HHS Office for Civil Rights Issues Guidance on Communicating with A Patient's Family, Friends, and Others Involved in the Patient's Care

 

The U. S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights recently issued helpful guidance for health care providers relative to communicating with a patient's family, friends or others involved in the patient's care. The guidance contains a number of commonly asked HIPAA questions as well as a helpful chart relative to disclosures. This guidance, along with a well drafted HIPAA Compliance Plan, can assist health care providers in complying with the requirements of the HIPAA Privacy Rule. 

Paul Welk
412-594-5536
pwelk@tuckerlaw.com

Mike Cassidy Included in The Best Lawyers in America 2009

Michael Cassidy has been included by his peers in the Health Care Law category in The Best Lawyers in America 2009Best Lawyers is the oldest and most respected peer review publication in the legal profession, and has been compiling a list of best lawyers for 25 years. Best Lawyers is widely regarded within the legal profession as a signal honor, confirmed upon lawyers by their peers.

MS.1.20: Opportunity to Restore Medical Staff Governance and Establish Neutral Peer Review

Click on the link to view the article, MS.1.20: Opportunity to Restore Medical Staff Governance and Establish Neutral Peer Review, that was featured in the September 2008 edition of the ACMS Bulletin magazine.

www.medlawblog.com/uploads/file/08sept_424-427.pdf

 

Reporting Practice Changes to CMS

 

Once enrolled in the Medicare Program, physicians, other non-physician individual practitioners and physicians group practices are required to notify CMS of changes in their practice structures. These requirements are sometimes referred to as change in ownership (CHOW) rules. Physicians and other individuals are required to report the following on form CMS-855-I:

 

1.         Change of business structure;

2.         Change of legal business name or tax identification number;

3.         Change of practice location;

4.         Change in practice status;

5.         Change in adverse legal actions regarding Medicare exclusions and state licensure;

6.         Change in reassignment of benefits; and

7.         Change in banking arrangements for reassignment payments.

 

Further explanation of the definition of those changes is contained in the link below from the CMS alert published on September 18, 2008.

Physicians group practices must report the following changes on form CMS-855(B):

 

1.         Change of legal business name or tax identification number;

2.         Change in practice location;

3.         Change in authorized or delegated officials;

4.         Change in legal action;

5.         Change in ownership or management interest control of more than 5%;

6.         Change in banking arrangements; and

7.         Change in reassignment benefits, but this change should be reported on form CMS-855(R).

 

Further information and definitions regarding these changes are also contained in the links below.

Reporting Responsibilities for Individual Physicians Enrolled in the Medicare Program

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicareProviderSupEnroll/Downloads/PhysicianReportingResponsibilities.pdf

Reporting Responsibilities for Individual Non-Physician Practitioners Enrolled in the Medicare Program

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicareProviderSupEnroll/Downloads/Non-PhysicianReportingResponsibilities.pdf

Reporting Responsibilities for Physician Group Practices Enrolled in the Medicare Program

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicareProviderSupEnroll/Downloads/GroupPracticeReportingResponsibilities.pdf

Medicare Adds False Claims Authority to Purchased Diagnostic Services

In an MLN Matters announcement, a copy of which is attached at the Link below, CMS has added False Claims Act implications to reporting purchased technical components of diagnostic services. While admittedly any intentional misreporting of the purchased services would be subject to False Claims Act implications, CMS has taken the uncertainly out of this matter by stating that all services will be presumed not to be purchased technical services unless reported otherwise. Therefore, if Block 20 on the 1500 form was blank before, there might have been the argument the service was not reported incorrectly. However, now that all claims presume the technical services have not been purchased, failing to report it as a purchased service will clearly be a false claim, at least under this administrative policy. 

