Physician | | Page 2

Congress Sends Bill To Fast Track FDA Ebola Treatment Review & HHS Declaration Gives Ebola Treatment Manufacturers Special Immunity

December 11, 2014

As part of Washington’s late response to the Ebola outbreak crisis, the House and Senate in the past week have passed legislation that if signed by the President as expected will add Ebola and other filoviruses to the list of diseases eligible for fast track review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the FDA Priority Review Voucher Program (Program).

The FDA Program awards vouchers to sponsors of human drug applications that are approved to prevent or treat designated tropical diseases. A voucher entitles the holder to have a future human drug application acted upon by the FDA within six months.

The House on December 3, 2014 and the Senate on December 10, 2014 respectively passed the “FDA Priority Review Voucher Program Act,” (S.B. 2917/H.B. 5729) (the “Bill”) that will amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to add Ebola and other filoviruses to the list of diseases covered by the Program. The Bill also seeks to expedite FDA approval of Ebola and other designated disease treatments by:

Changing the process by which infectious diseases that do not significantly impact developed nations and disproportionately affect poor and marginalized populations can be designated as tropical diseases from rulemaking to order of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Allowing priority review vouchers to be transferred between sponsors of human drug applications any number of times.
Reducing from 365 days to 90 days the advance notice required before submitting a human drug application subject to a priority review voucher.

Congress sent the Bill to the President just one day after Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretary Sylvia M. Burwell today announced a declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act HHS says it hopes will “facilitate the development and availability of experimental Ebola vaccines in hopes of helping combat the current epidemic in West Africa and help prevent future outbreaks there.”

Fighting the disease in Africa has been the primary focus of the Obama Administration’s Ebola response. The December 9, 2014 HHS declaration provides immunity under United States law against legal claims related to the manufacturing, testing, development, distribution, and administration of three vaccines for Ebola virus disease. It does not, generally, provide immunity for a claim brought in a court outside the United States.

For many years, the U.S. has encouraged vaccine development by managing liability and compensation, starting with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The PREP Act was designed to facilitate the development of medical countermeasures to respond to urgent public health needs, including the development of critical vaccines like those to prevent the spread of Ebola. This U.S. declaration under the PREP act is part of a global dialogue to address these issues in the U.S., and other countries where the vaccine is being developed, manufactured and potentially used.

“My strong hope in issuing this PREP Act declaration in the United States is that other nations will also enact appropriate liability protection and compensation legislation,” said Secretary Burwell. “As a global community, we must ensure that legitimate concerns about liability do not hold back the possibility of developing an Ebola vaccine, an essential strategy in our global response to the Ebola epidemic in West Africa.”

HHS hopes the PREP Act declaration will strengthen the incentive to conduct research and spur development, manufacturing, and the potential use of the vaccines in large scale vaccination campaigns in West Africa. The PREP Act declaration provides legal protection under U.S. law for three vaccine candidates:

the GlaxoSmithKline’s Recombinant Replication Deficient Chimpanzee Adenovirus Type 3-Vectored Ebola Zaire Vaccine known as ChAd3-EBO-Z;
the BPSC1001 vaccine, known as rVSV-ZEBOV-GP, made by BioProtection Services Corporation, a subsidiary of Newlink Genetics; and
the Ad26.ZEBOV/MVA-BN-Filo vaccine manufactured by Janssen Corporation, subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson/Bavarian Nordic.

Similar PREP Act declarations have been issued, revised or renewed 14 times since the Act was signed in 2005. Past declarations have covered vaccines used in H5N1 pandemic influenza clinical trials in 2008, products related to the H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, and the development and manufacturing of antitoxins to treat botulism in 2008. For more information about the PREP Act, see here .

The Bill and the HHS PREP Act declaration are the latest efforts to provide what many health care providers see as a long overdue response to the Ebola outbreak in the wake of the diagnosis and subsequent death of an Ebola patient in Dallas lead to his death and the infection of nurses involved in his treatment, and a small number of other Ebola victims in the United States raised national awareness and concern.

For More Information Or Assistance

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

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

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here. For important information concerning this communication click here.

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

Leave a Comment » | Centers For Disease Control, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Disability Discrimination, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Employee Benefits, FDA, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, OIG, Pandemic, Patient Empowerment, Pharmacy, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Prospective Payment, Public Policy, Substance Abuse | Tagged: controlled substance, DEA, DOJ, Drug Testing, drugs, false claims act, Grants, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, Health Plans, HEAT, HIPAA, licensure, Medicaid, Medical Board, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, physical therapy, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

November 18, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

Preparing Privacy Compliance For Emergencies-Ebola Crisis Prompts HHS OCR To Share Guidance On HIPAA Privacy in Emergency Situations

November 11, 2014

The recent US Ebola scare provided an important reminder to health care providers, health insurers and health plans, health care clearinghouses, employers and others of the importance of understanding and preparing to deal with health care privacy and other challenges arising from epidemics and other emergencies. In response to the recent Ebola and other contagious disease outbreaks and just as U.S. health care and other business leaders are working to prepare for the biggest contagious disease time of the year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is reminding health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their business associates that the privacy rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) requiring Covered Entities and their business associates to limit the use, access and disclosure of patient’s protected health information (PHI) continue to apply during emergency situations and help them understand when HIPAA allows them to share PHI in emergency situations in a new notice titled “HIPAA Privacy in Emergency Situations” (Guidance) published November 10, 2014. A business associate of a covered entity (including a business associate that is a subcontractor) also must continue to comply with HIPAA and may only make disclosures permitted by the Privacy Rule on behalf of a Covered Entity or another business associate to the extent authorized by its business associate agreement and consistent with HIPAA’s requirements.

Sharing Patient Information

The Guidance begins by reminding Covered Entities and their business associates that HIPAA’s Privacy Rule continues to apply in emergency situations and requires Covered Entities protect and prohibits their use, access or disclosure of patient’s protected health information except as allowed by HIPAA unless the patient authorizes the Covered Entity to disclose the PHI in accordance with HIPAA’s requirements for authorization set forth in 45 CFR 164.508.

The Guidance then goes on to discuss the following circumstances that the HIPAA Privacy Rule might allow Covered Entities to share PHI without getting patient authorization, subject to the reminder that in many cases, HIPAA will require that the Covered Entity limit the disclosure to the minimum necessary disclosure necessary for the allowable purpose and require other conditions to be fulfilled:

Treatment.

Under the Privacy Rule, covered entities may disclose, without a patient’s authorization, protected health information about the patient as necessary to treat the patient or to treat a different patient. Treatment includes the coordination or management of health care and related services by one or more health care providers and others, consultation between providers, and the referral of patients for treatment. See 45 CFR §§ 164.502(a)(1)(ii), 164.506(c), and the definition of “treatment” at 164.501.

Public Health Activities.

The HIPAA Privacy Rule recognizes the legitimate need for public health authorities and others responsible for ensuring public health and safety to have access to protected health information that is necessary to carry out their public health mission. Therefore, the Privacy Rule permits covered entities to disclose needed protected health information without individual authorization:

To Or At The Direction Of A Public Health Authority.

The HIPAA Privacy Rule allows Covered Entities to share protected health information with Public Health Authorities authorized by law to collect or receive such information for the purpose of preventing or controlling disease, injury or disability like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or a state or local health department. This would include, for example, the reporting of disease or injury; reporting vital events, such as births or deaths; and conducting public health surveillance, investigations, or interventions. A “public health authority” is an agency or authority of the United States government, a State, a territory, a political subdivision of a State or territory, or Indian tribe that is responsible for public health matters as part of its official mandate, as well as a person or entity acting under a grant of authority from, or under a contract with, a public health agency. See 45 CFR §§ 164.501 and 164.512(b)(1)(i). For example, a covered entity may disclose to the CDC protected health information on an ongoing basis as needed to report all prior and prospective cases of patients exposed to or suspected or confirmed to have Ebola virus disease.

The HIPAA Privacy Rule also allows Covered Entities to share information at the direction of a public health authority:

To a foreign government agency that is acting in collaboration with the public health authority. See 45 CFR 164.512(b)(1)(i); and
To persons at risk of contracting or spreading a disease or condition if other law, such as state law, authorizes the covered entity to notify such persons as necessary to prevent or control the spread of the disease or otherwise to carry out public health interventions or investigations. See 45 CFR 164.512(b)(1)(iv)

Disclosures to Family, Friends, and Others Involved in an Individual’s Care and for Notification.

The HIPAA Privacy Rule allows a Covered Entity to share protected health information:

With a patient’s family members, relatives, friends, or other persons identified by the patient as involved in the patient’s care;
About a patient as necessary to identify, locate, and notify family members, guardians, or anyone else responsible for the patient’s care, of the patient’s location, general condition, or death including where necessary to notify family members and others, the police, the press, or the public at large. See 45 CFR 164.510(b).

The Guidance reminds Covered Entities, however, that the Privacy Rule requires the Covered Entity to get verbal permission from individuals or otherwise be able to reasonably infer that the patient does not object, when possible. If the individual is incapacitated or not available, the Guidance states Covered Entities may share information for these purposes if, in their professional judgment, doing so is in the patient’s best interest.

The Guidance also confirms that Covered Entities may share protected health information with disaster relief organizations authorized by law or by their charters to assist in disaster relief efforts like the American Red Cross for the purpose of coordinating the notification of family members or other persons involved in the patient’s care, of the patient’s location, general condition, or death. It is unnecessary to obtain a patient’s permission to share the information in this situation if doing so would interfere with the organization’s ability to respond to the emergency.

Imminent Danger

The Guidance also states that Covered Entities that are health care providers may share patient information with anyone as necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health and safety of a person or the public – consistent with applicable law (such as state statutes, regulations, or case law) and the provider’s standards of ethical conduct. See 45 CFR 164.512(j).

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

The Guidance also reminds Covered Entities of the importance of closely adhering to HIPAA’s rules when responding to information requests from the medial or others not involved in the care of a patient. The Guidance states that when the media or other other party not involved un the patient’s care asks the Covered Entity for information about a particular patient by name, a hospital or other health care facility may release limited facility directory information to acknowledge an individual is a patient at the facility and provide basic information about the patient’s condition in general terms (e.g., critical or stable, deceased, or treated and released) if the patient has not objected to or restricted the release of such information or, if the patient is incapacitated, if the disclosure is believed to be in the best interest of the patient and is consistent with any prior expressed preferences of the patient. See 45 CFR 164.510(a). In general, except in the limited circumstances authorized in the HIPAA Privacy Rule, affirmative reporting to the media or the public at large about an identifiable patient, or the disclosure to the public or media of specific information about treatment of an identifiable patient, such as specific tests, test results or details of a patient’s illness, may not be done without the patient’s written authorization (or the written authorization of a personal representative who is a person legally authorized to make health care decisions for the patient).

Minimum Necessary Restriction Requirement

The Guidance cautions Covered Entities and their business associates that for most disclosures, a Covered Entity generally must make reasonable efforts to limit the information disclosed to that which is the “minimum necessary” to accomplish the purpose. However, this minimum necessary requirement does not apply to disclosures to health care providers for treatment purposes.

Covered Entities may rely on representations from a public health authority or other public official that the requested information is the minimum necessary when making disclosures in response to request from those parties. For example, a covered entity may rely on representations from the CDC that the protected health information requested by the CDC about all patients exposed to or suspected or confirmed to have Ebola virus disease is the minimum necessary for the public health purpose.

Required Internal Restrictions On Use, Access & Disclosure

Internally, covered entities should continue to apply their role-based access policies to limit access to protected health information to only those workforce members who need it to carry out their duties. See 45 CFR §§ 164.502(b), 164.514(d).

Safeguarding Patient Information

Beyond limiting the use, access and disclosure of PHI, the Guidance also reminds Covered Entities and their business associates that even in emergency situations, HIPAA continues to require them to implement reasonable safeguards to protect patient information against intentional or unintentional impermissible uses and disclosures as well as to apply the administrative, physical, and technical safeguards of the HIPAA Security Rule to electronic PHI.

Limited Waiver

Although HHS has yet to take steps to trigger a limited waiver, the Guidance also reminds Covered Entities and their business associates that HHS has the power to do so, the effect of a limited waiver and the circumstances under which HHS could elect to apply a limited waiver to waive sanctions against a hospital for certain specific types of HIPAA violations while the waiver is in effect.

As the Guidance notes, the HIPAA Privacy Rule is not suspended during a public health or other emergency. Rather, the limited waiver rules only operates to permit the Secretary of HHS to waive certain provisions of the Privacy Rule under the Project Bioshield Act of 2004 (PL 108-276) and section 1135(b)(7) of the Social Security Act. The limited waiver only applies when the President declares an emergency or disaster and HHS declares a public health emergency. When and if these requirements are met, HHS may waive sanctions and penalties against a Covered Entity that is a hospital for failing to comply with the following HIPAA Privacy Rule provisions:

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

If the Secretary issues such a waiver, Covered Entities and their business associates should keep in mind the waiver only applies to the list violations and only applies:

For so long as the waiver remains in effect;
In the emergency area and for the emergency period identified in the public health emergency declaration
To hospitals that have instituted a disaster protocol; and
For up to 72 hours from the time the hospital implements its disaster protocol.

When the Presidential or Secretarial declaration terminates, a hospital must then comply with all the requirements of the Privacy Rule for any patient still under its care, even if 72 hours has not elapsed since implementation of its disaster protocol.

Not Necessarily Just About HIPAA

HIPAA is not necessarily the only law that Covered Entities, business associates or others need to consider when deciding what to disclose during an emergency or otherwise. The HIPAA Privacy Rule applies to disclosures made by and Covered Entities, business associates employees, volunteers, and other members of a Covered Entity’s or Business Associate’s workforce. The Privacy Rule does not apply to disclosures made by entities or other persons who are not Covered Entities.

Beyond HIPAA, Covered Entities, their business associates or members of their workforce, employers, and other organizations also need to consider whether other federal or state laws, ethical rules, contracts or policies may restrict use or disclosure, safeguard, or take other steps to protect PHI or other information. For instance, other federal laws, state law, professional ethical rules, contracts, facility policies or procedures, or other restrictions often apply to health care provides, insurers, brokers, employers or others. Employers, health care organizations, insurers and others also need to be concerned about potential discrimination, common law and statutory privacy, retaliation, defamation and other exposures.

Prepare For Compliance Now

The recent experiences of various health care organizations intimately involved in caring for the Ebola patients highlights the importance of anticipating, preparing and conducting training, and having your workforce practice to prepare to deal with the special challenges of dealing with HIPAA and other legal responsibilities in advance of emergency events. When preparing for these events, Covered Entities and business associates need to take into account the need to comply operationally as well as to document and retain records of compliance. They should both should anticipate and prepare to respond to both typical inquiries as well as those from the media, public and others. They also should consider how various types of emergencies could create new privacy or security risks. For instance, in certain emergency situations, recordkeeping or other systems could be disrupted, impacting the ability retain and subsequently produce required documentation. Furthermore, Covered Entities also should prepare to manage the patient and public relations aspects of these events including adverse impressions that often arise when the media or others are disappointed at being denied information because of compliance obligations, from breaches or perceived breaches, or other similar events.

For More Information Or Assistance

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

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

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Centers For Disease Control, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Disability Discrimination, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Employee Benefits, FDA, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, Hospital, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Licensing, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, OIG, Pandemic, Patient Empowerment, Pharmacy, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Prospective Payment, Public Policy, Substance Abuse | Tagged: controlled substance, DEA, DOJ, Drug Testing, drugs, false claims act, Grants, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, Health Plans, HEAT, HIPAA, licensure, Medicaid, Medical Board, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, physical therapy, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Issues Ebola-Related Tax Relief

October 29, 2014

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 29, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

September 19, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

June 26, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health Care Providers Must Act To Manage Risks

In response to the growing emphasis and effectiveness of Federal officials in investigating and taking action against health care providers and organizations, health care providers covered by federal false claims, referral, kickback and other health care fraud laws should consider auditing the adequacy of existing practices, tightening training, oversight and controls on billing and other regulated conduct, reaffirming their commitment to compliance to workforce members and constituents and taking other appropriate steps to help prevent, detect and timely redress health care fraud exposures within their organization and to position their organization to respond and defend against potential investigations or charges.

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

May 28, 2014

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

May 13, 2014

27 Medical Professionals Charged with Health Care Fraud

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The HEAT Strike Force is a joint initiative announced in May 2009 between the Department of Justice and HHS to focus their efforts to prevent and deter fraud and enforce current anti-fraud laws around the country. The joint Department of Justice and HHS Medicare Fraud Strike Force is a multi-agency team of federal, state and local investigators designed to combat Medicare fraud through the use of Medicare data analysis techniques and an increased focus on community policing. Almost 400 law enforcement agents from the FBI, HHS-OIG, multiple Medicaid Fraud Control Units and other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies participated in today’s takedown.

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

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

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

“The Affordable Care Act has given us additional tools to preserve Medicare and protect the tens of millions of Americans who rely on it each day,” said Secretary Sebelius. “By expanding our authority to suspend Medicare payments and reimbursements when fraud is suspected, the law allows us to better preserve the system and save taxpayer dollars. Today we’re sending a strong, clear message to anyone seeking to defraud Medicare: You will get caught and you will pay the price. We will protect a sacred trust and an earned guarantee.”

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

Health Care Providers Must Act To Manage Risks

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

April 4, 2014

Yesterday’s announcement of the exclusion of the operator and manager of the national dental chain, Small Smiles Dental Centers, from exclusion in Medicaid, Medicare and other federal health programs highlights the risks health care providers run by failing to comply with a Corporate Integrity Agreement.

Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, announced April 3, 2014 that the operator and manager of the Small Smiles Dental Centers, CSHM, LLC (formerly known as FORBA Holdings and Church Street Health Management (CSHM), has signed an Exclusion Agreement that bars CSHM from participating in Medicare, Medicaid, and all other Federal health care programs for 5 years. Small Smiles Dental Centers provides services primarily to children on Medicaid.

Mr. Levinson said that this exclusion “makes clear to the provider community that OIG closely monitors our CIAs, critically evaluates providers’ representations and certifications, and will pursue exclusion actions against providers that fail to abide by their integrity agreement obligations.”

According to the announcement, the exclusion is based on CSHM’s alleged material breaches of its Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

CSHM’s corporate predecessor entered into the CIA in 2010, as part of the resolution of a False Claims Act case involving allegations that the company had provided dental services to children on Medicaid that were medically unnecessary or failed to meet professionally recognized standards of care.

On March 7, 2014, OIG issued a Notice of Exclusion to CSHM based upon numerous material breaches of its obligations under the CIA. CSHM failed to report serious quality-of-care reportable events, take corrective action, or make appropriate notifications of those events to the State dental boards as required by the CIA, OIG found. CSHM also failed to implement and maintain key quality-related policies and procedures, comply with internal quality and compliance review requirements, properly maintain a log of compliance disclosures, and perform training as required by the CIA. Finally, CSHM submitted a false certification from its Compliance Officer regarding its compliance with CIA obligations.

This exclusion marks the culmination of a series of alleged failures by CSHM and its corporate predecessors to comply with its CIA. Under the CIA, an independent quality monitor conducted more than 90 site visits and reviews to monitor CSHM’s compliance. Since the 2010 settlement, OIG repeatedly cited CSHM and took actions to address those violations, promote improved compliance, and maintain access to care for an underserved population. These actions included imposing financial penalties and forcing the divestiture of one of the company’s clinics.

Despite these actions, CSHM remained in material breach of its CIA and OIG issued Notices of Intent to Exclude to the company in December 2013 and January 2014. In such cases, providers get the chance to show OIG that they have cured, or are in the process of curing, the material breaches. CSHM represented to OIG that it would cure the material breaches. However, through meetings with CSHM and its Board of Directors and review of its written submissions, OIG determined that CSHM had failed to cure the material breaches and proceeded with the exclusion.

