Supreme Court Restricts " Kitchen Sink" Qui Tam Claims

There has been an explosion in the Qui Tam litigation in the healthcare industry, as well as other industries dependent upon government payment. Qui Tam litigation allows private parties, frequently disgruntled employees (and more frequently disgruntled ex-employees) or competitors to file suit to recover damages on behalf of the government. The complaints are filed under seal and disclosed to the government with the hope that the government will assume the investigation and prosecution of the suit. Under the False Claims Act, private citizens may qualify for a portion of the eventual recovery if the following conditions exist:

1.   The private citizens (known as "relators") made a pre-filing disclosure of the allegations to the government; and

2.   The relator is the original source of the allegations in the event the allegations through transactions are ultimately publicly disclosed, with the purpose of this requirement being that the relator be the initial reason that the suit is being pursued. 

Unfortunately, these rules and procedures were often used by private citizens to present "kitchen sink" charges or allegations for government review, with the hope that something would stick.

In Rockwell International Corp. v. United States (a non-healthcare but nevertheless a government contracting case) the US Supreme Court clarified these rules and limits the "kitchen sink" technique by holding that the relators not the original source simply because the relator might have been the original source as to some claims which were investigated but not pursued by the government.

CMS To Host Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI) Teleconferences

2007 Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI)

National Provider Conference Call with Question & Answer Session

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) Provider Communications Group will host the first in a series of national provider conference calls on the 2007 Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI). This toll-free call will take place from 3:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m., EST, on Tuesday, March 27, 2007.

On December 20, 2006, the President signed the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (TRHCA).  TRHCA section 101 authorizes a financial incentive for eligible professionals to participate in a voluntary quality reporting program.  Eligible professionals, who chose to participate and successfully report on a designated set of quality measures for services paid under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and provided between July 1 and December 31, 2007, may earn a bonus payment of 1.5% of their charges during that period, subject to a cap.   To review the list of eligible professionals, visit http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI/10_EligibleProfessionals.asp#TopOfPage on the CMS website. All Medicare-enrolled professionals in these categories are eligible to participate in the 2007 PQRI, regardless of whether the professional has signed a Medicare participation agreement to accept assignment on all claims.

An overview of the 2007 PQRI will be presented that will include discussion about eligible professionals, reporting, measures and codes, and analysis and payment.   A PowerPoint slide presentation will be posted to the PQRI webpage at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI/30_EducationalResources.asp#TopOfPage on the CMS website for you to download prior to the call so that you can follow along with the presenter, Susan Nedza, M.D.

In addition, MLN Matters article MM5558, posted on the Medicare Learning Network, can be referenced prior to the call.  The article provides a program overview of the 2007 PQRI.  MM5558 is available at the following link:     http://www.cms.hhs.gov/mlnmattersarticles/downloads/mm5558.pdf.

Following the presentation, callers will have an opportunity to ask questions of CMS subject matter experts.

Conference call details:                                                

                                                Date:  Tuesday, March 27, 2007                                                                                                          Conference Title:  2007 Physician Quality Reporting Initiative

                                                Time:  3:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. EST

In order to receive the call-in information, you must register for the call via the internet by following the instructions below.

If you are planning to sit in with a group, only one person needs to register to receive the call-in data.  This registration is solely to reserve a phone line, not to allow participation.

1.         To register for the call participants need to go to:

https://ww4.premconf.com/webrsvp/register?conf_id=549030

2.         Click ”Continue” to be taken to the registration screen.

3.         Fill in all required data.

4.         Click ”Submit”.

5.         You will be taken to the confirmation screen where the call-in number will

be given.

6.         The pass code for the call is 549030.

7.         To view the time the call will start, registrants will need to select their

time zone in the drop down box under ”Time” on the confirmation screen.

8.         Click "Confirm Registration" to receive a confirmation email.

Online Evaluation Form

CMS has developed an online evaluation form that can be quickly completed and submitted. Participants are asked to complete this online evaluation form to help CMS make informed decisions on improving training activities. The online evaluation form titled “Training Evaluation Form” can be found on the registration page, http://www.cms.hhs.gov/medlearn/cont_eval_form.asp.  CMS looks forward to hearing your comments.

