Senate Health Care Bill Overcomes Hurdle for Final Passage

Senate Democrats have obtained the needed 60th vote approving a procedural motion to move the health care reform bill toward final passage on Christmas Eve.  Vote for final passage was 60-40, completely divided on party lines.  Not one Republican in the Senate voted for the health care reform bill. 

Once the bill clears the Senate, House and Senate negotiators will begin negotiations for joining two very different House and Senate bills.  The Senate bill, which is expected to cost $871 billion over ten years, would extend coverage to 31 million uninsured Americans by expanding Medicaid, offering new insurance subsidies, and creating a national insurance marketplace.  The Senate bill would also raise the Medicare Payroll Tax for individuals making over $200,000 and couples over $250,000. Additionally, insurance companies could no longer deny insurance over pre-existing conditions or set a lifetime on benefits.  But the bill has been trimmed from its original form.  The government-run insurance option has been eliminated, along with the proposed substitute for the public option by expanding Medicare eligibility to individuals as young as 55. 

© 2009 Parsonage Vandenack Williams LLC

  For more information, contact info@pvwlaw.com

Data Security Breaches Give State Attorneys General a Chance to Exercise New HIPAA Powers

The Connecticut and Arizona attorneys general are investigating health plans that recently experienced data breaches that the plans failed to disclose for several months.  This is a definite sign that state attorneys general may be using the HIPAA enforcement powers granted by the HITECH Act provisions in the Recovery Act.

Typically, state attorneys general prosecute only violations of state laws, but they now have authority to investigate and levy fines for violations of HIPAA and the HITECH Act, which requires mandatory notifications within two months of knowledge of a breach.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has come forth as possibly the first attorney general to take on a HIPAA investigation, and Arizona’s attorney general may also be pursuing a similar route. The larger of the two breaches that have come to the attorney generals’ attention was experienced by Health Net, Inc., which lost a portable external hard drive containing seven years of data for 446,000 Connecticut residents. The lost data came from 1.5 million individuals in total, also including individuals from New Jersey and New York.

Health Net reported the loss to the Connecticut attorney general on November 19. On the same day Blumenthal issued a harsh statement demanding answers and promising action. He specifically said he was investigating whether Health Net may have violated “federal laws,” as well as his state’s own data protection laws.

 Blumenthal said he would “seek to establish what happened and why the company kept its customers and the state in the dark for so long.” Blumenthal said he was “outraged and appalled” by Health Net’s actions and stated that failure to provide notice sooner was “unconscionable foot-dragging.”

Health Net’s hard drive, which disappeared from its offices in Shelton, Connecticut, required a special reader to view, but it was not encrypted.

© 2009 Parsonage Vandenack Williams LLC

  For more information, contact info@pvwlaw.com

How to Increase Collections from Consumer-Driven Healthcare Plans

Today the average American family spends about $1,000 a year for out-of-pocket expenses.  Over the next five years, out-of-pocket spending is likely to significantly increase, especially if more people lose their health insurance.

Consumer-driven healthcare plans typically combine a high-deductible health insurance plan with a personal health savings account (“HSA”) from which medical expenses are paid.  This out-of-pocket spending includes prescriptions that are not covered by insurance, dental care, eye care, co-pays, deductibles, etc.  The higher level of out-of-pocket spending can make it more difficult to collect from patients with such plans.

Here are five tips that healthcare practice administrators can implement to increase collections from consumer-driven health plans:

1. Shift your practice’s culture – don’t be afraid to talk about money with your patients.

It seems obvious, but medical practices have a history of not bringing up financial obligations at the time of the appointment. If your practice is one of them, you should consider retraining front office and appointment staff and adding automated workflow tools to assist staff in the process. Remember, this is also a shift for patients. Involve physicians in this process because it not only affects their income but also their work activity schedule.

2. Start with scheduling.

Whether you are answering an appointment phone call or registering a patient in person, include an insurance eligibility check to: a) know if the services are covered; b) know the remaining deductible; and c) explain when you expect to be paid.

 3. Follow-up on the phone.

Use appointment reminder phone calls to provide an estimate of the patient’s financial responsibility and better prepare the patient for his or her visit.

