Physicians Will Get 1.1% Medicare Increase for 2009

 

CMS says physicians will receive a 1.1 percent Medicare pay increase starting in 2009.

 

Modern Healthcare (10/31, Lubell) reports, "Physicians will receive a 1.1 percent increase to their Medicare payments in 2009 under a final rule issued by" the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS). This "update reflects a provision included in the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008, which halted a 10.6 percent pay cut scheduled for July 1, providing doctors with a 0.5 percent payment bump for the remainder of 2008." The final rule (pdf) also "establishes a new incentives program for eligible providers that adopt and use qualified electronic e-prescribing systems to transmit prescriptions to pharmacies."

The Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA)

The Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) is an electronic system for screening
Visa Waiver Program passengers before they begin travel to the United States without a visa. It is anticipated that ESTA will become mandatory for Visa Waiver Program travelers on January 12, 2009.

www.medlawblog.com/uploads/file/Visa waiver - passport reqts.pdf

Lisa Ventresca

FTC Announces 6 Month Delay of Red Flag Rules

There has been some consternation whether the FTC Red Flag rules applied to medical practices as creditors. Organized medicine has been seeking clarification. which has not been forthcoming. Fortunately, this 6 month delay should allow somtime to review this issue.

FTC Will Grant Six-Month Delay of Enforcement of 'Red Flags' Rule Requiring Creditors and Financial Institutions to Have Identity Theft Prevention Programs

The Federal Trade Commission will suspend enforcement of the new “Red Flags Rule” until May 1, 2009, to give creditors and financial institutions additional time in which to develop and implement written identity theft prevention programs. Today’s announcement and the release of an Enforcement Policy Statement do not affect other federal agencies’ enforcement of the original November 1, 2008 deadline for institutions subject to their oversight to be in compliance.

The Red Flags Rule was developed pursuant to the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions (FACT) Act of 2003. Under the Rule, financial institutions and creditors with covered accounts must have identity theft prevention programs to identify, detect, and respond to patterns, practices, or specific activities that could indicate identity theft.

The Rule applies to creditors and financial institutions. Federal law defines a creditor to be: any entity that regularly extends, renews, or continues credit; any entity that regularly arranges for the extension, renewal, or continuation of credit; or any assignee of an original creditor who is involved in the decision to extend, renew, or continue credit. Accepting credit cards as a form of payment does not, in and of itself, make an entity a creditor. Some examples of creditors are finance companies, automobile dealers, mortgage brokers, utility companies, telecommunications companies, and non-profit and government entities that defer payment for goods or services. Financial institutions include entities that offer accounts that enable consumers to write checks or to make payments to third parties through other means, such as other negotiable instruments or telephone transfers.

The Commission staff launched outreach efforts last year to explain the Rule to the many different types of entities that are covered by the Rule. The agency published a general alert on what the Rule requires, and, in particular, an explanation of what types of entities are covered by the Rule – http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/alerts/alt050.shtm. During the course of these efforts, Commission staff learned that some industries and entities within the FTC’s jurisdiction were uncertain about their coverage under the Rule. These entities indicated that they were not aware that they were engaged in activities that would cause them to fall under the
FACT Act’s definition of creditor or financial institution. Many entities also noted that, becausethey generally are not required to comply with FTC rules in other contexts, they had not followed or even been aware of the rulemaking, and therefore learned of the Rule’s requirements too late to be able to come into compliance by November 1, 2008. The Commission’s delay of enforcement will enable these entities sufficient time to establish and implement appropriate identity theft prevention programs, in compliance with the Rule.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC's online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,500 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC's Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

OIG ADVISORY OPINION 08-16 APPROVES P4P

Advisory Opinion 08-16, the text of which is linked below, involved a nonprofit hospital's Pay for Performance (P4P) program with a commercial insurer and certain physicians on the hospital's medical staff. Under the P4P program, the insurer pays the hospital bonus compensation calculated as percentage of the annual base compensation it otherwise pays to the hospital if the hospital meets specified quality and efficiency standards. The insurer can pay the hospital a maximum amount of bonus compensation of 4% of the annual base compensation. To receive bonus compensation in 2008, the hospital must meet quality standards for all hospital patients (including Medicare, Medicaid, and privately insured patients). The patients must be admitted to the hospital with six specified conditions or procedures, by reporting data and meeting quality targets derived from the Specifications Manual for National Hospital Quality Measures published by The Joint Commission (the Quality Measures Manual).