If you have questions, or require special accommodations, please contact Geanelle E. Griffith at geanelle.griffith@cms.hhs.gov or at (410) 786-4466.

Physican Cases: Antitrust, Restrictive Covenant & Credentialing

RESTRICTIVE COVENANT UNENFORCEABLE

BY SURVIVING SPOUSE 

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that a medical practice corporation, ownership of which had transferred from the deceased sole physician shareholder to his spouse and which was converted to a business corporation by state law, could not enforce a restrictive covenant because it could not practice medicine and had no enforceable interest. This same result could apply in Pennsylvania because it has the same combination of corporate practice of medicine and professional corporation laws. The Virginia case is Parikh v. Family Care Center and the case is available at: http://op.bna.com/hl.nsf/id/psts-6z2sn8/$File/parkikh.pdf. Although liquidated damages would prejudice your injunction rights, liquidated damages would be an effective resolution for this problem.

RADIOLOGIST DENIED ANTI-TRUST RELIEF

DESPITE PROVING CONSPIRACY

Dr. Saskia V. W. Hilton failed to demonstrate that “competition in the market for pediatric radiology services” was injured despite producing evidence that would have supported finding of an anti-competitive conduct by this hospital and its existing pediatric radiologist. The classic position is that the law protects competition not competitors.

See: http://op.bna.com/hl.nsf/id/psts-6z8qrp/$File/hilton.pdf 

CALIFORNIA PHYSICIAN NOT DAMAGED

BY BOARD CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT

A California physician lost his medical staff privileges when he failed to meet the hospital’s new board certification requirements was found not to be entitled to pursue an action in court for damages relating to the termination of his clinical privileges because the court rule that the decision of the hospital, under California law, was a quasi legislative act of general application, in the form of the adoption of minimum qualification standards for clinical privileges, which did not create an individual cause of action. See: Tran vs. MissionHospitalRegionalMedicalCenter at:

http://op.bna.com/hl.nsf/id/thyd-9prg/$File/Tran%20v%20Mission%20Hospital.pdf

New MedPAC Reports: Physician Medicare Reimbursement, Sustainable Growth Rate, and P4P

MEDICAL PAYMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION (MEDPAC) REPORTS

DEAL WITH PRACTICE EXPENSE METHODOLOGY, SGR AND P4P: 

MedPac reported to Congress on a variety of issues in March of 2007. MedPac predicted that the new practice expense methodology will produce a 7% E&M increase, but an 8-9% decrease for major imaging procedures by 2010. MedPac concluded that Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) methodology is flawed and will continue to produce Medicare reimbursement declines unless revised.

While recommending a payment update (i.e., increase) for 2008, despite SGR projected decreases, and implementation of quality payment initiatives, MedPac nevertheless concluded that the prime indicators of Medicare physician reimbursement adequacy, i.e., participating physician members and beneficiary service volume, are stable, and concluded that any Medicare reimbursement update should be offset by expected gains in physician productivity of 1.7%, stating “Physicians, like other providers, taxpayers and firms that fund Medicare, should be expected to increase their productivity each year.”  

Access to the complete report is available at the MedPac website: http://www.medpac.gov/.,

which is also accessible through the Blog links.

Presription for Pennsylvania: Governor Rendell's Proposal for Pennsylvania Healthcare Reform

PRESCRIPTION FOR PENNSYLVANIA - GOVERNOR RENDELL’S PROPOSAL

FOR PENNSYLVANIA HEALTH CARE REFORM

Representatives of Governor Rendell’s administration reported at the Pennsylvania Bar Institute Annual Health Law Institute that Governor Rendell’s “Prescription for Pennsylvania,” the comprehensive state health care reform program, is expected to be presented to the Pennsylvania Legislature before the end of the month. Prescription for Pennsylvania is intended to increase access, affordability and quality throughout Pennsylvania.

