men might create enhanced risks of investigation or prosecution under Medicare fraud and abuse, false claims, or other Medicare rules often used by federal prosecutors or CMS to pursue civil or criminal penalties against providers. All communications with the provider as well as other CMS representatives should be carefully managed to mitigate these risks.

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 (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

AboutSoluttions Law Press, Inc.™

Soluttions 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 here.

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

11/30 Deadline For Critical Access Hospital Hardship Exception Applications

November 13, 2017

November 30 is the deadline for Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs) to submit a hardship exception application to avoid the 2016 payment adjustment based on the 2016 reporting year for failing to meet the meaningful use requirements of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA),

Under AARA, Congress mandated CAHs that are not meaningful users of Certified Electronic Health Record (EHR) Technology under the Medicare EHR Incentive Program receive negative payment adjustments beginning in 2015. Specifically, section 4102(b)(2) of the HITECH Act amended section 1814(l) of the Act to include an adjustment to a CAH’s Medicare reimbursement for inpatient services if the CAH is not a meaningful EHR user for an EHR reporting period unless the CAH qualifies for a hardship exception. CAHs must demonstrate meaningful use every year according to the timelines specified to avoid Medicare payment adjustments. For example, CAHs that demonstrate meaningful use in 2017 will avoid the payment adjustment in 2017, but they also must demonstrate meaningful use in 2018 to avoid the payment Medicaid CAHs that do not bill Medicare are not subject to these payment adjustments in 2018. Medicaid CAHs that do not bill Medicare are not subject to these payment adjustments.

A CAH demonstrates meaningful use by successfully attesting through either the CMS Attestation System or through its state’s attestation system annually by the applicable deadline:

If a CAH does not meet the meaningful us requirement, it may be possible to avoid the payment adjustment by qualifying for a hardship exception. AARA allows CMS on a case-by-case basis, to grant CHAs an exception from this adjustment if CMS or its Medicare contractor determines, on an annual basis, that a significant hardship exists.

If the facility is a CAH, as defined in the Stage 2 Final Rule 42 CFR Part 413 § 413.70(C), that is new in the payment adjustment year (2016) and has not previously operated, CMS will grant a hardship exception automatically and is automatically exempt from the payment adjustment. Note that CAHs are NOT considered NEW if any of the following circumstances apply:

The CAH builds a new or replacement facility/facilities at the same or another location even if this is coincidental with a change of ownership, a change in management or a lease arrangement;
A CAH closes and subsequently reopens; or o A CAH that has been converted from an eligible hospital.

If any of the outlined circumstances listed apply, the CAH should consider applying for a hardship if it has not successfully demonstrated meaningful use for an EHR reporting period and if at least one of the hardship reasons indicated on the application was met.

There are several categories of hardship exceptions for CAHs:

CAHs can also apply for a hardship exception for the following circumstances:

Insufficient Internet Connectivity – The CAH was located in an area without sufficient Internet access to comply with meaningful use objectives requiring Internet connectivity, and faced insurmountable barriers to obtaining such Internet connectivity.
Extreme and Uncontrollable Circumstances – If they encounter an unforeseeable barrier, such as a natural disaster (includes vendor issues).

CAHs can submit hardship exception applications in two ways:

Electronic submission via e-mail to Sent to ehrhardship@provider-resources.com; or
Paper submission via fax to 814-456-7132.

All hardship exception determinations will be returned via email from ehrhardship@provider-resources.com to the email address provided on the application.

If approved, the hardship exception is valid for the 2016 payment year only. If the CAH claims a hardship exception for a following payment year, the CAH must submit a new application.

For more information, reviewthe Critical Access Hospital Payment Adjustment and Hardship Exception Tipsheet and visit the Payment Adjustments and Hardship Information webpage on the EHR Incentive Programs website.

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 (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Accreditation, Ambulatory care, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, Health IT, Hospital, hospitals, Medicare Fee Schedule, Reimbursement, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Comment By 1/8 on Guidance for Industry on Expedited Programs for Serious Conditions– Drugs and Biologics

November 8, 2017

January 8, 2018 is the deadline to submit comments to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) on the proposed collection of information by the Agency.on the information collection in the guidance for industry “Expedited Programs for Serious Conditions–Drugs and Biologics.”

The guidance provides a single resource for information on FDA’s policies and procedures related to the following expedited programs for serious conditions: (1) Fast track designation, (2) breakthrough therapy designation, (3) accelerated approval, and (4) priority review designation. The guidance describes threshold criteria generally applicable to expedited programs, including what is meant by serious condition, unmet medical need, and available therapy. The guidance addresses the applicability of expedited programs to rare diseases, clarification on available therapy, and additional detail on possible flexibility in manufacturing and product quality. The guidance also clarifies the qualifying criteria for breakthrough therapy designation and provides examples of surrogate endpoints and intermediate clinical endpoints used to support accelerated approval.

The information collection resulting from requests for priority review designation and breakthrough therapy designation is set forth in rows 1 and 2 of table 1 and is approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under control number 0910-0765. The information collection resulting from requests for accelerated approval is approved by OMB under control numbers 0910-0001 and 0910-0338.

The provisions of the guidance relating to fast track development and other issues such as serious condition and unmet medical need replace the guidance entitled “Fast Track Drug Development Programs–Designation, Development, and Application Review.” Consequently, the information collection resulting from the “Fast Track Drug Development Programs–Designation, Development, and Application Review” (OMB control number 0910-0389) is now being incorporated into OMB control number 0910-0765 (guidance for industry “Expedited Programs for Serious Conditions–Drugs and Biologics”).

A sponsor or applicant who seeks fast track designation is required to submit a request to the Agency showing that the drug product: (1) Is intended for a serious or life-threatening condition and (2) has the potential to address an unmet medical need. The Agency expects that most information to support a designation request will have been gathered under existing requirements for preparing an investigational new drug (IND), new drug application (NDA), or biologic license application (BLA). If such information has already been submitted to the Agency, the information may be summarized in the fast track designation request. A designation request should include, where applicable, additional information not specified elsewhere by statute or regulation. For example, additional information may be needed to show that a product has the potential to address an unmet medical need where an approved therapy exists for the serious or life-threatening condition to be treated. Such information may include clinical data, published reports, summaries of data and reports, and a list of references. The amount of information and discussion in a designation request need not be voluminous, but it should be sufficient to permit a reviewer to assess whether the criteria for fast track designation have been met.

After the Agency makes a fast track designation, a sponsor or applicant may submit a premeeting package that may include additional information supporting a request to participate in certain fast track programs. The premeeting package serves as background information for the meeting and should support the intended objectives of the meeting.

As with the request for fast track designation, the Agency expects that most sponsors or applicants will have gathered such information to meet existing requirements for preparing an IND, NDA, or BLA. These may include descriptions of clinical safety and efficacy trials not conducted under an IND (e.g., foreign studies) and information to support a request for accelerated approval. If such information has already been submitted to FDA, the information may be summarized in the premeeting package.

For more information and detailed instructions on the request for comments, see https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-11-08/html/2017-24296.htm.

Health care providers and others commenting in response to this invitation are cautioned that the FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as “confidential” is submitted as detailed in the instruction. To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, the FDA directs to submit your comments only as a written/paper submission by submitting two copies total:

One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments.
The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.”

Interested persons may access the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

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 (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Consumer Driven Health Care, Controlled Substances, DEA, drug treatment, Fast Track Approval, FDA, Health Care Provider, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Prescription Drugs, research, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CMS Publishes 2018 Updates To Home Health Prospective Payment Rates & Rules

November 8, 2017

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) today (November 7, 2017) published the CY 2018 Home Health Prospective Payment System Rate Update and CY 2019 Case-Mix Adjustment Methodology Refinements; Home Health Value-Based Purchasing Model; and Home Health Quality Reporting Requirements (Final Rule), updating the home health prospective payment system (HH PPS) payment rates, including the national, standardized 60- day episode payment rates, the national per-visit rates, and the non-routine medical supply (NRS) conversion factor, effective for home health episodes of care ending on or after January 1, 2018.

In addition to updating the HH PPS rates for 2018, the Final Rule also:

Updates the HH PPS case-mix weights using the most current, complete data available at the time of rulemaking; implements the third year of a 3-year phase-in of a reduction to the national, standardized 60-day episode payment to account for estimated case-mix growth unrelated to increases in patient acuity (that is, nominal case-mix growth) between calendar year (CY) 2012 and CY 2014;
Discusses CMS efforts to monitor the potential impacts of the rebasing adjustments that were implemented in CY 2014 through CY 2017; and
Finalizes changes to the Home Health Value-Based Purchasing (HHVBP) Model and to the Home Health Quality Reporting Program (HH QRP).

The Final Rule also announced CMS’s decision not to finalize the implementation of the Home Health Groupings Model (HHGM) in the Final Rule at this time.

Section V. of the Final Rule, we finalizes updates to the Home Health Quality Reporting Program, including:

Replaces one quality measure;
Adopts two new quality measures, data submission requirements, exception and extension requirements, reconsideration and appeals procedures;
Finalizes the removal of 235 data elements from 33 current OASIS items, effective with all HHA assessments on or after January 1, 2019; and
Does not finalize the standardized patient assessment data elements that we proposed to adopt for three of the five categories under section 1899B(b)(1)(B) of the Act: Cognitive Function and Mental Status; Special Services, Treatments, and Interventions; and Impairments.

Home health providers and others concerned with Medicare reimbursement for home health should begin reviewing and preparing for these changes in preparation for the Final Riles’s implementation on January 1.

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 (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Affordable Care Act, Conditions of Participation, Doctor, false claims act, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, home health, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Money Laundering, Outcomes Data, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CMS Publishes 2018 Physician Fee Schedule Rule

November 2, 2017

On November 2, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a final rule that includes updates to payment policies, payment rates, and quality provisions for services furnished under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) on or after January 1, 2018.

The overall update to payments under the PFS based on the finalized CY 2018 rates will be +0.41 percent. This update reflects the +0.50 percent update established under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, reduced by 0.09 percent, due to the misvalued code target recapture amount, required under the Achieving a Better Life Experience Act of 2014. After applying these adjustments, and the budget neutrality adjustment to account for changes in Relative Value Units, all required by law, the final 2018 PFS conversion factor is $35.99, an increase to the 2017 PFS conversion factor of $35.89.

The Final Rule Includes:

Patients over Paperwork Initiative
Changes in valuation for specific services
Payment rates for nonexcepted off-campus provider-based hospital departments
Medicare telehealth services
Malpractice relative value units
Care management services
Improvement of payment rates for office-based behavioral health services
Evaluation and management comment solicitation
Emergency department visits comment solicitation
Solicitation of public comments on initial data collection and reporting periods for Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule
Part B drugs: Payment for biosimilar biological products
Part B drug payment: Infusion drugs furnished through an item of durable medical equipment
New care coordination services and payment for rural health clinics and federally-qualified health centers
Appropriate use criteria for advanced diagnostic imaging
Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program expanded model
Physician Quality Reporting System
Patient relationship codes
Medicare Shared Savings Program
2018 Value Modifier.

Physicians and other healthcare organizations should review this new guidance as soon as possible and begin preparing for these changes which take affect at the first of the year.

About The Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 30+ years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. Ms. Stamer works with health industry and related businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management, disaster and other crisis preparedness and response, and other performance and operations management and compliance. Her experienced includes career long involvement in advising and defending health industry and other organizations about disaster and other crisis preparation, response and mitigation arising from natural and man-made disasters, government enforcement, financial distress, workplace emergencies and accidents, data breach and other cybersecurity and other events. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see here, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (214) 452-8297.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Conditions of Participation, Corporate Compliance, Doctor, Electronic Health Records, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, health care reimbursement, Health IT, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Money Laundering, OIG, Outpatient, Physician, Prospective Payment, quality reporting, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Check Your Medicare/Medicaid Compliance Against Against Quarterly Guidance Changes List

October 27, 2017

Healthcare providers, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage Plans, beneficiaries, and suppliers should use the Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Quarterly Listing of Program Issuances—July Through September 2017 published today to help confirm compliance and other practices take into account potentially relevant new key Medicare and Medicaid guidance issued during the period from July 1 to September 30, 2017.

Staying up-to-date with the latest Program is critical maintain qualification for benefits and rights and avoid getting nailed for harsh civil or even criminal penalties that violations can trigger. However keeping up with the constantly evolving guidance can be daunting.

The quarterly notice lists updates that happened in the 3-month period along with a hyperlink to the full listing that is available on the CMS Web site or the appropriate data registries that are used as Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services resources. for beneficiaries, providers, and suppliers.

The resource provides a convenient tool for the public to find the full list of qualified providers for these specific services and offers more flexibility and ‘‘real time’’ accessibility. In addition, many of the Web sites have listservs; that the public can subscribe and receive immediate notification of any updates to the Web site. These listservs avoid the need to check the Web site, as notification of updates is automatic and sent to the subscriber as they occur.

This notice is organized into 15 addenda so that a reader may access the subjects published during the quarter covered by the notice to determine whether any are of particular interest. Interested persons should use the Quarterly Notice in concert with previously published notices.

About The Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Affordable Care Act, ASC, Border Health, Centers For Disease Control, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Conditions of Participation, Consumer Driven Health Care, Controlled Substances, Corporate Compliance, Cultural diversity, data breach, data security, Disability Discrimination, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, EMTALA, Evidence Based Medicine, false claims act, FDA, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, health care reimbursement, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, healthcare, HIPAA, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Health, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, NIOSH, OCR, OIG, Outcomes Data, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Psychiatric, quality reporting, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark, Substance Abuse, Telemarketing, Uncategorized, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Care | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CDC Proposed Changes To NIOSH Occupational Health Biological Monitoring Methods for Chemical Exposures

October 15, 2017

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is inviting comment on a draft chapter it proposes be published in the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM) used by the occupational safety and health professionals to measure worker exposures.

NIOSH has updated the chapter used by the occupational safety and health professionals to measure worker exposures covering the application and validation of biological monitoring methods for chemical exposures to entitled ‘‘Application of Biological Monitoring Methods for Chemical Exposures in Occupational Health.”

Comments on the proposed chapter must be received by December 15, 2017.

Get details on how to review and comment on the proposed chapter at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-10-16/pdf/2017-22317.pdf.

Leave a Comment » | NIOSH, occupational health, OSHA, Uncategorized | Tagged: CDC, NIOSH, occupational health, OSHA | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HHS Picks Hargan As Acting HHS Secretary

October 11, 2017

President Trump has appointed Eric D. Hargan Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Hargan, who was just sworn into office as Deputy Secretary of HHS on Oct. 6, 2017, takes over the duties of former Secretary Dr. Tom Price, who recently resigned in response to criticism about his expenditures for charter flights.

Before joining HHS, Mr. Hargan was an attorney, most recently a shareholder in Greenberg Traurig’s Chicago office in the Health and FDA Business department, where he focused his practice on transactions, healthcare regulations and government relations. He represented investors, companies, and individuals in healthcare investments and issues across the entire sector.

From 2003 to 2007, Mr. Hargan served at HHS in a variety of capacities, ultimately holding the position of Acting Deputy Secretary. During his tenure at HHS, Mr. Hargan also served as the Department’s Regulatory Policy Officer, overseeing the development and approval of all HHS, CMS, and FDA regulations and significant guidances.

Prior to this role, he served HHS as Deputy General Counsel. More recently, he was tapped by Governor Bruce Rauner to serve during transition as lead co-chair for Gov. Rauner’s Healthcare and Human Services committee.

During his time in Illinois, Mr. Hargan taught at Loyola Law School in Chicago, focusing on administrative law and healthcare regulations. He was a member of the U.S. government team at the inaugural U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue in Beijing in 2006-2007, worked with the State Department’s Bureau of Arms Control to advance biosecurity in developing nations, and initiated and led the HHS team that developed the first responses to international food safety and importation issues in 2007.

He received his B.A. cum laude from Harvard University, and his J.D. from Columbia University Law School, where he was Senior Editor of the Columbia Law Review. Mr. Hargan also received a Certificate in International Law from the Parker School of Foreign and Comparative Law at Columbia University.

Before returning to Washington, D.C., Mr. Hargan lived in the suburbs of Chicago with his wife, Emily, and their two sons.

About The Author

Ms. Stamer works with health industry and related businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management, disaster and other crisis preparedness and response, and other performance and operations management and compliance. Her experienced includes career long involvement in advising and defending health industry and other organizations about disaster and other crisis preparation, response and mitigation arising from natural and man-made disasters, government enforcement, financial distress, workplace emergencies and accidents, data breach and other cybersecurity and other events. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see here, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (214) 452-8297.

