Impact of Sunshine Law on physicians

In response to growing concerns that physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical and medical device companies create inappropriate conflicts of interest in research and patient care, Section 6002 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act implements the Physician Payments Sunshine Act (the Sunshine Act).

The Sunshine Act requires manufacturers of drugs, biological products, medical supplies and medical devices to annually report payments made to physicians or teaching hospitals to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary). The Secretary must make the reported data publicly available. The expectation is that increased transparency will deter inappropriate conflicts of interest and will increase confidence that physicians are disseminating unbiased information.

Continue Reading...

Vigorous HIPAA Privacy Rule enforcement

With the announcements of Cignet’s $4.3 million civil monetary penalties and two recent resolution payments, HHS’ Office of Civil Rights sent a clear message that it is serious about enforcement of HIPAA’s Privacy Rule. Therefore, covered entities should ensure that they have a robust HIPAA compliance program including employee training, vigilant implementation of policies and procedures, internal audits and a prompt action plan to respond to incidents.

Background

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act’s (HIPAA’s) Privacy Rule is a set of federal standards to protect the privacy of medical records and other health information maintained by covered entities. These standards provide patients with access to their medical records and with significant control over how their personal health information (PHI) is used and disclosed.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) delegated Privacy Rule enforcement to HHS’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR). For violations occurring before Feb. 18, 2009, OCR may impose civil monetary penalties (CMP) of up to $100 for each such violation. That penalty may not exceed $25,000 per year for multiple violations of the identical Privacy Rule requirement in a calendar year.

Continue Reading...

Feds set sights on executives in battle to curtail health-care fraud

As first appeared in Columbus Business First, May 20, 2011.

The federal government is waging an aggressive fight against health-care fraud and it is generally understood that a business caught engaging in any type of fraudulent activity can expect to be sanctioned.

Less well-known is the fact that the government has the power to sanction owners, officers and even employees of a business convicted of health-care fraud, even if the individuals themselves have not been convicted of any wrongdoing. The sanction consists of banning the individual from participating in federal health-care programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. The ban, called exclusion, effectively prohibits the excluded individual from working for a health-care provider that receives reimbursement from Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal health-care programs.

Last year, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services excluded a drug company executive from participating in federal health-care programs. The executive, Marc Hermelin, was excluded based on his company’s compliance problems with the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). At the time, he was the first pharmaceutical company official who had not been convicted of a crime to be excluded from federal health-care programs by the OIG.

Continue Reading...

State demonstration projects rather than tort reform under the 2010 health care bill

Presenters:
Mark Marquardt, Nancy Paikoff and David Phillips of MacFarlane Ferguson & McMullen, P.A.

In 2010, Congress enacted a health care bill which made no changes to the current method of tort litigation. The language in the bill provides for demonstration grants to states over a five year period for the states to propose alternatives to current medical tort litigation. In this podcast, the presenting attorneys discuss how states may apply for grants, elements to be considered in the grants and how grants are to be reviewed.

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.

Health industry specific tax provisions in health care reform

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

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act included a number of health industry specific tax provisions. These are primarily designed to raise revenue from health insurers, pharmaceutical companies, and medical device manufacturers to help pay for the costs of increased access to health insurance and will be phased in over the next few years. Gilgus and Thompson highlight these revenue raisers, which will require significant regulations to implement.

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.

CMS adopts more strict regulations for DMEPOS suppliers

On Aug. 26, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued new rules for suppliers of durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics and supplies (DMEPOS). The new rules consist of additions and revisions to the supplier standards in 42 C.F.R. §424.57. The rules take effect Sept. 27. and enhance Medicare enrollment standards and strengthen existing standards that suppliers must meet before being able to furnish equipment and supplies to Medicare beneficiaries. Among other things, the rules require the following:

  • Suppliers must be licensed to provide licensed services and cannot contract with an individual or an entity to provide the services.
  • Suppliers must permit CMS and the National Supplier Clearinghouse (NSC) to conduct onsite inspections to ascertain supplier compliance.
  • Suppliers are prohibited from using cell phones, beepers or pagers as the primary method of receiving calls or exclusively using call forwarding to forward a call to a cell phone, beeper or pager from the public or beneficiaries during posted hours of operation.
  • Suppliers cannot directly solicit patients, which includes, but is not limited to, a prohibition on telephone, computer, e-mail, instant messaging and internet coercive advertising.
  • Suppliers must obtain oxygen from a state licensed oxygen supplier (applies only in states that require oxygen licensure).
  • Suppliers are required to maintain ordering and referring documentation for a period of seven years from the date of service.  
  • Suppliers are prohibited from sharing a practice location with another Medicare supplier or provider (subject to certain exceptions).
  • Subject to certain exceptions, suppliers must be open to the public a minimum of 30 hours per week.
  • Suppliers must maintain a physical facility that measures at least 200 square feet (except for orthotic and prosthetic personnel providing custom fabricated orthotics and prosthetics in private practice). The location must be accessible during posted business hours to beneficiaries and to CMS, and must include a visible sign and posted hours of operation.

A supplier who does not meet the requirements of the new rules may lose its billing privileges in the Medicare program. In addition, failure to comply with the rules could result in an overpayment finding.

64 percent of appealed RAC claims decided for providers

According to a recently released report from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), providers won 64.4 percent of appealed claims during the three-year Recovery Audit Contractors (RAC) demonstration project. Providers appealed 76,000 claims and received favorable decisions on 49,000.

Providers can win a RAC appeal. Preparedness is the first step to surviving a RAC audit. Providers must be prepared to respond to RAC demand letters and requests for medical records. Because RAC audits are generally unannounced, the appropriate time to prepare for an audit is now. Providers should consider the following to prepare for an audit:

  • Not responding is not an option. Providers have a narrow window in which to respond to an audit. Providers have 45 days to respond to a RAC request for medical records. If a provider fails to respond, RACs are authorized to render an overpayment determination on the underlying claims. Failure to timely respond could also result in the loss of valuable appeal rights.
  • Designate someone as the contact person for all audits. Providers should designate appropriate personnel to respond to all audit requests. RACs are required to communicate with providers by email, telephone, letters and in-person. Accordingly, administrative personnel must be available to process correspondence and respond to the RAC's various requests. Training personnel and cultivating a working relationship with the regional RAC may mollify interactions and aid in the timeliness of communications.
  • Collect relevant documents and records. Providers should ensure that the records they produce to the auditor are complete. This will help show the appropriateness of the treatment, billing and reimbursement. The relevant records include not only medical records, but billing information as well.
  • Contact legal counsel. Providers are well served to engage legal counsel to help navigate RAC audits and appeals. Lawyers can help train employees on the details of RACs, including an overview of the regulatory history, "hot button" issues RACs are likely to focus upon, and how to respond appropriately.
  • Investigate the claims at issue. Providers should undertake a careful review of the materials investigated during an audit. RACs are sometimes perceived as overly aggressive in identifying overpayments largely because they are paid on a contingency fee basis. Staying abreast of the scope of the audit may reveal issues that are ripe for appeal.
  • Keep a written record of all contact with auditors and a set of all documents sent to auditors. Because the audit findings can be appealed, providers should retain a copy of all documents provided to the RAC. Providers should also memorialize the date, time and a brief description of all communications during the audit. Keeping accurate records will protect providers if a problem arises regarding the conduct of the audit. It will also help the provider appeal an adverse audit finding.
  • Become familiar with the appeals process. RAC denials are subject to the Medicare Part A and Part B appeals process with two differences. First, providers are given 15 days from the date they receive an improper payment letter from a RAC to rebut the RAC's findings, although providers are not required to go through this rebuttal process before filing an appeal. Second, a provider appealing a RAC determination must file an appeal to its fiscal intermediary within 30 days of the date that the provider receives the fiscal intermediary's notice indicating the amount of overpayment identified by the RAC. Given the number of appeals decided in the provider’s favor, the importance of audit preparation and understanding your appellate rights cannot be understated.