CSHM disputed OIG’s determination that it was in material breach of the CIA. However, under the Exclusion Agreement, CSHM now has waived its objections to these findings.

To minimize immediate disruption of care to the hundreds of thousands of children treated at CSHM clinics and to enable an orderly, controlled shutdown of the company or divestiture of its assets, the exclusion takes effect September 30, 2014. CSHM waived its right to appeal this exclusion in any judicial forum.

Until the exclusion goes into effect on September 30, 2014, an independent monitor will continue to monitor the quality of care being provided to patients at CSHM clinics. CSHM is required to inform patients at least 30 days before closing a clinic. CSHM is also required to keep State Medicaid agencies abreast of developments and provide monthly status reports to OIG. Any divestiture of assets by CSHM must be through bona fide, arms-length transactions to an entity that is not related to or affiliated with CSHM.

Beyond the implications for Small Smiles Dental Centers, the announced exclusion carries important implications for other health care providers. First, of course, the exclusion means that Small Smiles Dental Centers and CSHM as excluded providers are ineligible for hiring by other providers participating in Medicare or other Federal Health Programs. Second, the exclusion also highlights the advisability for other providers covered by CIAs not only to see to comply with their CIA and in the event the OIG questions of the adequacy of that compliance to look for opportunities to work with OIG to rectify alleged concerns as cooperatively as possible unless a high degree of certainty that the provider can prove that OIG’s concerns are unfounded.

For More Information Or Assistance

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 23 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters.

Throughout her career, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies and to respond to health care, human resources, tax, privacy, safety, antitrust, civil rights, and other laws as well as with internal investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns including a number of programs and publications on OCR Civil Rights rules and enforcement actions. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to ask about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, false claims act, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Pharmacy, Physician, Reimbursement, Stark | Tagged: DOJ, Federal Health Program Exclusion, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Home Care, home health, Hospital, Medicare, Medicare Fraud, Minimum Wage, nurses, OIG, Overtime, Physician, Wage and Hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

March 16, 2014

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

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

RSVP here by Noon on March 17, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

OCR Assigns More HIPAA Compliance Work To Health Care Providers

March 5, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

March 4, 2014

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

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

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

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

Recoveries Show Providers Big & Growing

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

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

Among other things, ACA empowered HHS to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Providers Urged To Act To Manage Risks

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

March 4, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her presentations and programs include How to Ensure That Your Organization Is In Compliance With Regulations Governing Discrimination, as well as a wide range of other workshops, programs and publications on discrimination and cultural diversity, as well as a broad range of compliance, operational and risk management, and other health industry matters.

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

OSHA Hospital Tool Signals OSHA Enforcement Risk

January 20, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

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

About Solutions Law Press

Health Insurance Provider Fee Reporting Rules Published

January 20, 2014

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

HHS “Safer Guides” Tool For Safe EHR Implementation Published

January 20, 2014

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

January 17, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

January 12, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

January 2, 2014

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

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

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

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

St. James/Sisters of Charity Settlement

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

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

Abbott Laboratories Settlement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Act To Manage Risks

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

APDerm To Pay $150k To Settle 1st HIPAA Breach Rule Charges

December 27, 2013

A new settlement agreement announced by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) shows health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses and their business associates the perils of failing to properly implement the necessary policies and procedures to comply with the breach notification requirements added to the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) added by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, passed as part of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

APDerm Settlement Overview

Private dermatology practice, Adult & Pediatric Dermatology, P.C., (APDerm) has agreed to pay $150,000 and implement a corrective action plan to settle potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification Rules. The APDerm Settlement marks the first settlement with a covered entity for not having policies and procedures in place to address the breach notification provisions of the HITECH Act.

According to its December 26, 2013 announcement of the settlement, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened an investigation of APDerm upon receiving a report that an unencrypted thumb drive containing the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of approximately 2,200 individuals was stolen from a vehicle of one its staff members. The thumb drive was never recovered. The investigation revealed that APDerm had not conducted an accurate and thorough analysis of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality of ePHI as part of its security management process. Further, APDerm did not fully comply with requirements of the Breach Notification Rule to have in place written policies and procedures and train workforce members.

Enforcement Actions Highlight Growing HIPAA Exposures For Covered Entities

The APDerm settlement provides more evidence of the growing exposures that health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates need to carefully and appropriately manage their HIPAA responsibilities. See HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website. It joins the growing list of settlement or resolution agreements under HIPAA announced by OCR.

The APDerm also is notable both as it settles the first ever charges against a covered entity for failing to adopt required Breach Notification policies and procedures and the relatively most settlement payment required in comparison to other announced settlement. Other settlements have been significantly higher. For instance, OCR required that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee (BCBST) to pay $1.5 million to resolve HIPAA violations charges.

In response to these expanding exposures, all covered entities and their business associates should review critically and carefully the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration OCR’s audit, investigation and enforcement actions, emerging litigation and other enforcement data, their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses, evolving rules and technology, and other developments to determine if additional steps are necessary or advisable. For tips, see here.

For Representation, Training & Other Resources

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

For More Information Or Assistance

Throughout her career, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies and to respond to health care, human resources, tax, privacy, safety, antitrust, civil rights, and other laws as well as with internal investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns including a number of programs and publications on OCR Civil Rights rules and enforcement actions. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

About Solutions Law Press

[1] WHD’s announcement of the planned rule notes that this draft shared December 15 remains subject to change before formally published in the Federal Register

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, false claims act, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Pharmacy, Physician, Reimbursement, Stark | Tagged: Breach Notification, DOJ, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, HIPAA, Home Care, home health, Hospital, Medicare Fraud, Minimum Wage, nurses, OIG, Overtime, Physician, Wage and Hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Reminder To Follow Confidentiality, Due Process When Conducting Peer Revew & Credentialing

December 16, 2013

Hospitals, physicians, health plans and others participating in credentialing and peer review activities need to use care to ensure that they and others involved in these matters understand and comply with the confidentiality requirements of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act and similar state laws.

Hospitals and their medical staffs, physician and other practice groups and other health care organizations commonly require or query the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) established under HCQIA and other sensitive professional and personal when checking the backgrounds and credentials of physicians seeking admission to the medical staff, employment, staff privileges, participation in provider panels or other positions. These health care organizations and providers also frequently may receive inquiries from other health care providers or organizations seeking information about a provider who is applying for admission, employment or other status. Finally, medical staffs, practices and other health care organizations from time to time may conduct credentialing, peer review or other disciplinary activities, or quality assurance reviews that may involve the discussion of information about the conduct, quality, discipline or other credentials and qualifications of current or former physicians at their own or another health care organization.

The investigation or discipline of a physician and certain other information regarding potential performance or credentialing concerns about a physician or other health care worker often by necessity involves the receipt, sharing, or use of sensitive professional or personal information with credentialing, management, medical staff leadership or others involved in the investigation, review or process. When participating in any of these activities, all parties involved in the activities or providing input or participation in their conduct need to understand and be required to comply fully with all applicable confidentiality and privacy requirements. While participants in these processes often may feel great temptation to circumvent formal processes in the name of expediency, to share sensitive insight with special relationships or other inducements to cut corners on confidentiality, the participants in these activities and the organizations conducting the activities should take all necessary steps to ensure that the participants carefully comply with the confidentiality and privacy requirements and only obtain and share information as allowed by and in accordance with the procedures established by these rules.

The background check rules of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) generally require that health care organizations, as well as other businesses, conducting background check or other investigations using third party data or investigators comply with the notice, consent and disclosures of the FCRA. Parties requesting or providing information as part of a credentialing, peer review or other investigation should ensure that the necessary disclosures, notices and consents have been obtained before requesting or sharing information. The fulfillment of these requirements should not be assumed as experience demonstrates that these requirements are commonly overlooked by many health care and other organizations engaged in these activities.

In addition to meeting the FCRA, HCQIA, most state peer review, and medical staff bylaws generally require that credentialing, peer review, quality assurance, and other performance and discipline activities be conducted in accordance with carefully prescribed rules, including specific requirements concerning the protection of the confidentiality of information about a provider. While relatively rare, violation of HCQIA’s confidentiality rules can create significant liability. For instance, after it self-disclosed conduct to the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG), The Queen’s Medical Center (QMC), Hawaii, agreed to pay $150,500 in civil money penalties for allegedly violating the NPDB in 2009.

Beyond the rare sanctions under HCQIA, failing to following the rules of HCQIA and state laws can undermine the defensibility of peer review and credentialing decisions by undermining the ability of participants in the process to rely upon the peer review privilege to protect deliberations and discussions conducted in connection with the peer review and credentialing process from discovery, as well as by providing evidence of bad faith, malice or other bad motivation or acts corrupted the process and determination. Beyond hurting the defensibility of the credentialing and peer review process, violations of confidentiality or other procedures often also give rise to antitrust, defamation, invasion of privacy, tortious interferences, and other damage claims by physicians who feel their ability to practice and reputations have been injured by alleged improper conduct in connection with a peer review, credentialing or quality assurance process.

Beyond avoiding giving rise to claims by the targeted physician or other health care provider, all participants in these processes also need to use care to properly protect any individually identifiable patient information. Records and information about a patient, his medical condition, payment history and other related patient data and information often involved in these activities typically qualifies as personal health information, the use, access, and disclosure of which is restricted by the Privacy Rules of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and state common law, HIPAA and other medical records privacy and confidentiality laws. In addition to the specific requirements of HIPAA and other medical information privacy laws, patient financial information and certain other sensitive information also may be protected by a broad range of federal and state laws protecting personal financial and other sensitive personal information, contractual rights created by privacy policies of the organizations involved or other laws.

Conducting proper credentialing, peer review and quality assurance activities is a critical aspect of the hiring and oversight of physicians and others providing care. As important as these requirements are, health care providers and organizations participating in these activities need to remember that the physicians who are subjected to these requirements also enjoy confidentiality, due process and other legal protections, which can create significant liability when violated. Consequently, health care organizations, physicians and members of management, and other staff and participants should use care to follow the proper procedures to ensure that physician rights to confidentiality, due process and other protections are honored as these activities are conducted.

Using care when discussing these concerns is equally important for a physician or other health care provider who is the subject of an investigation, credentialing, peer review, quality assurance or other activity. While a physician whose personal or professional conduct or credentials are questioned understandably feels a strong urge to defend him or herself through a campaign of communication or other actions, physicians on the receiving end also need to follow the process and restrict their discussions.

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, for additional information or representation.

For More Information Or Assistance

Throughout her career, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies and to respond to health care, human resources, tax, privacy, safety, antitrust, civil rights, and other laws as well as with internal investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns including a number of programs and publications on OCR Civil Rights rules and enforcement actions. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

About Solutions Law Press

[1] WHD’s announcement of the planned rule notes that this draft shared December 15 remains subject to change before formally published in the Federal Register

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, false claims act, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Pharmacy, Physician, Reimbursement, Stark | Tagged: CMS, compensation, DOJ, E-Prescribing, Fee Schedule, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Home Care, home health, medical expense, Medicare, Medicare Fraud, mileage reimbursement, Minimum Wage, nurses, OIG, Overtime, Physician, physician compensation, Physician Fee Schedule, Provider, Wage and Hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CMS Gives Providers Facing Fee Schedule Reduction For Unsuccessful EPrescribing Can Request Review Until 2/28

December 16, 2013

Physicians and other eligible professionals and group practices (who self-nominated for the 2012 and/or 2013 Electronic Prescribing (eRx) group practice reporting option) who were unsuccessful electronic prescribers under the 2012 or 2013 eRx Incentive Program can expect to receive notification from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) plans that CMS will have their 2014 eRx payment adjusted to 98.0% of his or her otherwise applicable Medicare Part B physician fee schedule (PFS) allowed charges amount for the specified services for all charges with dates of service from January 1–December 31, 2014.

Providers receiving these notices may wish to request a review of this planned adjustment under an informal review process for the 2014 eRx payment adjustment implemented by CMS. An informal review may be requested if the eligible professional or group practice receives notification from CMS confirming they will be subject to the 2014 eRx payment adjustment or they did not meet the requirements to avoid the 2014 eRx payment adjustment. CMS will accept nformal review requests through February 28, 2014.

Eligible professionals and group practices should submit their eRx informal review request via email to the informal review mailbox at eRxInformalReview@cms.hhs.gov.

Complete instructions on how to request an informal review are available in the 2014 eRx Payment Adjustment Informal Review Made Simple educational document.

Physicians or other health care providers who have questions about these or other e-prescribing or reimbursement concerns may contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, for additional information or representation.

For More Information Or Assistance

Throughout her career, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies and to respond to health care, human resources, tax, privacy, safety, antitrust, civil rights, and other laws as well as with internal investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns including a number of programs and publications on OCR Civil Rights rules and enforcement actions. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

About Solutions Law Press

[1] WHD’s announcement of the planned rule notes that this draft shared December 15 remains subject to change before formally published in the Federal Register

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, false claims act, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Pharmacy, Physician, Reimbursement, Stark | Tagged: CMS, compensation, DOJ, E-Prescribing, Fee Schedule, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Home Care, home health, medical expense, Medicare, Medicare Fraud, mileage reimbursement, Minimum Wage, nurses, OIG, Overtime, Physician, physician compensation, Physician Fee Schedule, Provider, Wage and Hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Update Mileage Reimbursement Policies, Communications For IRS 2014 Mileage Rates

December 10, 2013

Health care organizations should review the updated optional standard mileage rates and maximum standard automobile costs for purposes of claiming certain automobile allowances during 2014 recently released by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to determine and make the necessary arrangements to communicate and implement any changes in the rates that their business plans to use to reimburse employees and others for mileage. In addition, health care organizations also may want to consider sharing information about the updates to medical expense mileage reimbursement rates and other aspects of those rules in newsletters or other marketing communications to help empower those patients and their families to understand and use the new rates and rules to properly claim deductions that their families qualify for on their 2014 tax return for mileage incurred traveling for medical care.

Notice 2013-80, which is scheduled for official publication in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2013-52 on December 23, 2013, provides the optional 2014 standard mileage rates for taxpayers to use in computing the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business, charitable, medical or moving expense purposes. This notice also provides the amount taxpayers must use in calculating reductions to basis for depreciation taken under the business standard mileage rate, and the maximum standard automobile cost that may be used in computing the allowance under a fixed and variable rate (FAVR) plan. The IRS released an advanced copy of the Notice on December 6, 2013.

Many health care organizations reimburse doctors, management, home health, sales and marketing or other employees and other service providers for mileage and other automobile expenses under policies that use these IRS standard rates to calculate the reimbursement amounts. Reimbursement of employees based on these rate is not required. Because reimbursements in excess of the standard rates can create income tax recordkeeping and reporting challenges for the employer, the employee or both, however, most businesses use standard mileage reimbursement rates set at or below the IRS optional standard rates. Businesses facing financial or other challenges may want to reevaluate whether to continue to reimburse mileage and if so, the rate of reimbursement to use to do so.

When communicating with employees about the businesses’ policies for reimbursing business and moving expense mileage, businesses should take care to ensure that employees understand differences in the mileage reimbursement rates that apply to different categories of expenses. As an added service to employees, many human resources departments also may want to consider alerting employees to consult their tax advisor or take other steps to properly understand and retain documentation of mileage not only for business expense reimbursement, but also medical and moving purposes. The availability of this information can be helpful to empower workers and their families to understand and take proper advantage of rules for deducting these expenses even when the employer or its health plan does not reimburse the employee for the expenses.

In addition to reimbursements for workers, businesses also should consider the potential effects of the adjustments in the IRS optional standard mileage rates on the amounts they may bill their customers for mileage expenses as well as the amount that they should expect that their vendors and service providers may bill the business for mileage expenses under contracts that provide for reimbursement of those expenses. Businesses whose contracts with vendors or customers provide for reimbursement of mileage expenses using rates based on the IRS’ optional standard mileage rates should evaluate the effect of the announced adjustments on those mileage obligations to ensure that mileage expenses are properly anticipated, billed and paid.

Beyond dealing with their own policies for reimbursement and billing for mileage, many health care organizations may want to consider sharing information about the 2014 medical mileage reimbursement rates announced by the IRS with patients and their families. Many patients and their families may qualify to claim deductions for mileage for medical travel under IRS rules, but may not be aware of the adjusted rates or the proper procedures for identifying and documenting their medical mileage. While often negligible for families who are not suffering major illness requiring extensive commuting or travel, patients with chronic or serious medical conditions often can benefit from claiming these deductions properly. Communicating the new rates and other tips for keeping records and claiming the mileage deduction could be a significant and valued service to aid these families.

For More Information Or Assistance

Throughout her career, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies and to respond to health care, human resources, tax, privacy, safety, antitrust, civil rights, and other laws as well as with internal investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns including a number of programs and publications on OCR Civil Rights rules and enforcement actions. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

About Solutions Law Press

[1] WHD’s announcement of the planned rule notes that this draft shared December 15 remains subject to change before formally published in the Federal Register

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, false claims act, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Pharmacy, Physician, Reimbursement, Stark | Tagged: compensation, DOJ, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Home Care, home health, Hospital, medical expense, Medicare Fraud, mileage reimbursement, Minimum Wage, nurses, OIG, Overtime, Physician, physician compensation, Provider, Wage and Hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Doc Sentenced to 15 Years for Health Care Fraud

November 16, 2013

Dr. Anthony Stevens Chase faces a 15 month sentence and must pay $360,293 in restitution after pleading guilty to two health care fraud counts.

On October 21, 2011, Jase pled guilty to two counts of health care fraud before Judge James J. Brady, for involvement in two nearly identical schemes to defraud Medicare.

The first conviction arose from Jase’s association Baton Rouge-based company Lobdale Medical Services, which was owned by Beatrice and Young Anyanwu. As part of the scheme to defraud, Sandra Parkman Thompson and others procured the names and personal information of Medicare beneficiaries in and around the New Orleans area and delivered these names to Jase, who then signed false and fraudulent prescriptions for power wheelchairs and other durable medical equipment for which the Medicare beneficiaries had no medical need. Thompson later delivered the fraudulent prescriptions to the Anyanwus, who submitted claims to Medicare through Lobdale Medical Services for the medically unnecessary equipment. The total billings to Medicare by Lobdale Medicare Services exceeded $1,000,000.

The second conviction arose from JASE’s involvement with a New Orleans-based durable medical equipment company known as Psalms 23-DME, which also paid Thompson to deliver prescriptions for wheelchairs and other durable medical equipment. Jase wrote prescriptions for beneficiaries whom he had never seen and who had no need for the equipment prescribed them. As a result, Psalms 23-DME billed Medicare for claims totaling $230,963 using JASE’s provider number.

Beatrice and Young Anyanwu pled guilty to the health care fraud scheme to defraud Medicare as well as the illegal remuneration conspiracy on August 14, 2012. Theywere sentenced February 1, 2013. Sandra Parkman Thompson was convicted after a jury trial on August 20, 2012. She was sentenced on March 14, 2013.

The investigation of Jase was conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Louisiana Department of Justice. Announcing the sentence, acting U.S. Attorney Walt Green stated, “This case is a great example of how federal and state law enforcement work together on a daily basis to stamp out health care fraud by doctors and others who abuse our health care system in our state.”