The physician component of the program calls for the hospital to enter into a quality enhancement professional services agreement with a physician entity for an initial term of three years, subject to automatic renewal for additional terms. Under the quality enhancement agreement, the hospital will pay the physician entity a portion not to exceed 50% of the bonus compensation the hospital receives from the commercial insurer for meeting the quality targets. The hospital and physician entity will negotiate a specific fair market value percentage to be paid to the physician entity from year to year. Upon receipt of its payment, the physician entity will distribute the hospital payment to its physician members on a per capita basis. The program also includes a cap on payments to the physician entity, which is tied to the base compensation paid by the commercial insurer to the hospital. Any increase in patient referrals to the hospital due to an increase in annual base compensation receive d by the hospital from the commercial insurer would not increase the annual payment to the physician entity. In addition, the hospital will monitor the implementation of quality targets throughout the program to ensure that they do not result in inappropriate reductions or limitations on patient care—and the hospital will terminate application of any quality target determined to have an adverse effect on patient care. Likewise, the hospital will terminate physicians with significant referral increases to the hospital from participation in the program. The hospital will also inform all patients admitted to the hospital with one of the specified conditions subject to quality targets about the program in writing.

In its analysis of the hospital payments to the physician entity under the CMP law, the OIG declined to impose penalties due to the presence of the following program safeguards designed to reduce the risk of fraud and abuse:

·         The quality targets are based on credibly medical evidence indicating that they improve patient care;

·         If a quality standards is contraindicated for a particular patient, the hospital payment to the physicians will not be reduced;

·         The quality targets are reasonably related to the practices and patient population of the hospital; and

·         The hospital will monitor the quality targets and their implementation throughout the program to avoid inappropriate limits on patient care or services.

The OIG also noted that the base compensation and bonus compensation paid by the commercial insurer to the hospital, as well as the physicians' quality efforts, involved all hospital patients admitted with the specified conditions—not just those patients insured by the commercial insurer.

Similarly, the OIG declined to impose administrative sanctions under the anti-kickback statute based on the presence of the following program safeguards:

·         The membership of the physician entity will be limited to physicians who have been on the active medical staff for at least one year, thereby minimizing the likelihood that the arrangement will attract referring physicians or increase referrals from existing physicians;

·         Compensation paid to the physician entity will be subject to a cap tied to the base compensation paid by the private insurer to the hospital in the base year so that increases in patient referrals to the hospital will not increase hospital payments to the physician entity;

·         The physician entity's distribution of hospital payments to its physician members will be on a per capita basis—and participation in the program will be offered to all physicians, not just high-referring physicians (these factors will serve to reduce the risk of rewarding individual physicians for referrals to the hospital);

·         The commercial insurer will oversee the arrangement to ensure that hospital payments to physicians are based on meeting the quality standards based on the Quality Measures Manual published by The Joint Commission with input from CMS; and

·         The program will be limited to a three-year term (the OIG expressed no opinion on the potential future renewal terms of the program but nevertheless suggested that payments in subsequent terms should not be based on improvements achieved in prior years such that incentives for achievement of new improvements should be included in future terms).

Advisory Opinion 08-16 is available at this link: http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/docs/advisoryopinions/2008/AdvOpn08-16A.pdf

Pennsylvania Bans Mandatory Overtime for Clinical-Care Workers

The Pennsylvania legislature has enacted the attached law, called the "Prohibition of Excessive Overtime in Health Care Act," that is expected to be signed by Governor Rendell. The law prohibits hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, and long-term care providers from requiring nurses and other clinical-care workers to work overtime. This ban excludes doctors, physician assistants, and dentists, as well as other jobs not directly related to patient care. It also contains exceptions for "unforeseeable declared emergencies, a highly usual or extraordinary event that affects healthcare delivery, and unexpected absences that will significantly affect patient safety."

Scott Leah
412-594-5551
sleah@tuckerlaw.com

 

CMS Announces Increase Efforts to Fight Fraud, Waste and Abuse in Medicare

On October 6, 2008 CMS announced its intent to aggressively enhance its efforts to find and prevent waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare. In particular, CMS indicated that it intends to work directly with beneficiaries to insure that they are properly receiving the durable medical equipment and home health services for which Medicare was billed and that the items or services are medically necessary. CMS also indicated that it will be taking additional steps in Florida, California, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina and New York to fight fraud and abuse in the home health setting. Nationally, CMS will be implementing further medical review procedures by recovery audit contractors (RACs) in an effort to identify improper payments. As in the past, these RACs will be paid on a contingency basis. 