 4. Don’t skip the checkout process.

Most healthcare organizations collect co-pays during check-in, but not during the check-out process. One challenge to collecting money before the patient sees his or her physician is that a procedure may be added later that was not previously accounted for. Checkout is perfect for following up to see which procedures were and were not covered, allowing you to give the patient a good estimate of what he or she will owe. This is also a good time to collect any outstanding balances from previous visits.

 5. Offer many ways to pay.

The ability to take credit cards, debit cards, HSA disbursements and checks help patients choose how they pay before they leave.  This gives patients greater flexibility. Having an accurate representation of their outstanding balances and being able to make a recurring payment are also great options for collecting money.

© 2009 Parsonage Vandenack Williams LLC

  For more information, contact info@pvwlaw.com

FTC Red Flag Rules Enforcement Delayed Until June 1, 2010

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has again extended enforcement of the Red Flag Rules, now until June 1, 2010.

The latest delay comes at the request of Congress, which is considering a bill that amends the identity theft rule by eliminating entities with fewer than 20 employees from complying.  The House of Representatives passed that bill in late October 2009. The bill is now in the hands of the Senate.

The Red Flag Rules impact financial institutions and creditors subject to FTC jurisdiction. According to the Rules, created under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, creditors of covered accounts must establish a program to detect, prevent and mitigate identity theft.

Originally, the Red Flag Rules would have taken effect on November 1, 2008, which was then extended to May 1, 2009, and then further extended to November 1, 2009.

For more information on the Red Flag Rules, visit: https://vwhealthlaw.wordpress.com/category/red-flag-rules/.

© 2009 Parsonage Vandenack Williams LLC

  For more information, contact info@pvwlaw.com

CMS ADOPTS PAYMENT POLICY & RATE CHANGES FOR SERVICES IN HOSPITAL OUTPATIENT DEPARTMENTS AND AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTERS FOR 2010

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) has announced that most hospitals will receive an inflation update of 2.1 percent in their payment rates for services provided to Medicare beneficiaries in outpatient departments.  Due to a Medicare requirement, CMS will reduce the update by 2.0 percentage points for hospitals that did not participate in quality data reporting for outpatient services or that did not report the quality data successfully, resulting in only a 0.1 percent update for those hospitals. 

CMS also announced that ambulatory surgical centers (“ASCs”) will receive a 1.2 percent inflation update starting January 1, 2010.  CMS projects that the aggregate Medicare payments to more than 4,000 hospitals and community mental health centers in calendar year (“CY”) 2010 will be approximately $32.2 billion, while aggregate Medicare payments to approximately 5,000 ASCs will total $3.4 billion.

The payment updates are included in a final rule with comment period that revises payment policies and updates the payment rates for services provided to beneficiaries during CY 2010 in hospital outpatient departments under the Outpatient Prospective Payment System (“OPPS”) and in ASCs under a revised rate-setting methodology that was established January 1, 2008.

The updated payment rates are meant to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries continue to receive high quality and efficient care in the most appropriate setting.

The CY 2010 OPPS/ASC final rule with comment period will be included in the November 20, 2009 Federal Register.  Comments on designated provisions are due by 5:00 p.m. EST on December 29, 2009.  CMS will respond to comments in the CY 2011 OPPS/ASC final rule.

© 2009 Parsonage Vandenack Williams LLC

  For more information, contact info@pvwlaw.com

REMINDER: NOVEMBER 15, 2009 DEADLINE FOR MEDICARE PART D CREDITABLE COVERAGE NOTICES

Employers with group health plans need to provide Medicare Part D notices of creditable or non-creditable coverage to Medicare-eligible individuals by November 15, 2009.  Employers can satisfy this requirement by including the notice in enrollment materials or in separate mailing during the fall. When preparing materials for distribution this fall, employers should be aware of revised model notices provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS)”.