For More Information Or Assistance

Throughout her career, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies and to respond to health care, human resources, tax, privacy, safety, antitrust, civil rights, and other laws as well as with internal investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns including a number of programs and publications on OCR Civil Rights rules and enforcement actions. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

About Solutions Law Press

[1] WHD’s announcement of the planned rule notes that this draft shared December 15 remains subject to change before formally published in the Federal Register

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, false claims act, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Pharmacy, Physician, Reimbursement, Stark | Tagged: DOJ, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Home Care, home health, Hospital, Medicare Fraud, Minimum Wage, nurses, OIG, Overtime, Physician, Wage and Hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DOL Extends Minimum Wage, Overtime Protections To Home Care Workers

September 18, 2013

Health care and other parties employing or otherwise engaging the services of home care workers should review and update their policies and practices for scheduling, tracking hours worked and paying these workers to ensure that they comply by January 1, 2015 with a new final rule announced by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division today (September 18, 2013). Today’s announcement of the regulatory changes means employers of home care workers can expect to see costs rise and also will join most other U.S. businesses that must worry about getting caught in minimum wage and overtime enforcement traps.

Under the new final rule, the Labor Department extends the Fair Labor Standards Act’s minimum wage and overtime protections to most of the nation’s direct care workers who provide essential home care assistance to elderly people and people with illnesses, injuries, or disabilities beginning January 1, 2015.

The new final rule generally will require that the approximately two million home care workers such as home health aides, personal care aides, and certified nursing assistants will qualify for minimum wage and overtime. Employers engaging these services also generally will need to keep records and comply with other FLSA requirements with respect to these workers as well.

In anticipation of the rollout of these new protections, the Labor Department is kicking off a public outreach campaign to educate home care workers and their employers about the rule change. The Department will be hosting five public webinars during the month of October and has created a new, dedicated web portal here with fact sheets, FAQs, interactive web tools, and other materials.

The Labor Department’s focus on home workers is an extension of its expanded regulation and enforcement efforts targeting a broad range of health care industry employers. Home care and other health industry employers should act to manage their rising exposures to minimum wage, overtime and other federal and state wage and hour law risks.

New Home Care Worker Rules Effective January 2015

The impending change in the treatment of home care workers is part of a larger commitment by the Obama Administration to both expansion and enforcement of the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime provisions, and a specific program targeting employers in health care and related services industries.

The Obama Administration since taking office has conducted an aggressive campaign seeking to significantly increase the minimum wage under the FLSA and expand other protections. Along with this proactive regulatory agenda, the Obama Administration also specifically is aggressively targeting health care and other caregiver businesses in its enforcement and audit activities. See, e.g. Home health care company in Dallas agrees to pay 80 nurses more than $92,000 in back wages following US Labor Department investigation; US Department of Labor secures nearly $62,000 in back overtime wages for 21 health care employees in Pine Bluff, Ark.; US Department of Labor initiative targeted toward increasing FLSA compliance in New York’s health care industry; US Department of Labor initiative targeted toward residential health care industry in Connecticut and Rhode Island to increase FLSA compliance; Partners HealthCare Systems agrees to pay 700 employees more than $2.7 million in overtime back wages to resolve U.S. Labor Department lawsuit; US Labor Department sues Kentucky home health care provider to obtain more than $512,000 in back wages and damages for 22 employees; and Buffalo, Minn.-based home health care provider agrees to pay more than $150,000 in back wages following US Labor Department investigation.

Violation of wage and hour laws exposes health care and other employers to significant back pay awards, substantial civil penalties and, if the violation is found to be willful, even potential criminal liability. Because states all have their own wage and hour laws, employers may face liability under either or both laws. Coupled with these and other enforcement efforts against health and other caregiver businesses, today’s announcement reflects enforcement risks will continue to rise for employers of home care workers.

In light of the proposed regulatory changes and demonstrated willingness of the Labor Department and private plaintiffs to bring actions against employers violating these rules, health care and others employing home care workers should take well-documented steps to manage their risks. These employers should both confirm the adequacy of their practices under existing rules, as well as evaluate and begin preparing to respond to the proposed changes to these rules. In both cases, employers of home care or other health care workers are encouraged to critically evaluate their classification or workers, both with respect to their status as employees versus contractor or leased employees, as well as their characterization as exempt versus non-exempt for wage and hour law purposes. In addition, given the nature of the scheduled often worked by home care givers, their employers also generally should pay particular attention to the adequacy of practices for recordkeeping.

Enforcement Against Other Industries Shows Risks

Of course, the home care and health care industry are not the only industries that need to worry about FLSA enforcement. The Obama Administration is very aggressive in its enforcement of wage and hour and overtime laws generally. For instance, First Republic Bank recently paid $1,009,643.93 in overtime back wages for 392 First Republic Bank employees in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon after the Labor Department found the San Francisco-based bank wrongly classified the employees as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime and recordkeeping requirements, resulting in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime and record-keeping provisions. The Labor Department announced the settlement resulting in the payment on November 27, 2012. The settlement resulted from an investigation by the Labor Department that found the San Francisco-based bank wrongly classified the employees as exempt from overtime, resulting in violations of the FLSA’s overtime and record-keeping provisions.

The FLSA requires that covered, nonexempt employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 for all hours worked, plus time and one-half their regular rates, including commissions, bonuses and incentive pay, for hours worked beyond 40 per week. Employers also are required to maintain accurate time and payroll records.

While the FLSA provides an exemption from both minimum wage and overtime pay requirements for individuals employed in bona fide executive, administrative, professional and outside sales positions, as well as certain computer employees, job titles do not determine the applicability of this or other FLSA exemptions. In order for an exemption to apply, an employee’s specific job duties and salary must meet all the requirements of the department’s regulations. To qualify for exemption, employees generally must meet certain tests regarding their job duties and be paid on a salary basis at not less than $455 per week.

Investigators found that First Republic Bank failed to consider the FLSA’s criteria that allow certain administrative and professional employees to be exempt from receiving overtime pay. In fact, the employees were entitled to overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rates for hours worked over 40 in a week. Additionally, the bank failed to include bonus payments in nonexempt employees’ regular rates of pay when computing overtime compensation, in violation of the act. Record-keeping violations resulted from the employer’s failure to record the number of hours worked by the misclassified employees.

“It is essential that employers take the time to carefully assess the FLSA classification of their workforce,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis in the Labor Department’s announcement of the settlement. “As this investigation demonstrates, improper classification results in improper wages and causes workers real economic harm.”

FLSA Violations Generally Costly; Enforcement Rising

The enforcement record of the Labor Department confirms that employers that improperly treat workers as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime, minimum wage and recordkeeping requirements run a big risk. The Labor Department and private plaintiffs alike regularly target employers that use aggressive worker classification or other pay practices to avoid paying minimum wage or overtime to workers. Under the Obama Administration, DOL officials have made it a priority to enforce overtime, record keeping, worker classification and other wage and hour law requirements. See e.g., Boston Furs Sued For $1M For Violations Of Fair Labor Standards Act; Record $2.3 Million+ Backpay Order; Minimum Wage, Overtime Risks Highlighted By Labor Department Strike Force Targeting Residential Care & Group Homes; Review & Strengthen Defensibility of Existing Worker Classification Practices In Light of Rising Congressional & Regulatory Scrutiny; 250 New Investigators, Renewed DOL Enforcement Emphasis Signal Rising Wage & Hour Risks For Employers; Quest Diagnostics, Inc. To Pay $688,000 In Overtime Backpay. In an effort to further promote compliance and enforcement of these rules, the Labor Department is using smart phone applications, social media and a host of other new tools to educate and recruit workers in its effort to find and prosecute violators. See, e.g. New Employee Smart Phone App New Tool In Labor Department’s Aggressive Wage & Hour Law Enforcement Campaign Against Restaurant & Other Employers. As a result of these effort, employers violating the FLSA now face heightened risk of enforcement from both the Labor Department and private litigation.

Employers Should Strengthen Practices For Defensibility

To minimize exposure under the FLSA, employers should review and document the defensibility of their existing practices for classifying and compensating workers under existing Federal and state wage and hour laws and take other actions to minimize their potential liability under applicable wages and hour laws. Steps advisable as part of this process include, but are not necessarily limited to:

Audit of each position current classified as exempt to assess its continued sustainability and to develop documentation justifying that characterization;
Audit characterization of workers obtained from staffing, employee leasing, independent contractor and other arrangements and implement contractual and other oversight arrangements to minimize risks that these relationships could create if workers are recharacterized as employed by the employer receiving these services;
Review the characterization of on-call and other time demands placed on employees to confirm that all compensable time is properly identified, tracked, documented, compensated and reported;
Review of existing practices for tracking compensable hours and paying non-exempt employees for compliance with applicable regulations and to identify opportunities to minimize costs and liabilities arising out of the regulatory mandates;
If the audit raises questions about the appropriateness of the classification of an employee as exempt, self-initiation of proper corrective action after consultation with qualified legal counsel;
Review of existing documentation and record keeping practices for hourly employees;
Exploration of available options and alternatives for calculating required wage payments to non-exempt employees; and
Re-engineering of work rules and other practices to minimize costs and liabilities as appropriate in light of the regulations and enforcement exposures.

Because of the potentially significant liability exposure, employers generally will want to consult with qualified legal counsel before starting their risk assessment and assess risks and claims within the scope of attorney-client privilege to help protect the ability to claim attorney-client privilege or other evidentiary protections to help shelter conversations or certain other sensitive risk activities from discovery under the rules of evidence.

For More Information Or Assistance

Throughout her career, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies and to respond to health care, human resources, tax, privacy, safety, antitrust, civil rights, and other laws as well as with internal investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns including a number of programs and publications on OCR Civil Rights rules and enforcement actions. Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

About Solutions Law Press

[1] WHD’s announcement of the planned rule notes that this draft shared December 15 remains subject to change before formally published in the Federal Register

1 Comment | Academic medicine, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, false claims act, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, Money Laundering, OIG, Pharmacy, Physician, Reimbursement, Stark | Tagged: DOJ, Employer, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Home Care, home health, Hospital, Medicare Fraud, Minimum Wage, nurses, OIG, Overtime, Physician, Wage and Hour | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer To Speak 8/20 On “Sex, Drugs & Rock ‘N Role: Managing Physician Conduct In Health Care”

August 15, 2013

NORTH TEXAS HEALTHCARE COMPLIANCE PROFESSIONALS ASSOCIATION

Invites Members and Guests to Our Next Group Luncheon

SEX, DRUGS & ROCK â€˜N ROLE:

MANAGING PHYSICIAN CONDUCT IN HEALTH CARE

Featuring

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, J.D.

Managing Shareholder, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. & NTHCPA Vice-President

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.

Dallas Ft. Worth Hospital Council Offices

250 Decker Drive, Irving, TX 75062-2706

RSVP here by Noon on August 19, 2013

Stay In Touch. Check Out Our New Newsletter, the NTHCPA News, here!

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

The North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association (NTHCPA) invites members and other interested health care compliance professionals faced with these and other challenges to join us on Tuesday, August 20, 2013 from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. for our Study Group Luncheon featuring attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer speaking on â€œSex Drugs & Rock â€˜N Role: Managing Physician Conduct in Health Care.â€

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

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

Registration & Meeting Details

The meeting scheduled from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on August 20, 2013 at the offices of the Dallas Ft Worth Hospital Council, 250 Decker Drive, Irving, TX 75062-2706 will feature a complimentary luncheon for those who timely R.S.V.P. Networking and lunch service will begin at 11:30 a.m.. Our program will begin at Noon.

There is no charge to participate in the meeting. However space is limited and available only on a first come, first serve basis. To ensure your spot and help us to arrange for adequate space and refreshments for this meeting, R.S.V.P. here as soon as possible and no later than Noon on August 19, 2013. Walk in guests will be accommodated on a space-available basis only.

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

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

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Vice-President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Past President of Former Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, combines her health industry operations compliance, and risk management experience with an in-depth knowledge of federal and state healthcare, workforce, governance, internal controls, enforcement and other operational issues to help health industry clients to support legal and operational risk and performance management. Her experience includes advising public and private health care systems, hospitals, managed care organizations and physician management organizations, physicians and physician practice groups, skilled nursing, home health, rehabilitation, pharmacy, and other health industry clients domestically and internationally on a wide range of matters including physician and other staffing, credentialing and peer review, gainsharing and other performance management, compliance, enforcement, and a wide range of other matters matters. A widely recognized health industry thought leader, advocate, author and speaker, Ms. Stamerâ€™s insights are sought out by government and business leaders, and quoted in HealthLeaders, Managed Care Executive, the Wall Street Journal and many other national popular, business and industry publications. She also conducts continuing board, medical education, workforce and other health industry compliance and risk management training for many organizations on a wide range of topics. She also regularly represents health care organizations and other health industry clients before peer review and other disciplinary bodies, federal and state regulators, investigators, Congress and state legislatures, licensing and credentialing and other governmental and regulatory authorities.

About the NTHCPA

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

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

Thanks To Solutions Law Press, Inc.

The NTHCPA thanks Solutions Law Press, Incâ„¢. and its Coalition for Responsible Health Policy and Project COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment, for its generous underwriting support of the August 20, 2013 luncheon.

Solutions Law Press, Inc.â„¢ publishes the Health Care Update and other resources, as well as provides health care risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other briefings, training, policy and operational consulting, and other resources and services on health care, human resources, employee benefits, compensation, data security and privacy, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns. To review or receive the Health Care Update, participate in discussions in the Solutions Law Press, Inc.â„¢ Linkedin Group or for other information about Solutions Law Press, Inc. resources and services, see http://www.SolutionsLawPress.com.

Sponsorship and Other Involvement Opportunities

Would you like to show your support for the NTHCPA by sponsoring the luncheon or hosting a social hour? Want to help plan upcoming meetings? Suggest a speaker or topic? Help with the newsletter or website? Serve on the steering committee or get more involved in other ways? Get more information about membership or involvement with the NTHCPA? Send your inquiry by e-mail here.

This communication may be considered marketing purposes. If you wish to update your e-mail for purposes of or would prefer not to receive future e-mail concerning meetings or other activities of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association or other marketing and promotional mailings from it, please send an email with the word â€œunsubscribeâ€ in its subject heading here.

Please share this invitation with others who might be interested in this topic or other NTHCPA events!

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: Credentialing, Gainsharing, Hospitals, management, Peer Review, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

July 30, 2013

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

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

Health Care Providers & Industry Under Fire For Disability Discrimination

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

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

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

Specifically under the ADA:

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

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

Justice Department ADA Suit Against Brown & PCTC

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Department Barrier-Free Health Care Initiative Successes Growing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Department Plans To Keep Heat On Health Care Providers

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

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

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

Health Industry Disability Discrimination Risks: Beyond The Justice Department

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Disability Discrimination Risks

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

Act To Manage & Mitigate Disability Risks

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

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

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

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

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

July 23, 2013

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

July 8, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

July 6, 2013

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

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

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

Hollywood Pavilion Convictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All four defendants now are awaiting sentencing.

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

These and other convictions provide tangible proof of the growing success of the efforts to zealously investigate and prosecute health fraud by the Justice Department, HHS and other federal officials under their joint the Health Care Fraud Prevention & Enforcement Action Team (HEAT), Medicare Fraud Strike Force and other anti-fraud efforts. The joint Department of Justice-HHS Medicare Fraud Strike Force that lead to these charges and convictions is a multi-agency team of federal, state and local investigators designed to combat Medicare fraud through the use of Medicare data analysis techniques and an increased focus on community policing. Since its announcement, the Strike Force has used the combined resources of agents from the FBI, HHS-Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG), multiple Medicaid Fraud Control Units, and other state and local law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute a rising number of organizations and individuals throughout the industry for alleged violations of Federal health care fraud prohibitions.

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

Empowered by these and other new tools, the Justice Department and other participants in the HEAT and Medicare Fraud Strike Force increasingly are successful in prosecuting and convicting health care providers and others for participating in activities and schemes that violate federal or state health care fraud, referral, anti-kickback or other federal or state laws. See, e.g., North Texas Medical Supply Company Owner Indicted For Health Care Fraud Now Also Charged With Immigration Fraud; Former Houston Texas Physician Gets 70 Month Prison Sentence For Fraud Conviction; Euless Healthcare Corporation Owner, Associates Face Conspiracy And Health Care Fraud Charges For Alleged Submission Of $700,000+ In Fraudulent Health Care Claims; Former Manager 9th Employee Sentenced For Involvement In Maxim Medicare False Claims Action; Detroit-Area Foot Doctor Pleads Guilty to Medicare Fraud Scheme; Merck To Pay $950 Million To Settle Vioxx® Off-Label Marketing Charges. Indeed, since the jury rendered its July 28 verdict, Justice Department officials already have announced several other prosecutorial successes. See, e.g.,Los Angeles Medical Supply Company Owner Sentenced to Five Years in Prison for $8.4 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme; Los Angeles-Area Doctor and Patient Recruiter Plead Guilty to Participating in a Power Wheelchair Scheme That Defrauded Medicare of Over $10.1 Million; Owner of Rehabilitation Facility Pleads Guilty to Mail Fraud Charge; Local Oncology Practice Sentenced To Pay Millions for Medicare Fraud.

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

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

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

Act To Manage Risks

In response to the growing emphasis and effectiveness of Federal officials in wielding these and other tools against health care providers and organizations, health care providers covered by federal false claims, referral, kickback and other health care fraud laws should consider auditing the adequacy of existing practices, tightening training, oversight and controls on billing and other regulated conduct, reaffirming their commitment to compliance to workforce members and constituents and taking other appropriate steps to help prevent, detect and timely redress health care fraud exposures within their organization and to position their organization to respond and defend against potential investigations or charges.

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

Hospital Pay $275K To Settle HIPAA Charges After Sharing PHI With Press, Workforce In Response To Fraud Reports

June 14, 2013

Health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates should confirm their existing policies, practices and training for communicating with the media and others comply with the Privacy Rule requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule in light of a Resolution Agreement with Shasta Regional Medical Center (SRMC) announced by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights today (June 14, 2013).

Under the Resolution Agreement, SRMC agrees to pay $275,000 and implement a comprehensive corrective action plan (CAP) to settle an investigation that resulted when SRMC used and disclosed protected health information (PHI) of a patient to members of the media and its workforce while trying to do damage control against fraud or other allegations of misconduct involving individual patient information or circumstances. The Resolution Agreement shows how efforts to respond to press or media reports, patient or other complaints, physician or employee disputes, high profile accidents, or other events that may involve communications not typically run by privacy officers can create big exposures.

Talking Out Of Turn To Media & Others Violated HIPAA

OCR investigated SRMC after a January 4, 2012 Los Angeles Times article reported two SRMC senior leaders had met with media to discuss medical services provided to a patient. OCR’s investigation indicated that SRMC failed to safeguard the patient’s protected health information (PHI) from impermissible disclosure by intentionally disclosing PHI to multiple media outlets on at least three separate occasions, without a valid written authorization. OCR’s review also revealed senior management at SRMC impermissibly shared details about the patient’s medical condition, diagnosis and treatment in an email to the entire workforce. Further, SRMC failed to sanction its workforce members for impermissibly disclosing the patient’s records pursuant to its internal sanctions policy.

Among other things, the specific misconduct uncovered by HHS’s investigation indicated that from December 13 – 20, 2011, SRMC failed to safeguard the patient’s PHI from any impermissible intentional or unintentional disclosure on multiple occasions in connection with its response to media coverage arising from a Medicare fraud story including:

On December 13, 2011, for instance, OCR reports SRMC’s parent company sent a letter to California Watch, responding to a story about Medicare fraud. The letter described the patient’s medical treatment and provided specifics about her lab results even though SRMC did not have a written authorization from the patient to disclose this information to this news outlet.
On December 16, 2011, two of SRMC’s senior leaders also met with The Record Searchlight’s editor to discuss the patient’s medical record in detail even though SRMC did not have a written authorization from the patient to disclose this information to this newspaper.
On December 20, 2011, SRMC sent a letter to The Los Angeles Times, which contained detailed information about the treatment the patient received when, again, SRMC did not have a written authorization from the patient to disclose this information to this newspaper.