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

An Estate Plan Built for Special Needs

 The Wall Street Journal published an insightful article on Special Needs Planning in its Family Finances Section on October 9, 2008."An Estate Plan Built for Special Needs" highlights the emotional and financial challenges facing parents with special needs children and commonly employed planning methods. Special Needs Planning  and Special Needs Trusts are not limited to family with special needs loved ones, but also to adults who find themselves unexpectedly encountering special needs mid-life, to those who require long term care and to the elderly. In addition to those issues touched upon by the Article, Special Needs Planning often times requires structuring the settlement of personal injury lawsuits and negotiating third party liability liens, and close coordinating with healthcare providers and public benefit agencies.

Tucker Arensberg, P.C. has a capable and dedicated team Special Needs and Estate Planning Team that strategies and advocates on behalf of valued firm clients. Click below to see our unique services: www.medlawblog.com/uploads/file/SNT(1).pdf

Contact Nora E. Gieg at 412-594-3940 and Jamie D. Aul, at
(412) 594-3923 if you have any questions or would like additional information on this topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HHS and Covered Entity Agree to HIPAA Corrective Action Plan; $100,000 Penalty

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") recently entered into a Resolution Agreement with Providence Health & Services ("Providence") of Seattle to settle potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") Privacy and Security Rules. Under the Resolution Agreement, Providence agrees to pay $100,000 and implement a corrective action plan to insure that identifiable electronic patient information is appropriately safeguarded. Additionally, Providence has agreed to revise its policies and procedures regarding physical and technical safeguards governing the offsite transport and storage of electronic media containing patient information; train its workforce members on such safeguards; conduct audits and site visits of its facilities; and submit compliance reports to HHS for a period of three years. The Resolution Agreement relates to the loss of electronic backup media and laptop computers in 2005 and 2006.

For additional information, please see the HHS Press Release and the full text of the Resolution Agreement.

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

Congress Amends Americans with Disabilities Act

On September 26, 2008, President Bush signed into law the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 ("ADAAA"). The ADAAA are a significant change to the ADA, designed to reverse rulings handed down by the courts that Congress believed had limited the ADA in ways that were not intended when that landmark legislation was passed.

Perhaps the most important change is the broadening of the scope of whether someone is "disabled." The Supreme Court had held that to be "substantially limited" from performing major life activities required that the person be "severely restricted." The EEOC in its regulations had similarly required that the individual be "significantly restricted." The ADAAA provides that "substantially limited" does not require that the restriction be "significant" or " severe." Instead, it must only be a substantial limitation.

The ADAAA also overturned the Supreme Court's holding that a person with disabilities was not eligible under the ADA if his or her conditions could be mitigated by medication, assistive technology and equipment (such as prosthetics or hearing aids), or learned behavior adaptations. Now, those mitigating measures will not make one ineligible under the ADA.

The ADAAA also attempts, for the first time, to list some "major life activities." Among those now listed are caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating and working. It also lists what are "major bodily functions," to include the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine and reproductive functions.

The "regarded as" disabled provision of the ADA has also been significantly broadened. An individual must now only have to dhow that the employer perceived him or her as having a mental or physical impairment, whether or not that impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.

For employers, there are both short and long term changes that must be made because of the passage of the ADAAA. In the short term, most employers will need to have their ADA policies (often contained in employee handbooks) amended to reflect the changes in the laws. In the long term, employers will have to be prepared to engage in the interactive process, and make reasonable accommodations, to a broader range of employees or fact potential ADA liability.


 

Scott R. Leah
412-594-5551
sleah@tuckerlaw.com
 

An "Interim" HCQIA Peer Review Victory For Physicians

Cases denying hospitals' summary judgment motions based upon the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) immunity are rare. Stratienko v. Chattanooga-HamiltonCountyHospital Authority (full text opinion below) is one of the exceptions in which the physician not only defeated the motion for summary judgment, but also obtained an injunction against the summary suspension. 

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee denied the hospital's motion for summary judgment. The Hospital suspended Dr. Stratienko's clinical privileges within two hours after an alleged physical altercation with another physician. Because of the precipitous timing of the suspension, the Court ruled that a jury could conclude that the elements of HCQIA had not been satisfied.

Furthermore, the physician had obtained an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the summary suspension pending the exhaustion of the remedies under the Bylaws, which the District Court declined to dissolve.

 

http://op.bna.com/hl.nsf/id/mapi-7jdpbu/$File/stratienko.pdf