Background

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 requires group health plans that provide prescription drug coverage to disclose to individuals eligible for Medicare Part D whether their coverage is “creditable.”  Basically, prescription drug coverage is considered “creditable” if it is at least actuarially equivalent to (i.e., at least as good as) the Medicare Part D coverage. This disclosure is very important because individuals who do not enroll in Medicare Part D when first eligible and who have gone more than 63 days without creditable coverage generally will have to pay higher premiums permanently when they finally enroll. Thus, individuals need to know the status of their group health plan coverage in order to make an informed decision about enrolling in Part D.

Notices regarding whether prescription drug coverage is creditable or non-creditable must be provided –

  • prior to the start of the annual Part D enrollment period (November 15 through December 31 of each year);
  • prior to an individual’s initial enrollment period for Part D;
  • prior to the effective date of coverage for a Part D-eligible individual who joins an employer plan;
  • when an employer’s prescription drug coverage ends or changes status as creditable coverage; and
  • upon a beneficiary’s request.

The deadline for providing annual creditable coverage notices this year is November 15.

Revised Notices Posted

Earlier this year, CMS posted revised model notices and updated guidance regarding creditable coverage disclosures. The changes to the model notices and guidance are minimal.  CMS recommends, but does not require, that personalized notices be provided upon request to enable individuals to show proof of prior creditable coverage when enrolling in a Part D plan.

What Information is Required in the Creditable Coverage Notification?

The information must explain whether the plan sponsor’s prescription drug coverage is creditable. If the coverage is not creditable, this information must also explain that there are limitations on the periods during the year in which the individual may enroll in a Medicare drug plan and that the individual may be subject to a late enrollment penalty.

What Should Employers Do to Comply with the CMS Rules?

It is important for employers to review their current notices and determine whether any changes or updates need to be made so that they are in compliance with the CMS requirements.  If you have any questions in regard to determining whether your group health plan is creditable or non-credible, or in regard to the notice process in general, you should consult your attorney.

© 2009 Parsonage Vandenack Williams LLC

  For more information, contact info@pvwlaw.com

Medical Malpractice Discussion with Experts: Hayes V. Whiteside, M.D., Chief Medical Officer and Senior Vice President of Risk Management for ProAssurance

Hayes V. Whiteside, M.D., is Chief Medical Officer and Senior Vice President of Risk Management for ProAssurance. Prior to joining ProAssurance in 2004, he practiced Urology for 18 years in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. He received his undergraduate degree from Louisiana State University and his medical degree from Louisiana State University School of Medicine in New Orleans. Dr. Whiteside completed a general surgery internship and residency at LSU in New Orleans and a urology residency at LSU as well. He was Associate Professor of Surgery at The University of Alabama College of Community Health Sciences Division of Surgery in Tuscaloosa. He also served as Chairman of the Tuscaloosa County Board of Health from 2002-2006. He remains active in numerous medical societies and professional organizations.

For more information on Dr. Whiteside and ProAssurance, visit www.proassurance.com.

Q. Nebraska passed “I’m Sorry” legislation a few years ago. The intent of the legislation is to provide physicians the opportunity to apologize to a patient for a negative result without having such apology used against the physician in a medical malpractice lawsuit. Do you think that physicians should take advantage of such legislation? If so, in what instances? What is the danger of writing such a letter?

Dr. Whiteside: One of the most challenging situations a physician faces is delivering bad news to patients and families.  To facilitate the process of delivering such news, many states, like Nebraska, have enacted “apology laws” to prevent expressions of sympathy from being introduced as evidence of wrongdoing in professional liability lawsuits. At the outset, physicians who face such a situation should contact their professional liability carrier and the facility’s risk manager to assist in disclosure and communication with the patient and family. If at all possible, physicians should have these conversations in-person, so that the patient and family can see the physician’s concern, ask questions, and explore options. When disclosing unexpected outcomes and delivering expressions of sympathy, whether in-person or in a letter, it is important to acknowledge that the event occurred.  Depending on the situation, an apology that the event happened may be desirable or appropriate, but physicians should refrain from accepting blame for the event. The conversation, including the names and relationships of those present, should be documented in the patient’s medical record.  Physicians know it is impossible to prepare for every difficult situation that may arise; however, general preparation for disclosure of adverse events is good risk management, just like a fire drill.  Furthermore, development and maintenance of an open and strong patient relationship may prevent deterioration of the relationship should an unexpected outcome occur.  