In addition, OCR found SRMC impermissibly used the affected party’s PHI when on December 20, 2011, SRMC sent an email to its entire workforce and medical staff, approximately 785-900 individuals, describing, in detail, the patient’s medical condition, diagnosis and treatment. SRMC did not have a written authorization from the patient to share this information with SRMC’s entire workforce and medical staff.

SRMC Must Correct & Pay $$275K Penalty

Under the Resolution Agreement, SRMC pays a $275,000 monetary settlement and agrees to comply with a CAP for the next year.

The CAP requires SRMC to update its policies and procedures on safeguarding PHI from impermissible uses and disclosures and to train its workforce members. The CAP also requires fifteen other hospitals or medical centers under the same ownership or operational control as SRMC to attest to their understanding of permissible uses and disclosures of PHI, including disclosures to the media.

The Resolution Agreement specifically requires that Shasta Regional Medical Center, among other things:

To update policies to include specific policies about sharing PHI with the media, members of the workforce not involved in an individual patient’s care and others to comply with HIPAA;.
To provide updated policies to OCR for approval;
To provide training documented with certification of all workforce members before allowing them to access PHI;

SRMC is one of several Prime Healthcare Services facilities under common ownership and control. The Resolution Agreement also requires corrective action at these commonly owned facilities including California-based Alvarado Hospital Medical Center in San Diego, Centinela Hospital Medical Center in Inglewood, Chino Valley Medical Center in Chino, Desert Valley Hospital in Victorville, Garden Grove Hospital Medical Center in Garden Grove, La Palma Intercommunity Hospital in La Palma, Paradise Valley Hospital in National City, San Dimas Community Hospital in San Dimas, Shasta Regional Medical Center in Redding, and West Anaheim Medical Center in Anaheim; Saint Mary’s Regional Medical Center in Reno, Nevada; Pennsylvania based Lower Bucks Hospital in Bristol and Roxborough Memorial Hospital in Philadelphia;and Texas-based Dallas Medical Center in Dallas, Harlingen Medical Center in Harlingen, Pampa Regional Medical Center in Pampa. Among other things, the Resolution Agreement requires that for each of these related facilities:

The CEO and Privacy Officer of each facility must give OCR a signed affidavit stating that they understand that the Privacy Rule protects an individual’s PHI is protected by Privacy Rule even if such information is already in the public domain or even though it has been disclosed by the individual; and that disclosures of PHI in response to media inquiries are only permissible pursuant to a signed HIPAA authorization; and
Ensure all members of their respective workforce are informed of this policy.

The Resolution Agreement highlights the difficulty that health care providers and other covered entities often face in properly recognizing and handling PHI in the case of fraud or other disputes. While health care providers have an understandable desire to defend themselves in the media and elsewhere in response to charges of misconduct, today’s settlement shows that improperly sharing PHI of each patient in the process will make matters much worse. It’s important to keep in mind that just omitting to mention the name or other common identifying information may not overcome this concern because information about a patient can be considered individually identifiable and to enjoy protection under HIPAA where the facts and circumstances would allow another person to know or determine who the individual is, even if the specific name, address or more common identifying information is not shared.

Furthermore, the settlement also makes clear that merely because the patient or some other party has shared the same information with the media or others does not excuse the health care provider or other covered entity or business associate from the obligation to keep confidential the PHI unless it gets proper consent or otherwise can show that an exception to HIPAA applies.

While this means that health care providers or other covered entities and business associates may find themselves in the uncomfortable situation of facing unsavory reports and rumors without the ability to respond, the significant civil and even criminal penalties that can arise from violation of HIPAA make it critical that covered entities exercise discipline in responding to avoid sharing PHI improperly.

Enforcement Actions Highlight Growing HIPAA Exposures For Covered Entities

The SRMC Resolution Agreement again shows the growing risk of enforcement that health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates face as OCR continues its audits and enforcement, new Omnibus HIPAA Regulations implementing the HITECH Act amendments to HIPAA and state and federal liability grows.. See e.g., $1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report; HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website.

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

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.

For more information about the PCS Resolution Agreement and HIPAA compliance and risk management tips, see here.

For Representation, Training & Other Resources

Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers, health plans, their business associates and other health industry clients to establish and administer medical privacy and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. She regularly designs and presents HIPAA and other risk management, compliance and other training for health plans, employers, health care providers, professional associations and others.

Scheduled to serve as the scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits agency meeting with OCR, Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. 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, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others.

You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here.

If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to ask about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

You can review other recent publications and resources and additional information about the other experience of Ms. Stamer here. Examples of some recent publications that may be of interest include:

If you need help investigating or responding to a known or suspected compliance, litigation or enforcement or other risk management concern, assistance with reviewing, updating, administering or defending a current or proposed employment, employee benefit, compensation or other management practice, wish to inquire about federal or state regulatory compliance audits, risk management or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms Stamer here or at (469) 767-8872.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Electronic Health Records, Employee Benefits, Employment, Health Care, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, OCR, Physician | Tagged: covered entity, Health Care, Health Plan, HIPAA, Hospital, Media, OCR, PHI, Physician, Press, Privacy, Protected Health Information | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Feds Arrest 36 More California & Florida Providers On Defrauding Medicare Of More than $66 Million

May 16, 2013

The Federal Medicare Fraud Strike Force’s arrest of 36 providers in California and Florida highlights again the continuing and growing zeal of federal health care fraud investigation and enforcement efforts. On May 14, 2013 the Justice Department announced it arrested and charged with Medicare fraud 12 defendants in Los Angeles here and 24 South Florida residents here in fraud enforcement actions on opposite coasts. The charges show the continuing commitment by Federal officials to find an prosecute health care fraud.

Florida Arrests

In South Florida, Federal officials announced charges against 24 South Florida residents for their alleged participation in various schemes to defraud Medicare out of more than $45,299,935 million. The charges in South Florida are part of a nationwide takedown by Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations in eight cities that resulted in charges against 89 individuals, including doctors, nurses and other licensed professionals, for their alleged participation in Medicare fraud schemes involving approximately $223 million in false billings.

Specifically, the South Florida cases announced as part of the nationwide Medicare Fraud Strike Force takedown include the following:

U.S. v. Emilio Amador, Cristobal Gonzalez, Eduims Mora, Jose Contreras, and Elizabeth Monteagudo, where five defendants are charged with conspiracy to receive health care kickbacks and substantive counts of receiving kickbacks in connection with a federal health care program. According to the indictment, the defendants participated in a scheme involving Caring Nurse Home Health, Corp. and Good Quality Home Health, Inc. The defendants allegedly supplied patients to Caring Nurse and/or Good Quality in exchange for kickbacks and bribes. Caring Nurse and Good Quality, in turn, fraudulently billed Medicare for approximately $50 million for home health services that were not provided and/or were not medically necessary. If convicted, the defendants face up to five years for each count.
United States v. Rafael Meana and Janet Farigola, where Defendants Rafael Meana and Janet Farigola are charged with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and several substantive counts of health care fraud. According to the indictment, the defendants participated in a scheme involving Lord’s Medical & Rehab Center, Inc. (Lords), a medical clinic that purportedly provided Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with medical items and services. From February 2010 through July 2011, Meana and Farigola allegedly caused Lord’s to submit approximately $5,497,047 in Medicare claims falsely claiming that health care benefits and services were medically necessary and had been provided to Medicare beneficiaries. As a result of the submission of these claims, Medicare paid Lord’s approximately $2,240,134. If convicted, the defendants face up to ten years in prison for each count of health care fraud.
United States v. Jose Moran, Rafael Meana, and Armando Rubio Cordero, where the defendants are charged with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and several substantive counts of health care fraud. According to the indictment, the defendants participated in a scheme involving Lord Family Services, Inc., a medical clinic that purportedly provided Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with medical items and services. From January 2010 through September 2011, the defendants allegedly caused Lord Family Services, Inc. to submit approximately $1,919,751 in Medicare claims falsely claiming that health care benefits and services were medically necessary and had been provided to Medicare beneficiaries. As a result of the submission of these claims, Medicare paid Lord Family Services, Inc. approximately $976,476. If convicted, the defendants face up to ten years in prison for each count of health care fraud.
United States v. Karina Merino, where defendant Karina U. Merino is charged with a single count of health care fraud in connection with her role in a massive health care fraud scheme involving Ideal Home Health, Inc. (Ideal), which submitted more than $40 million in fraudulent claims to Medicare. The Information alleges that Merino, as a nurse for Ideal, falsified patient visitation logs to reflect that home health care nursing services had been provided to beneficiaries when such services had, in fact, not been provided. Ideal fraudulently billed the Medicare program for approximately $148,000. If convicted of the health care fraud charge, Merino faces up to ten years in prison.
United States v. Delia Y. Chaveco and Arturo Y. Chaveco,
where Delia Y. Chaveco and Arturo Y. Chaveco (the Chavecos) were charged by Information with a single count of conspiracy to receive kickbacks in connection with a federal health care benefit program. This charge stems from the Chavecos’ role in a health care fraud scheme involving Ideal Home Health Inc. (Ideal), an agency that submitted more than $40 million in fraudulent claims to the Medicare program. The Information alleges that Ideal and other Miami-Dade area home health agencies paid the Chavecos kickbacks in exchange for recruiting Medicare beneficiaries that they later used to bill the Medicare program. If convicted, the defendants face up to five years in prison.
United States v. Roberto Marrero, Sandra Fernandez Viera and Enrique Rodriguez, where defendants are charged with conspiracy to commit health care fraud, conspiracy to receive and pay health care kickbacks, and substantive kickback charges. Defendants Roberto Marrero and Sandra Fernandez Viera were the owners and operators of Trust Care Health Services, Inc. (Trust Care), which allegedly paid kickbacks and bribes to patient recruiters and beneficiaries to obtain Medicare beneficiaries, and then submitted more than $20 million in false and fraudulent claims to Medicare, primarily for skilled nursing diabetic care and physical/occupational therapy. Defendant Enrique Rodriguez worked as a patient recruiter for Trust Care, supplying patients in exchange for kickbacks and bribes. A civil injunction is being filed under 18 U.S.C. § 1345 to restrain the defendants’ assets to satisfy restitution in the criminal matter. If convicted, the defendants face up to ten years for the health care fraud charges and five years for each count of the kickback charges.
United States v. Dora Moreira, Ivan Alejo, and Hugo Morales,
where the defendants are charged with conspiracy to commit health care fraud, conspiracy to receive and pay health care kickbacks, substantive kickback charges, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and substantive money laundering. Defendant Dora Moreira was the owner and operator of Anna Nursing Services Corp. (Anna Nursing), which paid kickbacks and bribes to patient recruiters and beneficiaries to obtain Medicare beneficiaries. Anna Nursing was paid more than $7 million for the false claims it submitted to Medicare, which claims were primarily for physical/occupational therapy. Defendant Ivan Alejo worked at Anna Nursing, and was responsible for, among other things, negotiating kickback rates and distributing kickback payments to patient recruiters on behalf of Anna Nursing. Defendant Hugo Morales worked as a physical therapist on behalf of Anna Nursing, and was responsible for, among other things, fabricating patient medical documentation. Defendant Dora Moreira laundered money for the purpose, among others, of concealing the proceeds of the fraud and the payment of kickbacks to recruiters. The Asset Forfeiture Section has obtained restraining orders on the corporate bank account and on real property that is traceable to the fraud. If convicted, the defendants face up to ten years for the health care fraud charges, five years for each count of the kickback charges, and twenty years for the money laundering charges.
United States v. Marina Sanchez Pajon and Miguel Jimenez,
where Federal officials charge defendants with conspiracy to commit health care fraud, conspiracy to receive and pay health care kickbacks, and substantive kickback charges. Defendants Marina Sanchez Pajon and Miguel Jimenez were the owners and operators of Flores Home Health Care Inc. (Flores Home Health), which allegedly paid kickbacks and bribes to patient recruiters and beneficiaries to obtain Medicare beneficiaries. Flores Home Health was paid more than $8 million for the false claims it submitted to Medicare, which claims were primarily for physical/occupational therapy. The Asset Forfeiture Section has obtained seizure warrants and restraining orders on five vehicles and bank accounts containing $160,000. They have also filed lis pendens against four real properties that were purchased with proceeds of the fraud. If convicted, the defendants face up to ten years for the health care fraud charges and five years for each count of the kickback charges.
United States v. Miguel A. Rodriguez, where defendant Miguel A. Rodriguez is charged with three counts of paying kickbacks in connection with a federal health care program. The defendant allegedly paid kickbacks and bribes to induce medical providers to refer Medicare beneficiaries to his medical company for services, including x-rays. If convicted, the defendant faces up to five years in prison for each count of the kickback charges.
United States v. Enrique Alberto Siret Rodriguez, where defendant Enrique Alberto Siret Rodriguez is charged with four counts of health care fraud and two counts of paying kickbacks in connection with a federal health care program. The defendant allegedly paid kickbacks and bribes to a doctor for fraudulent home health care prescriptions that could be used to fraudulently bill Medicare. If convicted, the defendant faces up to 10 years in prison for each health care fraud count and up to five years for each of the kickback counts.
United States v. Alberto Cosme Garcia, where defendant Alberto Cosme Garcia is charged with one count of health care fraud and two counts of paying kickbacks in connection with a federal health care program. The defendant allegedly paid kickbacks and bribes to a doctor for fraudulent home health care prescriptions that could be used to fraudulently bill Medicare. If convicted, the defendant faces up to 10 years in prison for the health care fraud count and up to five years for each of the kickback counts.

Los Angeles Charges

In Los Angeles, the Health Care Fraud Task Force action resulted in 12 arrests including California’s second-largest biller for chiropractic services, a physician’s assistant, and owners of durable medical equipment and ambulance companies, in relation to seven criminal cases that the Justice Department alleges resulted in the cumulative submission of more than $22 million in false billings to Medicare. The charges filed in Los Angeles are part of a nationwide “takedown” by Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations in eight cities that led to charges against 89 individuals for their alleged participation in schemes to collectively submit about $223 million in fraudulent claims to Medicare. See here.

The dozen defendants taken into custody are among 13 people charged in Los Angeles in cases that allege health care fraud. A thirteenth defendant is a fugitive.

Federal officials charge Dr. Houshang Pavehzadeh, of the Sylmar Physician Medical Group, allegedly billed Medicare more than $1.7 million for chiropractic treatments he never performed. During the scheme, which ran from 2005 through 2012, Dr. Pavehzadeh, 40, of Agoura Hills, became the second-largest Medicare biller in California for chiropractic services – even though he was not in the United States when some of the alleged services were performed. In addition to being charged with health care fraud, Pavehzadeh is charged with aggravated identity theft related to Medicare beneficiaries whose information he used to bill Medicare as a part of the scheme. When investigators tried to conduct an audit of Pavehzadeh’s claims, he falsely reported to the Los Angeles Police Department that he had been carjacked and that patient files requested by the auditors had been stolen from his car. Pavehzadeh surrendered this morning, and he is scheduled to be arraigned with other Los Angeles-area defendants this afternoon in the Roybal Federal Building.

Nine defendants affiliated with DME companies were also charged in five separate indictments.

Olufunke Fadojutimi, 41, of Carson, a registered nurse; Ayodeji Temitayo Fatunmbi, 41, formerly of Carson, and now believed to be residing in Nigeria; and Maritza Velazquez, 40, of Las Vegas, were charged with health care fraud. The scheme allegedly revolved around Lutemi Medical Supplies, a DME company Fadojutimi owned and where Fatunmbi and Velazquez worked. According to the indictment in this case, Lutemi billed Medicare more than $8.3 million in claims, primarily for medically unnecessary power wheelchairs. Fadojutimi and Fatunmbi allegedly laundered Medicare funds in order to purchase fraudulent prescriptions for those power wheelchairs and pay illegal kickbacks to recruit Medicare beneficiaries. Fadojutimi was arrested this morning in Los Angeles, while Velazquez was arrested in Las Vegas. Fatunmbi is currently a fugitive being sought by federal authorities.
Susanna Artsruni, 45, of North Hollywood, and Erasmus Kotey, 76, of Montebello, a licensed physician’s assistant, allegedly worked together to commit health care fraud out of a medical clinic on Vermont Avenue where they both worked. Kotey allegedly prescribed medically unnecessary DME, including power wheelchairs, for Medicare beneficiaries. Many of those power wheelchair prescriptions were then used by Artsruni’s DME company, Midvalley Medical Supply, to support fraudulent claims to Medicare. In only four months, the clinic and Midvalley billed Medicare more than $525,000 for these fraudulent claims. Artsruni has previously been convicted of health care fraud and was on pretrial supervision at the time she allegedly laundered some of the proceeds of this fraud. Artsruni was arrested this morning, while Kotey self-surrendered.

Three other DME cases were also charged, alleging fraudulent Medicare billing for medically unnecessary power wheelchairs that were sometimes never even delivered.

In one case, Akinola Afolabi, 53, of Long Beach, the owner of Emmanuel Medical Supply, allegedly submitted more than $2.6 million in in false and fraudulent billing to Medicare.
In another case, Queen Anieze-Smith, 52, of Encino, and Abdul King-Garba, 47, of Westwood, the owners and operators of ITC Medical Supply, allegedly submitted more than $1.8 million in false and fraudulent billing to Medicare.
In the third case, Clement Etim Aghedo, 53, of Fontana, the owner of Ace Medical Supply Company, allegedly submitted more than $1.8 in false and fraudulent claims to Medicare. Afolabi, Anieze-Smith, and King-Garba were all arrested this morning, while Aghedo self-surrendered.

In the seventh case brought as part of today’s takedown, three defendants affiliated with Gardena-based ProMed Medical Transportation, an ambulance company, were charged with submitting more than $5.9 million in false claims to Medicare between 2008 and 2011. ProMed’s owner, Yaroslav Proshak, 45, of Valley Village; general manager Sharetta Wallace, 35, of Inglewood; and office manager and biller Sergey Mumjian, 40, of West Hollywood, submitted claims for medically unnecessary transportation services and then created fake documentation purporting to support those claims. Proshak, Wallace, and Mumjian were arrested this morning.

The charge of health care fraud carries a statutory maximum penalty of 10 years in federal prison. Money laundering carries a potential penalty of 20 years in prison. Aggravated identity theft carries a mandatory two-year prison term.

Aggressive Medicare Health Care Fraud Task Force Enforcement Continues

The announcement of these arrests provides more evidence of the continuing zealousness of Federal health care fraud investment and enforcement efforts targeting heath care providers for health care fraud or other aggressive activities.

The Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations that lead to todays’ charges are part of the continuing activities Health Care Fraud Prevention & Enforcement Action Team (HEAT), a joint initiative announced in May 2009 between the Department of Justice and HHS to focus their efforts to prevent and deter fraud and enforce current anti-fraud laws around the country.

Since March 2007, Federal officials credit Strike Force operations in nine locations with leading to charges against more than 1,500 defendants who collectively have falsely billed the Medicare program for more than $5 billion.

In addition, the HHS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, working in conjunction with the HHS-OIG, are taking steps to increase accountability and decrease the presence of fraudulent providers.

In announcing the Florida charges, HHS Secretary Sebelius commented on the effect of recent legal changes that have given Federal officials new tools in investigating and fighting health care fraud. She said, “The Affordable Care Act has given us additional tools to preserve Medicare and protect the tens of millions of Americans who rely on it each day,” said Secretary Sebelius. “By expanding our authority to suspend Medicare payments and reimbursements when fraud is suspected, the law allows us to better preserve the system and save taxpayer dollars. Today we’re sending a strong, clear message to anyone seeking to defraud Medicare: You will get caught and you will pay the price. We will protect a sacred trust and an earned guarantee.”