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 author and publisher 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, Affordable Care Act, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Centers For Disease Control, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Conditions of Participation, data breach, data security, DEA, Doctor, Electronic Medical Records, EMTALA, FDA, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, health care reimbursement, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HHS, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, managed care, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Health, Mental Heatlh, OCR, OIG, Outcomes Data, Outpatient, Peer Review, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Preexisting Condition Insurance Plan, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Prospective Payment, Psychiatric, public health, Public Policy, quality reporting, Reimbursement, Reproductive Rights, Rural Health Care, Skilled Nursing Facility, Stark, Substance Abuse, substance abuse treatment, Telemarketing, Telemedicine, Uncategorized, Wellness | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, controlled substance, drugs, false claims act, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reimbursement, Health Plans, HEAT, HHS, HIPAA, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare, OCR, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, Physician, Physicians, Privacy, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR Gives Health Care Providers, Other Covered Entities Post-Las Vegas Shooting HIPAA Medical Privacy Guidance On Disclosures To Family, Media & Others For Notification & Other Purposes

October 9, 2017

Widespread media coverage of this week’s Las Vegas, Nevada mass shooting (Las Vegas Shooting), and recent Hurricanes in Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico shows the barrage of requests for patient information from emergency and disaster response personnel, concerned family and friends, the media or others about the identity, status and other circumstances of patients and other individuals that health care providers caring for patients following a mass disaster or other emergency.

The tight restrictions and potentially stiff penalties authorized under the Health Insurance Portability And Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rule (Privacy Rule) on health care providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) for improperly disclosing information about identifiable patients under the Privacy Rule necessitate that health care providers and other Covered Persons exercise great care to ensure that statements and other disclosures of identifiable patient information either are authorized in writing in accordance with HIPAA or otherwise specifically allowed under the Privacy Rule. See, e.g., $2.4M HIPAA Settlement Warns Providers About Media Disclosures Of PHI; $2.4M HIPAA Settlement Message Warns Health Plans & Providers Against Sharing Medical Info With Media, Others; $2 Million+ HIPAA Settlement, FAQ Warn Providers Protect PHI From Media, Other Recording Or Use.

Following the Las Vegas Shooting, the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) on October 3, 2017 issued an announcement on “Disclosures to Family, Friends, and Others Involved in an Individual’s Care and for Notification” (Announcement) intended to clarify certain limited situations when OCR interprets the Privacy Rule as allowing Covered Entities to disclose PHI to individuals involved in the patient’s care, the media or other parties not involved in the patient’s care for notification purposes without prior patient authorization. Health care providers and other Covered Entities should review and update their existing Privacy Rule policies, practices and training in response to this and other evolving guidance to help prepare their teams appropriately to respond to family, media and other inquiries about patients in emergency and other circumstances.

Privacy Rule Generally

While mass shooting events like the Las Vegas Shooting, recent hurricanes, Ebola or other contagious disease outbreak and other mass injury or illness events garner widespread media and public attention, health care providers and other Covered Entities also regularly field requests for PHI about current or former patients from family and others involved in patients’ care or treatment, law enforcement, law enforcement, and the media or other members of the general public not involved in patient care.

The Privacy Rule generally requires Covered Entities to keep confidential, and prohibits Covered Entities from disclosing individually identifiable health care information about a patient that qualifies as “protected health information” or “PHI” without first obtaining a HIPAA-compliant authorization unless the disclosure meets all the requirements to fall under an exception defined in the Privacy Rule.

Since HIPAA’s broad definition of PHI encompasses even the name, identity and even existence of a patient, as well as more specific information about the current or past health condition and treatment of a patient, health care providers and other Covered Entities must prepare and train their staff to be prepared appropriately to comply with the Privacy Rules even when considering disclosing PHI to identify an incapacitated patient, notify or respond to inquiries of family or others involved in caring for patient during an emergency or disaster.

As OCR guidance consistently reaffirms, the Privacy Rule’s general prohibition against PHI without prior patient authorization and other requirements generally still apply during public health or other emergencies.[1] While Social Security Act § 1135(b)(7) allows HHS temporarily to waive sanctions and penalties for violations of some, but not all Privacy Rule requirements by a covered hospitals operating under disaster protocols during periods the President declares an emergency or disaster and the HHS Secretary declares a public health emergency as in response to Hurricanes Katrina,[2]Harvey,[3] Irma,[4] and Maria,[5] this relief is rarely applicable, and limited in scope, applicability and duration.[6] Consequently, Covered Entities still need to ensure that any contemplated disclosure is either authorized or meets all requirements the Privacy Rule requires to fall under an exemption to its general prohibition against unauthorized disclosure to avoid becoming subject to civil or even criminal sanctions under the Privacy Rule even when responding to inquiries during mass disaster, public health emergency or other exigent circumstances.

As discussed in November 2016 OCR Bulletin On HIPAA Privacy in Emergency Situations, the Privacy Rule includes various exceptions that may allow a health care provider or other Covered Entity to disclose the PHI of a patient involved in a public health or other emergency without patient authorization including:

PHI about the patient necessary to treat the patient or to treat a different patient including the coordination or management of health care and related services by one or more health care providers and others, consultation between providers, and the referral of patients for treatment. See 45 CFR §§ 164.502(a)(1)(ii), 164.506(c), and the definition of “treatment” at 164.501;
To a public health authority, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or a state or local health department, authorized by law to collect or receive such information for the purpose of preventing or controlling disease, injury or disability. See 45 CFR §§ 164.501 and 164.512(b)(1)(i);
As necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health and safety of a person or the public when consistent with applicable law (such as state statutes, regulations, or case law) and the provider’s standards of ethical conduct. See 45 CFR 164.512(j);
To a patient’s family members, relatives, friends, or other persons identified by the patient as involved in the patient’s care or as necessary to identify, locate, and notify family members, guardians, or anyone else responsible for the patient’s care, of the patient’s location, general condition, or death provided that the Covered Entity gets at least verbal permission from individuals or otherwise be able to reasonably infer that the patient does not object, when possible; or if the individual is incapacitated or not available, in the Covered Entity’s professional judgment, doing so is in the patient’s best interest. See 45 CFR 164.510(b);
With disaster relief organizations that, like the American Red Cross, are authorized by law or by their charters to assist in disaster relief efforts, for the purpose of coordinating the notification of family members or other persons involved in the patient’s care, of the patient’s location, general condition, or death without authorization if doing so would interfere with the organization’s ability to respond to the emergency; or
Limited facility directory information to acknowledge an individual is a patient at the facility and provide basic information about the patient’s condition in general terms (e.g., critical or stable, deceased, or treated and released) to the media or others not involved in the care of the patient upon request for information about a particular patient by name, if the patient has not objected to or restricted the release of such information or, if the patient is incapacitated, if the disclosure is believed to be in the best interest of the patient and is consistent with any prior expressed preferences of the patient. See 45 CFR 164.510(a).

Announcement Clarifies Privacy Rules For Disclosures To Individuals Involved In Patient’s Care; For Notification; And To Media Or Others Not Involved In Patient Care

The new OCR Announcement provides clarification of the applicability of the Privacy Rule exemptions regarding disclosures of PHI by health care providers or other Covered Entities:

To individuals involved in the patient’s care or for notification purposes; or
To media or other individuals not involved in the patient’s care.

In addition, the Announcement also reminds Covered Entities:

Of their responsibility to limit disclosures made without HIPAA-compliant patient authorization other than for treatment purposes to the minimum necessary,
That the Privacy Rule allows Covered Entities to rely upon certifications that information requested by public health authorities or officials that the information requested is the minimum necessary; and
To continue to enforce role-based restrictions on PHI.
Disclosures to Family, Friends, Disaster Relief Responders and Others Involved in an Individual’s Care and for Notification

Privacy Rule §164.510(b) permits a Covered Entity to share PHI:

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

When making such disclosures, the Announcement states a Covered Entity should get verbal permission from individuals or otherwise be able to reasonably infer that the patient does not object, when possible.

Concerning patients who are unconscious or incapacitated, the OCR guidance also states that a health care provider may share relevant information about the patient with family, friends, or others involved in the patient’s care or payment for care, if the health care provider in its professional judgement determines that doing so is in the best interests of the patient.

In addition, OCR says Covered Entities also may share PHI with disaster relief organizations that, like the American Red Cross, are authorized by law or by their charters to assist in disaster relief efforts, for the purpose of coordinating the notification of family members or other persons involved in the patient’s care, of the patient’s location, general condition, or death. When disclosing PHI to disaster relief organizations, the Announcement states it is unnecessary to obtain a patient’s permission to share the information in this situation if doing so would interfere with the organization’s ability to respond to the emergency.

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

As the Las Vegas Shooting illustrates, health care providers and other Covered Entities caring for patients during public health or other emergency situations often must deal with news or other media crews on or around treatment or other health care facilities and media and inquiries from the media or others about the identity, status or other PHI of patients. OCR’s past imposition of stiff penalties against other Covered Entities for improperly disclosing patient PHI to the media or the public without authorization alert Covered Entities of HIPAA risks of failing to properly control access and disclosures of PHI to the media or other general public without obtaining prior written authorization from patients or their personal representatives. See e.g., $2.4M HIPAA Settlement Warns Providers About Media Disclosures Of PHI. See also HIPAA Sanctions Triggered From Covered Entity Statements To Media, Workforce.

Previously issued OCR guidance makes clear that health care providers and other Covered Entities risk sanction both from allowing media or other members of the public inappropriate access to patient treatment or other areas with unsecured PHI as well as media statements and other disclosures of PHI to the media or public without first obtaining a HIPAA-compliant authorization except under narrow circumstances specified in the Privacy Rule.. See 45 CFR 164.510(a). OCR FAQ on Disclosures to the Media, for instance, states:

“the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not permit health care providers to disclose PHI to media personnel, including film crews, without having previously obtained a HIPAA-compliant authorization signed by the patient or his or her personal representative. In other words, health care providers may not allow members of the media, including film crews, into treatment areas of their facilities or other areas where PHI will be accessible in written, electronic, oral or other visual or audio form, without prior authorization from the patients who are or will be in the area or whose PHI will be accessible to the media. It is not sufficient for a health care provider to request or require media personnel to mask the identities of patients (using techniques such as blurring, pixilation, or voice alteration software) for whom an authorization was not obtained, because the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not allow media access to the patients’ PHI, absent an authorization, in the first place.

In addition, the health care provider must ensure that reasonable safeguards are in place to protect against impermissible disclosures or to limit incidental disclosures of other PHI that may be in the area but for which an authorization has not been obtained.

While emphasizing the Privacy Rule’s general requirement to secure advance authorization, OCR FAQ on Disclosures to the Media also recognizes the following “very limited situations” that the Privacy Rule permits a Covered Entity to disclose limited PHI to the media without obtaining a HIPAA authorization:

A Covered Entity may disclose limited PHI about an unidentified incapacitated patient to the media seek to have the media help identify or locate the family of an unidentified and incapacitated patient in its care if, in the hospital’s professional judgment, doing so is in the patient’s best interest. See 45 C.F.R. 164.510(b)(1)(ii);
A Covered Entity may disclose a patient’s location in the facility and condition in general terms that do not communicate specific medical information about the individual to any person, including the media, without obtaining a HIPAA authorization where the individual has not objected to his information being included in the facility directory, and the media representative or other person asks for the individual by name. See 45 C.F.R. 164.510(a);
The HIPAA Privacy Rule does not require health care providers to prevent members of the media from entering areas of their facilities that are otherwise generally accessible to the public, which may include public waiting areas or areas where the public enters or exits the facility;
A health care provider may utilize the services of a contract film crew to produce training videos or public relations materials on the provider’s behalf if certain protections are in place. If patients are to be identified by the provider and interviewed by a film crew, or if PHI might be accessible during filming or otherwise disclosed, the provider must enter into a HIPAA business associate agreement with the film crew acting as a business associate. Among other requirements, the business associate agreement must ensure that the film crew will safeguard the PHI it obtains, only use or disclose the PHI for the purposes provided in the agreement, and return or destroy any PHI after the work for the health care provider has been completed. See 45 C.F.R. 164.504(e)(2). As a business associate, the film crew must comply with the HIPAA Security Rule and a number of provisions in the Privacy Rule, including the Rule’s restrictions on the use and disclosure of PHI. In addition, authorizations from patients whose PHI is included in any materials would be required before such materials are posted online, printed in brochures for the public, or otherwise publicly disseminated; and
Covered Entities can continue to inform the media of their treatment services and programs so that the media can better inform the public, provided that, in doing so, the Covered Entity does not share PHI with the media without the prior authorization of the individuals who are the subject of the PHI.

The Announcement reaffirms the general principles stated in this and other prior guidance concerning Covered Entities dealings with the media and public and clarifies its interpretation about what PHI, if any, the Privacy Rule allows hospitals and other health care providers about PHI may share in response to requests from the media or other individuals not involved in the care of a patient without first obtaining an authorization.

The Announcement reaffirms that affirmative reporting to the media or the public at large about an identifiable patient, or the disclosure to the public or media of specific information about treatment of an identifiable patient, such as specific tests, test results or details of a patient’s illness, may not be done without the patient’s written authorization (or the written authorization of a personal representative who is a person legally authorized to make health care decisions for the patient) that complies with HIPAA’s authorization requirements. See 45 CFR 164.508.

The Announcement also clarifies, however, that Covered Entities that are hospitals or health care facilities that receive a request for information about a particular patient by name may release limited facility directory information to acknowledge an individual is a patient at the facility and provide basic information about the patient’s condition in general terms (e.g., critical or stable, deceased, or treated and released) if the patient has not objected to or restricted the release of such information or, if the patient is incapacitated, if the disclosure is believed to be in the best interest of the patient and is consistent with any prior expressed preferences of the patient.

Minimum Necessary Requirements & Other Privacy Rule Responsibility Reminders

The Announcement also cautions Covered Entities of the need to ensure beyond ensuring that a disclosure falls under a Privacy Rule exception, Covered Entities also need to ensure that other requirements of the Privacy Rule applicable to the disclosure also are met. In this respect, the Announcement cautions Covered Entities that the Privacy Rule requires they limit any otherwise permitted disclosure of PHI other than for treatment purposes made without obtaining a HIPAA-compliant patient authorization to the minimum necessary to achieve the allowed purpose, while also reminding Covered Entities that when making disclosures otherwise permitted to public health authorities or public officials, the Privacy Rule allows the Covered Entity to rely on representations from a public health authority or other public official that the requested information is the minimum necessary for the purpose.

Furthermore, the Announcement also warns Covered Entity that they should continue to apply their role-based access policies to limit access to PHI to only those workforce members who need it to carry out their duties. See Privacy Rules §§ 164.502(b), 164.514(d).

In addition to keeping in mind these Privacy Rule conditions, Covered Entities also need to take steps to ensure that their organizations and workforce also continue to follow all necessary procedures to ensure that their organizations can demonstrate continued compliance with other Privacy Rule requirements on verification, documentation and recordkeeping, accounting for disclosure, business associates and the like. In this regard, it is important that Covered Entities and their business associates take appropriate steps to ensure that their workforce carefully creates and retains the documentation and records needed to defend their actions as well as to respond to HHS requests and/or requests for accounting or disclosure that might arise in the future.

Required Action: Review & Update Emergency & Other Practices, Training In Response To Evolving Guidance

The Privacy Rules and other OCR guidance make clear that health care providers and other Covered Entities and their business associates are expected both to implement and maintain their practices, policies, workforce training and safeguards appropriately to control use, access and disclosure in emergency and other situations as well as to implement the necessary systems and safeguards to protect sensitive PHI, electronic PHI and associated records and system from improper access from the media or others and damage or destruction from disaster or other events.

In recognition that maintaining Privacy and Security Rule Compliance can prove challenging for Covered Entities and their business associates during emergency or other exigent events, OCR has published various other guidance it hopes will help Covered Entities and business associates prepare for and respond to these challenges including its Disclosure For Emergency Preparedness Decision Tool; and Public Health Authority Disclosure Request Checklist.

Covered Entities and their business associates should act promptly to review and update their policies, practices, safeguards and workforce training as needed in response to the new Announcement and other OCR guidance promptly.

About The Author

Repeatedly 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, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation and board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney, management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for health and managed care, employee benefits, insurance and financial services, data and technology and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. Nationally recognized for her work, experience, leadership and publications on HIPAA and other medical privacy and data use and security, FACTA, GLB, trade secrets and other privacy and data security concerns, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with clients and the government on cybersecurity, technology and processes and other issues involved in the use and management of medical, insurance and other financial, workforce, trade secrets and other sensitive data and information throughout her career. Scribe or co-scribe of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR since 2011, Ms. Stamer extensive experience, advising, representing, training and coaching health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses, business associates, their information technology and other solutions providers and vendors, and others on HIPAA and other privacy, data security and cybersecurity design, documentation, administration, audit and oversight, business associate and other data and technology contracting, breach investigation and response, and other related concerns including extensive involvement representing clients in dealings with OCR and other Health & Human Services, Federal Trade Commission, Department of Labor, Department of Treasury, state health, insurance and attorneys’ general, Congress and state legislators and other federal officials.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

[1] See e.g. OCR Bulletin: HIPAA Privacy in Emergency Situations (November 2014).