New requirements tax-exempt hospitals face under health care reform

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

Tax-exempt hospitals face a number of new requirements under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. These include greater accountability for community benefits provided by them, requirements regarding patient access to available charity care, requirements for less aggressive billing and collection of patient pay amounts, and adverse tax consequences for those that do not comply. Gilgus and Thompson review these provisions for tax exempt hospitals.

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.

Tax related provisions in health care reform

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.

New timely filing requirements for Medicare fee-for-service claims

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.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act mandated health insurance reform

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.

CMS Annual Report on National Health Spending

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) released its annual report on national health spending. According to the CMS press release, 2008 had the "the slowest rate of growth since [CMS] started officially tracking expenditures in 1960." The rate slowed to 4.4 percent down from 6.0 percent in 2007.

However, despite the decelerated growth, health spending's share of the gross domestic product increased from 15.9 percent in 2007 to 16.2 percent in 2008.

CMS also reports the following statistics:

  • Hospital spending in 2008 grew 4.5 percent to $718.4 billion, compared to 5.9 percent in 2007, the slowest rate of increase since 1998. 
  • Physician and clinical services’ spending increased 5.0 percent in 2008, a deceleration from 5.8 percent in 2007. 
  • Retail prescription drug spending growth also decelerated to 3.2 percent in 2008 as per capita use of prescription medications declined slightly, mainly due to impacts of the recession, a low number of new product introductions, and safety and efficacy concerns.
  • Spending growth for both nursing home and home health services decelerated in 2008.   For nursing homes, spending grew 4.6 percent in 2008 compared to 5.8 percent in 2007. 
  • Total health care spending by public programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, grew 6.5 percent in 2008, the same rate as in 2007. 
  • Health care spending by private sources of funds grew only 2.6 percent in 2008 compared to 5.6 percent in 2007. 
  • Private health insurance premiums grew 3.1 percent in 2008, a deceleration from 4.4 percent in 2007.

House Passes SGR Reform Bill

On November 19, 2009, the House of Representatives passed the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act of 2009 ("H.R. 3961"). The bill reforms the Medicare physician payment formula, called the Sustainable Growth Rate ("SGR"). Under the current formula, Medicare payment rates for physicians' services will be cut by about 21 percent in 2010 and additional cuts would occur annually.

The Congressional Budget Office ("CBO") summarized H.R. 3961's changes to the SGR as follows:

  • The update for 2010 would be the percentage increase in the Medicare economic index (MEI), which is 1.2 percent, as specified in the final rule.
  • Beginning in 2011, there would be separate target growth rates and conversion factor updates for two categories of service: evaluation, management, and preventive services, and all other services.
  • The new SGR formula would take into account spending for each category of service since 2009 or—beginning in 2014—for the past five years. (The current SGR formula takes into account spending since 1996.)
  • Finally, only physician services, and not other services provided incident to the physician visit (such as laboratory services), would be counted in each category.

As noted above, consistent with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid final rule for the 2010 physician fee schedule (publication date: November 25, 2009), H.R. 3961 amends 42 U.S.C. 1395w–4(d)(4)(A) to eliminate the discretion of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to include physician-administered drugs within the definition of "physicians' services" for the purposes of SGR calculations. Physicians' services are currently defined to include:

"other items and services (such as clinical diagnostic laboratory tests and radiology services), specified by the Secretary, that are commonly performed or furnished by a physician or in a physician's office, but does not include services furnished to a Medicare+Choice plan enrollee." (emphasis added)

Under the proposed definition, such services would be defined to include only:

"other items and services for which payment under this part is made under the fee schedule under this section, for services for practitioners described in section 1842(b)(18)(C) on a basis related to such fee schedule, or for services described in section 1861(p) (other than such services when furnished in the facility of a provider of services), but does not include services furnished to a Medicare+Choice plan enrollee." (emphasis added)

The CBO estimated that H.R. 3961 would increase physician payments over the next 10 years by about $195 billion.