Meanwhile, U.S. Attorney General Holder said, “Today’s announcement marks the latest step forward in our comprehensive efforts to combat fraud and abuse in our health-care systems.”

In the face of these criminal efforts and expanding civil and administrative enforcement actions by Federal officials targeting heaelth care fraud and other aggressive billing and referral efforts, health care providers should exercising continuing care to maintain compliance with applicable rules and carefully document these and other compliance and risk management efforts.

For Help With Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

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

About Solutions Law Press

1 Comment | DME, Doctor, false claims act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Plan, Health Plans, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Money Laundering, OIG, Physician, Physician Licensing, Reimbursement | Tagged: false claims act, Health Care Fraud, HEAT, Medical Licensure, Physician, texas medical board | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Hospital’s Disability Discrimination Settlement 4th In 5 Weeks For Justice Department

March 13, 2013

Health Care Providers Must Strengthen Disability Compliance & Risk Management

Health care providers beware! The Obama Administration is targeting health care providers that violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehab Act) and other federal disability discrimination laws.

On March 13, 2013, the Justice Department announced that Glenbeigh Hospital (Glenbeigh) of Rock Creek, Ohio is the fourth health care provider in five weeks to agree to a settlement with the Justice Department resolving disability discrimination charges brought under its Barrier Free Health Care Initiative (Initiative). The Glenbeigh settlement is one of a growing list of disability discrimination settlements and judgements against health care providers brought by the Justice Department, the Department of Health & Human Resources Office of Civil Rights and other federal agencies.

Barrier Free Health Care Initiative Targets Health Care Providers For Disability Discrimination

Launched on the 22^nd anniversary of the ADA in July 2012, the Initiative is a partnership of the Civil Rights Division and 40 U.S. Attorney’s offices across the nation, that targets ADA and other disability discrimination law enforcement efforts on a critical area for individuals with disabilities.

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

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

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

Glenbeigh ADA Disability Discrimination Settlement

According to the Justice Department, Glenbeigh has agreed to a settlement resolving charges it violated the ADA by denying admission to someone because of HIV. The fourth ADA disability discrimination settlement addressing HIV discrimination by a medical provider reached by the Justice Department in six weeks, the settlement requires Glenbeigh to pay $32,500 to the complainant, $5,000 in civil penalties, train its staff on the ADA and develop and implement an anti-discrimination policy.

The settlement resolves Justice Department charges that engaged in prohibited disability discrimination in violation of the ADA by unlawfully refusing to admit someone with HIV into its alcohol treatment program because of the side effects of his HIV medication. Glenbeigh’s alcohol treatment program consists of helping patients through the physical aspects of recovery, as well as providing counseling and incorporating spiritual healing. The Justice Department determined Glenbeigh cannot show that treating the complainant would have posed a direct threat to the health or safety of others.

In announcing the Glenbeigh settlement, the Justice Department warned other providers against illegal disability discrimination against individuals with HIV or other disabilities.

“Ensuring access to medical care for people with HIV requires that those in the medical field make medical decisions that are not based on fears or stereotypes,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “The ADA does not tolerate HIV discrimination and neither will the Justice Department.”

Glenbeigh Settlement Part of Larger Disability Enforcement Trend

Settlements like Glenbeigh’s are growing increasingly common as the Initiative picks up steam. As part of a broader emphasis on the enforcement of disability and other federal discrimination laws by the Obama Administration, Federal agencies are making investigation and prosecution of suspected disability discrimination by health industry and other organizations a priority.

In the past five weeks, the Justice Department announced similar agreements with Woodlawn Family Dentistry, the Castlewood Treatment Center, and the Fayetteville Pain Center to address HIV discrimination. These new settlements add to a growing list of Justice Department disability discrimination enforcement actions against health care providers. Along side a growing list of disability discrimination settlements and prosections, the Justice Department has a website dedicated to disabilities law enforcement, which includes links to settlements, briefs, findings letters, and other materials.

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

Providers Should Act To Manage Patient-Related Disability Discrimination Risks

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

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

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

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

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Electronic Health Records, Employee Benefits, Employment, Health Care, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, OCR, Physician | Tagged: Health Care, HIPAA, OCR, Physician, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR, FTC Enforcement & Guidance Signals Need To Tighten Mobile Device & Application Security

February 23, 2013

Thinking about or using mobile devices and applications in your heath care, health plan, or related operations or struggling to meet the demands of employees, patients, plan members or others to allow use of these tools? Be sure that you’ve taken appropriate steps to design, implement and manage legal responsibilities and risks associated with the development and use of these tools.

While the popularity, accessibility and cost-effectiveness of mobile devices and applications provides a strong incentive for health plans, health care providers, their business associates, workforce members and customers to use mobile devices and applications, the use of these technologies and applications to collect, access, or use personal health care, financial, or other sensitive information presents special challenges and risks. Unfortunately, as the use of these tools proliferates, federal officials are increasingly concerned that the data security protections afforded by many of the devices and applications in use on these highly popular smart phone, tablet and other mobile devices and applications is highly lacking. See FTC Settlement With Mobile Device & App Developer Shows Developers & Businesses Need To Manage Mobile App & Data Security.

As federal regulators and law enforcement responds to growing concerns about cyber security and other risks, heath care, health plan and other businesses, their employees, customers, and other business partners jumping on the mobile device and application bandwagon, health, application bandwagon, and the device and application developers developing and offering these tools must take appropriate steps to manage the personal health, financial, and other sensitive information and data that these tools use, create, access or disclose.

The Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) generally requires that health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their businesses associates safeguard personal health care information or “PHI” and restrict its use, access and disclosure in accordance with the extensive and highly detailed requirements of the Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Regulations of the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR).

OCR’s collection of several multi-million dollar settlements as well as its statements in its recent restated HIPAA regulations and other OCR guidance make clear that OCR views HIPAA as imposing significant responsibilities upon covered entities and their business associates to safeguard and restrict access to PHI on mobile devices and applications. OCR’s Long-Anticipated Omnibus HIPAA Privacy, Security, Breach Notification & Enforcement Rule Tightens Privacy Requirements, Require Action; Breaches resulting from the loss or theft of unencrypted ePHI on mobile or other computer devices or systems has been a common basis of investigation and sanctions since that time, particularly since the Breach Notification rules took effect. OCR Pops Idaho Hospice In 1st HIPAA Breach Settlement Affecting < 500 Patients; Providence To Pay $100000 & Implement Other Safeguards; OCR Hits Alaska Medicaid For $1.7M+ For HIPAA Security Breach; OCR Audit Program Kickoff Further Heats HIPAA Privacy Risks; $1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report; HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website. These actions and statements of OCR provide a clear warning to HIPAA-covered entities and their business associates to expect significant consequences for failing to properly encrypt and safeguard ePHI used, accessed or disclosed on mobile devices and applications.

Of course, HIPAA shouldn’t be the only standard considered when health care providers, health plans or their business partners and vendors design and use mobile applications. In addition to HIPAA’s requirements on PHI, health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, and their business partners also generally can expect that mobile devices and applications used in connection with their operations by patients, customers, employees or others also may use access, collect or disclose credit card, financial and a broad range of other sensitive information required to be protected under federal laws like the Fair & Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) or other Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Rules, state data security, data breach, identity theft or other privacy rules or both. Depending on the nature of the data and the circumstances of the unanticipated use or disclosure, invasion of privacy or other common or statutory laws also may come into play.

With the use of these applications by consumers and business proliferates, Congress, OCR, the FTC, state regulators and others are upping the responsibilities and the liability of businesses that fail to appropriately consider and implement security in their mobile devices and applications. Following on OCR’s restatement of its HIPAA regulations, the Obama Administration’s announcement of new cyber security initiatives, and a plethora of other federal and state regulatory and enforcement actions against businesses for data security missteps, the FTC recently launched a campaign to ensure that companies secure the software and devices mobile device and application providers provide consumers.

Earlier this month, the FTC introduced Mobile App Developers: Start with Security, a new business guide that encourages app developers to aim for reasonable data security.

On June 4, 2013, the FTC also plans to host a public forum on malware and other mobile security threats in order to examine the security of existing and developing mobile technologies and the roles that various members of the mobile ecosystem can play in protecting consumers.

Along side this educational outreach, the FTC also is moving to punish businesses that fail to act responsibly to protect sensitive data. This trend is illustrated by the FTC’s announcement this week of its first settlement with a mobile device manufacturer.

FTC Charges Against HTC America

This week, the FTC announced that mobile device giant HTC American, Inc. will to settle FTC charges that the company failed to take reasonable steps to secure the software it developed for its smart phones and tablet computers and introduced security flaws that placed sensitive information about millions of consumers at risk.

A leading mobile device manufacturer in the United States, HTC America develops and manufactures mobile devices based on the Android, Windows Mobile, and Windows Phone operating systems. HTC America has customized the software on these devices in order to differentiate itself from competitors and to comply with the requirements of mobile network operators.

In its first-ever complaint against a mobile device or application developer, the FTC charged HTC America failed to incorporate and administer appropriate safeguards for personal financial and other sensitive data accessed and used in these applications when designing or customizing the software on its mobile devices. Among other things, the complaint alleged that HTC America failed to provide its engineering staff with adequate security training, failed to review or test the software on its mobile devices for potential security vulnerabilities, failed to follow well-known and commonly accepted secure coding practices, and failed to establish a process for receiving and addressing vulnerability reports from third parties.

To illustrate the consequences of these alleged failures, the FTC’s complaint details several vulnerabilities found on HTC America’s devices, including the insecure implementation of two logging applications – Carrier IQ and HTC Loggers – as well as programming flaws that would allow third-party applications to bypass Android’s permission-based security model.

Due to these vulnerabilities, the FTC charged, millions of HTC devices compromised sensitive device functionality, potentially permitting malicious applications to send text messages, record audio, and even install additional malware onto a consumer’s device, all without the user’s knowledge or consent. The FTC alleged that malware placed on consumers’ devices without their permission could be used to record and transmit information entered into or stored on the device, including, for example, financial account numbers and related access codes or medical information such as text messages received from healthcare providers and calendar entries about doctor’s appointments. In addition, malicious applications could exploit the vulnerabilities on HTC devices to gain unauthorized access to a variety of other sensitive information, such as the user’s geolocation information and the contents of the user’s text messages.

Moreover, the FTC complaint alleged that the user manuals for HTC Android-based devices contained deceptive representations, and that the user interface for the company’s Tell HTC application was also deceptive. In both cases, the security vulnerabilities in HTC Android-based devices undermined consent mechanisms that would have otherwise prevented unauthorized access or transmission of sensitive information.

HTC America Settlement

The settlement not only requires the establishment of a comprehensive security program, but also prohibits HTC America from making any false or misleading statements about the security and privacy of consumers’ data on HTC devices. Under the settlement agreement, HTC American must:

Fix vulnerabilities found in millions of HTC devices;
Establish a comprehensive security program designed to address security risks during the development of HTC devices; and
Undergo independent security assessments every other year for the next 20 years.

HTC America and its network operator partners are also in the process of deploying the security patches required by the settlement to consumers’ devices. Many consumers have already received the required security updates. The FTC is encouraging consumers using HTC America applications to apply the updates as soon as possible.

The FTC Commission vote to accept the consent agreement package containing the proposed consent order for public comment was 3-0-2, with Chairman Jon Leibowitz not participating and Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen recused. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register shortly.

In accordance with FTC procedures, the settlement agreement will be subject to public comment through March 22, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Interested parties can submit comments electronically or in paper form using instructions in the “Invitation To Comment” part of the “Supplementary Information” section. Comments in paper form should be mailed or delivered to: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form near the end of the public comment period be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions.

Act To Manage Mobile Application Device & Security

Given the expanding awareness, expectations and enforcement of OCR, FTC and others, health care, health plan and other industry participants deciding whether and when to use, or allow others to use mobile devices or applications to access data or carry out other activities and the mobile device or other technology developers and providers offering products or services to these organizations must get serious about security.

These and other related activities send a clear message that health care, health insurance mobile device and application users and developers must incorporate and administer appropriate processes and safeguards to protect PHI, personal financial and other sensitive data. In response to these developments, industry mobile device and application developers and the health care, health insurance and other businesses must consider carefully before deploying or allowing others to deploy or use these tools in relation to data within their operations or systems. Before and when using or permitting customers, business partners, employees or others to use tools, these organizations must ensure the adequacy of the design and security safeguards for their devices, software and applications, as well as their disclaimers and associated consumer disclosures and consents. Because of the special legal and operational expectations for these organizations, health care, health insurance and other industry provides must resist pressure to allow the use of these tools unless and until they can verify that these legal and operational requisites are fulfilled.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you found this article of interest, you also may be interested in other recent Solutions Law Press, Inc. articles by Ms. Stamer including:

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Electronic Health Records, Employee Benefits, Employment, Health Care, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, OCR, Physician | Tagged: EHRhealth-care, HIPAA, OCR, Physician, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New Children’s Electronic Health Record Format Shared

February 7, 2013

The Department of Health and Human Service (HHS) hopes a new electronic health record (EHR) format for documenting medical care for children developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)with support from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will help developers create better EHRs for use by health care providers caring for children.

According to AHRQ, the children’s EHR format establishes a” blueprint” for EHRs to better meet the needs of health care providers and pediatric patients by combining what CMS and AHRQ consider the “best-practices in clinical care, information technology, and insights from experts in children’s health.” Developed to address commonly occuring problems in functionality, data elements and other challenges arising when traditional EHRs have been used to document pediatric care, AHRQ hopes the new format will guides EHR developers in understanding the requirements for functionality, data standards, usability and interoperability of an EHR system to more optimally support the provision of health care to children – especially those enrolled in Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) as well as provide guidance for EHR system purchasers and policy makers in assessing functionality of EHRs. For more information or to access the format, see here.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you found this article of interest, you also may be interested in other recent Solutions Law Press, Inc. articles by Ms. Stamer including:

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Electronic Health Records, Employee Benefits, Employment, Health Care, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, OCR, Physician | Tagged: EHRhealth-care, HIPAA, OCR, Physician, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Justice Department Disability Discrimination With Pain Clinic Shows Provider ADA Exposures

January 31, 2013

Hospitals, health care clinics, physicians and other health care providers should heed the settlement announced by the Justice Department announced today (January 31, 2013) with the Fayetteville Pain Center as a reminder of the importance of ensuring that their organizations can prove their care and other operations fulfill the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) nondiscrimination and accommodation requirements.

The public accommodation provisions of the ADA generally require those doctors’ offices, medical clinics, hospitals, and other health care providers, as well as other covered businesses to provide people with disabilities, including those with HIV, equal access to goods, services, and facilities. The ADA also may compel health care providers to adjust their practices for delivering care and/or providing access to facilities to accommodate special needs of disabled individuals under certain circumstances.

The Fayetteville Pain Center settlement arose as part of the Justice Department’s ADA enforcement effort as part of its Barrier-Free Health Care Initiative. The settlement resolves allegations that the Fayetteville Pain Center violated the ADA by refusing to treat a woman because she has HIV.

The complainant, a woman with HIV who was suffering from back pain as a result of a car accident, visited the Fayetteville Pain Center in Fayetteville, North Carolina seeking treatment. According to the complaint, the woman was unable to get medical treatment because the doctor at the Fayetteville Pain Center refused to treat a person with HIV.

Under the settlement, the Fayetteville Pain Center must pay $10,000 to the complainant and $5,000 to the United States in civil penalties, train its staff on the ADA, and develop and implement an anti-discrimination policy. To read more about the Settlement, see here.

Enforcement Exposures Rising

The Justice Department’s Fayetteville Pain Center prosecution and settlement should remind health care providers and other public and private organizations of the need to strengthen their disability discrimination compliance and management practices to defend against rising exposures to actions by the U.S. Department of Justice, Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and other agencies as well as private law suits.

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

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

Most health care and other U.S. businesses fully appreciate the growing disability discrimination exposures in employment but often are less aware of or ready to manage their responsibilities under the ADA public accommodation rules or other laws.

Employment Discrimination Under ADA

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

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

ADA Public Accommodation & Other Federal Discrimination

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

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

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

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

A growing list of ADA and other disability discrimination law enforcement actions against private and public health care and housing providers, state and local governments and other businesses under the Obama Administration make it increasingly critical that health care organizations and other businesses manage disability discrimination risk both in their employment practices and their other business operations.

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

When considering these potential exposures, many private health care organizations mistakenly assume that OCR’s enforcement actions are mostly a problem for state and local government agencies because state and local agencies and service providers frequently in the past have been the target of OCR discrimination charges. As demonstrated by the ADA exposures are high for both public and private providers, however. OCR , the Department of Justice and other federal and state agencies can and do investigate and prosecute a wide variety of public and private physicians, hospitals, insurers and other private health care and other federal program participants.

Consequently, disability discrimination management requires more than employment discrimination management. The Obama Administration also has trumpeted its commitment to the aggressive enforcement of the public accommodation provisions of the ADA and other federal disability discrimination laws. In June, 2012, for instance, President Obama himself made a point of reaffirming his administration’s “commitment to fighting discrimination, and to addressing the needs and concerns of those living with disabilities.”

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

Invest in Prevention To Minimize Liability Risks

For More Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Electronic Health Records, Employee Benefits, Employment, Health Care, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, OCR, Physician | Tagged: Health Care, HIPAA, OCR, Physician, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR’s Long-Anticipated Omnibus HIPAA Privacy, Security, Breach Notification & Enforcement Rule Tightens Privacy Requirements, Require Action

January 17, 2013

Health care providers and their business associates have work to do. Health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates will need to review and update their policies and practices for handling and disclosing personally identifiable health care information (“PHI”) in response to the omnibus restatement of the Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”) Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) of its of its regulations (the “2013 Regulations”) implementing the Privacy and Security Rules under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The Rulemaking announced January 17, 2013 may be viewed here.

Since 2003, HIPAA generally has required that health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (“Covered Entities”) restrict and safeguard individually identifiable health care information (“PHI”) of individuals and afford other protections to individuals that are the subject of that information. The 2013 Regulations published today complete the implementation of changes to HIPAA that Congress enacted when it passed the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act in 2009 as well as make other changes to the prior regulations that OCR found desirable based on its experience administering and enforcing the law over the past decade.

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

Among other things, the 2013 Regulations:

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

Enforcement Risks Signal Neeed To Review & Update Policies & Practices Promptly

The restated rules in the 2013 Regulations make it imperative that Covered Entities review the revised rules carefully and updated their policies, practices, business associate agreements, training and documentation to comply with the updated requirements and other enforcement and liability risks. OCR even prior to the regulations has aggressively investigated and enforced the HIPAA requirements.

The commitment of OCR to enforcement most recently was demonstrated by its recent settlement with Hospice of North Idaho (HONI). On January 2, 2013, OCR announced HONI will pay OCR $50,000 to settle potential HIPAA violations that occurred in connection with the theft of an unencrypted laptop computer containing ePHI. The HONI settlement is the first settlement involving a breach of ePHI affecting fewer than 500 individuals.

While the HONI settlement marks the first settlement on a small breach, this is not the first time OCR has sought sanctions against a covered entity for data breaches involving the loss or theft of unencrypted data on a Laptop, storage device or other computer device. Rather, OCR continues to rollout a growing list of enforcement actions demonstrating the potential risks of HIPAA violations are significant and growing. OCR Hits Alaska Medicaid For $1.7M+ For HIPAA Security Breach; OCR Audit Program Kickoff Further Heats HIPAA Privacy Risks; $1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report; HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website; Providence To Pay $100000 & Implement Other Safeguards.