[2] Disclosing PHI in Emergency Situations; Compliance Guidance and Enforcement Statement.

[3] August 2017 Hurricane Harvey Bulletin.

[4] September 2017 Hurricane Irma Bulletin.

[5] September 2017 Hurricane Maria Bulletin

[6] The HIPAA Privacy Rule is not suspended during a public health or other emergency; however, Section 1135(b)(7) of the Social Security Act allows HHS to waive sanctions and penalties against a covered hospital that does not comply with the following provisions of the Privacy Rule events if the President declares an emergency or disaster and the Secretary declares a public health emergency:

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

If the Secretary issues such a waiver, it only applies: (1) in the emergency area and for the emergency

period identified in the public health emergency declaration; (2) to hospitals that have instituted a disaster protocol; and (3) for up to 72 hours from the time the hospital implements its disaster protocol.

When the Presidential or Secretarial declaration terminates, a hospital must then comply with all the requirements of the Privacy Rule for any patient still under its care, even if 72 hours has not elapsed since implementation of its disaster protocol. See also Social Security Act 1135(b)(7); Frequently Asked Question: HIPAA waiver during a national or public health emergency; OCR Bulletin: HIPAA Privacy in Emergency Situations (November 2014).

Leave a Comment » | 1335 Waiver, Academic medicine, ARRA, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, Cyber crime, data breach, data security, Disaster Relief, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, ERISA, FACTA, Federal Health Center, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, Health Policy, healthcare, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Joint Commission, Laws, managed care, Meaningful Use, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Mental Health, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Privacy, Psychiatric, Skilled Nursing Facility, Technology, Telemedicine, Uncategorized, Veterans Health Administration | Tagged: Crisis preparedness, Cybercrime, Disaster, dta breach, Emergency, Health Care, HIPAA, Hurricane, Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Irma, Hurricane Maria, Las Vegas Shooting, Mass Shooting, Medical Privacy, OCR, Privacy, public health, Terrorism | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Novo Nordisk Pays $58M+ For Not Giving FDA-Required Warnings ABout Victoza Cancer Risks

September 11, 2017

Pharmaceutical Manufacturer Novo Nordisk Inc.’s $58.65 million settlement resolving charges it failed to comply with the Federal Drug Administration (FDA)-mandated Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for its Type II diabetes medication Victoza illustrates the potential consequences that pharmaceutical companies risk by failing to provide FDA-required warnings about potential side effects of their drugs.

The settlement announced by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on September 5, 2017 resolves a DOJ civil complaint filed September 5, 2017 charging that Novo Nordisk violated a FDA requirement in effect at the time of Victoza’s approval in 2010 that Novo Nordisk provide information regarding Victoza’s potential risk of MTC to physicians. The FDA required the notice to mitigate the potential risk in humans of a rare form of cancer called Medullary Thyroid Carcinoma (MTC) associated with the drug. DOJ charged that some Novo Nordisk sales representatives gave information to physicians that created the false or misleading impression that the Victoza REMS-required message was erroneous, irrelevant, or unimportant. The complaint also alleges that Novo Nordisk failed to comply with the REMS by creating the false or misleading impression about the Victoza REMS-required risk message that violated provisions of the FDCA and led some physicians to be unaware of the potential risks when prescribing Victoza.

According to the government’s complaint, after a survey in 2011 showed that half of primary care doctors polled were unaware of the potential risk of MTC associated with the drug, the FDA required a modification to the REMS to increase awareness of the potential risk. Rather than appropriately implementing the modification, the complaint claims that Novo Nordisk instructed its sales force to provide statements to doctors that obscured the risk information and failed to comply with the REMS modification. Novo Nordisk has agreed to disgorge $12.15 million in profits derived from its unlawful conduct in violation of the FDCA.

A manufacturer that fails to comply with the requirements of the REMS, including requirements to communicate accurate risk information, renders the drug misbranded under the FDCA.

Under the agreed settlement, Novo Nordisk will pay an additional $46.5 million to the federal government and the states to resolve claims under the FCA and state false claims acts. This portion of the settlement resolves allegations that Novo Nordisk caused the submission of false claims from 2010 to 2014 to federal health care programs for Victoza by arming its sales force with messages that could create a false or misleading impression with physicians that the Victoza REMS-required message about the potential risk of MTC associated with Victoza was erroneous, irrelevant, or unimportant and by encouraging the sale to and use of Victoza by adult patients who did not have Type II diabetes. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved Victoza as safe and effective for use by adult patients who do not have Type II diabetes. As a result of the FCA settlement, the federal government will receive $43,129,026 and state Medicaid programs will receive $3,320,963.

The FCA settlement also resolves seven lawsuits filed under the whistleblower provision of the federal FCA, which permits private parties to file suit on behalf of the United States for false claims and share in a portion of the government’s recovery. The civil lawsuits are captioned as follows: United States, et al. ex rel. Kennedy, v. Novo A/S, et al., No. 13-cv-01529 (D.D.C.), United States, et al. ex rel. Dastous, et al. v. Novo Nordisk, No. 11-cv-01662 (D.D.C), United States, et al., ex rel. Ferrara and Kelling v Novo Nordisk, Inc., et al., No. 1:11-cv-00074 (D.D.C.), United States, et al., ex rel. Myers v. Novo Nordisk, Inc., No. 11-cv-1596 (D.D.C.), United States, et al. ex rel Stepe v. Novo Nordisk, Inc., No. 13-cv-221 (D.D.C.), United States et al. ex rel Doe, et al. v. Novo Nordisk, Inc., et al., No. 1:17-00791 (D.D.C.), and United States ex rel. Smith, et al. v. Novo Nordisk, Inc., Civ. Action No. 16-1605 (D.D.C.). The amount to be recovered by the private parties has not been determined.

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. Ms. Stamer works with health industry and related businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management and other performance and operations management and compliance. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see here, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (214) 452-8297.

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 » | false claims act, FDA, Pharmaceudical, Uncategorized | Tagged: Cancer, Diabetes, FDA, Novo Nordisk, Pharma, Pharmaceudical, REMS, Victoza | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Christus Pays $12.24M Settlement Resolves False Claims Act Charges From “Donations” To New Mexico

September 11, 2017

CHRISTUS St. Vincent Regional Medical Center (St. Vincent) and its partner, CHRISTUS Health (CHRISTUS), have agreed to pay $12.24 million, plus interest to resolve charges by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) they violated the False Claims Act by making illegal donations to county governments that the counties used to fund the state share of Medicaid payments to the hospital. The settlement announced September 1, 2017 highlights the needs for States and private healthcare providers to use care to ensure that creative partnerships don’t violate federal Medicare or other program requirements as well as the risk that the False Claims Act or other whistleblower rules will incentivize disgruntled employees or other service providers to bring aggressive conduct to the attention of federal officials.

The settlement resolves allegations made in U.S. ex rel. Stepan v. Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center Corp. et al., Civil Action No. 11-cv-572 (D.N.M.) that St. Vincent and CHRISTUS allegedly caused the State of New Mexico to present false Medicaid claims in violation of the False Claims Act by making non-bona fide donations to the State of New Mexico that New Mexico improperly used to fulfill the requirement that the State pay 25% “matching” share to fund the New Mexico Sole Community Provider Program (SCP) between 2001 and 2009.

Under the now defunct SCP Program, federal law required that New Mexico fund 25% of the costs of the SCP program to qualify for reimbursement from the federal government for approximately 75 percent of its health care expenditures under the SCP program. Under federal law, New Mexico’s 25 percent “matching” share of SCP program payments had to consist of state or county funds, and not impermissible “donations” from private hospitals. Congress enacted this restriction on the use of private hospital funds to satisfy state Medicaid obligations to curb possible abuses and ensure that states have sufficient incentive to curb rising Medicaid costs.

The charges resolved by the settlement originally were brought in a qui tam lawsuit filed by a former Los Alamos County, New Mexico Indigent Healthcare Administrator . The whistleblower will receive $2.249 million as her share of the recovery in this case.

The prosecution and its settlement drive home both the importance for States receiving Medicaid funds and private health care partners providing services to patients reimbursed by these funds to use care to comply with all applicable program requirements, as well as the continuing risk of exposure and resulting liability from whistleblower claims brought by unhappy employees or others looking to use their knowledge of questionable conduct to realize profitable recoveries.

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. Ms. Stamer works with health industry and related businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management and other performance and operations management and compliance. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see here, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (214) 452-8297.

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 » | Academic medicine, Anti-KickBack, Conditions of Participation, Corporate Compliance, Employment, false claims act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, health care reimbursement, Hospital, Hospital, Medicaid, Uncategorized | Tagged: DOJ, false claims act, Health Care Fraud, HEAT, Medicaid, OIG, St. Vincent Christus, Whistleblower | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Oklahoma Nursing Home Settles HHS HIV Discrimination Charges

September 8, 2017

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has entered into a Voluntary Resolution Agreement with Heritage Hills Living & Rehabilitation Center, LLC (Heritage Hills) that resolves a HHS complaint alleging that Heritage Hills discharged a seriously ill patient from its facility upon learning that she was HIV positive and in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. Part of HHS’ expanding civil rights enforcement emphasis, the resolution agreement reminds health care providers and others receiving or providing services funded by programs managed by HHS of their growing exposure to civil rights prosecutions and liability for failing to comply with federal civil rights law nondiscrimination rules.

Heritage Hills is a for-profit, 81-bed, certified skilled nursing facility located in the City of McAlester, in Pittsburg County, Oklahoma. Because Heritage Hills receives Federal financial assistance through its participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, it is subject to the requirements of Section 504 and Section 1557.

Heritage Hills agreed to resolve the complaint after OCR initiated an investigation into whether Heritage Hills discriminated against the complainant’s daughter on the basis of the daughter’s disability (HIV/AIDS) in violation of Section 504 and Section 1557.

Under the Resolution Agreement, Heritage Hills agrees to:

Ensure compliance with Section 504 and Section 1557;
Report admissions and discharge data to OCR for a 12 month period;
Appoint a Civil Rights Coordinator;
Publish and post a new non-discrimination policy;
Iimplement a new patient grievance procedure and inform patients of their right to file complaints with OCR;
Rrequire its staff to receive training on HIV/AIDS and Federal non-discrimination obligations; and
Rrevise its admissions policy to ensure that all individuals with disabilities, including but not limited to HIV/AIDS, are provided equal access to and an equal opportunity to participate in all programs, benefits and services offered by the facility.

The HHS enforcement action reminds health care providers about the importance of properly managing their civil rights compliance. During the last five years, OCR has engaged in more than 200 enforcement and outreach efforts involving HIV/AIDS, including public education campaigns, HIV-related civil rights complaint investigations, HIV-related health information privacy investigations and 12 joint civil rights/health information privacy compliance reviews, which were the subject of OCR’s report, Protecting the Civil Rights and Health Information Privacy of People Living with HIV/AIDS. The report is available here.

Of particular note, OCR has launched an Information is Powerful Medicine public education campaign, which encourages those living with HIV to be proactive in their health care. The campaign explains individuals’ health information privacy rights, including how individuals can monitor and access a copy of their medical records.

OCR’s enforcement in this and other HIV discrimination actions is part a broader nondiscrimination and civil rights enforcement initiative under Section 1551 and other federal laws which has resulted in a growing list of multi-million dollar settlements from health care providers, state and local government agencies and others receiving federal funding from programs managed by the Department of Health & Human Services. See here. Health care providers should verify their policies and operations comply with these civil rights nondiscrimination rules.

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 30+ years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. Ms. Stamer works with health industry and related businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management and other performance and operations management and compliance. Her experienced includes more than 20 years of experience advising and defending health industry and other organizations about disability and other civil rights discrimination law compliance and risk management. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see here, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (214) 452-8297.

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 » | ADA, Corporate Compliance, Cultural diversity, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, HIPAA, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Medicaid, Medical Privacy, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, OCR, Pharmacy, Rehabilitation Act, Skilled Nursing Facility, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HHS Issues Hurricane Irma Relief For Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands & Florida

September 8, 2017

In preparation for anticipated disruptions and damage from Hurricane Irma, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tom Price, M.D. declared a Public Health Emergency in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands on Wednesday, September 6, 2017 and in Florida on Thursday, September 7, 2017.

By declaring the disaster and before the Hurricane makes landfall, HHS seeks to maximize the flexibility of healthcare providers to respond to the anticipated deluge of health care needs anticipated to occur around the Hurricane by using its authority under Social Security Act 1135 to waive and modify certain health care rules under Medicare, Medicaid and certain other federal programs. See here.

Beyond modification of these requirements, the declaration also triggers limited relief for covered health care providers from certain otherwise applicable requirements of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rules. See here for OCR’s latest guidance on the limited waiver of HIPAA Sanctions and penalties during a declared emergency.

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 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 » | 1335 Waiver, Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, Border Health, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Conditions of Participation, Disaster Relief, DME, Doctor, EMTALA, Federal Health Center, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, Health Plan, healthcare, HIPAA, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare Fee Schedule, OCR, Physician, Physician Licensing, public health, Public Policy, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HHS Medical Clinic to Provide Healthcare to Hurricane Harvey Victims at Houston Convention Center Starting Wednesday

August 29, 2017

Thousands of Texans sheltering at the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston will have access to on-site medical care at a 250-bed Federal Medical Station established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) scheduled to be operational Wednesday.

According to Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price, M.D., the Federal Medical Station will provide vital care to Texans affected by Hurricane Harvey. The Federal Medical Station at the convention center will be staffed by members of HHS’ National Disaster Medical System and U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

HHS has more than 500 personnel on the ground to assist those affected by Hurricane Harvey and 1,300 more on standby.

Beyond the team deploying to mean the Houston Convention Center, HHS has additional Federal Medical Stations available for patient care in Texas, and has positioned two 250-bed Federal Medical Stations in Baton Rouge ready to be deployed in Louisiana should state officials determine they are needed.

HHS also has activated its Disaster Distress Helpline, a toll-free call center, that is available at 1-800-985-5990 to aid people in coping with the behavioral health effects of the storm and help people in impacted areas connect with local behavioral health professionals.

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 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.

Photo compliments of ABCNews.com. ©2017 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 » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CMS Proposes Cutbacks To Medicare Bundled Payment Program

August 15, 2017

A Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed rule scheduled for publication in the August 18, 2017 Federal Register will propose to reduce the number of mandatory geographic areas for the joint bundled payment program and cancel the cardiac bundled payment program model for determining reimbursement of providers for care under Medicare as well as make other refinements to the bundled payment program scheduled to take effect in January.

Widely criticized by many providers including department of Health and Human Services Secretary Dr. Tom Price, the mandatory bundled payment program presently is scheduled to take effect in January, 2018 after multiple delays.

According to the advanced copy of the proposed rule released by CMS on August 15, 2017, the proposed rule will propose among other things the following changes to the bundled payment program:

Cancel the Episode Payment Models (EPMs) and Cardiac Rehabilitation (CR) incentive payment model and rescind the regulations governing these models;
Revise certain aspects of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model, including: giving certain hospitals selected for participation in the CJR model a one-time option to choose whether to continue their participation in the model;
Make technical refinements and clarifications for certain payment, reconciliation and quality provisions; and
Increase the pool of eligible clinicians that qualify as affiliated practitioners under the Advanced Alternative Payment Model (APM) track.

Healthcare providers and others interested in the proposed changes should carefully review the proposed changes and provide feedback as soon as possible and no later than the October 17, 2017 deadline the proposed regulation sets for submitting comments.

About The Author

The author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, is AV-Preeminent (the highest) rated attorney repeatedly recognized for her nearly 30 years of experience and knowledge representing and advising healthcare, health plan and other health industry and others on these and other regulatory, workforce, risk management, technology, public policy and operations matters as a Martindale-Hubble as a “LEGAL LEADER™” and “Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law, Labor and Employment Law, and Business & Commercial Law and among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” by D Magazine.

An American Bar Foundation, American College of Employee Benefits Counsel, and Texas Bar Foundation Fellow, current American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, former scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and JCEB Council Representative, former Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, the former Board President and Treasurer of the Richardson Development Center for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, and past Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer’s health industry experience includes advising hospitals, nursing home, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to Board of Medicine, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management and a broad range of other legal and operational concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others.

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

About Solutions Law Press Inc.™

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

If you found these updates of interest, you may be interested in other recent Solutions Law Press, Inc. updates, publications, training program, advocacy and other initiatives available here.

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

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

Leave a Comment » | Anti-KickBack, billing, Clinical pathway, Conditions of Participation, Consumer Driven Health Care, Corporate Compliance, Doctor, Electronic Medical Records, Evidence Based Medicine, false claims act, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, health care reimbursement, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, Hospital, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Medicare, Medicare Fee Schedule, OIG, Physician, Prospective Payment, Reimbursement, Uncategorized | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, bundled payment program, CMS, false claims act, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Policy, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, Health Care Reimbursement, HHS, Hospital, Hospitals, Medicaid, Medicare, OIG, physical therapy, Physician, Physicians, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CMS Releases 2017 Provider Payment Program Hardship Exception Application

August 4, 2017

The Quality Payment Program Hardship Exception Application for the 2017 transition year now is available on the Quality Payment Program website.