H.R. 3961 was received in the Senate on November 20, 2009.

Senate Releases a Health Insurance Reform Bill

On November 18, 2009, the Senate released a draft health insurance reform bill, entitled the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."  Like the House bill, the Senate's bill proposes to establish Exchanges, or marketplaces for individuals to shop for insurance when insurance is not available through their employers. The bill contains a public option (referred to in the Senate's bill as the "community health insurance option") but differs from the House bill in that it permits states to "opt out" or prohibit that state's Exchange from offering a community health insurance option.  This bill will expand Medicaid coverage for those people earning less than 133% of the federal poverty line and will provide subsidies for the purchase of health insurance for people earning less than 400% of the FPL.

The Senate's bill stops short of the House's proposed ban on public health insurance options providing coverage of abortion services but it does prohibit the use of federal funds for abortion services.

To pay for some of the costs of the bill, the bill proposes an excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage (i.e., plans worth $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families).  The bill also proposes a tax on elective cosmetic surgeries and an increased hospital insurance tax on high-income taxpayers that would increase the Medicare deduction from 1.45% to 1.95% for incomes over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples.

RAC Update from the American Hospital Association

The American Hospital Association released a helpful Recovery Audit Contractor Program Update dated October 5, 2009. There is a password required.

The report is also available on the Ohio Hospital Asssociation website as well.

A few highlights:

  • To date, CMS has approved only automated audits, which rely on software analysis to find technical errors such as coding errors.
  • CMS has delayed approval of complex audits, including medical necessity reviews, in order to finalize processes and policies related to requesting and auditing medical records.
  • DRG and coding validations are likely to begin in November 2009 at the earliest, with medical necessity reviews delayed until 2010.AHA has made available to all hospitals a free claim-level Excel tool to assist in tracking RAC audits.

Senate Finance Committee Approves Health Care Reform Legislation

The Senate Finance Committee has approved its health care reform legislation, entitled "America's Healthy Future Act." This legislation will now have to be merged with the version approved by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (the "HELP Committee").

The two bills share many common concepts, such as penalties for individuals who fail to obtain health insurance, expansion of Medicare and requirements for insurance plans that, for example, include prohibitions on exclusions for pre-existing conditions.

However, the Finance Committee's version differs from the HELP Committee's in some significant ways. First, the Finance Committee's version does not establish a government-run health insurance plan, commonly referred to as a "public option," that would compete in the health insurance exchanges with private health insurance plans. Second, it does not mandate employers to provide health insurance. Third, it proposes different methods for financing the cost of the legislation. For example, the Finance Committee's version proposes assessing fees on pharmaceutical manufacturing companies ($2.3 billion), medical device manufacturers ($4 billion), health insurance providers ($6 billion), and clinical laboratories ($750 million).

DOJ Official calls health care fraud "particularly severe."

The White Collar Crime Prof Blog is posting information from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyer's Annual Defending the White Collar Case Seminar. A keynote address was given by Lanny A. Breuer, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Justice. 

Breuer had the following to say about health care fraud:

"On the topic of health care fraud, which he called 'particularly severe,' Breuer said that much of the $800 billion dollars per annum that the government spends on Medicare and Medicaid is lost to 'waste, fraud and abuse,' which he estimated at a minimum of 3% of those expenditures. In this context, interagency efforts are being pursued in what he characterized as an 'innovative, data driven approach.' For example, pointing to multiple recent indictments in Detroit, Mich., he said that government investigation is driven by data such as information about which geographic areas have higher Medicare billing. He promised that such enforcement action will be spreading to new cities, explaining that government data shows that Medicare billings go down after the strike force goes into cities. "

The White Collar Crime Prof Blog is edited by Ellen S. Podgor, Professor of Law, Stetson University College of Law. The Breuer post was written by Guest Blogger Ivan J. Dominguez, Assistant Director of Public Affairs & Communications, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. 