Although the legislation has not yet been officially  proposed, so we cannot yet provide any specific analysis, it is expected that some of the significant components will be as follows:

§      Expanded required health insurance coverage for small employers (along with tax-based financial incentives), expansion of basic health insurance coverage for uninsured, and required health insurance coverage for college students;

§      Expansion of the scope of practice for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, certified registered nurse anesthetists and nurse midwifes, including such items as expanded prescription authority, expanded independent practice, and required credentialing by networks and health care providers;

§      Expansion of medical facility sites to improve access for Pennsylvanians by allowing nurse managed care centers, expansion of federally qualified health centers, allowing pharmacists to manage drug therapies in hospitals and other institutions, and supporting nurse practitioner practice in pharmacies;

§      Re-establishing of a process similar to Certificate of Need which will require regional approval based on resource budgets for new facilities such as imaging facilities and ambulatory surgery centers in Pennsylvania; and

§      Comprehensive Pay for Performance programs which will be uniform across third party payor programs to provide united incentives for performance improvement.

All of this is, of course, subject to specific proposals yet to be presented. Information can be obtained from the following websites:

http://www.gohcr.state.pa.us/prescription-for-pennsylvania/Rx-for-Pennsylvania.pdf

http://www.gohcr.state.pa.us/prescription-for-pennsylvania/Rx-for-Affordability.pdf

http://www.gohcr.state.pa.us/prescription-for-pennsylvania/Rx-for-Access.pdf

http://www.gohcr.state.pa.us/prescription-for-pennsylvania/Rx-for-Quality.pdg

Basic Physician Contract Issues for Residents and Fellows

BASIC CONTRACT ISSUES FOR NEW PHYSICIAN CONTRACTS

INTRODUCTION

When physicians have finally completed the medical education journey, many are confronted with a “physician employment contract,” usually from a hospital or medical practice, which could define the essential terms of their professional relationship for many years to come. If the parties live happily ever after, neither may ever read the contract again. However, if a problem arises, the scramble to find and read the contract begins.

 New physicians are always at a significant disadvantage in this process. The “Employer,” whether hospital or medical practice, has invested significant resources into designing a contract which gives emphatic attention to the key terms upon which the physician was focused at signing (money, time, vacation, employee benefits) but is otherwise a fairly one-sided agreement, perhaps it was even presented as the “form contract we give to all the doctors.” Residents and fellows may be lulled a little deeper into that dilemma if they remain with the teaching institution at which they completed their studies because the new contract may not appear to be that much different from the prior “student” contract.

Since this contract will basically control your professional life, by both defining how you must work and for how much, but also by controlling where you might practice when the contract ends though “restrictive covenants,” you are well advised to read it carefully and consult an experienced healthcare lawyer before signing any contract.

The following outline is a fundamental review of the basis issues which should appear in most contracts.

I.          COMPENSATION: The most important item of the contract will be the compensation. Compensation is typically divided into three categories, i.e., base compensation, productivity or incentive compensation, and other bonuses.

A.        Base compensation is guaranteed annual salary, usually payable in accordance with the employer’s payroll practices. Base compensation in multi-year contracts should escalate in future years to reflect added value or inflation, unless there is a productivity component in addition to the base compensation. Experienced advisors should have comparative compensation information by specialty.

B.        Productivity compensation is typically based upon some formula, usually either net collections or some other productivity measure such as RVUs. Productivity based upon collections typically requires some collection level in excess of expenses or in excess of a collection target. Be careful to clearly define the productivity formula, particularly the amount and methodology for allocating expenses. Productivity based upon work units requires a clear understanding of how those units will be generated, i.e., by the physicians or by other ancillary providers, and whether it will include ancillary revenue, such as imaging, drugs and biologicals, etc.

C.       Other types of bonuses include signing bonuses, retention bonuses that are paid following completion of annual benchmarks, and severance bonuses for premature termination.