MIPS eligible clinicians and groups may qualify for a reweighting of their Advancing Care Information performance category score to 0% of the final score, and can submit a hardship exception application, for one of the following specified reasons:

Insufficient internet connectivity
Extreme and uncontrollable circumstances
Lack of control over the availability of Certified EHR Technology (CEHRT).

Some MIPS eligible clinicians who are considered Special Status, will be automatically reweighted (or, exempted in the case of MIPS eligible clinicians participating in a MIPS APM), do not need to submit a Quality Payment Program Hardship Exception Application.
In addition to submitting an application via the Quality Payment Program website, clinicians also may contact the Quality Payment Program Service Center and work with a representative to verbally submit an application.

To submit an application, a physician or other applying clinician will need:

The Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) for group applications or National Provider Identifier (NPI) for individual applications;
Contact information for the person working on behalf of the individual clinician or group, including first and last name, e-mail address, and telephone number; and
Selection of hardship exception category (listed above) and supplemental information.

Applicants for a hardship exception based on the Extreme and Uncontrollable Circumstance category, also must select one of the following and provide a start and end date of when the circumstance occurred:

Disaster (e.g., a natural disaster in which the CEHRT was damaged or destroyed);
Practice or hospital closure;
Severe financial distress (bankruptcy or debt restructuring);
EHR certification/vendor issues (CEHRT issues)

Once an application is submitted, CMS will send the applicant a confirmation email acknowledging receipt of the application and when it is pending, approved, or dismissed. Applications will be processed on a rolling basis.

Physician and other clinicians or practices interested in pursuing an exemption should act promptly.

About The Author

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent (Top 1%) rated practicing attorney and management consultant, health industry public policy advocate, widely published author and lecturer, recognized for her nearly 30 years’ of work on health industry and other privacy and data security and other health care, health benefit, health policy and regulatory affairs and other health industry legal and operational as a LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® “LEGAL LEADER™ and “Top Rated Lawyer,” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; a D Magazine “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in the fields of “Health Care,” “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits” and “Business and Commercial Law,” a Fellow in the American Bar Foundation, the Texas Bar Foundation and the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel.

Technical advisor to the National Physicians Council for Healthcare Policy, Vice President of the North Texas Healthcare Professionals Association, American Bar Association (ABA) International Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, Policy; Scribe for ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with OCR, Ms. Stamer is well-known for her extensive work and leadership throughout her career on healthcare and health policy, regulatory, operations and other industry topics. Her clients include public and private healthcare systems, hospitals and other healthcare facilities, health care providers, health insurers, health plans, employers, health and other technology and other vendors, communities and others.

In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also speaks extensively and conducts training on health care and other privacy and data security and many other matters.

Beyond these involvements, Ms. Stamer also is active in the leadership of a broad range of other health care and other professional and civic organizations. Through these and other involvements, she helps develop and build solutions, build consensus, garner funding and other resources, manage compliance and other operations, and take other actions to identify promote tangible improvements in health care and other policy and operational areas.

For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly by e-mail here or by telephone at (469) 767-8872. ©2017 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Limited, non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. All other rights reserved.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Affordable Care Act, Conditions of Participation, E-Prescribing, Evidence Based Medicine, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, health care reimbursement, healthcare, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Meaningful Use, Medical Records, Medicare, Medicare Fee Schedule, OIG, Outcomes Data, Peer Review, quality reporting, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Skilled Nursing Facility, Uncategorized | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, CMS, Doctor, false claims act, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Policy, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, Health Care Reimbursement, HEAT, HHS, Hospital, Medical Board, Medicare, Medicare Part B, physical therapy, Physician, Physicians, PQRS, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

RAISE Act Immigration Visa, Visa Holder Public Benefit Limits Create Potential Health Industry Concerns

August 3, 2017

Immigration law changes proposed in the newly revised version of the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy Act (RAISE Act) reintroduced yesterday (August 2, 2017) seek significant changes in the foreign workers granted United States (U.S.) work visas and the public benefit eligibility of work and other visa holders in the U.S. that could have significant impacts on health care providers and other health industry organizations.

Backed by President Trump, Senate Co-Sponsor Tom Cotton said the the RAISE Act seeks to refocus U.S. legal immigration system to promote two main goals:

Helping American workers get a decent pay raise and have a higher standard of living; and
Helping promote economic growth to make America more competitive in the world.

The promote these Goals, the RAISE Act would overhaul the procedures that the U.S. uses to pick foreign immigrants granted certain U.S. work and other visas as well as reform rules and limits for granting work, refugee and family member visas and limit their eligibility for public benefits.

The centerpiece of the RAISE Act’s proposed reform is replacement of the current U.S. permanent employment visa and lottery visa programs with a new “merit based” selection process that would rely upon a “skills-based points system” created under the Act to determine the foreign workers eligible to receive work visas. As proposed under RAISE Act, the U.S. would issue a maximum of 140,000 employment-based visas annually. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service would select the applicants invited to file full application and undergo security vetting twice a year from a pool of potential immigrants based on their point score ranking under the new skills-based point system. The new skills-based points system would prioritize workers for visa eligibility based applicants’ relative scores determined based on the English language ability, education, age and other “predictors of immigrant success and economic contribution” listed in the RAISE Act. For more details, see here.

Beyond replacing the current employment visa and lottery visa programs, the RAISE Act also would impose new limits on the number of visas granted, tighten the eligibility rules and requirements for granting visas to noncitizen family members of U.S. citizens and legal residents and foreign workers and refugees and exclude holders of these visas from eligibility for government benefits.

In addition to reforming the visa selection process, the RAISE Act also includes reforms intended to protect U.S. taxpayers against the cost of providing public benefits for visa holders. The REACH Act provides that immigrant households arriving through the skills-based points system are not eligible for federal means tested benefits for a period of 5 years. It also generally would restrict public benefit eligibility for immigrants in the U.S. on family or parent visas and require among other things, that adult citizens and legal residents sponsoring a newly created parental visa must provide health insurance coverage at no cost to the parent and other required support. Section 6 conditions naturalization on the sponsors of an immigrant fulfilling their obligation to reimburse the federal government for benefits used by the immigrant, as required under current law.

The RAISE Act’s proposed modifications to the work and other visa eligibility and selection process and imposition of restrictions on public benefit eligibility of visa holders are likely to have multiple implications for health care providers and other health industry organizations. Beyond potential implications on the recruitment and availability foreign workers to fulfill various positions, the proposed reforms are likely to change the mix and characteristics of foreign workers eligible to obtain visas to work in the United States, the predictability and timing of the selection of workers, foreign workers’ compensation, employer-provided and government provided benefit needs and and expectation, and other recruitment, compensation and other requirements and expectations of foreign workers and their families.

Meanwhile, the proposed limits on public benefits for visa holders contained in the RAISE Act also are likely to impact the availability, reliability, predictability and source of payment for health care or other services health care and other agencies provide to immigrant populations and raise questions about how the proposed public benefit reforms will interact with emergency assessment and treatment mandates like the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), federal and state English as a Second Language and other nondiscrimination and cultural diversity requirements that commonly trigger special responsibilities or risks relative to treatment or other interactions involving immigrants in the U.S.

Furthermore, it also remains to be seen how consideration under the skills-based points system of applicants’ English language skills, education, age and other criteria will impact English-only prohibitions, employment discrimination and affirmative action, and other “linguistic and cultural diversity” laws and practices that have gained traction over the past decade, U.S. employers will want to carefully evaluate the likely implications of these and other potential workforce implications on their recruitment, hiring and workforce practices, provide any relevant input concerning potential concerns to Congress and monitor the progress of these proposed reforms as President Trump and its sponsors push for the RAISE Act’s enactment.

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. Ms. Stamer works with health industry and related businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management and other performance and operations management and compliance. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see here, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (214) 452-8297.

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 » | Civil Rights, Cultural diversity, Discrimination, EMTALA, English as A Second Language, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, Immigration, Medicaid, Medicare, Uncategorized | Tagged: EMTALA, Health Care, Health IT, Immigration, Indigent Care, Public Benefits, Visa | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

6/16 Feedback Deadline For CDC Legal Epidemiology Competency Model; Other Legal Epidemiology Resources

June 1, 2017

Public health and other health care, employer and other business, education, community services, law enforcement and other government and community leaders and their legal and other advisers should check out and provide feedback to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on the new draft Legal Epidemiology Competency Model (LECM) and other CDC resources designed to help the U.S., its organizations, communities and people prepare for and respond to epidemic and other public health and disease concerns.

National and international concern about the outbreak and management of deadly Ebola and other pandemics, bioterrorism and other terrorism attacks, national disasters and other public health risks have sensitized Americans and their business, community and governmental leaders to the potential community wide risks of these and other public health events, the legal and operational challenges that often arise in the course of responding to these risks, and the helpfulness if not necessity of community-wide involvement, preparation and collaboration to the effectiveness of efforts to prepare for and respond to these occurrences.

In recognition of these realities, the CDC is stepping up its efforts both to understand better, and to to educate and support relevant components of U.S. communities, their advisers, researchers and leaders about these public health challenges including the relationships and influences between the occurrence and management of these public health events and the law (“legal epidemiology.”)

Widespread public and private concern and coverage of terrorism attacks and pandemic outbreaks have reinvigorated CDC’s emphasis and efforts to outreach to health care providers, public health, school, and other community organizations, employers and other business leaders and others. In response to government and public Ebola and other epidemic and pandemic out breaks, for instance, the CDC in recent years has stepped up both its public communications about epidemic and other public health risks and its emphasis upon understanding and developing legal epidemiology practices and resources. For instance, the death of an Ebola patient in Dallas and subsequent diagnosis of various other victims of Ebola and other pandemic diseases within or potentially traveling to the United States, reinvigorated the emphasis and efforts of the CDC and other federal and state agencies and other public and private organizations and groups to help law and policy makers prepare for and respond to pandemic and other public health concerns.

While much of the increased or updated CDC knowledge and guidance focuses on improving understanding and communications targeting a specific public health risk or situation, such as the updated State Ebola Protocols Table specifically to support preparedness for and responsiveness Ebola-related situations, the CDC also now recognizes the need to understand and address more generally the emerging area of legal epidemiology.

As part of its efforts to promote better understanding and resources to address legal epidemiology challenges, CDC recently released and now is inviting input on a new draft LECM developed by the CDC in collaboration with a “multidisciplinary expert review workgroup” as a resource to provide helpful information and support to lawyers, researchers, and others whose work explores how laws can play a role in the cause, distribution, and prevention of disease and injury or otherwise engaged in projects focused at the intersection of law and epidemiology, referred to as “legal epidemiology.”

Recognizing the growing importance of legal epidemiology, the CDC now is inviting input from the broad public health community, as well as from those engaged directly in legal epidemiology work to help CDC further refine the LECM. While the CDC is inviting interested persons to review the draft LECM and share thoughts on any aspect of the model, CDC has indicated that CDC particularly is interested in reactions and suggestions related to any of the following questions:

Does the LECM reflect the requirements for truly effective performance of legal epidemiology?
Are there concepts that should be added or removed?
Are the behavioral statements in the draft LECM representative of how legal epidemiologists demonstrate competency in their work?
Does the draft LECM accurately reflect the knowledge, skills, and abilities that legal epidemiologists must demonstrate in your organization?
How might you use the LECM in your work?

Parties wishing to provide feedback should submit their feedback by Friday, June 16, 2017 in accordance with the instructions shared here or by email to Janelle Nichols at jnichols@phf.org.

Coincident with CDC’s release of the draft LECM for public comment, the CDC PHLP is working to expand awareness and understanding of the emerging field of legal epidemiology.

As part of these efforts, CDC recently released an updated version of its Criminal and Epidemiological Investigations Handbook. Offered in English, Spanish and French, this latest version provides an overview of criminal and epidemiological investigation procedures involving interactions between law enforcement and public health. It is designed to help teach public health and law enforcement how to work together to identify the biological agent, prevent the spread of the disease, avoid public panic, and apprehend those responsible.

CDC also is offering in collaboration with the National Environmental Health Association, a series of webinars on legal epidemiology. The second webinar in a three-part series of free programs on legal epidemiology titled “Legal Epidemiology, Part 2: A Tool for Evaluating the Impact of Environmental Public Health Laws,” scheduled to take place on June 14, 2017, 1:00–2:30 pm (EDT) will feature speakers from PHLP, highlight variations in state law provisions related to environmental public health issues, and describe related legal epidemiology methods. It will also offer abbreviated training in the principles of legal epidemiology, give examples of its application to environmental public health law, and allow participants to ask questions. For more details about the program or participation, see here.

About The Author

Ms. Stamer works domestically and internationally with health, insurance and financial services, data and technology, services and consulting, energy, retail, hospitality and other businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management and other performance and operations management and compliance. Her day-to-day work encompasses both labor and employment issues, as well as independent contractor, outsourcing, employee leasing, management services and other nontraditional service relationships. She supports her clients both on a real-time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with all aspects for workforce and human resources management, including, recruitment, hiring, firing, compensation and benefits, promotion, discipline, compliance, trade secret and confidentiality, noncompetition, privacy and data security, safety, daily performance and operations management, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy.

Well-known for her extensive work with health, insurance, financial services, technology, energy, manufacturing, retail, hospitality and governmental employers, her nearly 30 years’ of experience encompasses domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes.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 concerns by her service in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organization including her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association; Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Gulf Coast TEGE Council Exempt Organization Coordinator; a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; former board member and Vice President of the Managed Care Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; a member and advisor to the National Physicians’ Council for Healthcare Policy; current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section; a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group; immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and current RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council; past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a former member of the Board of Directors, Treasurer, Member and Continuing Education Chair of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Author of “Privacy & Pandemic: A Workshop & Materials” presented to the ASTHO and a multitude of other pandemic, occupational health and other public health law and management matters, Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposia chair and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health care, privacy, human resources, labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation, occupational safety and health, and other regulatory and operational risk management for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

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, 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 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 publisher and the author expressly disclaim all liability for this content and any responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone 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 » | CDC, Disease Management, Health Care, Health Care Quality, legal epidemiology, Medical Privacy, Pandemic, Privacy, public health, Uncategorized | Tagged: Health, health law, legal epidemiology, occupational health, Pandemic, public health | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

SCOTUS Bars State Law Restrictions On Health, Other Arbitration Agreement Enforceability

May 16, 2017

Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kindred Nursing Centers L.P. v. Clark boosts the ability of health care and other businesses and employers to enforce contractual agreements to arbitrate free from limits or other interference by State law imposed restrictions limiting the use or enforcement of arbitration agreements. Healthcare and other businesses and employers operating in States with special requirements for the enforcement of arbitration agreements should consult with legal counsel about the implications of the decision on their ability to use and enforce arbitration agreements with patients and other customers, employees and others prospectively and in ongoing disputes where the enforceability of arbitration agreements based on state law restrictions is an issue, as well as re-evaluate the effects of their own agreements to arbitration in past and future contracts might strengthen the ability of others unexpectedly to force arbitration.

The Kindred decision arose from the efforts of a health care provider, Kindred, to enforce arbitration clauses in nursing home agreements signed by legal representatives of patients admitted to its facilities. Kindred appealed to the federal courts after the Kentucky Supreme Court blocked Kindred from enforcing these contractual agreements to arbitrate because neither power of attorney specifically entitled the representative to enter into an arbitration agreement. The Kentucky Supreme Court imputed the requirement that the power of attorney specifically grant authority to agree to arbitration because the Kentucky Constitution declares the rights of access to the courts and trial by jury to be “sacred” and “inviolate” even though Kentucky law ordinarily would not require a similar express grant of power to enforce other types of contractual provision.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Kindred held that the Kentucky Supreme Court’s clear-statement rule violates the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) by singling out arbitration agreements for disfavored treatment. Pp. 4–10.

The Supreme Court decision construed the FAA provision that arbitration agreements are “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract,” 9 U. S. C. §2, as requiring equal treatment of arbitration provisions with other contractual provisions. Under this equal treatment principle, the Supreme Court ruled a court may invalidate an arbitration agreement based on “generally applicable contract defenses,” but not on legal rules that “apply only to arbitration or that derive their meaning from the fact that an agreement to arbitrate is at issue.” Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled that the FAA preempts any state rule that discriminates on its face against arbitration or that covertly accomplishes the same objective by disfavoring contracts that have the defining features of arbitration agreements.