Q. If you were to review the office procedures for a medical practice, what three or four procedures would you want to see (1) in writing, and (2) actively followed?

Dr. Whiteside: As the face of medicine changes (practice trends, technological advancements, etc.), static written procedures are not always adequate.  Naturally, easy-to-understand-and-implement processes that are well-known to the office staff are more likely to be followed.  An important process is tracking and following up on diagnostic tests/imaging studies, lab results, and referrals. Follow-up with patients who have missed or cancelled appointments is a key process for physician practices.  Another important process is telephone triage, recognition of urgent/emergent complaints and provision of physician-approved responses to common questions or problems by the office staff.  As important as the actual processes is the staff’s knowledge and understanding of their important role in patient safety and risk management.

Q. It is often said that the physician/patient relationship is an important aspect of a successful treatment relationship. Do you agree with that statement? If yes, what would be important in the physician/patient relationship?

Dr. Whiteside: Without a doubt. Physicians and other medical professionals can tell you that patients who perceive that they have a good relationship with their physicians are less likely to sue, even in the face of an adverse outcome.  Effective risk management begins as soon as a professional relationship is established with a patient, and effective communication is the cornerstone of a successful physician/patient relationship, with understanding, compliance, and satisfaction ultimately depending on both verbal and written communication. Good communication improves actual care and the patient’s perception of the care that he or she receives: two key ingredients to deterring lawsuits. Patient education is important, as well, because patients who don’t understand what medicine can and cannot do for them may mistake a known complication, adverse event, or unanticipated outcome as “bad medicine.” Educating patients doesn’t have to be technical or lengthy, but efforts should be as thorough as possible. It’s a good idea to keep a patient’s fears in mind – we recommend physicians check a patient’s understanding by asking him or her to repeat any key points, as well as asking the patient to relay any questions or concerns. We also recommend encouraging the patient to take an active role in his or her course of treatment. Patient non-compliance, which often leads to adverse events, is frequently associated with a patient’s failure to understand his or her condition, the rationale for treatment, and the important role he or she play in achieving positive outcomes.

Q. What factors are particularly important in terms of quality documentation?

Dr. Whiteside:  The primary function of a medical record is to provide a complete and accurate description of a patient’s medical history, medical conditions, diagnoses, care and treatment, and response to such care and treatment. Proper documentation within the medical record can support a physician’s defense and illustrate his or her commitment to the patient’s care.  Whether to a jury, third party payor, or another physician, proper documentation gives physicians credit for the good care they are providing.  We recommend documentation be legible, timely, chronological, accurate, thorough, and objective. Documentation should include tests ordered, past medical histories, allergies, and medication lists. Discussions with patients, such as informed consent discussions or discussions regarding a patient’s noncompliance, should be documented and include the names and relationships of anyone present. Physicians or staff should document if printed educational materials are provided or if the patient watches an online program or video.  In order not to taint the documentation of the good care being provided, physicians should not alter the medical record.  Corrections and addenda should be transparent, and a physician’s professional liability carrier may be of assistance before documentation mistakes are made.  Again, physicians should receive credit for the good care they are providing, and proper documentation is the means to that end. 

Q. If you were to create a preventive law checklist for medical practices, what would be three or four of the most important things on that checklist?

Dr. Whiteside: The benefits of preventive practices include quality patient care, promotion of patient safety, open and strong patient relationships, compliance with laws and regulations, and protection from liability. A preventive checklist to achieve those benefits might incorporate the following:

  1. Physician-approved telephone triage protocols for both office and after-hours calls that address what complaints require immediate attention, frequently asked questions and common problems, and parameters to determine if an office visit or other action is necessary.
  2. Documentation of all patient telephone calls, during and after regular office hours, which includes the date/time of the call, subjective information provided by the patient/family, advice or instructions given, and prescriptions phoned in to a pharmacy (with medication name, dosage, frequency, amount, any refills, and the pharmacy utilized).
  3. A system to track missed or cancelled appointments, referrals and consultations, and test and lab results, including documentation of all steps and efforts to reschedule patients or obtain information.
  4. Documentation of informed consent discussions, which includes the physician’s discussion regarding the risks, benefits, and consequences of non-treatment; the patient’s agreement with the plan; and any state law documentation requirements.