II.         TERM: The contract term is the number of years that the contract will be in force. The term of physician employment contracts usually reflects some initial probationary period or qualifying period during which the physician will be an employee of the practice prior to an opportunity to become a shareholder. Employment contracts with hospitals do not have shareholder options in the future. This probationary period varies by geographic region of the country, but is typically 2 to 3 years. You should assure that the initial contract continues to exist until replaced by a shareholder employment contract. Many contracts contain “evergreen” renewal provisions, which automatically renew contract term from year to year without requiring any action by either the employer or the employee. Be careful with evergreen contracts which contain no provisions for salary escalation.

III.        BENEFITS: Most contracts simply state that you participate in the benefit plans in accordance with the terms and conditions of the plans; get the details.    

A.        Retirement Plan: Check participation, vesting and contribution rates. Get a copy of the Summary Plan Description (SPD) mandated by ERISA.   

B.        Health Insurances: Most practices and all hospitals will have an employee benefit description.

IV.       BUSINESS EXPENSES: Get the business expense policy. If you have additional specific needs, discuss these before the contract is signed. 

A.        Professional Dues: Hospitals, specialty societies

B.        Pager/Communications/Cell Phone

C.       CME

D.       Travel and Parking

E.        Moving and Relocation

V.        MALPRACTICE INSURANCE: Malpractice premiums are typically covered as one of the business expenses in the contract. There are two types of malpractice insurance, i.e., occurrence and claims made. Occurrence malpractice insurance covers the physician for any event that occurred during the term of the malpractice policy regardless of when the claim is made. Claims made malpractice insurance, which is the less valuable coverage, covers incidents only if they both occur and are the subject of a claim made during the term of the policy, hence the name “claims made.” When employment at an entity with claims made insurance ends, the malpractice insurance typically ends also, meaning that any future claims will not be covered unless a reporting endorsement, sometimes known as a “tail,” is purchased. The tail should be covered as a business expense. Sometimes, the responsibility for the tail is divided based upon the cause for termination. If the practice terminates the physician or fails to make the physician a shareholder, then the practice pays the tail. If the physician resigns without cause to pursue some other opportunity, the physician is responsible for the tail. The amount of malpractice insurance varies from state to state. Some states require a minimum level of malpractice insurance. Some states also have state funds, such as catastrophic loss funds, into which premiums or surcharges are paid by the physician. The physician should make sure that these additional elements are included in the malpractice coverage.

VI.       CLINICAL DUTIES: The description of clinical duties is usually a fairly generic provision of the employment contract, but the physician should pay careful attention to the scope of those duties to make sure that the office facilities and hospitals at which the physician is required to practice are identified, that the parties understand how additional offices or hospitals can or cannot be added, how many patient office hours are expected, and how call coverage responsibilities will be divided among the physicians in the practice. Typical language is “equitable allocation,” which does not quite mean equal. It is common for senior physicians to take less call than junior physicians, but language stating that the call is simply assigned by the employer is too vague. The contract should also state whether moonlighting is or is not allowed.

VII.      TERMINATION: Contracts will typically have a termination clause which defines several different methods for termination.

A.        Expiration: The contract can simply expire at the end of the term. 

B.        Termination for Cause: The contract can be terminated by either party for cause, which is usually defined as some breach of the contract by the other party, or the occurrence of certain events such as loss of medical license, loss of DEA number, Medicare exclusion, conviction of a crime, etc.

C.       Other Material Breaches: The contract can also be terminable for more ambiguous breaches, such as the failure to perform duties in accordance with employer standards, and attention to patients, etc. Ambiguous events such as these should be subject to a “notice and cure provision,” which requires the employer to first give notice of the alleged breach sufficient to describe the problem and give the physician the opportunity to cure that breach over some period of time; the purpose of this type of provision is to prevent surprise terminations.

