The Texas Medical Board recently adopted a new rule requiring face to face encounters by physicians with patients before prescribing medication. Teladoc has sued the Texas Medical Board in Federal Court alleging restraint of trade, stating that the new Texas rule “would raise prices and reduce access” to telehealth services. The Complaint alleges the same wrongful conduct as the recent case against the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners which attempted to restrain non-dentists from providing teeth whitening services. United States Supreme Court just held on February 25, 2015 that the State Board of Dental Examiners was immune from Sherman Act Regulation under the Doctrine of State – Action Antitrust Immunity. Some commentators expect the same issues to arise in the Texas Teladoc case.
The ruling by Judge Ward of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas highlights another facet of the ongoing dispute between UPMC and Highmark.
On February 18, 2015, Judge Ward of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas ruled that the arbitration agreements contained in the various agreements between Highmark and UPMC hospitals, most of which have separate participation agreements with Highmark and which each contain substantially identical arbitration provisions, apply to the disputes between the parties and are not preempted by the Consent Decrees that each of those parties have entered into with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
One of the key points is that each of the parties have entered into separate Consent Decrees with the Commonwealth. As you may recall, it was reported that separate Consent Decrees were created because the parties would not negotiate together.
Now the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas is ruling that the Consent Decrees are not agreements between the two parties; instead they are agreements between the separate parties and the Commonwealth. On the other hand, the various hospital participation agreements are agreements between the parties and in those agreements the parties have agreed to certain arbitration provisions. The Court stated as follows:
UPMC appears to contend that the Consent Decree operates as an amendment to the agreements between Highmark and UPMC. UPMC further argues that the Consent Decrees, in addition to amending the parties written agreements, also divest this court of jurisdiction to interpret the agreements. The Consent Decrees, however, do not purport to amend the parties’ agreements, nor could they. The Consent Decrees are agreements between UPMC and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Highmark and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, respectively. Accordingly, they do not deprive this Court of jurisdiction.
All states have some degree of confidentiality protection for peer review activities and the information generated by those activities, and there is additional federal protection for information gathered and created by Patient Safety Organizations (PSOs), established pursuant to the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act (PSQIA) of 2005.
However, physicians, hospitals, and medical staffs should not cavalierly rely upon assumed confidentiality for the protection of the information generated and collected by various peer review organizations or bodies. In a number of pervious Med Law Blog posts, I have noted that incident reports, information collected for risk management purposes, and other types of non-peer review activity does not qualify for peer review confidentiality unless the information is generated by the peer review activity for a legitimate peer review purpose.
In Krusac v. Covenant Medical Center, Inc., (2015 Michigan Lexis 923), the Michigan Supreme Court held that, “objective facts gathered contemporaneously with an event” are not entitled to privilege under Michigan’s peer review privilege statutes.
The lesson is that one should not assume that all information that might be used for peer review activities is automatically protected by the peer review confidentiality statutes of the various states.
Click the link below to read Michael A. Cassidy’s article on Medicare Sustainable Growth which appeared on the Allegheny County Medical Society’s website on Tuesday, April 21, 2015
|MGMA has published the following alert:
Congress repeals SGR!
|In a significant victory for physician group practices and MGMA, late this evening the Senate voted (92-8) to approve the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act, H.R. 2. This legislation, which passed the House of Representatives on March 26, permanently repeals the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula. President Obama publicly stated that he will sign the bill into law.
Permanent repeal of the SGR has been a top priority of MGMA’s advocacy efforts. We thank our members for their critical grassroots support in getting this legislation passed.
MGMA president and chief executive officer Halee Fischer-Wright, MD, MMM, FAAP, released the following statement:
“This is a historic day–the dark cloud over physician group practices has been lifted. The Senate vote to permanently repeal the SGR returns stability to physicians and Medicare patients alike. MGMA congratulates Congress on this momentous, bipartisan achievement.”
Western PA may now be ready for Narrow network contracting. Attached is the ACMS March 2015 Bulletin article for further information.
|March 27, 2015 – Special Alert|
|Historic SGR repeal passes in House|
|Today, the House of Representatives passed the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act, H.R. 2, by a vote of 392–37. This legislation permanently repeals the SGR and returns stability to physicians and Medicare patients.
MGMA President and CEO Halee Fischer-Wright released the following statement:
“The House of Representatives has voted to remove the dark cloud of financial uncertainty over physician group practices. Medicare innovation has been hampered far too long by the SGR. The Senate is one vote away from returning stability to patients and physicians in Medicare. MGMA urges the Senate to immediately vote to repeal the SGR.”
MGMA has worked tirelessly over the years urging Congress to permanently repeal the SGR and put an end to temporary short-term patches. MGMA members have lent their own critical support to the effort, engaging in years of influential grassroots campaigns.
Attention now turns to the Senate, which must also pass the legislation before the current patch expires on March 31 to avoid an automatic 21% cut to physician payments. Make your voice heard! Urge your Senators to repeal the SGR now.
Very interesting reading for those in the privacy and security space – http://www.verizonenterprise.com/DBIR/2014/.
The Ohio State Medical Board has proposed new telehealth prescribing regulations, which are predicated upon whether the drug is a controlled or not a controlled substance.
For non-controlled substances, physicians may prescribe or dispense medication to a person on whom the physician has never previously conducted a medical evaluation only if the physician completes and document a medical evaluation and collects a relevant clinical history that “conforms to minimal standards of care consistent with an evaluation that was completed in a face-to-face interaction” using real time telehealth technology.
For controlled substances, physicians may dispense or prescribe only in the following situations:
- On-call or cross coverage arrangements with another physician.
- Consulting with another physician or healthcare provider.
- As a medical director or hospice physician to a patient enrolled in hospice program.
- Persons for in-patients or residents of institutional facilities.