Concluding that the Kentucky Supreme Court’s clear statement requirement for enforcement of arbitration provisions fails to put arbitration agreements on an equal plane with other contracts by requiring an explicit statement before an agent can relinquish her principal’s right to go to court and receive a jury trial, the Supreme Court found the Kentucky Supreme Court did exactly what the FAA barred: adopt a legal rule hinging on the primary characteristic of an arbitration agreement. Pp. 4–7. Accordingly the Supreme Court ordered the arbitration agreements enforced in Kindred.

Management Pointers & Action Items

The Supreme Court’s construction in Kindred of the FAA as establishing an “equal protection” rule for arbitration provisions expands the ability of health care organizations and others to enforce arbitration clauses in patient and other customer, employee and other contracts which previously might have been barred by special State statutory, regulatory or judicial requirements on the enforceability of arbitration clauses not generally applicable to other types of contractual provisions. While very valuable for health care organizations, this ruling also is likely to have implications beyond health care contracts to a broad range of other state laws and rules that purport to protect consumers, employees and others to contractually waive their litigation rights. While the Supreme Court ruling leaves open the ability to challenge arbitration clauses on contractual grounds generally applicable to all contracts, special State law rules for enforcing arbitration are not allowed.

Health industry and other management should review their arbitration agreements and related dispute resolution agreements with qualified legal counsel for potential options to reduce risks and manage dispute resolution costs using arbitration agreements with patients and other customers, employees, service providers and others as well as to understand the implications of existing arbitration clause is on their exposures to others arising from contractual agreements to arbitrate previously thought to be subject to state law restrictions on enforceability. Health care and other businesses and individuals considering entering in or enforcing arbitration agreements should keep in mind, however, that the Kindred ruling does not insulate arbitration agreements from State law defenses that apply equally to other non-arbitration contracts.

About The Author

Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposia chair and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on human resources, labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation, occupational safety and health, and other regulatory and operational risk management. Examples of her many highly regarded publications on these matters include the “Texas Payday Law” Chapter of Texas Employment Law, as well as thousands of other publications, programs and workshops these and other concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

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, 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 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 publisher and the author expressly disclaim all liability for this content and any responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone 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. ©2017 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ All other rights reserved.

Leave a Comment » | Ambulatory care, Consumer Driven Health Care, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Physician, Rural Health Care, Skilled Nursing Facility, Uncategorized | Tagged: arbitration, dispute resolution, Health Care, nursing home, Risk Management, SCOTUS, SNF | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer Speaks, Moderates On Medical Cyber Security At LA Medical Privacy Summit

May 12, 2017

Solutions Law Press, Inc. editor and attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will speak and moderate two key panel programs on health care privacy and data security scheduled at the Healthcare Privacy & Security Form hosted on May 19, 2017 by the Information Security Systems Association of Los Angeles County (ISSA-LA) as a component of its 9th Annual ISSA-LA Information Security Summit. The presentations of Ms. Stamer and others at the conference are particularly timely coming on the heels of the May 12 Cyber alerts to U.S. health industry and other businesses about the urgent need to defend against the spread of an epidemic international malware threat targeting U.S. healthcare and other businesses. See Health Care, Health Plan & Other Health IT Systems Warned of E-Mail Cyber Attack; Urgent WannaCry Ransomware Cyber Warning Issued; Alert: Guard Health E-Mail, Other IT Against WannaCry Malware Attack.

The Medical Privacy & Security Summit is part of the 9th Annual ISSA-LA Information Security Summit scheduled for May 18-19, 2017 at the Universal City Hilton in Los Angeles. Recognized as a premier information security education and networking event, the Summit is expected to bring together 1000 or more health industry and other IT and InfoSec executives, leaders, analysts, and practitioners to learn from the experts, exchange ideas with their peers, and enjoy conversations with the community.

The Healthcare Privacy & Security Forum offered for the 5^th year as a component of the annual Summit on May 19 specifically focuses on leading challenges, issues and opportunities confronted by health industry privacy and security professionals and their organizations. Ms. Stamer has served on the steering committee, moderator and popular faculty member for the 2017 Forum for the 5^th consecutive year. During the 2017 Forum, she will moderate and speak on two panels:

“Finding & Negotiating The Mine Fields: CISO, CIO & Privacy Officer’s Playbook for Promoting Compliance & Security Without Getting Fired,” a luncheon interactive panel discussion with the audience exploring the challenging mission CISOs, CIOs and Privacy Officers face to ensure their healthcare, financial and other critical information, data and systems continue to support the patient care and operating functions of their organizations, while at the same time defending these systems, operations and their sensitive, but mission critical data against malicious or innocent misappropriation, use, access or destruction; and
The closing panel on “What Initiatives Are on the Horizon in Healthcare, and How Can We Secure Them?”, which will explore likely future emerging privacy and security threats and technologies, regulatory challenges and enforcement, and other trends that Privacy and Security professionals are likely to face and tips and strategies for preparing to leverage these likely new opportunities and manage new challenges.

Register or get the full schedule of programs and other events scheduled at the Healthcare Privacy & Security Forum specifically along with the overall Information Security Summit here.

About Ms. Stamer

Scribe for ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with OCR for many years, Ms. Stamer is well-known for her extensive work and leadership throughout her career on HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, IRC and other tax, Social Security, GLB, trade secret, physician and other medical confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security and data breach and other information privacy and data security rules and concerns. Ms. Stamer has worked extensively throughout her career with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers and other plan sponsors, banks, insurers and other financial institutions, and others on trade secret confidentiality, privacy, data security and other risk management and compliance including design, establishment, documentation, implementation, audit and enforcement of policies, procedures, systems and safeguards, drafting and negotiation of business associate, chain of custody, confidentiality, and other contracting; risk assessments, audits and other risk prevention and mitigation; investigation, reporting, mitigation and resolution of known or suspected breaches, violations or other incidents; and defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR, FTC, state attorneys’ general and other federal or state agencies, other business partners, patients and others; reporting known or suspected violations; commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance and other regulatory affairs, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns.

Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, employers, payroll, staffing, recruitment, insurance and financial services, health and other technology and other vendors, and others.

Author of a multitude of highly-regarded works and training programs on HIPAA and other data security, privacy and use published by BNA, the ABA and other premier legal industry publishers In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also speaks extensively and conducts training on health care and other privacy and data security and many other matters Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

Beyond these involvements, Ms. Stamer also is active in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. Through these and other involvements, she helps develop and build solutions, build consensus, garner funding and other resources, manage compliance and other operations, and take other actions to identify promote tangible improvements in health care and other policy and operational areas.

Leave a Comment » | Corporate Compliance, Cyber crime, data breach, data security, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, ERISA, FDA, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Fiduciary Responsibility, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, managed care, Meaningful Use, Medical Malpractice, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, OCR, OIG, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Psychiatric, quality reporting, Rural Health Care, Skilled Nursing Facility, substance abuse treatment, Technology, Telemarketing, Telemedicine, Uncategorized | Tagged: Cyber Security, Cybercrime, HIPAA, Malware, Medical Privacy, Medical Security, Technology, WannaCry | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Care, Health Plan & Other Health IT Systems Warned of E-Mail Cyber Attack

May 12, 2017

Health care providers, health plans, health insurers, healthcare clearinghouses, their business associates and others involved in health information technology or related activities should raise their cyber security defenses and use cyber security best practices to defend their information systems and data against ongoing cyber security attacks targeting health industry information systems in the United States and abroad in a cyber security alert issued by Department of Health and Human Service (HHS) Laura Wolf Critical Infrastructure Protection Lead.

The cyber security alert states that there is evidence that cyber attacks affecting hospitals and healthcare information systems in the UK and other international locations” now are “occurring inside the United States.”

HHS states it is “working with our partners across government and in the private sector to develop a better understanding of the threat and to provide additional information on measures to protect your systems.

Meanwhile,HHS advises U.S. health industry organizations and information systems to exercise cyber security best practices – particularly with respect to email including HHS Ransomware Guidance available here and other information on ransomware in the following HHS Cyber Newsletters:

https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hippa-cyber-awareness-monthly-issue1.pdf

https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hipaa-cyber-awareness-monthly-issue3.pdf

https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/february-2017-ocr-cyber-awareness-newsletter.pdf

About The Author

Recognized by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as a “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%/ the highest) and “Top Rated Lawyer,” with special recognition 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 “Health Care,” “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, the author of this update is widely known for her 29 plus years’ of work in health care, health benefit, health policy and regulatory affairs and other health industry concerns as a practicing attorney and management consultant, thought leader, author, public policy advocate and lecturer.

A core focus of this work includes work to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; 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; dealings with JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; investigation and defense of private litigation and other federal and state health care industry investigations and enforcement; insurance or other liability management and allocation; process and product development; managed care, physician and other staffing, business associate and other contracting; evaluation, commenting or seeking modification of regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; and a host of other related concerns for public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, employers, and others.
Author of leading works on HIPAA and other privacy and data security works and the scribe leading the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, her experience includes extensive compliance, risk management and data breach and other crisis event investigation, response and remediation under HIPAA and other data security, privacy and breach laws.

In connection with this work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers and other plan sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA, FACTA, trade secret and other information privacy and data security rules, including the establishment, documentation, implementation, audit and enforcement of policies, procedures, systems and safeguards, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others.

Her work includes both regulatory and public policy advocacy and thought leadership, as well as advising and representing a broad range of health industry and other clients about policy design, drafting, administration, business associate and other contracting, risk assessments, audits and other risk prevention and mitigation, investigation, reporting, mitigation and resolution of known or suspected violations or other incidents and responding to and defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, DOJ, OCR, FTC, state attorneys’ general and other federal or state agencies, other business partners, patients and others.
In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, MGMA, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.
A 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.

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 also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending health plans, health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and 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.

A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, privacy and data security, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns.
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.

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

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

©2017 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ All other rights reserved. For information about republication or other use, please contact Ms. Stamer here.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, CDC, Controlled Substances, Corporate Compliance, data breach, data security, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, FDA, Federal Health Center, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plans, healthcare, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Laws, managed care, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Mental Heatlh, OCR, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy, Psychiatric, Telemarketing, Uncategorized | Tagged: Cyber Security, Cybercrime, Data Security, E-mail, Health Care, HIPAA, Malware | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$2.4M HIPAA Settlement Warns Providers About Media Disclosures Of PHI

May 11, 2017

Healthcare providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and their business associates (Covered Entities) can’t disclose the name or other protected health care information about a patient in press releases or other announcements without prior authorization from the patient. That’s the clear lesson Covered Entities should learn from the $2.4 million payment to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that the largest not-for-profit health system in Southeast Texas, Memorial Hermann Health System (MHHS) is paying to settle charges it violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule by issuing a press release with the name and other protected health information (PHI) about a patient without the patient’s prior HIPAA-compliant authorization under a Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan (Resolution Agreement) announced May 10, 2017 by HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR).

The Resolution Agreement resolves OCR charges the operator of 13 hospitals, eight Cancer Centers, three Heart & Vascular Institutes, and 27 sports medicine and rehabilitation centers violated the Privacy Rule that resulted from an OCR compliance review of MHHS triggered by multiple media reports suggesting that MHHS improperly disclosed the name and other details about a patient arrested and charged with presenting an allegedly fraudulent identification card to office staff at an MHHS’s clinic after MHHS clinic staff alerted law enforcement of suspicions the patient was presenting false identification to the clinic. According to OCR, after law enforcement investigated and arrested the patient, MHHS published a press release concerning the incident in which MHHS senior management approved the impermissible disclosure of the patient’s PHI by adding the patient’s name in the title of the press release without securing prior authorization of the patient.

While OCR concluded the report to law enforcement allowable under the Privacy Rule, OCR found MHHS violated the Privacy Rule by issuing the press release disclosing the patient’s name and other PHI without authorization from the patient and also by failing to timely document the sanctioning of its workforce members for impermissibly disclosing the patient’s information.

To resolve and avoid the potential Civil Monetary Penalties that HIPAA could authorize OCR to impose for the alleged Privacy Rule violation, MHHS agrees in the Resolution Agreement to pay OCR a $2.4 million monetary settlement and implement a corrective action plan that obligates MHHS to update and train its workforce on its policies and procedures on safeguarding PHI from impermissible uses and disclosures including specific instructions and procedures to:

Address (a) Uses and disclosures for which an authorization is required, including to the media, to public officials, and on the internet; (b) Disclosures for law enforcement purposes; and (c) Uses and disclosures for health oversight activities;
Identify MHHS personnel or representatives whom workforce members, agents, or business associates may contact in the event of any inquiry or concern regarding compliance with HIPAA in relation to these activities;
Internal reporting procedures requiring all workforce members to report to the designated person or office at the earliest possible time any potential violations of the Privacy, Security or Breach Notification Rules or of MHHS’ privacy and security policies and procedures and MHHS promptly to investigate and address all received reports in a timely manner; and
Application and documentation of appropriate sanctions (which may include retraining or other instructive corrective action, depending on the circumstances) against members of MHHS’ workforce, including senior level management, who fail to comply with the Privacy, Security or Breach Notification Rules or MHHS’ privacy and security policies and procedures, including a description of the sanctions; a timeframe in which MHHS will apply and document sanctions for violations of the HIPAA Rules or of MHHS’ privacy, security or breach policies or procedures; the manner in which MHHS will document the sanctions; and where MHHS will store or retain such documentation (e.g., personnel file).

The corrective action plan in the Resolution Agreement also requires all MHHS facilities to attest to their understanding of permissible uses and disclosures of PHI, including disclosures to the media and others.

Covered entities should keep in mind the MHHS Resolution Agreement is the latest in a series of OCR enforcement actions and resolution agreements highlighting the need for Covered Entities to adopt and use appropriate policies and procedures to prevent wrongful disclosures of PHI to the media or public. For instance, in June, 2013, OCR required Shasta Regional Medical Center (SRMC) to pay a $275,000 settlement payment and implement a comprehensive corrective action plan to resolve OCR charges stemming from SRMC’s disclosure of PHI about a patient to members of the media and its workforce in an effort to respond to accusations the patient made that SRMC engaged in fraud and other misconduct. See HIPAA Sanctions Triggered From Covered Entity Statements To Media, Workforce. In contrast, the $2.2 million resolution agreement that OCR required New York Presbyterian Hospital for improperly allowing a film crew to film hospital patients in violation of HIPAA was almost 10 times greater than the SRMC penalty and was accompanied by OCR’s publication OCR of specific additional guidance warning Covered Entities against improper disclosures to the media. See $2 Million+ HIPAA Settlement, FAQ Warn Providers Protect PHI From Media, Other Recording Or Use.

Following on the heels of this previous guidance and prior enforcement actions warning Covered Entities against wrongful disclosure to the media, the MHHS Resolution Agreement sends a strong message to Covered Entities that they should expect little sympathy if their organizations improperly share PHI with the media. OCR’s announcement of the MHHS Resolution Agreement, for instance quotes OCR Director Roger Severino with stating that “Senior management should have known that disclosing a patient’s name on the title of a press release was a clear HIPAA Privacy violation that would induce a swift OCR response.” The announcement goes on to quote Director Severino further as stating, “This case reminds us that organizations can readily cooperate with law enforcement without violating HIPAA, but that they must nevertheless continue to protect patient privacy when making statements to the public and elsewhere.”

Risk Assess & Control Media Relations & Other Communications For PHI Disclosures Enterprisewide

Covered entities should heed the warning by conducting a risk assessment of their organization’s susceptibility to potential improper disclosures to media or others and reviewing and implementing necessary written policies, procedures and training to prevent the improper disclosure of patient PHI to media or others unless the Covered Entity either secures prior HIPAA-compliant authorization from the patient or can prove the disclosure falls squarely under an exception to the Privacy Rule’s prohibition against disclosure of PHI without authorization except as allowed by the Privacy Rule.

Taking these and other needed steps to evaluate, and strengthen and enforce as needed, risk assessments, policies, procedures, and training to prevent wrongful use, access or disclosure of PHI to the media or others is particularly critical in light of the ongoing tightening of expectations, and rising enforcement and sanctions for HIPAA violations since Congress amended HIPAA in 2009. See OCR Audit Program Kickoff Further Heats HIPAA Privacy Risks; HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website.

Based on experiences reported in the MHHS and other similar resolution agreements, Covered Entities also generally will want to ensure that their policies, procedures and training extend to all potential sources of communications that could involve patient information and make clear that the Privacy Rule restrictions must be followed even if the circumstances involve allegations of misconduct, special performance by healthcare providers or others that it would benefit the organization or certain individuals to have known to the public, or other circumstances likely to be of interest to the media or other parties.
As part of this process, covered entities should ensure they look outside the four corners of their Privacy Policies to ensure that appropriate training and clarification is provided to address media, practice transition, workforce communication and other policies and practices that may be covered by pre-existing or other policies of other departments or operational elements not typically under the direct oversight and management of the Privacy Officer such as media relations. Media relations, physician and patients affairs, outside legal counsel, media relations, marketing and other internal and external departments and consultants dealing with the media, the public or other inquiries or disputes should carefully include and coordinate with the privacy officer both to ensure appropriate policies and procedures are followed and proper documentation created and retained to show authorization, account, or meet other requirements.