© 2009 Parsonage Vandenack Williams LLC

  For more information, contact info@pvwlaw.com

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE DISCUSSION WITH EXPERTS: WILLIAM LAMSON, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE DEFENSE ATTORNEY

Bill Lamson is a partner of Lamson, Dugan and Murray and Chairman of the Firm’s Litigation Department.  Bill is well recognized and highly sought in the area of medical malpractice defense. 

Mr. Lamson is a 1969 graduate of the University of Nebraska. He was inducted into the American College of Trial Lawyers in 1985 and the International Society of Barristers 1996. He is also a member of the Nebraska Defense Lawyers Association, and a member of the Defense Research Institute.

For more information on Bill Lamson and the well respected law firm of Lamson, Dugan and Murray, see www.ldmlaw.com

Below are Mr. Lamson’s responses to our series of questions on medical malpractice:

Q.  Nebraska passed “I’m sorry” legislation a few years ago.  The intention of the legislation is to provide physicians the opportunity to apologize to a patient for a negative result without having such apology used against the physician in a medical malpractice lawsuit.  Do you think that physicians should take advantage of such legislation?  If so, in what instances? What is the danger of writing such a letter?   

Mr. Lamson’s response:  States that have passed “I’m sorry” statutes have differed in the scope of protection provided.  The Nebraska statute, like most others, is narrowly drafted to protect only statements of sympathy or compassion, but not statements of fault in relation to an unanticipated outcome of medical care. 

Expressions of apology and sympathy are important in building relationships of trust with patients and families.  On the other hand, expressions of fault or other explanations regarding an unanticipated outcome often require speculation on the part of the physician and will be admissible as evidence should the physician be sued and the case proceed to trial.  Physicians should therefore provide apologies with caution, understanding the limitations of the protection afforded by the “I’m sorry” statute.  

The discussion of legal issues related to this legislation is not to be confused with requirements set forth in physicians’ codes of ethics, such as the AMA Code of Medical Ethics, which should always be observed.     

Q. If you were to review the office procedures for a medical practice, what three or four procedures would you want to see (1) in writing; and (2) actively followed?

Mr. Lamson’s response:

Responding to patient phone calls and documentation thereof

Follow-up on outside lab/test results

Updating patient’s recent history, especially re: other physicians seen, medications prescribed by other physicians

Documentation of Patient Education/Informed Consent

Q.  It is often said that the physician/patient relationship is an important aspect of a successful treatment relationship.  Do you agree with that statement? If yes, what would be important in the physician/patient relationship?

Mr. Lamson’s response:

Yes.

Patients who sue are often angry about perceived attitudes on the part of the physician.  They describe a lack of caring, or indifference, and lack of listening to the concerns of the patient or family.  This is often a misperception of which the physician is unaware.  Taking steps to avoid this will benefit the patient and lessen the risk of litigation for the physician. 

 Trust is important in a physician/patient relationship.  Trust can be established by communicating with the patient on a level that he/she understands and allowing the patient to be involved to a reasonable extent in medical decision-making.  It is also established by speaking frankly with the patient while remaining nonjudgmental regarding personal medical issues.  Taking time to listen to patient concerns and to answer questions goes far in demonstrating an attitude of caring.  All of these actions are likely to assist in the establishment of a successful physician/patient relationship.        

Q.  What factors are particularly important in terms of quality documentation?

Mr. Lamson’s response:

Documentation entries should be dated and timed, legible, and factual.  They should provide enough information to tell a story that allows the physician or other healthcare provider to understand what has been going on with the patient.  Interdisciplinary communications should be documented, as should communications with consulting physicians and with the patient or family.  Patient education/informed consent should always be documented in the medical record, the specificity of which depends on the circumstances.  Errors should be corrected by lining through; never obliterate or attempt to change a medical record after-the-fact.  With electronic charting, avoid the temptation to simply “choose from the menu.”  Individualize by entering annotations as necessary.   