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/MM6122.pdf

PROMETHEUS: Innovative Physician Payment Model Seeks Physician Input

The PROMETHEUS Payment(R) Model is a new program which is designed to pay providers fairly, improve quality, enhance transparency and still be more efficient than what we have today.  At www.prometheuspayment.org, you will find much information about this not-for-profit, tax exempt program which has received more than $6 million  from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to pilot test the concepts.  In connection with development of more of the Evidence-informed Case Rates(R) which are the basis for payment, the program is seeking input from practicing physicians who are familiar with its basic concepts, to provide input on the case rate development process.  If you are not familiar with this new approach, do go to the website and read about it.  If you are further interested in contributing, feel free to respond as below.

As you know, from your interest in the PROMETHEUS Payment® model, one of the hallmarks of our approach is building our Evidence-informed Case Rates® (ECRs) by starting with clinical practice guidelines or expert opinion, and then determining what services and resources must be brought to bear to provide that care. To do this properly and credibly, we need input from practicing clinicians with expertise in the clinical conditions around which the ECRs are constructed.

To help us with that work, we are hoping to identify practicing physicians around the country who would help us with input, review and comment. If such physicians contribute to our work, their names will be listed as having participated, if they so choose.

The conditions for which we are looking for physician input are the following:

  • Asthma
  • Hypertension
  • COPD
  • Coronary Artery Disease
  • CABG
  • Coronary Revascularization Heart Cath
  • Bariatric surgery
  • Hernia surgery

If you are a practicing physician and would like to participate, there will be scheduled phone calls and emails, but that is it, in terms of time commitments. If you know of physicians who would like to contribute, please feel free to share this note with them.

Anyone who seeks to participate must provide the following information:

  • Name and Degree (MD, DO, Ph.D., etc)
  • Specialty
  • Affiliation [name of group]
  • Address
  • Phone
  • Email
  • ECRs for which you would like to volunteer

Click here to participate

At this point we are soliciting an interest level. Thank you for your consideration.

Alice Gosfield
Chairman of the Board
agosfield@gosfield.com

 

 

California Court Rejects Retroactive Credentialing Requirements

In Nasim v. Los Robles Regional Medical Center (2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 1251), a California Appellate State Court held that adoption of credentialing criteria which would retroactively deny a physician certain clinical privileges was illegal under California law. 

Los Robles Regional Medical Center adopted standards requiring board certification, and those standards required that subspecialty board certification be obtained within two consecutive board exams after initial board certification. Those criteria made it impossible for Dr. Nasim to obtain subspecialty board certification within the time limit specified by the credentialing criteria. The hospital claimed that it had appropriate authority to adopt medical staff standards; the court agreed that the hospital had the right to adopt standards, but disagreed with their application to Dr. Nasim, stating as follows:

 

"The hospital claims that there is no showing that Nasim was treated unfairly or arbitrarily by its application of Rule IV. But the Rule is not applied uniformly. Staff doctors were exempt from the board certification requirements. . . The trial court could find that the distinction the hospital made between the provisional and active staff might be appropriate if the rule had been applied prospectively. But it became artificial when applied retroactively to Nasim in 2003 and thereafter."

 

A copy of the opinion is available at the link below. 

 

uploads/file/Sohail Nasim.rtf

Texas Reports Drop in Malpractice Premiums Due to Tort Reform With Damage Caps

 

Damage cap credited for drop in Texas malpractice premiums

AUSTIN, Texas (Legal Newsline)-Thanks to a tort reform law in Texas, physicians in the Lone Star State will have reduced liability premiums, officials said this week.

The board of the Texas Medical Liability Trust recently approved an average rate reduction of 4.7 percent for TMLT-insured physicians beginning next year. Renewing policyholders will also receive a 22.5 percent dividend.

"This is the fourth consecutive year the Trust has announced a policyholder dividend," said Fields. "The 22.5 percent dividend is the largest percentage dividend in the Trust's history," said Bob Fields, president and CEO of the Texas Medical Liability Trust.

Fields said since the first dividend was declared in 2005, renewing TMLT policyholders will have received dividend credits off renewal premiums amounting to about $105 million.