In conducting this analysis and risk assessment, it will be important that Covered Entities include, but also look beyond the four corners of their Privacy Policies to ensure that their review and risk assessment identifies and assesses and addresses compliance risks on an entity wide basis. This entity-wide assessment should include both communications and requests for information normally addressed to the Privacy Officer as well as requests and communications that could arise in the course of media or other public relations, practice transition, workforce communication and other operations not typically under the direct oversight and management of the Privacy Officer.

For this reason, Covered Entities also generally will not only to adopt and implement specific policies, processes and training in these other departments to prohibit and prevent inappropriate disclosures of PHI in the course of those departments operations. It also may be advisable to pre-established processes for reviewing media or other communications for potential PHI content and require prior review of any proposed public relations and other internal or external communications containing patient PHI or other information by the privacy officer, legal counsel or another suitably qualified party.

Because of the high risk that the preparation or review of media or other public communications reports will involve the use and disclosure of PHI, Covered Entities also generally should verify that all outside media or public relations, legal, or other outside service providers participating in the investigation, response or preparation or review of communications to the media or others both are covered by signed business associate agreements that fulfill the Privacy Rule and other requirements of HIPAA as well as possess detailed knowledge and understanding of the Privacy and Security Rules suitable to participate in and help safeguard the Covered Entity against violations of these and other Privacy Rules. See e.g., Latest HIPAA Resolution Agreement Drives Home Importance Of Maintaining Current, Signed Business Associate Agreements.

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 also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending health plans, health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and 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.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Accreditation, Ambulatory care, Clinical pathway, Consumer Driven Health Care, data breach, data security, Doctor, drug treatment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, ERISA, FACTA, Federal Health Center, Fiduciary Responsibility, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Hospital, Indian Health, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, Medical Malpractice, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare, OCR, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Psychiatric, Wellness | Tagged: HIPAA, medical orivacy, Privacy Rule | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

6/26 Deadline To Comment On Proposed Medicare SNF (Nursing Home) Rule Changes

May 10, 2017

June 26, 2017 is the deadline to submit comments to the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on changes to Medicare’s Skilled Nursing Facility (nursing home) reimbursement, quality reporting and various other proposed by CMS in the Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System and Consolidated Billing for Skilled Nursing Facilities for FY 2018, SNF Value-Based Purchasing Program, SNF Quality Reporting Program, Survey Team Composition, and Proposal To Correct the Performance Period for the NHSN HCP Influenza Vaccination Immunization Reporting Measure in the ESRD QIP for PY 2020 (Proposed Rule) published May 4^th. With the U.S. aging population making SNF expenditures both a significant Medicare cost driver and a major care concern for American families and communities, SNF and other health care providers, payers, community leaders, caregivers and other concerned stakeholders should act promptly to review the proposed changes and timely submit feedback in response to the Proposed Rule.

Among other things, the Proposed Rule as currently proposed would revise Medicare reimbursement and terms of participation rules for SNFs to:

Update the Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) prospective payment rates and other background information for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 in response to §§ 1888(e)(4)(E) and (H) of the Social Security Act (the Act);
Update the requirements for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program (SNF QRP) and additional proposals for the Skilled Nursing Facility Value-Based Purchasing Program (SNF VBP);
Clarify requirements related to survey team composition and investigation of complaints under 42 C.F.R §§ 488.30, 488.301, 488.314, and 488.308;
Add a proposal related to the performance period for the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Healthcare Personnel (HCP) Influenza Vaccination Reporting Measure included in the End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Quality Incentive Program (QIP); and
Solicits comments about potential changes to the recently finalized Requirements for Long-Term Care Facilities that CMS intends to reduce regulatory burdens as well as potential CMMI models and other demonstration projects that would reduce cost and increase quality of care for SNF, or more generally Post-Acute Care patients.

The Proposed Rule regulatory burden reduction proposals primarily focus on three areas also invites input about other areas of burden reduction and cost changes that could be accomplished by revising current SNF requirements for Medicare participation:

The Grievance and Abuse/Neglect Reporting Processes
Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI)
Discharge Notices

SNF and other healthcare providers, payers, accreditation and oversight, payers, caregivers and others concerned about SNF care and reimbursement for patients in SNFs should carefully evaluate these proposals and share their input on the proposals and other opportunities to improve the Medicare SNF quality and reimbursement rules as soon as possible.

About The Author

Throughout her career, she has helped health industry clients manage workforce, medical staff, vendors and suppliers, medical billing, reimbursement, claims and other provider-payer relations, business partners, and their recruitment, performance, discipline, compliance, safety, compensation, benefits, and training ;board, medical staff and other governance; compliance and internal controls; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; change management; assess, deter, investigate and address staffing, quality, compliance and other performance; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other data security and breach and other health IT and data; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party reporting, audits, investigations and enforcement; government affairs and public policy; and other compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns.

As a core component of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively throughout her career with health care providers, health plans and insurers, managed care organizations, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, management services organizations, professional associations, medical staffs, accreditation agencies, auditors, technology and other vendors and service providers, and others on legal and operational compliance, risk management and compliance, public policies and regulatory affairs, contracting, payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations and matters including extensive involvement advising, representing and defending public and private hospitals and health care systems; physicians, physician organizations and medical staffs; specialty clinics and pharmacies; skilled nursing, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing and management services 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 to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; 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 investigation, enforcement including insurance or other liability management and allocation; process and product development, contracting, deployment and defense; evaluation, commenting or seeking modification of regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement, and a host of other related concerns for public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, employers, and others.and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, 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 health care, disability, aging, workforce, retirement 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; a 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 (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Corporate Compliance, Disease Management, Doctor, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, health care reimbursement, Health Plan, Health Policy, healthcare, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Laws, Medicaid, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Fee Schedule, Outcomes Data, public health, Skilled Nursing Facility, Uncategorized | Tagged: aging, Disability, Health, healthcare, Medicare, Medicare Reimbursement, nursing home, quality reporting, Skilled Nursing, SNF | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CardioNet $2.5M HIPAA Resolution Agreement Schools HIPAA Entities To Clean Up Their Acts

April 26, 2017

Remote cardiac monitoring provider CardioNet is paying $2.5 million and implementing a corrective action plan to settle potential charges of noncompliance with the Health Insurance and Portability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) based on the impermissible disclosure of unsecured electronic protected health information (ePHI).

The first OCR HIPAA settlement involving a wireless health services provider, the CardioNet Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan (Resolution Agreement) announced by OCR on April 24, 2017 clearly illustrates for all covered entities and their business associates of the substantial liability risks of failing to finalize and actually adopt, implement, administer and maintain the necessary HIPAA Privacy and Security policies and procedures required by HIPAA as well as some of the steps OCR expects to fulfill these requirements.

CardioNet Charges & Settlement

As has become increasingly common in recent years, the CardioNet settlement arose from concerns initially brought to OCR’s attention in connection with a HIPAA breach notification report. On January 10, 2012, OCR received notification from the provider of remote mobile monitoring of and rapid response to patients at risk for cardiac arrhythmias that a workforce member’s laptop with the ePHI of 1,391 individuals was stolen from a parked vehicle outside of the employee’s home. CardioNet subsequently notified OCR of a second breach of ePHI 2,219 individuals, respectively.

Likewise, the HIPAA breaches uncovered by OCR in the course of investigating these CardioNet breaches occur in the operations of many other covered entities. According to the OCR’s investigation in response to these breach reports revealed a series of continuing compliance concerns, including:

CardioNet failed to conduct an accurate and thorough risk analysis to assess the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI and failed to plan for and implement security measures sufficient to reduce those risks and vulnerabilities;
CardioNet’s policies and procedures implementing the standards of the HIPAA Security Rule were in draft form and had not been implemented;
CardioNet was unable to produce any final policies or procedures regarding the implementation of safeguards for ePHI, including those for mobile devices;
CardioNet failed to implement policies and procedures that govern the receipt and removal of hardware and electronic media that contain electronic protected health information into and out of its facilities, the encryption of such media, and the movement of these items within its facilities until March 2015; and
CardioNet failed to safeguard against the impermissible disclosure of protected health information by its employees, thereby permitting access to that information by an unauthorized individual, and failed to take sufficient steps to immediately correct the disclosure.

To resolve these OCR charges, CardioNet agrees in the Resolution Agreement to pay $2.5 million to OCR and implement a corrective action plan. Among other things, the corrective action plan requires CardioNet to complete the following actions to the satisfaction of OCR:

Prepare a current, comprehensive and thorough Risk Analysis of security risks and vulnerabilities that incorporates its current facility or facilities and the electronic equipment, data systems, and applications controlled, currently administered or owned by CardioNet, that contain, store, transmit, or receive electronic protected health information (“ePHI”) and update that Risk Analysis annually or more frequently, if appropriate in response to environmental or operational changes affecting the security of ePHI.
Assess whether its existing security measures are sufficient to protect its ePHI and revise its Risk Management Plan, Policies and Procedures, and training materials and implement additional security measures, as needed.
Develop and implement an organization-wide Risk Management Plan to address and mitigate any security risks and vulnerabilities found in the Risk Analysis as required by the Risk Management Plan.
Review and, to the extent necessary, revise, its current Security Rule Policies and Procedures (“Policies and Procedures”) based on the findings of the Risk Analysis and the implementation of the Risk Management Plan to comply with the HIPAA Security Rule.
Provide certification to OCR that all laptops, flashdrives, SD cards, and other portable media devices are encrypted, together with a description of the encryption methods used (“Certification”).
Review, revise its HIPAA Security training to include a focus on security, encryption, and handling of mobile devices and out-of-office transmissions and other policies and practices require to address the issues identified in the Risk Assessment and otherwise comply with the Risk Management Plan and HIPAA train its workforce on these policies and practices.
Investigate all potential violations of its HIPAA policies and procedures and notify OCR in writing within 30 days of any violation.
Submit annual reports to OCR, which must be signed by an owner or officer of CardioNet attesting that he or she has reviewed the annual report, has made a reasonable inquiry regarding its content and believes that, upon such inquiry, the information is accurate and truthful.
Maintain for inspection and copying, and provide to OCR, upon request, all documents and records relating to compliance with the corrective action plan for six years.

Implications For Covered Entities & Business Associates

The CardioNet Resolution Agreement contains numerous lessons for other Covered entities and their business associates, including but not limited to the following.

Like many previous resolution agreements announced by OCR, the Resolution Agreement reiterates the responsibility of covered entities and business associates to properly secure their ePHI and that as part of this process, OCR expects all laptop computers and other mobile devices containing or with access to ePHI be properly encrypted and secured.
It also reminds covered entities and their business associates to be prepared for, and expect an audit from OCR when OCR receives a report that their organization experienced a large breach of unsecured ePHI.
The Resolution Agreement’s highlighting of the draft status of CardioNet’s privacy and security policies also reflects OCR expects covered entities to actually final policies, procedures and training in place for maintaining compliance with HIPAA.
The discussion and requirements in the Corrective Action Plan relating to requirements to conduct comprehensive risk assessments at least annually and in response to other events, and to update policies and procedures in response to findings of these risk assessments also drives home the importance of conducting timely, documented risk analyses of the security of their ePHI, taking prompt action to address known risks and periodically updating the risk assessment and the associated privacy and security policies and procedures in response to the findings of the risk assessment and other changing events.
The requirement in the Resolution Agreement of leadership attestation and certification on the required annual report reflects OCR’s expectation that leadership within covered entities and business associates will make HIPAA compliance a priority and will take appropriate action to oversee compliance.
Finally, the $2.5 million settlement payment required by the Resolution Agreement and its implementation against CardiNet makes clear that OCR remains serious about HIPAA enforcement.

Of course, covered entities and business associates need to keep in mind that that actions and inactions that create HIPAA liability risks also carry many other potential legal and business risks. For instance, since PHI records and data involved in such breaches usually incorporates Social Security Numbers, credit card or other debt or payment records or other personal consumer information, and other legally sensitive data, covered entities and business associates generally also may face investigation, notification and other responsibilities and liabilities under confidentiality, privacy or data security rules of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA), the Internal Revenue Code, the Social Security Act, state identity theft, data security, medical confidentiality, privacy and ethics, insurance, consumer privacy, common law or other state privacy claims and a host of other federal or state laws. Depending on the nature of the covered entity or its business associates, the breach or other privacy event also may trigger fiduciary liability exposures for health plan fiduciaries in the case of a health plan, professional ethics or licensing investigations or actions against health care providers, insurance companies, administrative service providers or brokers, shareholder or other investor actions, employment or vendor termination or disputes and a host of other indirect legal consequences.

Beyond, and regardless of the technical legal defensibility of its actions under these and other laws, however, the most material and often most intractable consequences of a HIPAA or other data or other privacy breach report or public accusation, investigation, admission also typically are the most inevitable:

The intangible, but critical loss of trust and reputation covered entities and business associates inevitably incur among their patients, participants, business partners, investors and the community; and
The substantial financial expenses and administrative and operational disruptions of investigating, defending the actions of the organization and implementation of post-event corrective actions following a data or other privacy breach, audit, investigation, or charge.

In light of these risks, covered entities business associates and their management should use the experiences of CardioNet and other covered entities or business associates caught violating HIPAA or other privacy and security standards to reduce their HIPAA and other privacy and data security exposures. Management of covered entities and their business associates should take steps to ensure that their organizations policies, practices and procedures currently are up-to-date, appropriately administered and monitored, and properly documented. Management should ensure that their organizations carefully evaluate and strengthen as necessary their current HIPAA risk assessments, policies, practices, record keeping and retention and training in light of these and other reports as they are announced in a well-documented manner. The focus of these activities should be both to maintain compliance and position their organizations efficiently and effectively to respond to and defend their actions against a data breach, investigation, audit or accusation of a HIPAA or other privacy or security rule violation with a minimum of liability, cost and reputational and operational damages.

As the conduct of these activities generally will involve the collection and analysis of legally sensitive matters, most covered entities and business associates will want to involve legal counsel experienced with these matters and utilize appropriate procedures to be able to use and assert attorney-client privilege and other evidentiary privileges to mitigate risks associated with these processes. To help plan for and mitigate foreseeable expenses of investigating, responding to or mitigating a known, suspected or asserted breach or other privacy event, most covered entities and business associates also will want to consider the advisability of tightening privacy and data security standards, notification, cooperation and indemnification protections in contracts between covered entities and business associates, acquiring or expanding data breach or other liability coverage, or other options for mitigating the financial costs of responding to a breach notification, investigation or enforcement action.

About The Author

As a core component of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively throughout her career with health care providers, health plans and insurers, managed care organizations, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, management services organizations, professional associations, medical staffs, accreditation agencies, auditors, technology and other vendors and service providers, and others on legal and operational compliance, risk management and compliance, public policies and regulatory affairs, contracting, payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations and matters including extensive involvement advising, representing and defending public and private hospitals and health care systems; physicians, physician organizations and medical staffs; specialty clinics and pharmacies; skilled nursing, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing and management services 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 to manage and defend compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing and other operations and risk management concerns. A core focus of this work includes work to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; 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; dealings with JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; investigation and defense of private litigation and other federal and state health care industry investigations and enforcement; insurance or other liability management and allocation; process and product development; managed care, physician and other staffing, business associate and other contracting; evaluation, commenting or seeking modification of regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; and a host of other related concerns for public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, employers, and others.

In the course of this work, Ms. Stamer has accumulated extensive experience helping health industry clients manage workforce, medical staff, vendors and suppliers, medical billing, reimbursement, claims and other provider-payer relations, business partners, and their recruitment, performance, discipline, compliance, safety, compensation, benefits, and training, board, medical staff and other governance; compliance and internal controls; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; change management; assess, deter, investigate and address staffing, quality, compliance and other performance; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other data security and breach and other health IT and data; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party reporting, audits, investigations and enforcement; government affairs and public policy; and other compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns.

Author of leading works on HIPAA and other privacy and data security works and the scribe leading the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, her experience includes extensive compliance, risk management and data breach and other crisis event investigation, response and remediation under HIPAA and other data security, privacy and breach laws. Heavily involved in health care and health information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations innovation and a Scribe for ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with OCR for many years who has authored numerous highly-regarded works and training programs on HIPAA and other data security, privacy and use, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive work and leadership on leading edge health care and benefit policy and operational issues including meaningful use and EMR, billing and reimbursement, quality measurement and reimbursement, HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security and data breach and other information privacy and data security rules and many other concerns.