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

In response to the 2013 Regulations and these expanding exposures, all Covered Entities should review critically and carefully the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration OCR’s investigation and enforcement actions, emerging litigation and other enforcement data; their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses; and other developments to decide if additional steps are necessary or advisable. In response to these expanding exposures, all covered entities and their business associates should review critically and carefully the adequacy of their current HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance policies, monitoring, training, breach notification and other practices taking into consideration OCR’s investigation and enforcement actions, emerging litigation and other enforcement data; their own and reports of other security and privacy breaches and near misses, and other developments to decide if tightening their policies, practices, documentation or training is necessary or advisable.

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

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

If you need help with these or other compliance concerns, wish to ask about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

You can review other recent publications and resources and additional information about the other experience of Ms. Stamer here. Examples of some recent publications that may be of interest include:

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Electronic Health Records, Employee Benefits, Employment, Health Care, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, OCR, Physician | Tagged: Health Care, HIPAA, OCR, Physician, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Justice Department Settles FACE Act Lawsuit Against Abortion Protester

January 12, 2013

The Justice Department yesterday announced it settled claims against protestor David Hamilton for violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinical Entrances (FACE) Act. Under the terms of the agreement Hamilton will pay $2,500 in compensatory damages to the victim of Hamilton’s use of force outside the EMW Women’s Surgical Center in Louisville, Kentucky. The United States and Hamilton came to the agreement at a settlement conference held January 7, 2013, in Louisville. Yesterday, the United States sent Hamilton’s attorney a joint stipulation of dismissal to be filed with the court as soon as Hamilton tenders payment.

The agreement settles a lawsuit the United States filed against Hamilton for his alleged violation of the FACE Act, which makes it unlawful for any person to use force to intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with, or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with, anyone because that person is or has been obtaining or providing reproductive health services. The United States’ complaint alleged that on Jan. 30, 2010, Hamilton, a regular protester, grabbed and pushed a volunteer escort at the center. At the time of the incident, the victim was attempting to escort a patient to the front entrance of the center. The complaint alleged that Hamilton’s actions constituted a use of force that intimidated and interfered with individuals who were attempting to obtain and provide reproductive health services at the center.

The FACE Act limits statutory compensatory damages to $5,000. The $2,500 Hamilton agreed to pay will go to the victim in accordance with the terms of the statute. Hamilton no longer resides in the Louisville area.

The prosecution and settlement reflects the Obama Administration’s interest in protecting and promoting abortion and other reproductive rights. “It is absolutely crucial that those individuals who desire reproductive health services be able to obtain them in an environment that is free of interference, intimidation and fear,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “By continuing to enforce the Freedom of Access to Clinical Entrances Act, we are helping to ensure that they are able to do so.”

For Representation, Training & Other Resources

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

Scheduled to serve as the scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits agency meeting with OCR, Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance frequently appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others. You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Electronic Health Records, Employee Benefits, Employment, Health Care, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, OCR, Physician, Reproductive Rights | Tagged: Health Care, HIPAA, OCR, Physician, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

ONC-Authorized Certification Bodies & Accredited Testing Labs Scope Expansion for 2014 Edition Testing & Certification

January 12, 2013

The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) is pleased to announce that ONC-Authorized Certification Bodies (ACBs) in the ONC HIT Certification Program are now authorized to test and certify EHR products in accordance with the 2014 Edition Standards and Certification Criteria, as outlined in the Health Information Technology: Standards, Implementation Specifications, and Certification Criteria for Electronic Health Record Technology, 2014 Edition; Revisions to the Permanent Certification Program for Health Information Technology Final Rule. For additional information on the Accredited Testing Laboratories (ATLs) scope expansion, see www.nist.gov/nvlap. For more information on the ONC HIT Certification Program, see http://www.healthit.gov/certification.

For Representation, Training & Other Resources

Scheduled to serve as the scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits agency meeting with OCR, Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance frequently appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others. You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, DEA, DME, Doctor, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, Meaningful Use, OCR, Physician | Tagged: Health Care, HIPAA, OCR, Physician, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR Pops Idaho Hospice In 1st HIPAA Breach Settlement Affecting < 500 Patients

January 3, 2013

$50K Settlement Shows Small Breach Reports Carry Enforcement Risk

Properly encrypt and protected electronic protected health information (ePHI) on laptops and in other mediums! That’s the clear message of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in its announcement of its first settlement under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Security Rule involving a breach of ePHI of fewer than 500 individuals by a HIPAA-covered entity, Hospice of North Idaho (HONI).

In announcing the settlement against HONI, OCR sent a clear message that OCR stands ready to penalize these health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and their businesses associates (covered entities) when their failure to properly secure and protect ePHI on laptops or in other systems results in a breach of ePHI even when the breach affects fewer than 500 individuals.

OCR Director Leon Rodriguez reiterated OCR’s expectation that covered entities will properly encrypt ePHI on mobile or other devices in OCR’s announcement of the HONI settlement. “This action sends a strong message to the health care industry that, regardless of size, covered entities must take action and will be held accountable for safeguarding their patients’ health information.” said OCR Director Leon Rodriguez. “Encryption is an easy method for making lost information unusable, unreadable and undecipherable.”

HONI Settlement For Small Breach Notification

On January 2, 2013, OCR announced HONI will pay OCR $50,000 to settle potential HIPAA violations that occurred in connection with the theft of an unencrypted laptop computer containing ePHI. The HONI settlement is the first settlement involving a breach of ePHI affecting fewer than 500 individuals. Read the full HONI Resolution Agreement here.

OCR opened an investigation after HONI reported to HHS that an unencrypted laptop computer containing ePHI of 441 patients had been stolen in June 2010. HONI team members regularly use Laptops containing ePHI their field work. Over the course of the investigation, OCR discovered that HONI had not conducted a risk analysis to safeguard ePHI or have in place policies or procedures to address mobile device security as required by the HIPAA Security Rule. Since the June 2010 theft, HONI has taken extensive additional steps to improve their HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance program.

HIPAA Security & Breach Notification For ePHI

The HONI settlement is notable because it marks the first time OCR has sanctioned a covered entity as a result of an OCR investigation stemming from the covered entity’s report of a breach of unsecured protected health information involving fewer than 500 individuals under new breach notification rules added to HIPAA in 2009.

Under the originally enacted requirements of HIPAA, covered entities and their business associates are required to restrict the use, access and disclosure of protected health information and establish and administer various other policies and safeguards in relation to protected health information. Additionally, the Security Rules require specific encryption and other safeguards when covered entities collect, create, use, access, retain or disclose ePHI.

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act amended HIPAA, among other things to tighten certain HIPAA requirements, expand its provisions to directly apply to business associates, as well as covered entities and to impose specific breach notification requirements. The HITECH Act Breach Notification Rule requires covered entities to report an impermissible use or disclosure of protected health information, or a “breach,” of 500 individuals or more (Large Breach) to the Secretary of HHS and the media within 60 days after the discovery of the breach. Smaller breaches affecting less than 500 individuals (Small Breach) must be reported to the Secretary on an annual basis. Since the Breach Notification Rule took effect, OCR’s announced policy has been to investigate all Large Breaches and such investigations have resulted in settlements or other corrective action in relation to various Large Breaches. Until now, however, OCR has not made public any resolution agreements requiring settlement payments involving any Small Breaches.

Enforcement Actions Highlight Growing HIPAA Exposures For Covered Entities

While the HONI settlement marks the first settlement on a small breach, this is not the first time OCR has sought sanctions against a covered entity for data breaches involving the loss or theft of unencrypted data on a Laptop, storage device or other computer device. In fact, OCR’s first resolution agreement – reached before Congress added the HIPAA Breach Notification Rules to HIPAA – stemmed from such a breach. Providence To Pay $100000 & Implement Other Safeguards. Breaches resulting from the loss or theft of unencrypted ePHI on mobile or other computer devices or systems has been a common basis of investigation and sanctions since that time, particularly since the Breach Notification rules took effect. See, e.g., OCR Hits Alaska Medicaid For $1.7M+ For HIPAA Security Breach. Coupled with statements by OCR about its intolerance, the HONI and other settlements provide a strong warning to covered entities to properly encrypt ePHI on mobile and other devices.

Furthermore, the HONI settlement also adds to growing evidence of the growing exposures that health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates need to carefully and appropriately manage their HIPAA encryption and other Privacy and Security responsibilities. See OCR Audit Program Kickoff Further Heats HIPAA Privacy Risks; $1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report; HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website. Covered entities are urged to heed these warning by strengthening their HIPAA compliance and adopting other suitable safeguards to minimize HIPAA exposures.

In the face of rising enforcement and fines, OCR’s initiation of HIPAA audits and other recent developments, covered entities and their business associates should tighten privacy policies, breach and other monitoring, training and other practices to reduce potential HIPAA exposures in light of recently tightened requirements and new enforcement risks.

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

New OCR HIPAA Mobile Device Educational Tool

While OCR enforcement of HIPAA has significantly increased, compliance and enforcement of the encryption and other Security Rule requirements of HIPAA are a special focus of OCR.

To further promote compliance with the Breach Notification Rule as it relates to ePHI on mobile devices, OCR and the HHS Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) recently kicked off a new educational initiative, Mobile Devices: Know the RISKS. Take the STEPS. PROTECT and SECURE Health Information. The program offers health care providers and organizations practical tips on ways to protect their patients’ health information when using mobile devices such as laptops, tablets, and smartphones. For more information, see here. For more information on HIPAA compliance and risk management tips, see here.

For Representation, Training & Other Resources

Scheduled to serve as the scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits agency meeting with OCR, Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance frequently appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others. You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Electronic Health Records, Employee Benefits, Employment, Health Care, Health IT, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Hospital, OCR, Physician | Tagged: Health Care, HIPAA, OCR, Physician, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$12M+ Settlement Recoveries In 2 Health Care Fraud Whistleblower Claims Shows Providers, Owners, Management & Staff Must Manage Compliance & Risks

November 23, 2012

The Justice Department’s announcement that it will recover more than $11.3 million in False Claims Act recoveries under two settlements announced on November 20, 2012 provides yet another sharp reminder to health care providers of the critical need to carefully manage billing, referral and other practices to manage health care fraud related exposures.

On November 20, the Justice Department announced that Morton Plant Mease Health Care Inc. and its affiliated hospitals (Morton Plant) will pay $10,169,114 to the federal government to resolve allegations that Morton Plant facilities violated the False Claims Act by submitting false claims for services rendered to Medicare patients. The same day, the Justice Department also announced its achievement of a $1.286 million settlement with Harmony Care Hospital, Inc. and its owner Harmony Care Hospice Inc. (Harmony) and Harmony owner and chief executive officer Daniel J. Burton of allegations that the South Carolina-based company submitted false claims to Medicare for patients under care at its hospice facilities.

Both settlements show the role that disgruntled current or former employees or other whistleblowers increasingly play in these and other health care fraud investigations as well as the significant exposures that health care providers, their owners and management risk by engaging or failing to investigate and resolve practices that Federal officials consider to violate the False Claims Act or other federal health care fraud laws.

Morton Plan Settlement

The Morton Plant settlement resolves whistleblower allegations that, between July 1, 2006 and July 31, 2008, Morton Plant improperly billed for certain interventional cardiac and vascular procedures as inpatient care when those services should have been billed as less costly outpatient care or as observational status. See United States ex rel. Randi Ferrare v. Morton Plant Mease Health Care, Inc., No. 08:cv:01689-T-266MSS (M.D. Fl.).

Morton Plant owns and operates, or is affiliated with, Morton Plant Hospital, St. Joseph’s Hospital, Morton Plant North Bay Hospital, St. Anthony’s Hospital, Mease Countryside Hospital and Mease Dunedin Hospital. These hospitals are part of the BayCare Health System in Florida’s Pinellas, Hillsborough and Pasco counties.

The Morton Plant action arose from a qui tam, or whistleblower, lawsuit filed by Randi Ferrare, a former director of Health Management Services at Morton Plant Hospital. Under the False Claims Act, private citizens, known as relators, can bring suit on behalf of the United States and share in any recovery. Ms. Ferrare will receive over $1.8 million as her share of the government’s recovery.

Harmony $1.2 Million Settlement

The Harmony settlement arises out of a qui tam action filed against Harmony Care Hospice Inc. (Harmony) and Harmony owner and chief executive officer Daniel J. Burton have agreed to pay the United States $1,286,999.32 to settle allegations that the South Carolina-based company submitted false claims to Medicare for patients under care at its hospice facilities.

The Harmony settlement resolves a lawsuit filed by former Harmony employees Mona Singletary and Lynda Fulton under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act. The qui tam case is captioned United States ex rel. Singletary, et al. v. Harmony Care Hospice, Inc., et al. , Case No. 2:10-cv-01404-PMD (D.S.C.).

Hospices provide palliative care – medical treatment that concentrates on reducing the severity of a disease’s symptoms – to patients who decide to forego curative care of their illness. Medicare beneficiaries are entitled to hospice care if they have a terminal prognosis of six months or less. The United States alleged that Harmony and Burton knowingly submitted or caused to be submitted false claims for patients who did not have such a prognosis and thus were not eligible for hospice care.

Under the Harmony settlement agreement, its owner and chief executive officer, Burton is individually liable for $200,000 of the settlement amount. The balance of more than $1 million will be paid by Harmony. As part of the settlement, Harmony and Burton will enter into a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Office of Inspector General (OIG), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to address the allegations raised in the qui tam complaint. Together, Singletary and Fulton will receive $244,529.87 as their share of the government’s recovery.

Whistleblowers Key Prosecutorial Tool

The approximately $2 million paid out to whistleblowers under these two settlements drives home the growing importance that current or former employees, officers or other insiders increasingly play in federal and state health care fraud prosecutions. Whistleblowers like Ferrare, Singletary and Fulton are increasingly common and valuable tools that the federal government uses to find and prosecute alleged health care fraud. By promoting the availability of qui tam and other recoveries and broadly advertising their payment, federal prosecutors and investigators are priming the pump for future investigations and prosecution. See also Nextcare Inc. $10 Million False Claims Act Settlement Shows Qui Tam Role In False Claims Act Prosecutions; Oklahoma’s Harmon Memorial Hospital, Physician Pay $1.5M Qui Tam Health Care Fraud Settlement.

The two settlements also show the growing zealousness of the federal war on health care fraud. Both cases were investigated by the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which was announced by Attorney General Eric Holder and Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services in May 2009.

The partnership between the two departments has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation. One of the most powerful tools in that effort is the False Claims Act, which the Justice Department has used to recover more than $10.1 billion since January 2009 in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs. The Justice Department’s total recoveries in False Claims Act cases since January 2009 are over $13.9 billion. Federal officials have and continue to rack up an ever-increasing list of civil settlements and judgments using the False Claims Act and other civil enforcement tools. See e.g., See, e.g., Feds Health Fraud Suit Against Psychiatrists Shows Risks Providers Run From Aggressive Referral or Billing Activities; Recent OIG Audit Reports Provide Insights Where Fraud Audits Likely To Look Next; Hospital Chain HCA Inc. Pays $16.5 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations That Hospital; Pharmas Face New Pressure To Put Patients Before Profits After GlaxoSmithKline Record $3 Billion Health Care Fraud, FDCA Conviction & Settlement.

In addition to the high dollar civil judgments and settlements recovered. by the HEAT Task Force, federal prosecutors also are racking up a growing list of criminal convictions and sentences. See e.g., Health Care Providers Warned To Raise Defenses As Feds Charge 91 Individuals Bilked Medicare For Approximately $430 Million; Detroit-Area Doctor Charged for Role in Alleged $40 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme; Five More Individuals Charged in Detroit for Alleged Roles in $24.7 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme; Baton Rouge Area Women Heading To Prison For DME Health Care Fraud Participation; Houston Man Gets 24 Month Prison Sentence For Anti-Kickback & Other Health Care Fraud Convictions.

For instance, along with the Morton Plan and Harmony civil settlements, the Justice Department also announced on November 20, 2012 that a registered nurse pleaded guilty November 20 and a former program coordinator pleaded guilty November 19 for their roles in a $63 million mental health care fraud scheme involving defunct health provider Health Care Solutions Network Inc. (HCSN) in Miami. See here.

These and other investigations and enforcement actions show that health care providers, their owners, officers, providers and other staff need to take seriously health care reimbursement, referral and other health care fraud and compliance responsibilities, as well as to carefully manage workforces to mitigate exposures to qui tam and other health care fraud exposures.

These activities are intended to send a strong message to health care providers that bill Medicare, Medicaid, or other public or private health care programs that they must be prepared to defend any charges billed to these or other federal health care programs and to defend their other business practices.

Providers Urged To Manage Risks

In response to these threats, health care providers should take steps to strengthen their billing, referral, audit, medical and other recordkeeping and other compliance and risk management practices to enhance their ability to defend or prevent these exposures. While most providers already are moving to tighten these practices, the move to electronic health records, changing rules and other pressures are undermining the sufficiency of these efforts. This investigation shows that beyond mere aggressive billing practices, federal officials also are targeting for enforcement physicians and other health care providers that participate in financial or other referral incentive or reward practices prohibited by the anti-kickback, STARK or other relevant law as well as the filing of Medicare, Medicaid or other health claims for undelivered, unnecessary or otherwise uncovered care or services.

Amid these and other enforcement actions, all health industry players should exercise care to steer clear of activities that might violate federal health care fraud rules as well as consider whether corrective or other action might be necessary to address risks of prior activities that with the benefit of hindsight taking into account the current enforcement climate reflect potential exposures. Providers should carefully monitor existing Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state program reimbursement, terms of participation, reimbursement and other guidance; Office of Inspector General (OIG), Justice Department and other agency audit and enforcement activities and other developments that could impact on the defensibility of their billing, referral or other practices and tighten compliance and oversight as necessary to mitigate risks.

In the case of physicians and certain other professionals, these plans need to include both efforts to manage potential government investigation risks and management of their practices to mitigate peer review or other disciplinary or practice regulatory oversight that often arises when the practices and hospitals start tightening oversight and controls on practices as part of their own efforts to protect their organizations from fraud or other audits.

While almost all health care providers can find room to improve their documentation and tighten other compliance, it also is important that providers also plan for how they will finance the cost of defending an audit or other investigation. Often, the financial cost of defending these and other charges prevents physicians or other health care providers from lodging effective defenses of legitimate practices. To help avoid this quagmire, providers generally will want to explore getting special liability coverage, indemnification or other protection as part of their planning arrangements.

For Help With Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

If you need help providing compliance or other training, reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers and other health industry clients to establish, audit, administer and defend billing, referral, privacy, staffing and recruitment and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. She also regularly designs and presents risk management, compliance and other training for health care providers, professional associations and others. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. Contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Hospital, Hospital, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Medicaid, Medicare, OIG, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Real Estate, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark | Tagged: Anti-Kickback, Health Care Fraud, healthcare provider, Hospital, Physician, referral, STARK | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Feds Health Fraud Suit Against Psychiatrists Shows Risks Providers Run From Aggressive Referral or Billing Activities

November 16, 2012

A civil lawsuit seeking millions of dollars of damages from a Chicago-area psychiatrist provides a clear warning to physicians and other health care providers of the significant potential legal risks that can arise if they improperly receive compensation or other perks for participating in conferences, prescribing treatments or engage in other arrangements that violate federal or state anti-kickback or other health care fraud laws.On November 15, 2012, the Justice Department sued Chicago-area psychiatrist Dr. Michael J. Reinstein in the Northern District of Illinois with receiving illegal kickbacks on at least 50,000 claims and filing at least 140,000 false Medicare and Medicare Claims for antipsychotic medications he prescribed for thousands of mentally ill patients in area nursing homes. The suit against Dr. Michael J. Reinstein seeking triple damages under the False Claims Act, plus a civil penalty of $5,500 to $11,000 for each alleged false claim. See here.

