SZD Health Law Scan : Health Care Lawyers & Attorneys : Schottenstein Zox & Dunn Law Firm : Strategic Planning, Managed Care, Insurance : Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Central Ohio

Presenters:
Jeff Tauscher, Seigfreid, Bingham, Levy, Selzer & Gee, P.C.
Mark Thompson, Seigfreid, Bingham, Levy, Selzer & Gee, P.C.

The Health Care Reform Law contains significant tax-related provisions. These include incentives and disincentives for individuals and businesses that phase in over a period of years. Jeff and Mark highlight those everyone should be aware of.

This podcast is part of the Law Firm Alliance – 2010 Health Care Reform podcast series, which can be accessed in its entirety by clicking here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Section 6404 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the Act) amended the timely filing requirements to reduce the maximum time period for submission of all Medicare fee-for-service claims to one calendar year after the date of service.

Under the Act, claims for services furnished on or after Jan. 1, 2010, must be filed within one calendar year after the date of service. In addition, Section 6404 mandates that claims for services furnished before Jan. 1, 2010, must be filed no later than Dec. 31, 2010.

According to CMS, the following rules apply to claims with dates of service prior to Jan. 1, 2010:

• Claims with dates of service before Oct. 1, 2009, must follow the pre-Act timely filing rules.
• Claims with dates of service Oct. 1, 2009 through Dec. 1, 2009, must be submitted by Dec. 1, 2010.

Section 6404 of the Act also permits the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to make certain exceptions to the one-year filing deadline. At this time, no exceptions have been established.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Feb. 1, the U.S. District Court in Cleveland issued a significant decision concerning the disclosure of medical information in response to a grand jury subpoena.

The grand jury subpoena was issued to the Cleveland Clinic as part of a criminal investigation of James Turk for carrying a concealed weapon. The Cleveland Clinic complied with the subpoena and supplied the records to a police detective as instructed by the subpoena. As a result of the criminal investigation, Turk was charged with various offenses. A jury eventually acquitted him of one charge and the other charges were dismissed. Turk then filed a lawsuit in federal court against the police and various other defendants, including the Cleveland Clinic. The lawsuit alleged the defendants violated his rights in connection with the criminal investigation.

Regarding his medical records, Turk claimed the Cleveland Clinic violated his privacy rights by releasing privileged medical records in response to the grand jury subpoena. The clinic argued the claim should be dismissed because the clinic was responding to a grand jury subpoena. The clinic argued that Ohio courts do not extend the physician-patient privilege to records subpoenaed by the grand jury because the disclosure to the grand jury is not a public disclosure. The clinic also argued that the disclosure was required because there is a countervailing interest in investigating criminal activity.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Presenters:
Stephen Kleinman, Schottenstein Zox and Dunn, Partner, Health Care Practice Group
Robert Cochran, Schottenstein Zox and Dunn, Of Counsel, Health Care Practice Group

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPAC) is anticipated to expand insurance coverage to 32 million people. As a result, the specific legislative changes discussed in this podcast will impact millions of Americans and the way health insurance companies do business. Listen as Steve and Bob discuss these changes.

This podcast is part of the Law Firm Alliance – 2010 Health Care Reform podcast series, which can be accessed in its entirety by clicking here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link