Q. If you were to create a preventive law checklist for medical practices, what would be three or four of the most important things on that checklist?

Mr. Lamson’s response:

Perform an appropriate history/physical examination before prescribing any medication or treatment for a patient.

Formulate a (differential) diagnosis when a patient is seen for a medical complaint.

Follow-up after ordering any medication or treatment, or additional testing.

Communicate with the patient/family regarding diagnosis, treatment, and recommendations; allow time for patient questions and input; ensure patient understanding.

Document all of the above.

© 2009 Parsonage Vandenack Williams LLC

  For more information, contact info@pvwlaw.com

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE DISCUSSION WITH EXPERTS: JOHN MARSHALL, HEALTHCARE RISK SERVICES PRINCIPAL, AND TIM LANGDON, HEALTHCARE RISK SERVICES PROJECT ANALYST

John Marshall is currently head of the Healthcare Risk Services practice area for SilverStone Group.  Throughout his career, John has developed an expertise in medical malpractice insurance and risk management for the healthcare industry.  John is a regular speaker and writer on risk management. The Silverstone health care team works to develop strategies to reduce the total cost of risk for clients in the healthcare industry.

Tim Langdon has an undergraduate background in Health Administration & Policy and a post graduate degree in law. Tim’s role is to develop unique risk management strategies.  Tim is a frequent writer on speaker on health care risk management strategies.   

For more information on John Marshall and Tim Langdon, including more detailed bios, and the SilverStone Group, visit http://www.silverstonegroup.com/.

Below are Mr. Marshall’s and Mr. Langdon’s responses to our series of questions on medical malpractice:

Q.  Nebraska passed “I’m sorry” legislation a few years ago.  The intention of the legislation is to provide physicians the opportunity to apologize to a patient for a negative result without having such apology used against the physician in a medical malpractice lawsuit.  Do you think that physicians should take advantage of such legislation?  If so, in what instances? What is the danger of writing such a letter?

Mr. Marshall’s and Mr. Langdon’s Responses:

“I’m Sorry” legislation has gained much attention for promoting physician apologies to patients while seeking to shield them from liability, but there are some unintended consequences of doing so that are often overlooked.  Every physician, under the terms of their professional liability insurance, has a duty not to compromise the ability of the insurer to defend against a claim.  Therefore, it is important for a physician or health care facility to involve their insurance company as soon as possible when there is a potential claim.  This will allow the physician to work with the insurer to craft an appropriate “I’m Sorry” response.  Doing so will lessen the risk that an otherwise protected expression of sympathy or compassion will be construed as compromising the insurer’s position, thereby placing the physician’s malpractice insurance at risk.

Regarding “I’m Sorry” legislation in general, there is a scarcity of research on the ability of apologies to reduce litigation.  Insurance carriers have had success rates in defending and closing claims with no payment in excess of 90% and it will take a substantial amount of evidence to move the industry away from a “defend and deny” strategy.

Last, there remains an open and significant question regarding the programs in place with some insurance carriers that rely on apologies and small payments to claimants to avoid full blown lawsuits.  These “Early Resolution” claims programs may result in more claims reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank than would occur under a standard “defend and deny” strategy.  This includes claims without merit that would otherwise be defeated, but instead (and wrongly) are settled for a small amount and reflect negatively on a physician’s reputation.

Q. If you were to review the office procedures for a medical practice, what three or four procedures would you want to see (1) in writing; and (2) actively followed?

Mr. Marshall’s and Mr. Langdon’s Responses:

Policies and procedures for safeguarding PHI and other valuable patient data (e.g. financial information) to prevent identity theft.

The follow-up process for ALL test results.

Guidelines for staff on friendly and appropriate interactions with patients.  Happy patients will be life-long patients and are the ones least likely to sue you.

 Q.  It is often said that the physician/patient relationship is an important aspect of a successful treatment relationship.  Do you agree with that statement? If yes, what would be important in the physician/patient relationship?