D.       Unilateral Termination Without Cause: Contracts typically give both the employer and the employee the opportunity to terminate the contract without cause upon sufficient advance notice. Termination of this type raises several questions. 

a.        How much notice will the practice require? Practices typically want time to recruit a replacement physician, but that time is usually too long to permit an employed physician to accept another position, so the parties must negotiate a satisfactory compromise.

b.        How much notice will the physician require? Will that notice be different for non-renewal of the contract or failure to make shareholder after two or three years of employment compared to “premature” termination during the first year of employment. It is certainly unfair to expect that employment could be terminated just 90 days after the start of the contract because the employer/practice changes its collective mind. In such circumstances, early terminations are usually combined with greater notice or severance payments. 

c.        Defining the cause for termination is very important with respect to the enforcement or applicability of the restrictive covenant.

VIII.     RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS: The enforceability of restrictive covenants depends upon the state, i.e., the jurisdiction, in which the practice is located. Some states prohibit restrictive covenants. State that do permit the enforcement of restrictive covenants usually require that they be reasonable, so that they are no broader than reasonably necessary to protect the employer. Just as an example, restrictive covenants that would prohibit the physician from practicing medicine within 200 miles of the office location will not be enforceable simply because it is improbable that a competing practice 150 miles away would do any harm to a practice. Note that the geographic scope will definitely depend upon the nature of the practice and the population density. While a 25 mile radius in a rural area might be appropriate, a 25 mile radius in New York City would not be. Restrictive covenants will have the following components:

1.        Geographic Scope

2.        Time Period

3.        Prohibition of Practice/Resignation of Medical Privileges at Certain Hospitals

4.        Prohibited Activities

A crucial point is whether the restrictive covenant will be enforceable upon unilateral termination or non-renewal of the contract by practice/employer, particularly if that is coupled with the practice’s decision not to make a physician a shareholder or owner of the practice. Enforcing the restrictive covenant in those situations makes it painless for the practice to withhold shareholder status and simply recruit a new physician. If the restrictive covenant is designed not to apply in those situations, the practice must balance whether the right step is to proceed with shareholder status.

IX.        CONFIDENTIALITY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Most contracts provide that the intellectual property you create during employment (inventions, devices, publications, etc.) is the property of the employer. These clauses state that patient lists and demographic information are property of the practice. Provide exceptions if necessary.  

X.         ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­PRACTICE BUY-IN: (A Topic for Another Day)

WARNING

        

Although the foregoing discussion may appear to present a thorough analysis of the issues, you should always consult an experienced lawyer, explain to them your expectations about your new position, and let them review your contract in light of those expectations. It is always preferable to have experienced counsel in this process. Since the contract will define how much money you will make, what you will be required to do to make it, and how your dream opportunity can be “terminated” while you are to be contractually banished from practicing medicine in that market (which could be your hometown), you are not doing yourself any favors by asking your college roommate who has become a lawyer “to take a quick look” at your contract.

I’ve been practicing in this area for almost 30 years and have helped hundreds of doctors with these contracts. I would be happy to help you with yours.      

What is the Impact of Professional Society Expert Witness Standards?

There have been two recent developments regarding the enforcement of expert witness standards, one enforcing standards by a society and one declining to enforce the standards in a private defamation action.

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons suspended one member and censored another for violating the Standards of Professionalism (SOPs) on orthopaedic expert witness testimony. The suspension was based in part on the expert witness’ failure to review all pertinent medical records related to a particular patient prior to rendering an opinion and the censure was based upon a failure to provide opinions and/or factual testimony in a fair and impartial manner, the latter being based upon the witness’ failure to adequately disclose the extent of his expert witness testimony in other cases.

While the AAOS was enforcing expert witness standards, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in the case of Margaret McGregor vs. L. David Rutberg, found that the expert witness standards of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons did not create a contract between members of the society allowing individual members to enforce the standards. Dr. McGregor sued Dr. Rutberg for defamation and breach of contract, alleging that the AANS standards created an obligation between the two individual physicians. The Court concluded that only the AANS had a cause of action for enforcing its standards and that the standards did not create third party beneficiary contracts between the members.