OIG Releases Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2010

The Office of Inspector General ("OIG"), Department of Health & Human Services, released its Work Plan for fiscal year 2010.  The Work Plan describes the work the OIG plans to initiate or continue in the coming year. 

A copy of the Plan is here oig.hhs.gov/publications/workplan.asp

Expect RAC Audits in Ohio Before Year-End

CGI Technologies and Solutions, Inc. is the RAC contractor for Region B, which includes Ohio.  Provider outreach started in September and, according to CGI's website, will be done by the end of September.  CGI is already operational in Indiana, Michigan, and Minnesota, so expect RAC audits to start in Ohio before the end of the year.  CGI's RAC website is located at racb.cgi.com/Default.aspx

Senate Finance Committee's Proposals for Health Care Reform

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has been reported as circulating to members of the committee a document entitled "Framework for Comprehensive Health Reform."

The Framework represents "many of the policies" discussed by the committee but is "not a final product . . . and does not include everything that might be in the [Chairman's Mark]." It most notably does not include a public insurance option. Rather, it proposes a Consumer Operated and Orientated Plan (CO-OP) program to create nonprofit, member-run health insurance companies that service individuals in one or more states.

Also, it does not propose an employer mandate. However, as discussed below, while there is no employer mandate, certain employers may be fined for not providing health insurance coverage.

Some other highlights of the document include:

  • Penalizing US citizens and legal residents who fail to obtain health insurance coverage up to $3,800 per year.
  • Fining employers with more than 50 full-time employees (30 hours and above) that do not offer health insurance coverage to their employees up to $400 annually for each employee who receives a tax credit for health insurance through an exchange.
  • Establishing state-based exchanges to assist individuals and small groups to more easily compare health insurance plan benefits and premium costs for four benefit options that would be available.
  • Permitting health insurance premiums to vary based on only four factors: tobacco use, age, family composition and geographic differences.
  • Prohibiting health insurance plans in the individual market from excluding coverage for pre-existing health conditions or rescinding health coverage.
  • Levying an excise tax of 35% on insurance companies and insurance administrators for any health insurance plan that is above $8,000 for singles and $21,000 for family plans.
  • Assessing fees that would be generally allocated by market share on pharmaceutical manufacturing companies ($2.3 billion), medical device manufacturers ($4 billion), health insurance providers ($6 billion), and clinical laboratories ($750 million).
  • Permitting states to form "health care choice compacts" between two or more states to allow the purchase of non-group health insurance across state lines.
  • Expanding Medicaid coverage to include individuals who are not currently eligible (e.g., non-elderly individuals (childless adults) at or below 133% of poverty).
  • Reducing a state's allotment for Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital Payments by 50% once the number of uninsured individuals in the state is reduced by 50%.

 

Settlement Agreement and Corporate Integrity Agreement with Pfizer

The Settlement Agreement and Corporate Integrity Agreement ("CIA") between the government and Pfizer are available.

The Settlement Agreement is available at http://op.bna.com/hl.nsf/r?Open=jthn-7vhqr9 .

The CIA is available at http://www.oig.hhs.gov/fraud/cia/agreements/pfizer_inc.pdf.

DOJ Announces Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History

In a combination of civil and criminal settlements, Pfizer, Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, Inc. (collectively “Pfizer”) agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”). The settlement with Pfizer arises out of civil and criminal allegations relating to Pfizer’s allegedly illegal promotion of certain drugs, most notably Bextra.

Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, Inc. agreed to plead guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for misbranding Bextra with the intent to defraud or mislead. Bextra is an anti-inflammatory drug that Pfizer pulled from the market in 2005. Under the provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, a company must specify the intended uses of a product in its new drug application to FDA. Once approved, the drug may not be marketed or promoted for so-called “off-label” uses – i.e., any use not specified in an application and approved by FDA. Pfizer promoted the sale of Bextra for several uses and dosages that the FDA specifically declined to approve due to safety concerns. The company will pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion, the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter according to DOJ.