Mr. Marshall’s and Mr. Langdon’s Responses:

Absolutely.  Mutual trust and respect are crucial to a successful physician/patient relationship because they form a foundation for open communication.  Both parties must be able to share information freely, discuss concerns, and ask questions to ensure an optimal treatment outcome.  Both parties to the relationship must not the let the gap in knowledge between patient and physician dictate how they interact.  This simply means patients and physicians must look at each as equals working toward a common goal of better health.  Additionally, physicians should challenge their patients’ understanding of treatment options and instructions.  Physicians should also adjust the content and style of their communications to meet the unique needs of each patient.

Q.  What factors are particularly important in terms of quality documentation?

Mr. Marshall’s and Mr. Langdon’s Responses:

Truthfulness, accuracy, timeliness, and legibility are vitally important to quality documentation.  Most importantly though is that that there is sufficient quality documentation in the first place.  A growing focus of Medicare and Medicaid fraud investigations, particularly audits by Recovery Audit Contractors, are services rendered without proper documentation.  Without the right documentation, physicians will have to forfeit payment received for these services and further, put themselves at risk for additional fines, penalties, and in extreme cases, exclusion. 

Q. If you were to create a preventive law checklist for medical practices, what would be three or four of the most important things on that checklist?

Mr. Marshall’s and Mr. Langdon’s Responses:

First, recognize where your best opportunities to transfer risk are.  Some risks are insurable, but the majority of risks can only be addressed through proactive measures.  Allocate your risk management dollars as best suits your needs and risk tolerance.  Second, ensure that a comprehensive set of policies and procedures are in place, but more importantly, that the staff actually follows them.  Last, recognize where you have had problems in the past and proactively address these areas first.  This may seem simple, but it’s far easier to ignore a mistake and its resolution then it is to take steps to prevent the mistake from happening again.

 

© 2009 Parsonage Vandenack Williams LLC

  For more information, contact info@pvwlaw.com

Stricter Self-Referral Rules Under Stark May Bring an End to Some Physician-Hospital Contracts

Major changes to the federal anti-self-referral rules known as the Stark law take effect October 1, 2009.  These changes were approved over a year ago, and could potentially cause many physician-hospital arrangements to fall out of compliance if doctors are not prepared. Lack of knowledge of the Stark law revisions or the structure of a particular agreement will not excuse physicians from liability.

The changes to the Stark law make it much more difficult for physicians and other entities providing designated health services to enter into joint ventures around hospital services. Stark is a strict-liability statute, so even if physicians have innocent intentions, they are still subject to penalties for violating the statute.

The Stark law generally prohibits physicians from referring patients to entities in which they have a financial stake, although there are several exceptions to the rule. In August 2008, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) issued a final rule making broad revisions to the Medicare hospital inpatient prospective payment system that will restrict:

  • So-called “under arrangements,” where hospitals contract with physician-owned entities to provide a broad range of ancillary services, such as clinical labs or imaging services.
  • Per-use or “per-click” payments for equipment and space leases.
  • Compensation deals based on a percentage of revenue generated by space or equipment use.

The changes were delayed one year from the original October 1, 2008, implementation date.

In order to comply with the changes to the Stark law, physicians will need to restructure contracts to narrow the scope of services they perform for a hospital.  For example, a physician-owned entity may need to limit its clinical services but still could conduct billing and management activities.

How Should Physicians Prepare for the Stark Changes?

Here are some steps physicians can take to ensure compliance with the rules taking effect October 1, 2009:

  • Consult an attorney to determine whether current hospital joint ventures or space and equipment leases will continue to be compliant with Stark.
  • Review contracts for clauses that allow parties to amend or dissolve agreements as a result of changes in the law. Be sure to include such clauses in future contracts.
  • Consider restructuring existing deals to limit the scope of services provided or to take advantage of other applicable safe harbors. In some instances, physicians may be forced to unwind the arrangements.
  • Make sure any changes to compensation reflect fair market value.
  • Review any state self-referral laws.
  • Make any changes to agreements in writing.

© 2009 Parsonage Vandenack Williams LLC

  For more information, contact info@pvwlaw.com