Articles Posted in Health Law

Published on:

by

On August 4, 2014, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Community Health Systems (CHS) agreed to pay $98.15 million to settle False Claims Act (FCA) allegations that CHS knowingly billed Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE for inpatient hospital services that should have been billed as outpatient or observation services. Seven actions were filed against CHS by whistleblowers under the qui tam provisions of the FCA, which allows individuals to file suit on behalf of the government and, in turn, obtain a portion of the recovery. These seven actions were filed in six different jurisdictions and alleged that, between 2005 and 2010, CHS engaged in a corporate scheme to increase admissions of Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE beneficiaries even though the admissions were not medically necessary at an inpatient level of care. Rather, the United States alleged that the patients could have been cared for in less costly outpatient or observation settings.

In addition to the $98.15 million settlement payment, CHS agreed to enter into a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Office of Inspector General (OIG) in which CHS is required to implement significant compliance protocols, including retention of an independent review organization (IRO) to review CHS’s inpatient admission claims. In exchange, CHS will be released from any civil or administrative monetary claims the United States has for the covered conduct under the FCA, Civil Monetary Penalties Law, or Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act.

According to the DOJ, this settlement agreement is the largest FCA recovery in the Middle District of Tennessee. The DOJ touted the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team’s (HEAT) coordinated nationwide effort for exposing the FCA noncompliance. Since the establishment of the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) in 2009, the DOJ has recovered over $20.2 billion in FCA cases, of which $14 billion has come from cases involving fraud against government health care programs.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

With the passage of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) on July 9, 2012, Congress expanded the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) authority to safeguard and advance public health. Exercising such authority, on July 31, 2014, the FDA notified Congress of its plan to publish a proposal to expand its oversight of laboratory developed tests (LDTs). LDTs are diagnostic tests, which are designed, manufactured, and used within a single laboratory. Previously, LDTs certified under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) could exist without FDA oversight. This exception existed because LDTs were primarily used for rare diseases. However, advances in molecular biology allowed laboratories to produce a broader range of LDTs, applicable to more common illnesses. The former exception has been touted by some as fostering laboratory independence, allowing for exponential innovation and accuracy in diagnostics. However, others like Senator Edward Markey (D-Mass.) claim that the newly implemented FDA oversight has been “long-overdue.”

As a result of support from individuals like Senator Markey, more than 11,000 LDTs, housed in 2,000 different laboratories, may fall into the FDA’s expanded regulations. The FDA has cited LDTs for illnesses like Lyme disease and cancer, as justification for the new regulatory framework. By subjecting LDTs to such scrutiny, the FDA’s stated goal is to eliminate faulty tests that produce inaccurate diagnoses and cause patients to seek unnecessary treatment, or delay vital treatment. However, opponents of the new regulation contend that the prior independence allowed laboratories to diagnose and measure disease with far greater accuracy than ever before.

The FDA’s regulatory expansion will take place over nine years and will first be applied to what are deemed the riskiest LDTs. However, some tests will remain excluded from FDA regulations. Such LDTs include those which treat rare diseases and those for which there is no FDA-approved test.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

A bill amending Title XVIII of the Social Security Act will be proposed soon, marking the culmination of bipartisan efforts in the House of Representatives. Representatives Glenn Thompson (R-Penn.) and Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) are prepared to announce a new telehealth bill, titled the Medicare Telehealth Parity Act of 2014, which would reduce the Social Security Act’s current limitations on reimbursable telemedicine technologies.

Currently, the Social Security Act only permits reimbursement for telemedicine uses in rural health professional shortage areas (HPSAs) and non-Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). Not only are these qualifications limiting, they are also difficult to discern. For example, in the 2000s, the Health Resource and Service Administration (HRSA) eliminated the “rural HPSA” category from its designations, resulting in confusion regarding the correct application of the term. The forthcoming bill seeks to slowly resolve these reimbursement complications through a cost-effective, four-year plan:

  • Within six months of the bill’s passage, it would mandate that Medicare provide coverage for telemedicine in urban areas with a population of 50,000 or less. Additionally, the six month period would be used to increase care sites to include retail clinics.
  • Two years following the bill’s passage, Medicare coverage would expand to urban areas with a population of 100,000 or less. Furthermore, the bill would include home telehealth to the list of care sites, while expanding reimbursable services to encompass physical and speech therapy.
  • Lastly, after four years have passed, the bill would make telemedicine reimbursable across the United States.