In addition, Pfizer agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve allegations under the civil False Claims Act that the company illegally promoted four drugs – Bextra; Geodon, an anti-psychotic drug, Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, an anti-epileptic drug – and caused false claims to be submitted to government health care programs for uses that were not medically accepted indications and therefore not covered by those programs. The civil settlement also resolves allegations that Pfizer paid kickbacks to health care providers to induce them to prescribe these, as well as, other drugs. 

Pfizer also agree to enter into an expansive corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General and the Department of Health & Human Services.

 

The DOJ press release is here: www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/September/09-aag-900.html

Settlement Agreement between DOJ and Covenant Medical Center

The Settlement Agreement between the Department of Justice and Covenant Medical Center of Waterloo, Iowa is now available. On August 25, 2009, DOJ announced Covenant agreed to pay the United States $4.5 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act. The government accused Covenant of submitting false claims to Medicare by having financial relationships with five physicians that violated the Stark Law. The government alleged that Covenant violated the Stark Law by paying commercially unreasonable compensation, far above market value, to five employed physicians. According to the government, these physicians were among the highest paid hospital-employed physicians not just in Iowa, but in the entire United States.

In the Settlement Agreement, the government claimed Covenant paid compensation to five physician employees that exceeded the fair market value of the services provided by those physicians.  Covenant denied the allegations of wrongful conduct and claimed the compensation paid was consistent with the fair market value of the services provided by the physicians.  The Settlement Agreement did not have any other details concerning the compensation. 

The Settlement Agreement is here www.szdhealthlawscan.com/uploads/file/Settlement Agreement (H1627730).PDF

Gainsharing Programs Continue to Receive Favorable Reviews from OIG

Extending its string of positive advisory opinions involving gainsharing arrangements, over the past few months the OIG has issued three new, favorable gainsharing opinions. While the three gainsharing arrangements reviewed by the OIG in the recent opinions bear striking similarities to gainsharing arrangements that received favorable treatment in the past, there are some differences that suggest a broadening of the type of gainsharing arrangements that will receive OIG approval.

Continue Reading...

New Government Contractor Disclosure Requirements

Effective December 12, 2008, entities that provide products or services under contracts subject to Federal Acquisition Regulations ("FAR") must make mandatory disclosure of certain overpayments or legal violations.  The new disclosure requirement is the product of recent amendments to FAR to mandate that government contractors make timely disclosure to the government when they have "credible evidence" that a violation of certain federal criminal laws or the civil False Claims Act (FCA) has occurred in connection with a federal contract. 

The new rule has four primary elements:

  • First, it requires all contractors (including commercial items contractors and small businesses) to establish and promote awareness of a Code of Conduct.
  • Second, it requires all contractors to disclose to the Government any “credible evidence” of (i) certain crimes, (ii) a violation of the civil False Claims Act (FCA), or (iii) a significant overpayment by the Government.
  • Third, it provides for suspension or debarment for a contractor’s failure to “timely disclose” those same events if there is "credible evidence" to support a violation – even where the event occurred prior to the effective date of the new rule.
  • Fourth, it mandates that large companies with non-commercial items contracts implement a comprehensive “internal control system.”

The new rule is a major change from the previous policy of voluntary disclosure.  Most health care products and services are provided to beneficiaries under arrangements that are not subject to FAR.  However, entities that have contracts with federal agencies should check to determine whether the new disclosure requirements apply to their business. 

Physician supervision of therapeutic hospital outpatient services--CMS policy change or mere clarification?

Discussion in the preamble to 2009 Outpatient Prospective Payment System Final Rule (the "2008 Final Rule") calls into question whether the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") is changing its policy regarding direct physician supervision required for the provision of therapeutic services in a hospital on-campus outpatient department or is it merely clarifying its existing policy.

Pursuant to Section 42 C.F.R. Section 410.27 (the "Outpatient Therapeutic Services Regulation"), therapeutic services which hospitals provide on an outpatient basis are those services and supplies (including the use of hospital facilities) which are incident to the services of physicians in the treatment of outpatients. This regulation requires that services furnished at a department of a hospital, that has Medicare provider-based status, must be under the direct supervision of a physician. "Direct supervision" means the physician must be present and on the premises of the location and immediately available to furnish assistance and direction throughout the performance of the procedure. It does not mean that the physician must be present in the room when the procedure is performed.