The lawsuit involves Reinstein’s use of clozapine, a rarely-used medication that has serious potential side effects and is generally considered a drug of last resort, particularly for elderly patients. While clozapine has been shown to be effective for treatment-resistant forms of schizophrenia, it is also known to cause numerous side effects, including a potentially deadly decrease in white blood cells, seizures, inflamation of the heart muscle, and increased mortality in elderly patients.

According to the suit, 69-year old Reinstein has provided psychiatric medical services in the Chicago area since 1973. According to the lawsuit, Reinstein routinely prescribed antipsychotic and other psychiatric medications knowing that, because most of his patients are indigent nursing home residents, pharmacies dispensing the medications submitted claims to Medicaid, and beginning in 2006, to Medicare Part D. Reinstein also submitted Medicare and Medicaid claims for pharmacologic management of his patients, knowing that he did not engage in substantive evaluations of his patients’ medical and psychiatric conditions to properly manage their medications. Instead, he allegedly prescribed medications to his patients based on his receipt of kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies.

Prior to August 2003, Reinstein prescribed Clozaril, the trade name for clozapine manufactured by Novartis, and he often had more than 1,000 patients using the medication at any given time. For many years, Novartis paid Reinstein to promote Clozaril, the complaint alleges. After Novartis’ patent for Clozaril expired in 1998, Reinstein resisted pharmacy and drug company efforts to switch his patients to generic clozapine and he continued to be the largest prescriber of Clozaril to Medicaid recipients in the United States. In July 2003, Novartis notified Reinstein that was withdrawing its support for Clozaril, and ended the regular payments that it had been making to Reinstein.

In August 2003, Reinstein finally agreed to switch his patients to generic clozapine manufactured by Miami-based IVAX Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the suit alleges, if IVAX agreed to pay Reinstein $50,000 under a one-year “consulting agreement;” pay his nurse to speak on behalf of clozapine; and fund a clozapine research study by a Reinstein-affiliated entity known as Uptown Research Institute. IVAX agreed and Reinstein immediately began switching his patients from Clozaril to IVAX’s clozapine. He quickly became the largest prescriber of generic clozapine in the country.

“Reinstein’s inordinate prescribing of clozapine stands in stark contrast to its extremely limited use by other physicians,” the lawsuit states. While generally only four percent of schizophrenia patients who were prescribed antipsychotics received clozapine, during the time Reinstein was alegedly accepting kickbacks from IVAX, more than 50 percent of his patients were prescribed IVAX’s clozapine. At one nursing home, Reinstein had 75 percent of the 400 residents on IVAX’s clozapine.

Between 2003 and 2006, the lawsuit charges Reinstein requested, and IVAX provided, additional direct and indirect benefits to Reinstein and his associates, including paying airfare, lodging, meals, and entertainment expenses for a pharmacy owner and spouse, Reinstein’s nurse, his accountant and spouse, his administrative assistant and spouse, and Reinstein and his wife to travel to IVAX’s headquarters in Miami. IVAX also paid for Reinstein and his entourage to go on a fishing trip, a boat cruise, and a golf outing; annual renewal of Reinstein’s $50,000 “consulting agreement;” and tickets to sporting events and free IVAX-manufactured medication for Reinstein’s personal use.

In January 2006, IVAX became a subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd., an Israeli company. About seven months before the merger, Reinstein began moving large numbers of his patients to a form of clozapine manufactured by a competitor of IVAX/Teva. In April 2006, Teva paid all expenses for Reinstein and his entourage to travel to Miami, including a $2,300 boat cruise, and at least two dinners costing more than $1,700 each. During this trip Teva employees asked Reinstein what the company could do to induce Reinstein to prescribe more clozapine, and Reinstein suggested that Teva hire an associate of his from Chicago, the lawsuit alleges. Teva agreed and in the months after the hiring Reinstein put several hundred patients back on Teva’s clozapine. From 2007 to 2009, the suit alleges, Teva and Reinstein entered into annual “speaker agreements” that resulted in Teva paying Reinstein more than $100,000.

Based on this alleged conduct, the suit charges Medicaid received and paid more than 100,000 false claims from various pharmacies for IVAX/Teva clozapine prescriptions written by Reinstein between August 2003 and July 2011 as a result of illegal kickbacks he solicited and received from IVAX and Teva. Between 2006 and July 2011, Medicare Part D received and paid more than 40,000 false claims involving similar kickback-induced prescriptions. Likewise, between August 2003 and July 2011, Reinstein allegedly submitted more than 40,000 false claims and received payment from Medicaid for purported pharmacologic management, as well as more than 10,000 similar false claims to Medicare.

This lawsuit is one a growing list of civil and criminal investigations and enforcement actions by federal and state prosecutors targeting health care providers using expanded health care fraud laws and investigatory and prosecutorial powers granted under the Affordable Care Act and other legislation to help bring down health care costs.

Through these and other flashy prosecutions, as well as a continuous campaign of audits and other activities, federal officials are trying to reduce Medicare and other health care expenditures, both by prosecuting health care providers for intentionally submitting false claims, as well as using the treat of audits, program, disqualification or civil or criminal prosecution to scare health care providers to reduce legitimate billings that could trigger a federal audit or other federal scrutiny.

Federal officials are aided in these efforts by an arsenal of new health care fraud statistical profiling and other health care fraud detection and enforcement tools granted by Congress in recent years that make it easier for federal officials to target and successfully prosecute or bring other sanctions against health care providers whose billing or other business practices come under scrutiny.

Coupled with the ever-lengthening list of civil settlements and civil monetary penalties, program disqualifications, and audits, Federal officials use high profile criminal sweeps like those announced today both to send a message to health care providers generally, and as a tool to pressure and encourage health care providers to accept settlements proposed by federal auditors and prosecutors to avoid the potential threat of more serious criminal, civil or administrative prosecutions.

For Help With Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

If you need help providing compliance or other training, reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers and other health industry clients to establish, audit, administer and defend billing, referral, privacy, staffing and recruitment and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns/ She also regularly designs and presents risk management, compliance and other training for health care providers, professional associations and others. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. Contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Hospital, Hospital, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Medicaid, Medicare, OIG, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Real Estate, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark | Tagged: Anti-Kickback, DME, Health Care Fraud, healthcare provider, home health, Hospital, Physician, referral, STARK | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Care Providers Warned To Raise Defenses As Feds Charge 91 Individuals Bilked Medicare For Approximately $430 Million

October 4, 2012

Health Care Providers Warned To Raise Defenses As Feds Charge 91 Individuals Bilked Medicare For Approximately $430 Million

A total of 91 doctors, nurses and other licensed medical professionals in Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, Brooklyn, Baton Rouge and Chicago are facing health care fraud charges for their alleged participation in false Medicare billings totaling approximately $429.2 million to Medicare fraud schemes under federal indictments unsealed in a joint Department of Justice and HHS Medicare Fraud Strike Force nationwide takedown jointly announced by Attorney General Eric Holder, Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and other agencies today (October 4, 2012). Coming on the heels of President Obama’s touting of the health care fraud fighting success of his Administration during his debate with Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, the indictments are the latest warning to health care providers of the advisability of tightening their Medicare and other health care billing and other compliance practices.

Highlights of The Latest Strike Force Action

Together, dozens of charged individuals were arrested or surrendered as federal officials unsealed indictments charging more than $230 million in home health care fraud; more than $100 million in mental health care fraud and more than $49 million in ambulance transportation fraud; and millions more in other frauds.

The defendants charged are accused of various health care fraud-related crimes, including conspiracy to commit health care fraud, health care fraud, violations of the anti-kickback statutes and money laundering. The charges are based on a variety of alleged fraud schemes involving various medical treatments and services such as home health care, mental health services, psychotherapy, physical and occupational therapy, durable medical equipment (DME) and ambulance services.

According to court documents, the defendants allegedly participated in schemes to submit claims to Medicare for treatments that were medically unnecessary and oftentimes never provided. In many cases, court documents allege that patient recruiters, Medicare beneficiaries and other co-conspirators were paid cash kickbacks in return for supplying beneficiary information to providers, so that the providers could submit fraudulent billing to Medicare for services that were medically unnecessary or never provided. Collectively, the doctors, nurses, licensed medical professionals, health care company owners and others charged are accused of conspiring to submit a total of approximately $429.2 million in fraudulent billing.

“Today’s coordinated actions represent one of the largest Medicare fraud takedowns in Department of Justice history, as measured by the amount of alleged fraudulent billings,” said Assistant Attorney General Breuer. “We have made it one of the Department’s missions to hold accountable those who abuse the Medicare program for personal profit. And there are Medicare fraudsters in prisons across the country – some who will be there for decades – who can attest to our determination, and our effectiveness.”

In Miami, a total of 33 defendants are charged for their alleged participation in various fraud schemes involving a total of $204.5 million in false billings for home health care, mental health services, occupational and physical therapy, and DME. In one case, three defendants are charged for participating in a fraud scheme at LTC Professional Consultants and Professional Home Care Solutions Inc. which led to approximately $74 million in fraudulent billing for home health care. In another case, five defendants are charged for participating in a fraud scheme at Hollywood Pavilion which led to $67 million in fraudulent billing for mental health services.

Sixteen individuals, including three doctors and one licensed physical therapist, are charged in Los Angeles with participating in various fraud schemes involving a total of $53.8 million in false billings. In one case, four defendants are charged for allegedly participating in a fraud scheme at Alpha Ambulance Inc., which led to approximately $49.2 million in fraudulent billing for ambulance transportation. The case represents the largest ambulance fraud scheme ever prosecuted by the Medicare Fraud Strike Force. According to court documents, the defendants provided beneficiaries ambulance rides that were medically unnecessary.

In Dallas, 14 individuals – including two doctors and two registered nurses – are charged for their alleged participation in various fraud schemes involving a total of $103.3 million in false billings. In one case, three defendants – a medical doctor and two registered nurses – are charged with participating in a fraud scheme at Raphem Medical Practice and PTM Healthcare Services which led to approximately $100 million in fraudulent billing for home health care services. According to court documents, Dr. Joseph Megwa signed approximately 33,000 prescriptions for more than 2,000 unique Medicare beneficiaries from 2006 to 2011. Many of these Medicare beneficiaries had primary care physicians who never certified home healthcare services for them. In order to handle the volume of prescriptions, Megwa allegedly signed stacks of documents without reviewing them.

Seven individuals are charged in Houston for their participation in a fraud scheme at a hospital which led to $158 million in fraudulent billing for community mental health center services. According to court documents, the defendants who served as administrators at the hospital paid kickbacks – in the form of cigarettes, food and coupons redeemable for items available at the hospital’s “country stores” – to Medicare beneficiaries in exchange for those beneficiaries’ attendance at the hospital’s partial hospitalization programs (PHP). Allegedly, beneficiaries watched television, played games and engaged in other non-PHP activities rather than receiving the services for which the hospital billed Medicare. Previously, on Feb. 22, 2012, the assistant administrator of the hospital, Mohammad Kahn, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit health care fraud and paying kickbacks related to $116 million worth of fraudulent claims submitted to Medicare. After his guilty plea, an additional $42 million in fraudulent claims were discovered that are included in today’s totals.

In Brooklyn, 15 individuals, including one doctor and four chiropractors, are charged for their alleged participation in various fraud schemes involving a total of $23.2 million in false billings. In one case, nine defendants, including a medical doctor, are charged with participating in a fraud scheme at Cropsey Medical Care PLLC which led to approximately $13.8 million in fraudulent billing for physical therapy and related services. According to court documents, the defendants paid cash kickbacks to Medicare beneficiaries in exchange for physical therapy that was not medically necessary and on some occasions never provided to beneficiaries.

In Baton Rouge, four defendants, including a licensed practical nurse, are charged for their roles in fraud schemes involving approximately $2.4 million in false claims for medically unnecessary durable medical equipment.

In Chicago, two defendants, including a dermatologist and a psychologist, are charged for their roles in fraud schemes involving, according to court documents, millions of dollars in false claims for medically unnecessary laser treatments and psychotherapy services.

In addition to the criminal indictments, HHS also used recently expanded health care fraud powers granted as part of the Affordable Care Act to suspend and took other administrative action against 30 health care providers following a data-driven analysis that HHS claims showed “credible allegations of fraud.” Under the Affordable Care Act, HHS is able to suspend payments until the resolution of an investigation.

According to today’s announcement the charges and other actions announced today resulted from coordinated health care fraud investigations conducted by the Medicare Fraud Strike Force as part of the Health Care Fraud Prevention & Enforcement Action Team (HEAT), a joint initiative announced in May 2009 between the Department of Justice and HHS to focus their efforts to prevent and deter fraud and enforce current anti-fraud laws around the country.

Federal officials now credit strike force operations in nine locations have charged more than 1,480 defendants who collectively have falsely billed the Medicare program for more than $4.8 billion since strike force operations began in March 2007.

Charges Part of Widening War Against Health Care Providers

The charges unsealed today are the latest and among the most sweeping of an ever-lengthening list of flashy prosecutions and federal program disqualification actions that federal officials are conducting against health care providers using expanded health care fraud laws and investigatory and prosecutorial powers granted under the Affordable Care Act and other legislation.

For Help With Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

If you need help providing compliance or other training, reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers and other health industry clients to establish, audit, administer and defend billing, referral, privacy, staffing and recruitment and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns/ She also regularly designs and presents risk management, compliance and other training for health care providers, professional associations and others. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. Contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Hospital, Hospital, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Medicaid, Medicare, OIG, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Real Estate, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark | Tagged: Anti-Kickback, DME, Health Care Fraud, healthcare provider, home health, Hospital, Physician, referral, STARK | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Recent OIG Audit Reports Provide Insights Where Fraud Audits Likely To Look Next

September 24, 2012

Healthcare providers, Medicare, Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) intermediaries, State Medicaid and CHIP fund recipients, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage Plan and others wanting to get a leg up on potential audit targets likely to draw the attention of the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) and their health care fraud auditors and investigators may get valuable insights by monitoring OIG audit reports of Medicare Intermediaries and others. Reports of deficiencies uncovered in these audits and recommendations to tighten procedures and seek repayments often prompt demands for repayment and tighter payment and audit guidelines and procedures.

The following are some of the most recently-issued OIG audit reports:

New York Claimed Some Unallowable Costs for Services by New York City Providers under the State’s Developmental Disabilities Waiver Program (A-02-10-01027)

OIG says the New York State Department of Health (DOH) claimed Federal Medicaid reimbursement for some Office for People With Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) waiver program services provided by New York City providers that did not comply with certain Federal and State requirements. http://go.usa.gov/rk8V.

Based on sample results, OIG estimates that DOH improperly claimed $7.8 million in Federal Medicaid reimbursement for OPWDD waiver program services during calendar years 2006 through 2008. Federal law authorizes Medicaid home and community-based services (HCBS) waiver programs. A State’s HCBS waiver program must be approved by CMS and allows a State to claim Federal reimbursement for services not usually covered by Medicaid.

Of the 100 beneficiary-months in the random sample, DOH properly claimed Medicaid reimbursement for OPWDD waiver program services during 86 beneficiary-months. However, DOH claimed Medicaid reimbursement for services that did not comply with certain Federal and State requirements for the remaining 14 beneficiary-months. OIG reported the claims for unallowable services were made because DOH and OPWDD’s policies and procedures for overseeing and administering the waiver program were not adequate to ensure that (1) providers claimed reimbursement only for services actually provided and maintained all the required documentation to support services billed and (2) OPWDD waiver program services were provided only to beneficiaries pursuant to written plans of care.

OIG recommended that DOH:

Refund $7.8 million to the Federal Government and
Work with OPWDD to strengthen policies and procedures to ensure that (a) providers claim reimbursement only for OPWDD waiver program services actually provided and maintain the required documentation to support services billed and (b) OPWDD waiver program services are provided pursuant to written plans of care.

DOH and OPWDD concurred with the recommendations.

Medicare Contractors’ Payments to Providers in Jurisdiction 11 for Full Vials of Herceptin Were Often Incorrect (A-03-11-00013)

OIG reported that most payments for one or more full vials of Herceptin that the Medicare contractors made to providers in Jurisdiction 11 (North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia) from January 2008 through December 2010 were incorrect. Herceptin (trastuzumab) is a Medicare-covered biological drug used to treat breast cancer that has spread to other parts of the body. http://go.usa.gov/rk9P.

Of the 2,507 selected line items, OIG says 2,029 were incorrect and included overpayments totaling $2.4 million that the providers had not identified or refunded by the beginning of our audit. Providers refunded overpayments on 138 line items totaling $131,000 before our fieldwork. The remaining 340 line items were correct.

The 2,029 incorrect line items included incorrect units of service and a lack of supporting documentation. The providers attributed the incorrect payments to chargemaster errors, clerical errors, and billing systems that could not prevent or detect the incorrect billing of units of service. In some cases, providers could not store unused doses for later use because their pharmacies incorrectly reconstituted the Herceptin. When this occurred, the providers billed Medicare for the entire vial, including waste. The Medicare contractors made these incorrect payments because neither the Fiscal Intermediary Standard System nor the Common Working File had sufficient edits in place during our audit period to prevent or detect the overpayments.

OIG recommended that Palmetto GBA, LLC (Palmetto), the Medicare Administrative Contractor for Jurisdiction 11:

(1) Recover the $2.4 million in identified overpayments,
Implement a system edit that identifies for review line items for multiuse-vial drugs with units of service equivalent to one or more entire vials, and
Use the results of this audit in its provider education activities.

Palmetto concurred with the OIG findings and recommendations and described corrective actions that it had taken or planned to take.

Texas Did Not Report Excess Contractor Profits in Accordance With Federal Regulations (A-06-10-00062)

A Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS) is a system of software and hardware used to process Medicaid claims and manage information about Medicaid beneficiaries, services, and providers. The Texas Health and Human Services Commission (State agency) contracts with a fiscal agent, Affiliated Computer Services/Texas Medicaid Health Partnership (ACS/TMHP), to process claims through the MMIS. The contract between the State agency and ACS/TMHP requires a prospective price redetermination (PPR) audit to establish whether ACS/TMHP earned profit in excess of the 11 percent allowed by the contract.

OIG reports it found that the State agency did not refund $2.6 million (Federal share) of the $26.7 million in excess profits identified through the PPR audit in accordance with Federal requirements. During fiscal year 2009, the State agency claimed expenditures for 20 MMIS projects with total costs of $71.3 million. All of these expenditures were allowable and claimed at the appropriate reimbursement rate; however, the State agency did not obtain prior approval for 2 of the 20 projects. Also, the State agency did not obtain prior approval for 16 additional projects. The total budgets for the 18 projects for which the State agency did not obtain prior approval totaled $59 million ($32.9 million Federal share). http://go.usa.gov/rkXW.

OIG recommended that the State agency:

(1) Refund to the Federal Government $2.6 million for excess profits related to the PPR audit,
Ensure that prior approval is obtained on future projects as required by Federal regulations, and
Obtain retroactive approval for the 18 projects that did not have the required prior approval from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

The State agency agreed with OIG’s first and third recommendations and described corrective actions it had taken or planned to take. Regarding the second recommendation, the State agency described the process by which it seeks CMS approval for certain projects.

Review of Medicare Outpatient Billing for Selected Drugs at Self Regional Healthcare (A-09-12-02032)

For the 61 line items reviewed, OIG reported that Self Regional Healthcare did not bill Medicare for injections of selected drugs in accordance with Federal requirements, resulting in overpayments totaling $130,000. http://go.usa.gov/rkX.d.