In addition to the four-year plan, the bill seeks to officially add remote patient monitoring (RPM) to the Social Security Act’s list of reimbursable services. The bill defines RPM as “the remote monitoring, evaluation, and management of an individual with a covered chronic health condition . . ., insofar as such monitoring, evaluation, and management is with respect to such condition, through the utilization of a system of technology that allows a remote interface to collect and transmit clinical data between the individual and the responsible physician . . . or supplier.” By offering government reimbursement for RPM services, thereby expanding RPM use, the bill hopes to increase Medicare savings over time.

Also, the Representatives’ bill would task the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) with developing standards for remote patient monitoring. Finally, the United States comptroller would be directed to conduct a study within two years of the bill’s passage, to determine the efficacy and estimated Medicare savings from the expansion of telemedicine applications.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Last week, the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA) announced the Statistical Sampling Pilot Program (Pilot Program). The Pilot Program offers Medicare providers an alternative route, along with the Settlement Conference Facilitation Pilot, to reach a final determination for claims pending at the administrative law judge (ALJ) hearing level without enduring the 2-3 year delay for hearing. Although the Pilot Program offers a time-saving and perhaps more efficient option for Medicare providers, engaging in the Pilot Program also comes with risks as Medicare providers may “put all of their eggs in one basket” and rely on a single ALJ to issue a decision that affects a large volume of claims. In some cases, the provider may know the identity of the ALJ prior to agreeing to statistical sampling, but in other cases the provider will not.

The Pilot Program is available to Medicare providers that have requested an ALJ hearing following a Medicare Qualified Independent Contractor (QIC) reconsideration decision. At this time, the ALJ hearing requests must either be assigned to an ALJ or must have been filed between April 1, 2013 and June 30, 2013 and it must meet all jurisdictional requirements, including that it was filed timely. In order to be eligible for the Pilot Program, the Medicare provider must have a minimum of eligible 250 claims and the claims must be one of the following: (1) pre-payment claim denials; (2) post-payment non-RAC claim denials; or (3) post-payment RAC claim denials from one RAC. In addition, claims that are assigned to different ALJs or were requested in different consolidation groups may be incorporated into the request for statistical sampling.

A Medicare provider that meets the eligibility requirements for the Pilot Program may request statistical sampling by submitting a “Request for Statistical Sampling” form that is available on OMHA’s website. The provider must also submit a spreadsheet, a template is also available on OMHA’s website, that provides detailed information about the claims requested to be included in the statistical extrapolation.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced its new pilot program – Settlement Conference Facilitation (SCF) Pilot – to provide an alternative dispute resolution process for settling appealed Medicare claims denials. Through the SCF program, providers have the opportunity to discuss with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) the potential of a mutually agreeable resolution to the claims appealed to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing. According to HHS, the settlement conference facilitator, who is an employee of the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA), will use mediation principles to assist the appellant and CMS in reaching a mutual settlement agreement. If a settlement is reached between the appellant and CMS, the facilitator will draft the settlement document to be signed at the settlement conference by both parties. Once a binding settlement agreement has been executed, any pending ALJ hearing requests for the claims covered by the settlement agreement will be dismissed and no further appeal rights will be attached to those claims. On the other hand, if the parties are unable to reach a settlement agreement and the facilitator believes further efforts to reach an agreement will be unsuccessful, the SCF process will be concluded and the appealed claims will return to the ALJ level of appeal in the order the hearing request was originally received by OMHA.

Initially, HHS is limiting eligibility for the SCF pilot program to claims by Medicare Part B providers who have filed requests for ALJ hearing in 2013 and are not currently assigned to an ALJ. For those eligible providers, the request for SCF must include all of the provider’s pending ALJ appeals for the same item or service (i.e., all claims for the same item or service in which ALJ hearing requests were submitted in 2013). Appellants must include all appeals included in the applicable ALJ hearing requests, and may not request an SCF for some claims and proceed to the ALJ hearing for the remaining claims. Additional SCF eligibility requirements include that at least 20 claims must be at issue or, if fewer than 20 claims are at issue, at least $10,000 must be in controversy. Also, the amount of each individual claim must be less than $100,000. For claims subject to statistical sampling, the extrapolated overpayment amount at issue must be less than $100,000; however, HHS states that it will continue to explore expanding the SCF pilot program for larger extrapolated overpayment cases.