CMS stated its position regarding the applicability of the direct physician supervision requirement to outpatient services incident to a physician's services in the April 7, 2000 OPPS Final Rule (the "2000 Final Rule"):

We emphasize that our proposed amendment of [the Outpatient Therapeutic Services Regulation] to require direct supervision of hospital services furnished incident to a physician service to outpatients applies to services furnished at an entity that is located off the campus of a hospital that we designate as having provider-based status as a department of a hospital in accordance with [the provider-based status rules]. Our proposed amendment of [the Outpatient Therapeutic Services Regulation] to require direct supervision of hospital services furnished incident to a physician service to outpatients does not apply to services furnished in a department of a hospital that is located on the campus of that hospital. For hospital services furnished incident to a physician service to outpatients in a department of a hospital that is located on the campus of the hospital, we assume the direct supervision requirement to be met. We assume the physician supervision requirement is met on hospital premises because staff physicians would always be nearby within the hospital. (emphasis added).

The foregoing preamble commentary was interpreted by many to mean that when therapeutic services are provided to a hospital outpatient in a department of the hospital that is located on the hospital's campus (but not necessarily within the walls of the hospital), appropriate physician supervision of such services is presumed and the "direct supervision" requirement specified in the Outpatient Therapeutic Services Regulation does not apply. That is to say, due to the close proximity of the department to the hospital's main buildings, many understood CMS' position to be that it presumes that a physician will always be present and on the premises of the location at which the "incident to" services are provided and be immediately available to furnish assistance and direction throughout the performance of the services. As a result, some hospitals adopted a policy that it is not necessary to impose a specific direct supervision requirement with respect to such services.

In the 2008 Final Rule, CMS provided a "restatement and clarification" of the requirements for physician supervision of therapeutic services provided in a hospital setting. Specifically, CMS expressed its concern that the use of the term "assume" in the 2000 Final Rule may have been misunderstood. According to CMS:

As we explained in the CY 2009 OPPS/ASC proposed rule (73 FR 41519), we restated the existing policy because we were concerned that some stakeholders may have misunderstood our use of the term "assume" in the April 7, 2000 OPPS final rule with comment period, believing that our statement meant that we do not require any supervision in the hospital or in an on-campus provider-based department for therapeutic OPPS services, or that we only require general supervision for those services. This is not the case. It has been our expectation that hospital outpatient therapeutic services are provided under the direct supervision of physicians in the hospital and in all provider-based departments of the hospital, specifically both on-campus and off-campus departments of the hospital. The expectation that a physician would always be nearby predates the OPPS and is related to the statutory authority for payment of hospital outpatient services--that Medicare makes payment for hospital outpatient services 'incident to' the services of physicians in the treatment of patients as described in Section 1861(s)(2)(B) of the Act.

Some in the legal community question whether CMS is, in fact, simply clarifying its policy or rather whether it is changing its policy regarding physician supervision requirements for hospital provider-based on-campus facilities. Regardless of how CMS' discussion in the 2008 Final Rule is best characterized, hospital providers are now taking steps to ensure that their provider-based outpatient locations—both on-campus and off-campus—provide therapeutic services under direct physician supervision.

The 2008 Final Rule was published on November 18, 2008 on CMS' website. The relevant discussion is set forth at 73 FR 68702-68704.
 

OIG Issues Supplemental Compliance Program Guidance for Nursing Facilities

On September 20, 2008, the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector (the "OIG") published in the Federal Register a supplemental compliance guidance for Nursing Facilities ( the "Guidance"). The purpose of the Guidance is to supplement its prior compliance program guidance for nursing facilities issued in 2000. According to the OIG:

"The new CPG emphasizes the importance of submitting accurate claims and discusses issues related to reporting resident case-mix data, therapy services, screening for excluded individuals and entities, and restorative and personal care services. The guidance also urges nursing facilities to consider the risks of improper kickback payments associated with their business arrangements including those involving free goods and services, as well as those with physicians and suppliers."