TMLT-insured physicians will have saved $380 million in decreased premiums, once this latest round of rate cuts and dividends is implemented, a statement said.

The Texas Medical Liability Trust has reduced its malpractice insurance rates for physicians each year since 2003, when voters passed legislation that capped medical malpractice damage awards at $250,000.

"Effective tort reform has continued to reduce nonmeritorious litigation against physicians. As long as 2003 tort reform measures remain in place, TMLT believes the legal environment will remain stable," a statement said.

"TMLT's current strong financial position makes these rate reductions and dividends possible; however, there is no guarantee that the business and legal climate will support future rate reductions or dividends."

The not-for-profit TMLT, the state's largest medical liability insurance provider, has more than 14,500 clients.

From Legal Newsline: Reach reporter Chris Rizo at chrisrizo@legalnewsline.com.
 

Stark IV: Per-Click Leases; Stand-in-Shoes; and Disallowance

The Department of Health and Human Services and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published final Stark IV regulations in the Federal Register on August 19, 2008. The web link is ttp://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-17914.htm. The final regulations cover issues in addition to physician self-referral. Three issues of particular interest are the per-click compensation arrangements, the Stand-in-shoes regulations, and compliance rules regarding the period of disallowance for non-complying transactions. 

I.         Per-Click Lease Arrangements: At this time, CMS is adopting its proposal to prohibit per-click payments to physician lessors for services rendered to patients who are referred by the physician lessor. They continue to believe that per-click arrangements are particularly susceptible to abuse. The final rule revises the lease exceptions at Section 411.357(a)(5) and Section 411.357(b)(4), for office leases and equipment, as well as the fair market value exception at 411.357(l) and the exception for indirect compensation arrangements at Section 411.357(p), all of which provide that per unit of service rental charges are not allowed to the extent that such charges reflect services provided to patients referred by the lessor to the lessee. The prohibition on per-click payments for space or equipment used in the treatment of a patient referred to the lessee by a physician applies regardless of whether the physician himself or herself is the lessor, or whether the lessor is an entity in which the referring physician has an ownership or investment interest. Although the general effective date for the Stark IV regulations is October 1st, 2008, CMS is delaying the effective date of the amendments to the lease exceptions until October 1, 2009, in order to afford the party's adequate time to restructure their arrangements. 

 

The new regulations require a compensation arrangement that is not determined in relation to the value or volume of referrals and does not use a formula based on either percentage of revenue or per unit valuation formula. The regulations do not prohibit percentage based formulas for compensation or leases as long as they do not involve physicians who are referring designated health services to the provider entities. 

 

In an interesting aside, CMS acknowledged that lithotripsy is not DHS, but warned that any non-compliant per-click lease would be a non-protected compensation arrangement, thus prohibiting referrals of other DHS.

 

II.          Stand-in-Shoes: In this final rule, CMS is finalizing the physician Stand-in-Shoes proposals so that a physician owner is deemed to stand in the shoes of a physician organization, and have a direct compensation relationship with that organization, if the physician organization is the only intervening entity between the physician and the provider entity. The regulations exclude titular owners, but allow such owners to elect to be covered in order to be evaluated in accordance with the direct compensation relationships if they so choose. 

 

CMS is not finalizing the Stand-in-Shoes regulations with respect to designated health service entities and is not proposing exceptions for either mission support payments or academic medical center relationship.

 

III.         Period of Disallowance: The Stark Regulations prohibit payment for any improperly referred designated health services during the period of non-compliance. The period of non-compliance begins when the relationship fails to satisfy the exception and continues no later than the following:

 

            1.         For non-compensation, non-compliance issues, the period of disallowance ends when the compliance issue is resolved.

 

            2.         For excess compensation issues, the period of disallowance ends when the excess compensation has been repaid.

 

            3.         For insufficient compensation issues, the period of non-compliance ends when the insufficient compensation has been repaid. 

The regulations also clarify that the burden of proof lies upon the entity claiming the exception.