In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, MGMA, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

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 also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and 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.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Ambulatory care, Corporate Compliance, data breach, data security, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Meaningful Use, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, OCR, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy, Psychiatric, Telemedicine, Uncategorized | Tagged: audit, Breach Notification, Data Breach, Data Security, healthcare, HIPAA, medical, OCR, OCR< Privacy, Privacy, Privacy Rule, Security, Security Officer, Security Rule, Technology | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Medical Clinic HIPAA Resolution Agreement Shows Need For Current Business Associate Agreements

April 24, 2017

Health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and business associates must get and keep their business associate (BA) agreements (BAAs) in place, up- to-date, and readily available for inspection in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule, 45 C.F.R. Part 160 and Subparts A and E of Part 164 (Privacy Rule). That’s the clear message physician practices and other health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses (“covered entities”) and their business associates should learn about Privacy Rule compliance from an April 17, 2017 HIPAA Resolution Agreement just announced by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) with the Center for Children’s Digestive Health (CCDH).

While the Resolution Agreement relates to breaches of the BAA requirements of a small pediatric practice, the Center for Children’s Digestive Health (CCDH), all health plans, health care providers and other covered entities and business associates should focus on the adequacy of their BAAs and their BAA recordkeeping. HIPAA compliance surveys reflect deficiencies with the BAA rules are common throughout the industry. These findings and the involvement of BAs in data breaches or other OCR enforcement activities suggest a high probability that many other covered entities and business associates may be sitting ducks for similar sanctions. See e.g., HIPAA Compliance Survey Churns Up Many Business Associate Problems (January 3, 2017).

The HIPAA Business Associate Agreement Requirements

OCR’s announcement of the CCDH Resolution Agreement is the latest in a growing series of HIPAA enforcement actions showing the growing risk covered entities and their business associates face for failing to take appropriate steps to comply with the BAA and other Privacy Rule requirements of HIPAA.

As compliance audits and surveys of covered entities and business associates suggest a high level of noncompliance with the business associate agreement requirements among covered entities and business associates, While the ever-growing list of Resolution Agreements and Civil Monetary Penalties announced by OCR cover a variety of categories of HIPAA violations, the CCDH Resolution Agreement highlights the importance of covered entities and their business associates ensuring that before the BA creates, accesses, receives, discloses, retains or destroys any PHI for the covered entity, a BAA meeting the Privacy Rule requirements is signed and retained for at least the six year period the Privacy Rule requires in a manner easily producible when and if OCR or another agency asks for a copy as part of an investigation or other compliance audit. See Privacy Rule §§ 164.502(e), 164.504(e), 164.532(d) and (e).

The Privacy Rule requires that covered entities and business associates enter into a written and signed business associate agreement that contains the elements specified in Privacy Rule § 164.504(e) before the business associate creates, uses, accesses or discloses PHI of the covered entity. Meanwhile, the Privacy Rule recordkeeping requirements require that covered entities and BAs maintain copies of these BAAs for a minimum of six years.

Violations of the Privacy Rule can carry stiff civil or even criminal penalties Pursuant to amendments to HIPAA enacted as part of the HITECH Act, civil penalties typically do not apply to violations punished under the criminal penalty rules of HIPAA set forth in Social Security Act , 42 U.S.C § 1320d-6 (Section 1177).

Under Section 1177, the criminal enforcement provisions of HIPAA authorize the Justice Department to prosecute a person who knowingly in violation of the Privacy Rule (1) uses or causes to be used a unique health identifier; (2) obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an individual; or (3) discloses individually identifiable health information to another person, punishable by the following criminal sanctions and penalties:

A fine of up to $50,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both;
If the offense is committed under false pretenses, a fine of up to $100,000, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both; and
If the offense is committed with intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm, a fine of up to $250,000, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

In contrast, as amended by the HITECH Act, the civil enforcement provisions of HIPAA empower OCR to impose Civil Monetary Penalties on both covered entities and BAs for violations of any of the requirements of the Privacy or Security Rules. The penalty ranges for civil violations depends upon the circumstances associated with the violations and are subject to upward adjustment for inflation. As most recently adjusted here effective September 6, 2016, the following currently are the progressively increasing Civil Monetary Penalty tiers:

A minimum penalty of $100 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations which the CE or BA “did not know, and by exercising reasonable diligence would not have known” about using “the business care and prudence expected from a person seeking to satisfy a legal requirement under similar circumstances;”
A minimum penalty of $1,000 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations for “reasonable cause” which do not rise to the level of “willful neglect” where “reasonable cause” means the “circumstances that would make it unreasonable for the covered entity, despite the exercise of ordinary business care and prudence, to comply with the violated Privacy Rule requirement;”
A minimum penalty of $10,000 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations attributed to “willful neglect,” defined as “the conscious, intentional failure or reckless indifference to the obligation to comply” with the requirement or prohibition; and
A minimum penalty of $50,000 and a maximum penalty of $1.5 million per violation, for violations attributed to “willful neglect” not remedied within 30 days of the date that the covered entity or BA knew or should have known of the violation.

While criminal enforcement of HIPAA remains relatively rare, a review of the OCR enforcement record in recent years makes clear that civil enforcement of HIPAA and the sanctions imposed is growing. See e.g., $400K HIPAA Settlement Shows Need To Conduct Timely & Appropriate Risk Assessments; $5.5M Memorial HIPAA Resolution Agreement Shows Need To Audit. For more examples, also see here.

CCDH Sanctions For Violation Of HIPAA Business Associate Agreement Rules

The CCDH Resolution Agreement arises from violations of this requirement that OCR says it discovered as a result of a compliance review conducted in response to an OCR investigation of a CCDH business associate, FileFax, Inc. According to OCR, OCR found from the compliance review of CCDH triggered by OCR’s investigation of FileFax that while CCDH began disclosing PHI to Filefax in 2003 and that Filefax stored records containing protected health information (PHI) for CCDH, neither CCDH nor Filefax could produce a signed Business Associate Agreement (BAA) covering their relationship for any period before October 12, 2015.

Based on the resulting investigation, OCR concluded:

CCDH failed to obtain a BAA providing written assurances from Filefax that it would appropriately safeguard the PHI in Filefax’s possession or control satisfactory assurances as required by Privacy Rule §164.502(e); and
Because CCDH failed to secure the required BAA, it violated the Privacy Rule by impermissibly disclosing the PHI of at least 10,728 individuals to Filefax when CCDH transferred the PHI to Filefax without obtaining the requisite BAA from Filefax (Covered Conduct).

In the Resolution Agreement, CCDH agrees to pay HHS $31,000.00 (Resolution Amount) and enter into and comply with a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) in return for OCR’s release of CCDH from liability for “any actions it may have against CCDH under the HIPAA Rules” for the Covered Conduct. The Resolution Agreement only settles the civil monetary penalty and other OCR enforcement liabilities of CCDH with respect to the Covered Conduct. Its provisions expressly state the Resolution Agreement does not affect any exposures of CCDH to CCDH to OCR civil monetary penalties or other enforcement for any HIPAA violations other than the Covered Conduct.

Perhaps even more noteworthy given the HITECH Act’s provisions coordinating the civil and criminal sanctions of HIPAA, while the Resolution Agreement provides no clear indication that the Justice Department might be considering criminally prosecuting CCDH or any other party in relation to the Covered Conduct, the Resolution Agreement also expressly states that its provisions do not affect CCDH’s potential exposure, if any, to criminal prosecution by the Justice Department for a criminal violation of the Privacy Rules under Section 1177 of the Social Security Act.

Implications For Covered Entities & Business Associates

Covered entities and their business associates should heed the CCDH Resolution Agreement as a strong message from OCR to ensure their organizations are complying with HIPAA’s BAA and other requirements. The Resolution Agreement makes clear that the starting point of this compliance effort must be obtaining and maintaining the requisite BAAs for each BA relationship.

To position their organizations to withstand potential investigation by OCR, covered entities and BAs should start by conducting a well-documented audit within the scope of attorney-client privilege both to verify that an appropriate, signed BAA is in place for each BA relationship as well as adequacy of processes for identifying business associate relationships, ensuring that signed BAAs are in effect before BAs access any PHI, and for investigating, reporting and resolving any breaches of the HIPAA Privacy or Security Rules that may arise in the course of operations.

Conducting this audit as soon as possible is particularly important in light of reported findings of widespread compliance concerns. See HIPAA Compliance Survey Churns Up Many Business Associate Problems (January 3, 2017). As the audit process could identify potential violations or other legally sensitive concerns, covered entities and business associates generally will want to arrange for this audit and evaluation to be conducted under the supervision of legal counsel experienced with HIPAA within or pursuant to processes structured with the assistance of legal counsel within the scope of attorney-client privilege.

Beyond confirming all necessary BAAs are in place, covered entities and business associates also generally will want to evaluate the adequacy of BAs’ processes and procedures for maintaining compliance with the Privacy and Security Rules as well as processes and procedures for responding to audits, investigations and complaints, reporting and addressing breaches of electronic and other PHI and other possible compliance concerns under HIPAA and other related laws. In many instances, parties may n wish to revise and strengthen existing BAAs to more specifically define these policies and procedures more specifically as well as indemnification, cyber or other liability coverage requirements and other contractual provisions for allocating potential costs and liabilities arising from breaches, audits, investigations and other expenses associated with the administration of these provisions.

About The Author

As a core component of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively throughout her career with health care providers, health plans and insurers, managed care organizations, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, management services organizations, professional associations, medical staffs, accreditation agencies, auditors, technology and other vendors and service providers, and others on legal and operational compliance, risk management and compliance, public policies and regulatory affairs, contracting, payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations and matters including extensive involvement advising, representing and defending public and private hospitals and health care systems; physicians, physician organizations and medical staffs; specialty clinics and pharmacies; skilled nursing, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing and management services 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 to manage and defend compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing and other operations and risk management concerns. A core focus of this work includes work to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; 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; dealings with JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; investigation and defense of private litigation and other federal and state health care industry investigations and enforcement; insurance or other liability management and allocation; process and product development; managed care, physician and other staffing, business associate and other contracting; evaluation, commenting or seeking modification of regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; and a host of other related concerns for public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, employers, and others.

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 also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and 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.

In connection with this work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers and other plan sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA, FACTA, trade secret and other information privacy and data security rules, including the establishment, documentation, implementation, audit and enforcement of policies, procedures, systems and safeguards, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Corporate Compliance, data breach, data security, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, managed care, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Mental Health, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Psychiatric, Technology, Telemedicine, Uncategorized | Tagged: business associate, clinic, confidentiality, Health Care Provider, Health Plan, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Medical Privacy, Physician, Privacy, Privacy Rule | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

5/15 Post-Acute Care IRF/LTCH/SNF Quality Reporting Programs Submission Deadline Reminder

April 18, 2017

May 15 is the submission deadline to submit data and other reporting materials for the Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) Quality Reporting Program (QRP), Long-Term Care Hospital (LTCH) QRP, and Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF).
For IRFs and LTCHs, data submitted to CMS via the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) data for discharges from July-September (Q3) and from Q4 of CY 2016 are due with this submission deadline.

All data must be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. Pacific Standard Time on May 15, 2017.

The list of measures required for this deadline can be found on the CMS QRP websites:

IRF Quality Reporting Data Submission Deadlines

LTCH Quality Reporting Data Submission Deadlines

Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Quality Reporting Program Measures and Technical Information

CMS recommends providers run applicable validation/output reports prior to each quarterly reporting deadline, in order to ensure that all required data has been submitted..

About The Author
Recognized by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as a “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%/ the highest) and “Top Rated Lawyer,” with special recognition 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 “Health Care,” “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, the author of this update is widely known for her 29 plus years’ of work in health care, health benefit, health policy and regulatory affairs and other health industry concerns as a practicing attorney and management consultant, thought leader, author, public policy advocate and lecturer.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Conditions of Participation, DME, Doctor, Evidence Based Medicine, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, health care reimbursement, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Meaningful Use, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Outcomes Data, Patient Empowerment, Pharmacy, Physician, quality reporting, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HHS OIG Says Texas Paid $6 Million Of Unallowable Medicaid Managed Care Payments

April 13, 2017

The Texas Health and Human Services Commission did not always claim Federal Medicaid reimbursement for managed care payments in compliance with Federal requirements, according to a Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) report.

Sections 2(f)(2)(A) and (B) of the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 defined an improper payment as any payment that should not have been made, including any duplicate payment. OIG audited the Texas Medicaid Managed Care payments to determine if the State of Texas received excessive payments in violation of the Act.

OIG Report A-06-15-00024 states that the OIG audit found of the 3,170 beneficiary matches reviewed by OIG, 3,045 were assigned more than 1 Medicaid identification number. As a result, OIG found the Texas agency made duplicate managed care payments totaling $3,005,5737 to MCOs for the same beneficiary under different Medicaid identification numbers for the same month.

In addition, the Report also states the Texas agency paid MCOs $3,509,450 for beneficiaries under an inactive Medicaid identification number rather than the beneficiaries’ active numbers.

In total, the OIG Report concludes that the Texas agency improperly claimed $6,515,023 ($3,843,339 Federal share) for managed care payments that did not comply with Federal requirements because the State agency did not ensure that beneficiaries were assigned only one Medicaid identification number. Specifically, OIG reported the Texas agency stated that its eligibility staff failed to appropriately research potential beneficiary matches identified during the application process before assigning a Medicaid identification number. In other instances, the State agency explained that it did not identify potential beneficiary matches because insufficient applicant information was available during the application process or that the applicant provided incorrect information. In addition, the State agency stated that eligibility staff made data entry errors that prevented potential beneficiary matches from being identified.

Based on its findings, OIG recommended that the Texas Medicaid Agency

Refund $3,843,339 to the Federal Government,
Identify additional unallowable monthly Medicaid managed care payments made before and after our audit period for the 3,045 beneficiary matches,
Identify any other beneficiaries who are assigned more than one Medicaid identification number and refund any unallowable payments associated with those beneficiaries, and
Strengthen its procedures to determine whether applicants are enrolled in any medical or public assistance benefits throughout the State and ensure that no beneficiary is issued more than one Medicaid identification number.

In its written comments on the draft report regarding the first and second recommendations, the Report states that the Texas Medicaid agency stated that it would research OIG’s findings and refund any unallowable payments. Regarding OIG’s third recommendation, the State agency said that it would identify any additional beneficiaries assigned more than one Medicaid identification number and refund any unallowable payments associated with those beneficiaries. Regarding OIG’s last recommendation, the Texas Medicaid agency stated that it had implemented several strategies to mitigate the creation of more than one Medicaid identification number for a beneficiary, including improved automation and training. In addition, the State agency explained that it has established an eligibility and enrollment workgroup actively engaged in addressing eligibility and enrollment issues, including the proactive analysis and resolution of payment discrepancies stemming from the assignment of more than one Medicaid identification number to a beneficiary.

Leave a Comment » | Health Care, managed care, Medicaid, OIG, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New HHS Webpage Highlights HHS Administrative Actions To Ease ACA Enforcement & Burdens

April 13, 2017

The Department of Health and Human Services recently launched a new web page on HHS.gov highlighting the regulatory and administrative actions the Department is taking to relieve the burden of the current healthcare law and support a patient-centered healthcare system in response to President Trump’s January 20, 2017 Executive Order Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pending Repeal (the “Executive Order”).

In the Executive Order, President Trump among other things:

Confirmed the Trump Administration’s policy to seek the prompt repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), as amended (the “ACA”); and
Announced the Trump Administration’s directivepending the planned ACA repeal to ensure that the law is being efficiently implemented, take all actions consistent with law to minimize the unwarranted economic and regulatory burdens of the ACA, and prepare to afford the States more flexibility and control to create a more free and open healthcare market.

In furtherance of these policies, the Executive Order also directed the Secretary of HHS and and the heads of all other executive departments and agencies (agencies) with authorities and responsibilities under the ACA to the maximum extent permitted by law:

To exercise all authority and discretion available to them to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of the ACA that would impose a fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications;
To exercise all authority and discretion available to them to provide greater flexibility to States and cooperate with them in implementing healthcare programs;
To encourage the development of a free and open market in interstate commerce for the offering of healthcare services and health insurance, with the goal of achieving and preserving maximum options for patients and consumers.

HHS intends to use the new web page to announce new measures as adopted by HHS in furtherance of the Executive Order with a planned emphasis in particular upon actions to

Lower costs and increase choices by providing relief from the burdensome regulations and fostering competition in insurance markets;
Work to ensure a stable transition period;
Offer states greater flexibility of their Medicaid programs to meet the needs of their most vulnerable populations; and
Increase the opportunities for patients to get the care they need when they need it.

According to statements on the new web page, HHS intends to purse these objectives by “going through every page of regulations and guidance related to the Affordable Care Act to determine whether or not they work for patients and whether or not they are making our health care system better.”

Check out and follow these developments here.