The OIG's expanded discussion in the Guidance of fraud and abuse risks present in a nursing facility environment illustrates its increased enforcement focus on relationships between nursing homes and their referral sources, such as hospices. The Guidance includes, for example, a list of questions for a nursing home to ask itself when identifying potential kickback risks. The Guidance also contains a list of "potentially aggravating considerations" for a nursing home to look for when trying to determine arrangements at greatest risk of prosecution, such as whether the arrangement has a "potential to interfere with, or skew, clinical decision-making."

Compliance Issues in the Hospice/Nursing Home Relationship

Beth Kastner and I recently authored an article for Compliance Today discussing compliance-related issues in relationships between hospices and nursing homes.

Shortly after we sent the article to the editors, CMS released the revised conditions of participation (COPs) for hospices, which includes a final COP for hospices that provide hospice care to residents of a SNF/NF or ICF/MR.

Fortunately, we were able to update the article in time to reference this final COP.  The CMS preamble discussion on this COP is another starting point worthy of review in analyzing these types of relationships.

Thanks to the folks at the Health Care Compliance Association for granting us permission to link to the article on this website.

The article, published in the August 2008 issue of Compliance Today, appears here with permission from the Health Care Compliance Association.  Call HCCA at 888/580-8373 with reprint requests.

More Anti-Markup Rule Changes Proposed

In what seems to be becoming a new tradition, CMS's proposed Medicare Physician Fee Schedule ("PFS") for calendar year 2009 revises more than the fee schedule. Among other things (like gainsharing), it proposes further changes to last year's changes to the Anti-Markup Rule. If you have not been following the saga of CMS's changes to the Anti-Markup Rule, hopefully this Health Law Strategist article will help you catch up. 

At this point, the changes from the 2008 PFS are scheduled to be effective as of January 1, 2009. The proposed 2009 PFS presents two alternatives (though CMS reserves the right to choose neither). One option is the obvious one: to let the 2008 changes go into effect as planned, using a site-of-service-based approach, with certain much-needed clarifications.

The second option is a new non-site-based approach where the Anti-Markup Rule would apply if the PC or TC is either purchased from an outside supplier or performed or supervised by a physician who does not "share a practice" with the billing physician or physician organization. A physician does not "share a practice" if he or she is employed or contracted by more than one physician or physician organization. 

Continue Reading...

New Hospice COPs Published

Final Medicare Conditions of Participation (“COPs”) for hospices were published on June 5, 2008. They will become effective on December 2, 2008.

The final rule is a follow-up to the proposed rule issued in 2005. The final rule does not contain any major surprises for the hospice community and appears to be largely perceived by providers as a positive development and much needed updated—this is the first major overhaul of the COPs since their inception in the 1980s.

The COPS contain more specificity on requirements for contractual arrangements between hospices and their vendors, as well as other medical providers, such as nursing homes. For example, there is a new COP detailing what must be in the contract between a hospice and a nursing home when the hospice provides care to nursing home residents.

"On Campus" Defined

In St. Vincent’s Catholic Medical Centers of New York v. CMSthe HHS Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) addressed a decision by the CMS New York Regional Office determining that a cancer center located 327 yards from the provider’s main campus did not qualify for designation as “on campus” for purposes of determining provider-based status. The DAB remanded the case to CMS for further proceedings, in order to articulate its reasons for denying the center provider-based status as an on-campus facility.

The regulations governing provider-based status impose less stringent requirements on facilities that are on campus than on those that are off campus. The regulations define “campus” as “the physical area immediately adjacent to the provider's main buildings, other areas and structures that are not strictly contiguous to the main buildings but are located within 250 yards of the main buildings, and any other areas determined on an individual case basis, by the CMS regional office, to be part of the provider's campus.”

Continue Reading...