Although the SCF process is only available for a limited group of claims at this time, those providers whose appeals are currently ineligible (e.g., Part A providers) for the SCF pilot program may nonetheless view these developments as a silver lining as countless appealed claims are currently awaiting ALJ hearings to be scheduled – claims in which CMS has likely recouped all of the alleged overpayment amount. With the substantial volume of claims currently backlogged at OMHA causing two to three year delays before the appealed claims are finally adjudicated, appellants may soon be provided a forum to reach mutually agreeable resolutions with CMS and receive the timely payment in which the provider is entitled.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

In a March 25, 2014 letter to the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner responded to an inquiry from the AAFP asking whether, if all of the “incident to” rules are met, may a physician bill Medicare for a Part B covered service provided by a pharmacist in the physician’s practice.

In its January 2014 letter, AFFP noted the “increasing emphasis on team-based care in family medicine” particularly in the context of a “patient-centered medical home.” Due to such changes, AAFP advised CMS that family medicine practices were employing pharmacists as part of the patient care team. Pursuant to the plan of care developed by the physician, these pharmacists were having and documenting direct, face-to-face encounters with patients where they reviewed “applicable patient history and medications” and counseled patients on the “risks and benefits of pharmaceutical treatment options” and “instructions for improving pharmaceutical treatment compliance and outcomes.” The AAFP took the position with CMS that such encounters would meet the definition of an established patient evaluation and management services (“E/M service”) and would be billed as an E/M service if the physician had provided the service. The AAFP also reviewed applicable Medicare rules on “incident to” billing, specifically section 60 of chapter 15 of the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual and stated that it “found nothing in Section 60 that would exclude pharmacists from this definition.” Accordingly, AAFP requested confirmation that a physician who met all of the “incident to” rules would be permitted to bill Medicare for a Part B covered service provided by a pharmacist in the practice.

In her response, Administrator Tavenner stated that CMS agreed with AAFP’s position that if all the requirements of the “incident to” statute and regulations were met, a physician may be reimbursed under Medicare Part B for services provided by pharmacists in the practice as “incident to” services.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

In a recently released proposed rule, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposes to eliminate the narrative requirement from the home health face-to-face encounter documentation requirement. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and implementing regulations, the certifying physician must document that the physician himself or herself or an allowed nonphysician practitioner conducted a face-to-face encounter with the beneficiary no more than 90 days prior to the home health start of care date or within 30 days of the start of home health care. As part of the home health certification requirements, the documented face-to-face encounter must include a brief narrative of why the clinical findings of the encounter support that the patient is homebound and in need of intermittent skilled nursing services or therapy services.

According to CMS, the narrative requirement was adopted in an effort to achieve greater physician accountability in certifying a patient’s eligibility to receive home health care as well as establishing the patient’s plan of care. However, as CMS noted in the proposed rule, the home health industry is experiencing numerous problems meeting the narrative requirement. Accordingly, since the effective implementation of the face-to-face encounter requirement in April 2011, many home health agencies have seen an increased number of claims denied by Medicare audit contractors due to inadequate narratives supporting the services. In its proposed rule, CMS acknowledges some of the challenges faced by home health agencies in meeting the face-to-face narrative requirement, including:

• A perceived lack established standards for compliance that can be understood and applied by physicians and home health agencies;

Continue reading
Published on:

by

On June 11, 2014, the Michigan Supreme Court issued its decision in Michigan ex rel. Gurganus v. CVS Caremark Corp., and ruled that Michigan law requires a pharmacist to pass on the difference in cost between the wholesale cost of a brand-name drug and the wholesale cost of a generic drug to the purchaser when a generic drug is substituted for a brand-name drug (and only then). The case involved two consolidated class actions and a qui tam action against multiple pharmacies alleging that the pharmacies violated MCL 333.17755(2) by failing to pass on the savings to customers when substituting brand-name drugs with generic drugs. The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendant pharmacies necessarily violated the Health Care False Claim Act (HCFCA), MCL 752.1001 et seq, and the Medicaid False Claims Act (MFCA), MCL 400.601 et seq., by violating MCL 333.17755(2) and then submitting claims for reimbursement to the state.

The trial court granted summary disposition to the defendants because it found that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The trial court noted that the plaintiffs did not plead with specificity any transactions involving the defendants that purportedly violated MCL 333.17755(2). The plaintiffs relied on a small set of cost data from a single out-of-state pharmacy during a brief time period to support their allegations of systematic fraudulent activity in Michigan by the defendants. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, finding that the plaintiffs’ general allegations were sufficient to avoid summary disposition. The Court of Appeals then reached several issues related to whether the HCFCA and MFCA created private rights of action. The panel also held that MCL 333.17755(2) applied to all transactions in which a generic drug is dispensed – not just to transactions in which a generic drug is substituted for its brand-name equivalent.