About The Author

Throughout her adult life and nearly 30-year legal career, Ms. Stamer’s legal, management and governmental affairs work has focused on helping health industry, health benefit and other organizations and their management use the law, performance and risk management tools and process to manage people, performance, quality, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer supports these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis as well as outsourced operations or special counsel on an interim, special project, or ongoing basis with strategic planning and product and services development and innovation; workforce and operations management, crisis preparedness and response as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations. Her experience encompasses helping health industry clients manage workforce, medical staff, vendors and suppliers, medical billing, reimbursement, claims and other provider-payer relations, business partners, and their recruitment, performance, discipline, compliance, safety, compensation, benefits, and training ;board, medical staff and other governance; compliance and internal controls; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; change management; assess, deter, investigate and address staffing, quality, compliance and other performance; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other data security and breach and other health IT and data; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party reporting, audits, investigations and enforcement; government affairs and public policy; and other compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns.

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

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy and governmental and regulatory affairs experience, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for regulatory and policy work, advocacy and outreach on healthcare, education, aging, disability, savings and retirement, workforce, ethics, and other policies. Throughout her adult life and career, Ms. Stamer has provided thought leadership; policy and program design, statutory and regulatory development design and analysis; drafted legislation, proposed regulations and other guidance, position statements and briefs, comments and other critical policy documents; advised, assisted and represented health care providers, health plans and insurers, employers, professional. and trade associations, community and government leaders and others on health care, health, pension and retirement, workers’ compensation, Social Security and other benefit, insurance and financial services, tax, workforce, aging and disability, immigration, privacy and data security and a host of other international and domestic federal, state and local public policy and regulatory reforms through her involvement and participation in numerous client engagements, founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment, adviser to the National Physicians Congress for Healthcare Policy, leadership involvement with the US-Mexico Chamber of Commerce, the Texas Association of Business, the ABA JCEB, Health Law, RPTE, Tax, Labor, TIPS, International Life Sciences, and other Sections and Committees, SHRM Governmental Affairs Committee and a host of other involvements and activities.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Affordable Care Act, America's Healthy Futures Act, American's Affordable Health Choices Act, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reform, health care reimbursement, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, Health Policy, healthcare, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Labor Law, Laws, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Uncategorized | Tagged: Health Plans, healthcare, healthcare reform, HHS, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection Act, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Trump | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$400K HIPAA Settlement Shows Need To Conduct Timely & Appropriate Risk Assessments

April 12, 2017

Metro Community Provider Network (MCPN), a federally-qualified health center (FQHC), must pay $400,000 and implement a corrective action plan to resolve U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) charges it violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Security Rule by failing to implement a security management process to safeguard electronic protected health information (ePHI). The settlement is the latest reminder to health providers, payers and their business associates to conduct timely risk assessments, implement needed security and otherwise manage HIPAA compliance.

The Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan, like most others before it, resulted from an investigation opened in response to a breach report. On January 27, 2012, MCPN filed a breach report with OCR indicating that a hacker accessed employees’ email accounts and obtained 3,200 individuals’ ePHI through a phishing incident. OCR’s investigation revealed that MCPN took necessary corrective action related to the phishing incident. However, the investigation also revealed that MCPN failed to conduct a risk analysis until mid-February 2012 – well after the hacking incident reported in the breach report.

Prior to the breach incident, MCPN had not conducted a risk analysis to assess the risks and vulnerabilities in its ePHI environment, and, consequently, had not implemented any corresponding risk management plans to address the risks and vulnerabilities identified in a risk analysis.

When MCPN finally conducted a risk analysis, OCR found that risk analysis, as well as all subsequent risk analyses, were insufficient to meet the requirements of the Security Rule.

OCR made a point in announcing the Resolution Agreement of noting it considered MCPN’s status as a FQHC when balancing the significance of the violation with MCPN’s ability to maintain sufficient financial standing to ensure the provision of ongoing patient care. MCPN provides primary medical care, dental care, pharmacies, social work, and behavioral health care services throughout the greater Denver, Colorado metropolitan area to approximately 43,000 patients per year, a large majority of whom have incomes at or below the poverty level. It is likely that OCR would have imposed a much greater settlement amount had the covered entity not been a FQHC serving the poor.

About The Author

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, 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 has worked closely with a diverse range of physicians, hospitals and healthcare systems, DME, Pharma, clinics, health care providers, managed care, insurance and other health care payers, quality assurance, credentialing, technical, research, public and private social and community organizations, and other health industry organizations and their management deal with governance; credentialing, patient relations and care; staffing, peer review, human resources and workforce performance management; outsourcing; internal controls and regulatory compliance; billing and reimbursement; physician, employment, vendor, managed care, government and other contracting; business transactions; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; licensure and accreditation; vendor selection and management; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy and other concerns.
As a core component of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively throughout her career with health care providers, health plans and insurers, managed care organizations, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, management services organizations, professional associations, medical staffs, accreditation agencies, auditors, technology and other vendors and service providers, and others on legal and operational compliance, risk management and compliance, public policies and regulatory affairs, contracting, payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations and matters including extensive involvement advising, representing and defending public and private hospitals and health care systems; physicians, physician organizations and medical staffs; specialty clinics and pharmacies; skilled nursing, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing and management services 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 to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; 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 investigation, enforcement including insurance or other liability management and allocation; process and product development, contracting, deployment and defense; evaluation, commenting or seeking modification of regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement, and a host of other related concerns for public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, employers, and others.and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns.
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 also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and 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.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, ASC, Border Health, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Civil Rights, Conditions of Participation, Consumer Driven Health Care, Corporate Compliance, data breach, data security, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, ERISA, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, managed care, Meaningful Use, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare Advantage, Mental Health, Mental Heatlh, OCR, Patient Empowerment, Peer Review, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Psychiatric, public health, Rural Health Care, Technology, Telemedicine, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Administration, Veterans Health Care, Wellness | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

NLRB Ruling Shows Healthcare Employers Face Uphill Battle Before NLRB

April 6, 2017

Health industry employees continue to face an uphill battle winning unfair labor practice charges brought to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

For instance, in its just-announced March 31, 2017 ruling in Thyme Holdings, LLC, d/b/a Westgate Gardens Care Center, the NLRB majority denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. The majority position rejected the dissenting view of Acting NLRB Chairman Miscimarra. Relying on his dissent in Buchanan Marine, L.P., 363 NLRB No. 58 (2015), Acting NLRB Chairman Miscimarra dissented, arguing the NLRB should grant the Employer’s Request for Review because existed a substantial question about whether the licensed vocational nurses possessed authority to assign employees under Section 2(11).

The Board’s decision Reflects the continuing heavily prolabor bias of the NL RB resulting from the pro labor appointments made by President Obama during his two terms in office. This pro labor stance is unlikely to change quickly as the NLRB is an independent regulatory body who’s Board appointments are made for a fixed term. As a consequence President Trump will not be able to make new appointments to the board until another term expires and less ongoing litigation challenging the appropriateness of appointments made by President Obama ultimately prove successful.

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Long-Term Care Hospitals Should Review Their Latest HHS Quality Data Reports

April 6, 2017

Long-Term Care Hospitals (LTCHs) should review their quality data contained in the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) CASPER system here and if necessary, notify CMS of any requested corrections.

CMS announced the LTCH review and correct reports were available for provider review within the CASPER application on Tuesday, April 4. The announcement of the availability of the reports follows a recent announcement by CMS of a delay in reporting deadlines by the Trump Administration. See CMS Extends Inpatient Rehab & Long Term Care Quality Data Reporting Deadlines.

The just-made available reports contain quality measure information at the facility level based on data submitted to CMS before the applicable quarterly data submission deadlines and display whether the data correction period for a given CY quarter is “open” or “closed.” Issued pursuant to CMS’ ongoing “quality” initiatives, the LTCH quality data reports are intended to allow LTCH providers, as well as CMS and others to obtain and evaluate aggregate performance for the past four full quarters when data is available. Since this data can impact both consumer and public perception, and CMS and other reimbursement as part of the CMS quality initiative, LTCHs should carefully review the data on their facilities and submit any requested corrections as soon as possible.

About The Author

Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers and other plan sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA, FACTA, trade secret and other information privacy and data security rules, including the establishment, documentation, implementation, audit and enforcement of policies, procedures, systems and safeguards, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others. In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, MGMA, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations 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 (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Consumer Driven Health Care, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Hospital, Uncategorized | Tagged: CMS, Health Care, health care quality, long-term care, Medicaid, Medicare | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Warns About Payroll Data Scam

March 28, 2017

Employers, employee benefit plans and their service providers beware! The Internal Revenue Service is warning you to be on the watch for a dangerous email scam currently circulating nationwid that targets targeting employers, including tax exempt entities, universities and schools, government and private-sector businesses.

According to the IRS, the scammer poses as an internal executive requesting employee Forms W-2 and Social Security Number information from company payroll or human resources departments. They may even send an initial “Hi, are you in today” message before the request.

Employers and other businesses who might be targeted by these or other identity theft scams should take steps to ensure that their staff and vendors are appropriately trained to recognize and guard against these activities.

Employers and other parties receiving tax or other sensitive information face legal obligations and liabilities and are a myriad of loss for failing to properly protect the privacy and security of that data.

Additionally, employers, payroll, benefit plans and their service providers that received a suspicious contact like the one reported in the alert should consider reporting the loss and other protective actions. For possible breaches of tax information, the IRS has established a process that employers and payroll service providers can use to quickly report any data losses related to the W-2 scam. See details at Form W-2/SSN Data Theft: Information for Businesses and Payroll Service Providers. If notified in time, the IRS may be able take steps to prevent employees from being victimized by identity thieves filing fraudulent returns in their names. There also is information about how to report receiving the scam email even if you did not fall victim.

Tax professionals who experience a data breach also should quickly report the incident to the IRS by contacting their local stakeholder liaison. See details at Data Theft Information for Tax Professionals.

While employers or other businesses targeted for or victimized by the scams likely will want to report the activity as soon as possible to the IRS, businesses should keep in mind that their responsibilities and liability exposures may not and with making such a report. Federal law imposes specific obligations when personal financial information is breached under a wide range of circumstances. Additionally, most states have identity theft or other laws that require businesses and employers to protect sensitive personal data including payroll information as well as specific reporting requirements when a breach happens. Depending on the nature of the breach and the information compromised employers may have obligations to file reports and take other specific responsive actions. Additionally employers may need to provide notification to liability insurance carriers and other vendors or business partners who may be impacted by the breach or attempted breach.

In order to ensure that all responsibilities are properly recognized and handled, employers are other businesses or plans that may be impacted by a scam or other data breach should contact qualified legal counsel, experience in advising in representing businesses in preventing and responding to these activities, assistance in investigating and documenting their actions in response to the scam or breach,as well as about the advisability of any reporting to federal or state agencies, liability insurers, other business partners and even affected individuals.

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Trump Administration Grants Fiduciary Rule Prohibited Transaction Relief

March 27, 2017

Employer and other employee benefit plan sponsors, fiduciaries and investment and financial service providers and other plan service providers should review their plans for possible transactions that may qualify for excise tax relief under new guidance issued today by the Internal Revenue Service and Department of Labor.

IRS Announcement 2017-04, scheduled for publication in the Federal Register as IRB 2017-16 on April 17, 2017, provides relief from the excise taxes under section 4975 of the Internal Revenue Code and any related reporting requirements to conform to the temporary enforcement policy described by the Department of Labor (DOL) in Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) 2017-01 with respect to the final fiduciary duty rule published in the Federal Register on April 8, 2016 (81 F.R. 20946), entitled “Definition of the Term ‘Fiduciary’; Conflict of Interest Rule – Retirement Investment Advice” and related prohibited transaction exemptions, including the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BIC Exemption), the Class Exemption for Principal Transactions in Certain Assets Between Investment Advice Fiduciaries and Employee Benefit Plans and IRAs (Principal Transactions Exemption), and certain amended prohibited transaction exemptions (collectively, PTEs)

The relief parallels similar relief provided by the Department of Labor to these individuals in a recently released Field Assistance Bulletin.

The new DOL and IRS guidance gives temporary relief to the DOL final regulation defining who is a “fiduciary” of an employee benefit plan under § 3(21)(A)(ii) of ERISA as a result of giving investment advice to a plan or its participants or beneficiaries published April 6, 2016. That final rule, which also applies to the definition of a “fiduciary” of a plan under § 4975(e)(3)(B) of the Code, treats persons who provide investment advice or recommendations for a fee or other compensation with respect to assets of a plan as fiduciaries in a wider array of advice relationships than was true of the prior regulatory definition. Concurrent with its publication of the final rule, the DOL published the PTEs, which provide two new administrative class exemptions from the prohibited transaction provisions of ERISA and the Code, as well as amendments to previously granted exemptions.

The PTEs would allow, subject to appropriate safeguards, certain broker-dealers, insurance agents, and others that act as investment advice fiduciaries, as defined under the final rule, to continue to receive a variety of forms of compensation that would otherwise violate prohibited transaction rules, triggering excise taxes and civil liability.

The final fiduciary duty rule became effective on June 7, 2016, and has an applicability date of April 10, 2017. The PTEs also have an applicability date of April 10, 2017, with a phased implementation period ending on January 1, 2018, for the BIC Exemption and the Principal Transactions Exemption.

President Trump, by Memorandum to the Secretary of Labor dated February 3, 2017, directed the DOL to examine whether the fiduciary duty rule may adversely affect the ability of Americans to gain access to retirement information and financial advice and to prepare an updated economic and legal analysis concerning the likely impact of the rule as part of that examination.

After requesting comments on the final rule on March 3, DOL on March 10, 2017, announced a temporary enforcement policy related to its proposal to extend for 60 days the applicability date of the fiduciary duty rule and the related PTEs. The policy announced in FAB 2017-01 provides that:

If DOL issues a final rule after April 10 implementing a delay in the applicability date of the fiduciary duty rule and related PTEs, the DOL will not initiate an enforcement action because an adviser or financial institution did not satisfy conditions of the rule or the PTEs during the “gap” period in which the rule becomes applicable before a delay is implemented, including a failure to provide retirement investors with disclosures or other documents intended to comply with provisions of the rule or the related PTEs.
If DOL decides not to issue a delay in the fiduciary duty rule and related PTEs, the DOL will not initiate an enforcement action because an adviser or financial institution, as of the April 10 applicability date of the rule, failed to satisfy conditions of the rule or the PTEs, provided that the adviser or financial institution satisfies the applicable conditions of the rule or PTEs, including sending out required disclosures or other documents to retirement investors, within a reasonable period after the publication of a decision not to delay the April 10 applicability date.

Field Assistance Bulletin 2017-01 provides that, to the extent circumstances
surrounding its decision on the proposed delay of the April 10 applicability date give rise to the need for other temporary relief, including retroactive prohibited transaction relief, the DOL will consider taking such additional steps as necessary with respect to the arrangements and transactions covered by the DOL temporary enforcement policy and any subsequent related DOL enforcement guidance. Following the issuance of the FAB, stakeholders have raised concerns about the potential application of excise taxes under Code § 4975 and related reporting obligations in cases covered by the DOL’s temporary enforcement policy.

Because the Code and ERISA contemplate consistency in the enforcement of the prohibited transaction rules by the IRS and the DOL, the Treasury Department and the IRS determined it appropriate to adopt a corresponding temporary excise tax non-applicability policy that conforms with the DOL’s temporary enforcement policy described in FAB 2017-01. Accordingly, ,Because the Code and ERISA contemplate consistency in the enforcement of the prohibited transaction rules by the IRS and the DOL, as further reflected in and facilitated by the statutory Reorganization Plan, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that it is appropriate to adopt a temporary excise tax non-applicability policy that conforms with the DOL’s temporary enforcement policy described in FAB 2017-01. Accordingly, Announcement 2017-04 provides that the IRS will not apply § 4975 and related reporting obligations with respect to any transaction or agreement to which the DOL’s temporary enforcement policy, or other subsequent related enforcement guidance, would apply.

The new collective guidance provides a short reprieve from the obligation to comply with the otherwise applicable of the fiduciary rule pending the new administration to review and reconsideration of that rule. How many will welcome this relief, plan sponsors, fiduciaries and service providers need to keep in mind that it’s provisions are temporary in nature and do not preclude a participant or beneficiary from seeking to establish liability of an individual providing advice or assistance with respect to services under the facts and circumstances in an ERISA lawsuit. Because of the risk of litigation even when the agencies are standing down from enforcement, plan sponsors and fiduciaries and the service providers that assist them with reviewing and making investmentat all times should take care to be able to defend their actions under the fiduciary rules.

Leave a Comment » | Employer, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Plan Investment, Prohibited Transaction | Tagged: ERISA, fiduciary, investment advice, orohibited transactions, tetirement plan | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Read Latest Version of Republican Health Reform Bill

March 21, 2017

Republicans continue to push health reform on the fast track. Read the Manager’s Amendment to H.R. 1628 at https://rules.house.gov/bill/115/hr-1628, which is scheduled to go before the House Rules Committee before a planned House vote Thursday.

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Recent Posts

Archives

About Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Share this blog

Archives

Solutions Law Press Health Care Update