Review of Medicare Outpatient Billing for Selected Drugs at Methodist Healthcare – Memphis Hospitals (A-09-12-02022)

For 60 of the 82 line items reviewed, OIG reported it found that Methodist Healthcare – Memphis Hospitals did not bill Medicare for injections of selected drugs in accordance with Federal requirements, resulting in overpayments totaling $178,000. http://go.usa.gov/rkNY.

Medicare Part D Made Some Incorrect Payments to Community Insurance Inc. for Institutional Beneficiaries in 2008 (A-05-11-00042)

OIG reports that the Medicare Part D program incurred drug costs for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries during Skilled Nursing stays that should have been covered under Part C in 2008. Community Insurance Inc’s incurrence of the $23,000 in gross drug costs as Part D costs had an overpayment effect of $13,000 as well as a $9,000 reconciliation effect at year end. http://go.usa.gov/rkNB.

North Shore Community Health, Inc., Claimed Unallowable Costs Against Recovery Act Grants (A-01-11-01502)

OIG reported it could not determine whether $2 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) grant costs claimed by North Shore Community Health, Inc. (North Shore), was allowable under the terms of the grants and applicable Federal regulations. North Shore did not track and account for Recovery Act expenditures separately from other (Federal and non-Federal) operating expenses; therefore, it could not demonstrate that it spent Recovery Act grant funds for allowable costs. http://go.usa.gov/rk85.

OIG says this deficiency occurred because North Shore did not:

(1) Maintain a financial management system that provided for accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of its Recovery Act grants and
Separately track and account for Recovery Act funds.

OIG recommended that the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) require North Shore to refund $2 million to the Federal Government, or work with North Shore to determine whether any of the costs that it claimed against Recovery Act grants were allowable, and ensure North Shore:

(1) Develops a financial system that provides for the accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each HHS-sponsored project or program and
Tracks and accounts for each grant’s expenditures separately from other operating expenditures.

North Shore stated that it adjusted its internal financial reporting process to be in compliance with Federal requirements.

Under the Recovery Act, P.L. No. 111-5, enacted February 17, 2009, HRSA received $2.5 billion, including $2 billion to expand the Health Center Program to serve more patients, stimulate new jobs, and meet the expected increase in demand for primary health care services among the Nation’s uninsured and underserved populations.

OIG Says Lawndale Christian Health Center Claimed Unallowable Costs Under Recovery Act Grants (A-05-11-00057)

Lawndale Christian Health Center claimed $535,000 that was allowable under the terms of the grant and applicable Federal regulations. However, Lawndale claimed Federal grant expenditures totaling $174,000 that were unallowable. We could not determine the allowability of costs totaling $637,000 according to the OIG. See http://go.usa.gov/rFQP.

Alabama Improperly Claimed Federal Funds for Children’s Health Insurance Program Enrollees Who Had Medicaid or Other Health Insurance Coverage (A-04-11-08008)

OIG reports that Alabama improperly claimed Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Federal financial participation (FFP) for some individuals who were concurrently enrolled in CHIP and Medicaid. The Federal and State Governments jointly fund and administer both Medicaid and CHIP. States may not claim CHIP FFP for individuals who are concurrently enrolled in CHIP and Medicaid or who have other health insurance coverage. See http://go.usa.gov/rFQG.

Based on OIG sample results, OIG estimated that Alabama improperly claimed $1.5 million in CHIP FFP for enrollees who were concurrently enrolled in CHIP and Medicaid from October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010. Alabama also improperly claimed $153,000 in CHIP FFP for individuals who had other health insurance coverage from October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010.

OIG says the concurrent enrollment in CHIP and Medicaid occurred because:

Medicaid enrollment could be retroactive for up to 3 months, during which the individual could also have been enrolled in CHIP and
Supplemental Security Income eligibility, and consequent Medicaid enrollment, could be retroactive to the original application date, a period during which the individual could also have been enrolled in CHIP.

Moreover, the State agency did not have adequate internal controls to prevent or promptly correct concurrent enrollments. The CHIP payments that Alabama claimed on behalf of individuals who had other health insurance coverage occurred because State policy allowed for a coordination of benefits between CHIP and other health insurance coverage.

OIG recommended that Alabama:

Refund $1.5 million (Federal share) for FFP claimed on behalf of individuals who were concurrently enrolled in CHIP and Medicaid,
Refund $153,000 (Federal share) for FFP claimed on behalf of individuals enrolled in CHIP who had other health insurance coverage,
Develop additional policies and procedures to prevent or promptly recoup CHIP payments made on behalf of individuals who are identified as enrolled concurrently in Medicaid, and
Revise the current policy that allows for a coordination of benefits between CHIP and other health insurance coverage.

The OIG notes Alabama disagreed with all of its recommendations.

South Carolina Claimed Some Unallowable Room-and-Board Costs under the Intellectual and Related Disabilities Waiver (A-04-11-04012)

OIG reports that the South Carolina Department of Health & Human Services (State agency) operates a waiver program that provides long-term care and support for individuals with intellectual or related disabilities. The State agency contracts with the South Carolina Department of Disabilities and Special Needs (the Department) to provide waiver services. The Department provides these services through contractual arrangements with a network of 39 local Disabilities and Special Needs (DSN) Boards.

OIG reported it found that the State agency claimed Medicaid reimbursement of $6.7 million ($4.8 million Federal share) for unallowable room-and-board costs under the waiver program that the Department operated. The State agency claimed unallowable room-and-board costs because neither the State agency nor the Department had adequate controls to:

Ensure that the Department followed applicable Federal law and guidance or its own guidance or
Detect errors or misstatements on the local DSN boards’ cost reports. See http://go.usa.gov/rFQz.

Additionally, OIG says the Department did not prescribe a uniform format for the local DSN boards to follow when preparing the cost reports. Rather, each local board prepared its cost reports in its own format, making it difficult to identify when unallowable costs were claimed.

OIG recommended that the State agency:

Refund to the Federal Government $4.8 million, representing the Federal share of the room-and-board costs that the Department improperly claimed on its waiver cost reports;
Instruct the Department to follow Federal law and its own guidance and remove room-and-board related administrative and general costs from future waiver program cost reports;
Instruct the Department to develop a uniform cost reporting process and require each local board to follow this process;
Instruct the Department to strengthen its cost report review procedures to ensure that it will detect errors or misstatements on the local DSN boards’ cost reports; and
Strengthen its own procedures for reviewing the waiver cost reports submitted by the Department.

The State agency concurred with all of our recommendations and said that it would work with CMS to negotiate repayment of the improperly claimed room-and-board costs.

Review of New Mexico Medicaid Personal Care Services Provided by Coordinated Home Health (A-06-09-00064)

The OIG reported that its audit found that the State did not always ensure that Coordinated Home Health’s (Coordinated) claims for Medicaid personal care services complied with certain Federal and State requirements. Based on sample results, OIG estimated that Coordinated improperly claimed at least $11 million (Federal share) for personal care services during the period October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2008. http://go.usa.gov/rFUW.

According to OIG, personal care services may be provided to individuals who are not inpatients at a hospital or residents of a nursing facility, an intermediate care facility for individuals with intellectual disabilities, or an institution for mental disease. Examples of personal care services include, but are not limited to, cleaning, shopping, grooming, and bathing.

Of the 100 claims in the OIG sample, OIG reported that 54 complied with requirements, but 46 did not. Three of the forty-six claims were partially allowable. The 46 claims contained a total of 60 deficiencies: 49 deficiencies on insufficient attendant qualifications and 11 deficiencies on other concluded that Coordinated improperly claimed $8,000 for the 46 claims.

Based on these findings, OIG recommended that the State:
Refund to the Federal Government the $11 million paid to Coordinated for unallowable personal care services and
Ensure that personal care services providers maintain evidence that they comply with Federal and State requirements.

OIG reported that Coordinated disagreed with almost all of OIG’sfindings, and the State disagreed with OIG’s recommended refund amount. The State also said that some of the documentation requirements are not Federal requirements; they are State requirements, which do not require recovery of payments.

For Help With Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

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

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Hospital, Hospital, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Medicaid, Medicare, OIG, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Real Estate, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark | Tagged: Anti-Kickback, DME, Health Care Fraud, healthcare provider, home health, Hospital, Physician, referral, STARK | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Hospital Chain HCA Inc. Pays $16.5 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations That Hospital

September 23, 2012

HCA Inc., one of the nation’s largest for-profit hospital chains, has agreed to pay the United States and the state of Tennessee $16.5 million to settle claims that it violated the False Claims Act and the Stark Statute, the Department of Justice announced September 19, 2012. The settlement agreement and the litigation it resolves are a reminder to hospitals, physicians and other health care providers of the growing readiness of the Justice Department and other federal and state regulators and enforcement agencies to prosecute health care providers for STARK, anti-kickback back or other violations of federal or state health health care fraud laws.

HCA Settlement & Underlying Charges

As alleged in the settlement agreement, during 2007, HCA, through its subsidiaries Parkridge Medical Center, located in Chattanooga, Tenn., and HCA Physician Services (HCAPS), headquartered in Nashville, Tenn., entered into a series of financial transactions with a physician group, Diagnostic Associates of Chattanooga, through which it provided financial benefits intended to induce the physician members of Diagnostic to refer patients to HCA facilities. These financial transactions included rental payments for office space leased from Diagnostic at a rate well in excess of fair market value in order to assist Diagnostic members to meet their mortgage obligations and a release of Diagnostic members from a separate lease obligation.

The Stark Statute restricts financial relationships that hospitals may enter into with physicians who potentially may refer patients to them. Federal law prohibits the payment of medical claims that result from such prohibited relationships.

The civil settlement resolves a lawsuit, United States ex rel. Bingham v. HCA, No. 1:08-CV-71 (E.D. Tenn.), pending in federal court in the Eastern District of Tennessee under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, which allow private citizens to bring civil actions on behalf of the United States and share in any recovery. As part of the civil settlement, HCA has agreed to pay $16.5 million to the United States and the state of Tennessee, with the federal portion representing $15,693,000 of the settlement amount. The whistleblower will receive an 18.5 percent share.

Also as part of the settlement, Parkridge Medical Center has entered into a comprehensive five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to ensure its continued compliance with federal health care benefit program requirements.

Settlement Part of Expanding Health Care Fraud Prosecution Efforts

This resolution is part of the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud and another step for the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which was announced by Attorney General Eric Holder and Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services in May 2009. The partnership between the two departments has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation. One of the most powerful tools in that effort is the False Claims Act, which the Justice Department has used to recover more than $9.4 billion since January 2009 in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs. The Justice Department’s total recoveries in False Claims Act cases since January 2009 are over $13.1 billion.

In announcing the resolution agreement, federal officials emphasized their readiness to prosecute STARK, anti-kickback and other health care fraud statutes.

“The Department of Justice continues to pursue cases involving improper financial relationships between health care providers and their referral sources, because such relationships can corrupt a physician’s judgment about the patient’s true healthcare needs,” said Stuart F. Delery, the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice’s Civil Division.

“Physicians should make decisions regarding referrals to health care facilities based on what is in the best interest of patients without being induced by payments from hospitals competing for their business,” said Bill Killian, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

“ Improper business deals between hospitals and physicians jeopardize both patient care and federal program dollars,” said Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services. “Our investigators continue to work shoulder to shoulder with other law enforcement authorities to stop schemes that imperil scarce health care resources.”

Coupled with the ever-lengthening list of civil settlements like the HCA settlement, and civil monetary penalties, program disqualifications, and criminal prosecutions, these announcements send a strong message to health care providers to review their transactions, referral and other relationships, and billing practices and address potential exposures.

For Help With Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

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

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Hospital, Hospital, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Medicaid, Medicare, OIG, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Real Estate, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Stark | Tagged: Anti-Kickback, DME, Health Care Fraud, healthcare provider, home health, Hospital, Physician, referral, STARK | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Detroit-Area Doctor Charged for Role in Alleged $40 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme

September 23, 2012

A Detroit-area doctor was charged and arrested on September 20, 2012 in the Eastern District of Michigan for his alleged leading role in a $40 million Medicare fraud scheme involving physician home visits and home health services. The Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the HHS-Office of Inspector General (OIG) jointly announced the charges. In addition to the arrest, law enforcement agents executed search warrants at three locations and seizure warrants for three bank accounts related to the scheme.

According to a criminal complaint unsealed today in U.S. District Court in Detroit, Dr. Hicham Elhorr, 45, masterminded a $40 million scheme involving the submission of fraudulent claims submitted to Medicare for services that were medically unnecessary and/or never provided through House Calls Physicians (HCP), a physician home visiting service he owned and operated. Elhorr allegedly submitted claims through HCP for physician home visits for patients who were never seen and for visits conducted by doctors who were not licensed. The complaint alleges Elhorr submitted claims to Medicare for physician home visits purportedly rendered when he was out of the country, when beneficiaries were hospitalized or when the beneficiary was dead.

Elhorr is also alleged to have referred Medicare beneficiaries for medically unnecessary home health services, as well as accepted kickbacks from home health agencies in exchange for writing these referrals. According to court documents, since January 2008, HCP has billed Medicare for approximately $9.2 million. In the same time period, HCP has allegedly referred Medicare beneficiaries for home health services that have resulted in approximately $30.8 million of reimbursements from Medicare.

The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Catherine K. Dick of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section. The investigations were conducted jointly by the FBI and HHS-OIG, as part of the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, supervised by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan and the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.

Act To Manage Health Care Fraud Exposures

High profile criminal charges like this one tell only part of the story. While important and growing, the OIG and other civil audit and enforcement are targeting both health care providers that engage in overly aggressive billing and treatment practices while scaring legitimate providers into avoiding legitimate care and its billing in treatment areas subject to high audit and underbilling for fear of the costs and risks associated with drawing government scruitiny. Amid this quagmire, legitimate health care providers must carefully document their care and the underlying justification and manage their billing practices to mitigate fraud exposures while also ensuring that their care meets the requisite standards of care to meet professional standards of care. It’s a tough but critical task for which reimbursement is declining.

As health care fraud enforcement remains a lead Federal priority, health care providers face ever-heightening exposures to HEAT task force scrutiny and prosecution.

Since its inception in March 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, now operating in nine cities across the country, has charged more than 1,330 defendants who have collectively billed the Medicare program for more than $4 billion.

Along with these criminal investigation and enforcement activities, health care providers also face civil monetary penalty, federal program disqualification and other civil and administrative remedies from billing, reimbursement and other health care fraud, billing audits and other enforcement and audit activities.

HHS’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, working in conjunction with HHS-OIG, is stepping up audits, tightening pre-payment review, stepping up program disqualifications, and taking other steps to increase accountability and decrease the presence of fraudulent providers.

In response to these and other investigation and oversight activities, health care providers should strengthen their compliance practices and oversight and take other special care to position themselves and their billings to defend against possible challenge.

For Help With Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

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

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Doctor, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Medicaid, Medicare, Money Laundering, Physician | Tagged: Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Reimbursement, healtlh care provider, HEAT Task Force, Medicaid, Medicare, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Five More Individuals Charged in Detroit for Alleged Roles in $24.7 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme

September 23, 2012

New Charges Bring To A Total of 9 Charged for Their Roles in the Scheme

Charges against five more individuals for their alleged participation in a $24.7 million Medicare fraud scheme involving purported home health and psychotherapy services were unsealed and made public in the Eastern District of Michigan on September 20, 2012 bring to a total of nine individuals now charged in the scheme.

The Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) jointly announced the charges.

DOJ charges in court documents that the scheme allegedly involved a total of more than $24.7 million in fraudulent claims submitted to Medicare for purported home health care and psychotherapy services that were medically unnecessary and/or never provided. Court documents allege that the defendants are operators, employees and marketers associated with home health care and psychotherapy clinics operating in and around Detroit. Defendants charged in the unsealed court documents unsealed today include: Mohammed Sadiq; Jamella Al-Jumail; Firas Alky; Clarence Cooper and Beverly Cooper.

Four defendants charged in the superseding indictment were previously charged and arrested in May 2012 for their roles in the scheme. Defendants previously charged include: Sachin Sharma, Dana Sharma, Abdul Malik Al-Jumail, and Felicar Williams.

The superseding indictment charges all defendants with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud; Sachin Sharma with five counts of health care fraud; Sachin Sharma, Abdul Malik Al-Jumail, Williams, Sadiq, Alky and Clarence Cooper with one count of conspiracy to pay and receive health care kickbacks; and Jamella Al-Jumail with one count of destruction of records in a federal investigation. The superseding indictment also seeks forfeiture from all defendants.

According to the superseding indictment, from January 2007 through April 2012, the defendants operated a large network of purported home health care and psychotherapy companies in the Detroit area through which they conspired to defraud Medicare.

According to court documents, Sachin Sharma, Dana Sharma, Abdul Malik Al-Jumail, Williams, Jamella Al-Jumail, Sadiq, Alky and other alleged co-conspirators incorporated home health care, psychotherapy and other medical service companies to carry out the scheme, including Reliance Home Care, LLC; First Choice Home Health Care Services Inc.; Associates in Home Care Inc.; Haven Adult Day Care Center LLC; Swift Home Care LLC; ABC Home Care Inc.; Accessible Home Care Inc.; and Be Well Home Care LLC. The defendants, along with co-conspirators, allegedly submitted Medicare enrollment applications to let these companies to bill Medicare. Sachin Sharma, Abdul Malik-Al-Jumail, Sadiq, Alky and others allegedly paid kickbacks and bribes to recruiters, including Williams and Clarence Cooper, to get Medicare beneficiaries’ information, which could be used to fraudulently bill Medicare for purported services provided by the companies they operated and controlled. The defendants then allegedly caused these companies to bill Medicare for home health and psychotherapy services, even though these services were not medically necessary and were often not provided.

According to the superseding indictment, the defendants caused Reliance, First Choice, Associates, Haven, Swift, ABC, Accessible and other home health, psychotherapy and medical services companies to bill approximately $24.7 million in claims to Medicare for services that were medically unnecessary and/or not provided. In addition, Jamella Al-Jumail is charged with destroying records relating to Accessible’s Medicare billings upon learning of the May 2012 arrest of Abdul Malik Al-Jumail, her co-conspirator and father.

Clarence and Beverly Cooper, Sadiq and Jamella Al-Jumail were arrested on September 21.

The case is being prosecuted by Fraud Section Assistant Chief Gejaa T. Gobena and Trial Attorney William G. Kanellis. The investigations were conducted jointly by the FBI and HHS-OIG, as part of the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, supervised by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan and the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.

Act To Manage Health Care Fraud Exposures

As health care fraud enforcement remains a lead Federal priority, health care providers face ever-heightening exposures to HEAT task force scrutiny and prosecution. Along with these criminal investigation and enforcement activities, health care providers also face civil monetary penalty, federal program disqualification and other civil and administrative remedies from billing, reimbursement and other health care fraud, billing audits and other enforcement and audit activities.

For Help With Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

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

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | DME, Doctor, false claims act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Plan, Health Plans, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Money Laundering, OIG, Physician, Physician Licensing, Reimbursement | Tagged: false claims act, Health Care Fraud, HEAT, Medical Licensure, Physician, texas medical board | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

September 18, 2012

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

September 19 Webinar

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

Topics of discussion will include:

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

To join the webcast click here.

Rising Civil Rights Law Exposures Require Management

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

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

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

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

Recent Settlements Highlight Risk

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

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

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

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

Invest in Prevention To Minimize Liability Risks

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

About Solutions Law Press

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

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

August 13, 2012

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

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

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

Baltimore County Nailed For Health Screening of Public Safety Workers

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

ADA Employment Discrimination Generally

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Settlements Highlight Risk

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

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

Obama Administration Also Aggressively Prosecutes Disability Discrimination In Other Business Operations

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

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

Invest in Prevention To Minimize Liability Risks

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

For More Information Or Assistance

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

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

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:

$50K Settlement Shows Small Breach Reports Carry Enforcement Risk

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