In a unanimous decision (with one Justice concurring only in the result), the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s ruling. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ construction of MCL 333.17755(2) and its holding that the plaintiffs’ pleadings were sufficient to survive summary disposition. It vacated the remainder of the Court of Appeals’ decision as unnecessary to the resolution of the case.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Technological advancements that allow for quicker and more secure electronic communication have encouraged telemedicine. The Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) defines telemedicine as “the practice of medicine using electronic communications, information technology or other means between a licensee in one location, and a patient in another location, with or without an intervening healthcare provider.” Telemedicine technologies allow for easier access to health care in rural areas, as well as nearly immediate contact with specialists for individuals involved in an emergency situation. However, widespread usage of telemedicine is still developing and most states have yet to take the appropriate legislative initiative to enact guidelines for state medical boards and health providers to follow when implementing telemedicine systems. As a result, the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB), acknowledging the benefits that telemedicine offers, decided to step in.

On April 26, FSMB adopted a Model Policy for the Appropriate Use of Telemedicine Technologies in the Practice of Medicine (Model Policy). The Model Policy comes as a result of the collaborative efforts of the FSMB-appointed State Medical Boards’ Appropriate Regulation of Telemedicine (SMART) Workgroup. The SMART Workgroup, made up of state medical board representatives and telemedicine experts, was tasked with creating uniform guidelines for state medical boards and health providers after:

  • Conducting a comprehensive literature review of telemedicine services and proposed and/or recommended standards of care;
  • Identifying and evaluating existing telemedicine standards of care developed and implemented by state medical boards;
  • Revising the FSMB’s 2002 policy.

In the absence of state legislation, the Model Policy offers a uniform approach to guide state medical boards and health providers in several essential areas.

First, the SMART Workgroup emphasized that the physician-patient relationship is integral in maintaining the integrity of medical care. The Model Policy notes that, before giving any medical advice, physicians utilizing telemedicine should first:

  • Fully verify and authenticate the location and, to the extent possible, the requesting patient;
  • Disclose and validate the provider’s identity and applicable credential(s); and
  • Obtain appropriate consents from requesting patients after disclosures regarding the delivery models and treatment methods or limitations, including any special informed consents regarding the use of telemedicine technologies.

In addition, the Model Policy notes that an appropriate physician-patient relationship has not been established when the physician’s identity is unknown to the patient. Furthermore, a patient must not be randomly assigned to a physician, but rather have a choice, whenever appropriate. So long as the standard of care is met, the physician-patient relationship can be established using telemedicine technologies.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR), released its annual report on breaches of protected health information (PHI). Under the Breach Notification Rule, covered entities are required to issue notifications following breaches of unsecured PHI. Examples of covered entities include health care providers and health plans, such as HMOs. Covered entities must notify affected individuals of a breach without unreasonable delay and no later than 60 calendar days following discovery of the breach. Notification to the individuals affected by the breach must include:

  • Covered entity’s contact information for individuals to ask questions and learn additional information;
  • A brief description of the breach, including the date of the breach and discovery of the breach, if known;
  • A description of the types of unsecured PHI involved in the breach;
  • Any steps individuals should take to protect themselves from potential harm resulting from the breach; and
  • A brief description of what the covered entity is doing to investigate the breach, mitigate harm to individuals, and to protect against future breaches.

In addition, for breaches implicating fewer than 500 individuals, covered entities must submit a report to OCR no later than 60 days after the end of the calendar year in which the breach was discovered. Breaches involving 500 or more individuals require the covered entity to provide notice to OCR at the same time the affected individuals are notified. Covered entities must notify OCR by filling out and electronically submitting a form available on OCR’s website.

In its annual report to Congress on breaches of unsecured PHI, OCR reported 236 breaches of PHI which affected over 500 people in 2011 and 222 in 2012. The 236 breaches in 2011 affected in total 11,415,185 individuals, while 3,273,735 were affected in 2012. Per department policy, OCR conducted investigations of each breach that affected over 500 individuals.

Following their investigations, OCR found that the primary reason for breaches affecting over 500 people in 2011 and 2012 was theft of portable electronics or paper containing PHI. The second leading cause of breaches was unauthorized access of records containing PHI. For example, in 2011 the largest breach occurred because of a loss of backup tapes, affecting 4.9 million people. Similarly, in 2012, 116,506 individuals were affected when an unencrypted laptop containing PHI was stolen.

Continue reading
Contact Information
210 E 3rd St #204
Royal Oak, MI 48067
Phone: 248-544-0888
Fax: 248-544-3111

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2025, Wachler & Associates, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design