CMS issued the Final Rule for the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) on November 2, 2023, for payments to be effective on or after January 1, 2024.
The overall payment rates under the PFS will be reduced by 1.25% in calendar year 2024.
The final PFS conversion factor will be $32.74, which is a decrease of 1.15 of dollar and 15% (or 3.4%) from the 2023 conversion factor of $33.89.
As reported earlier in the MedLaw Blog (August 9, 2023), a federal District Court vacated portions of the No Surprises Act federal regulations. Thereafter, CMS halted the arbitration process for resolving disputes regarding out-of-network surprise bills.
On October 20, 2023, HHS, Treasury, and the US Office Personnel Management submitted a notice indicating their attempt to file a consolidated appeal in the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, challenging the August decision in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
As Mike Cassidy and Adam Appleberry discussed during their presentation at PBI’s A Day in Health Law earlier this month, private equity’s involvement in healthcare will be an interesting item to watch over the next few years. Just last week, the FTC sued the U.S. Anesthesia Partners, Inc. and their private equity backer Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe, alleging a “multi-year anticompetitive scheme to consolidate anesthesia practices in Texas, drive up the price of anesthesia services provided to Texas patients, and increase their own profits.” (Click here to read the article)
Private equity arrangements in health care can provide great rewards for physicians seeking to increase their capital for whatever reason, be it to grow their practice or simply develop an exit strategy for retirement, but these deals do not come without risk. There is a growing trend amongst courts and regulators to view these arrangements with increased scrutiny. Recent studies have suggested that private equity’s involvement in healthcare could result in an overall higher cost to patients and payers while possibly providing a worst patient outcome (read one of those studies here). As these deals continue, the best interest of the public will remain the top priority in the eyes of regulators.
In the situation surrounding U.S. Anesthesia Partners, Inc. and Welsh, Carson, Anderson, & Stowe, after each acquisition, patient prices increased for using the same physicians for the same services as before. The FTC determined that this was an attempt to “unlawfully undermine fair competition and harm the American Public.”
Michael A. Cassidy and Adam J. Appleberry co-wrote an article titled “Contracting Essentials for All Physicians, Especially Residents and Fellows”. This article will appear in the Legal Summary section of the August 2023 Allegheny County Medical Society (ACMS) Bulletin. The ACMS Bulletin is the Allegheny County Medical Society’s signature publication which reaches over 2,000 physicians in Southwestern Pennsylvania each month.
In summary, when negotiating a physician contract, it is important to pay attention to the restrictive covenants, contract term and termination, malpractice coverage, compensation, and plan for the worst-case scenario. It is necessary to take the time to carefully review and negotiate your physician contract. This is a critical document that will set the terms of your employment for years to come. To read the full article that appeared in the ACMS bulletin, click here.
For assistance with reviewing your physician contract, contact Mike Cassidy at mcassidy@tuckerlaw.com, (412) 594-5515 or Adam Appleberry at aappleberry@tuckerlaw.com, (412) 594-5532.
To keep apprised of the latest legal news in healthcare, subscribe to receive regular updates on the side of the page by simply entering your email address.
Michael Cassidy has been recognized again in the 30th edition of the Best Lawyers in America for his “exceptional work in healthcare law”.
CMS has halted the arbitration process for “Surprise Billing” established by the “No Surprises Act” for the second time, stating as follows:
UNPLANNED OUTAGE
“On August 3, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a judgment and order in Texas Medical Association, et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Case No. 6:23-cv-59-JDK (TMA IV), vacating certain portions of 45 C.F.R. § 149.510, 26 C.F.R. § 54.9816-8T, and 29 C.F.R. § 2590-716-8. As a result of the TMA IV decision, effective immediately, the Departments have temporarily suspended the Federal IDR process, including the ability to initiate new disputes until the Departments can provide additional instructions.”
The Federal arbitration process for handling out-of-network medical bill disputes has not been operating smoothly or timely. The primary reason for this is that CMS has received more than 300,000 disputes during the first year of the arbitration process, which is almost 14 times what had been estimated during the rulemaking process. For more information with respect to the problems of surprise medical billing, log into the website of the “Coalition Against Surprise Medical Billing” at this link.
The 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule proposes a 3.34% decrease in the 2024 PFS conversion factor. It’s currently $33.89 and is proposed to be reduced to $32.75.
CMS is also proposing the following:
Attached is the Fact Sheet released by CMS on July 13, 2023.
Since the private equity issue was last addressed in the Bulletin in the Summer of 2022, the volume of healthcare private equity deals has subsided somewhat, according to statistics presented at the March 2023 Pennsylvania Bar Institute Health Law Conference, and that has generally been attributed to unfavorable market conditions affecting investments of all types.
However, although the volume has leveled off or in some cases subsided, enforcement and investigation activity appears to be ramping up. In March 2023, the House Ways and Means Committee hosted an investigative hearing on “private equity’s expanded role in the US healthcare system”. As you might expect from a federal investigation, conducted by politicians with media present, the tone of the meeting was more hostile rather than supportive. Two quotes will set that stage:
“It’s past time for a bright light to be shined on how private equity ownership in our healthcare system affects patient safety, costs and jobs. Private equity’s influence stretches like an octopus arms through the American healthcare system and born heavily by the most vulnerable: communities of color, rural underserved areas, the elderly, people with disabilities…private equity’s expansion into healthcare is troubling because private equity’s focus on profits is often at odds with what is best for patient care. Private equity’s business involves buying companies, saddling them with debt, and then squeezing them like oranges for every dollar.”
“I’m so concerned about the increasingly outsized influence of private equity on our healthcare system. Private equity firms are investment firms set up to increase profits for their shareholders, not to provide better quality medicine. We saw that issue up close last year as the committee considered the role of PE firms in the increase of patients receiving surprise medical bills.”
This concern for suspected ulterior financial motives behind these clinical investments is not unfounded, because the healthcare business system is drastically different from most other business environments, in that professional fees paid from government third party payers cannot be raised unilaterally at all, payments from large third party commercial insurance systems are very difficult to raise, if at all. This leaves revenue enhancement possibilities limited to situations in which the private equity roll ups have created leverage, which is one of the goals, or situations in which there is significant self-pay patient activity, i.e. aesthetics, dermatology, rehabilitation, and specialties that have significant ancillary revenue opportunities such as ambulatory surgery centers. Revenue can only be increased in most instances by increased volume, not increased charges. This “fee obstacle” was what precipitated many of the bankruptcies in the 1990s physician practice management ventures, as mentioned in my prior article.
Please note that the potential for ulterior financial motives does not automatically presume that the intent is somehow suspect, in the same way that potential medical malpractice concerns does not legitimately question the clinical motives of all other providers. These are simply potential risks involved in the transactions, and they should be evaluated appropriately.
Similar issues were raised with respect to the private equity acquisition of Hahnemann Hospital. In the article entitled “The Death of Hahnemann Hospital” published in the New Yorker magazine in May 2021. The author, Chris Pomoroski, speculates that the PE acquisition of Hahnemann Hospital was always, at least partially, a real estate play. Senator Bernie Sanders was quoted in the article as saying:
“If an investment banker like Joel Freedman is able to shut down Hahnemann and make a huge profit by turning this hospital into luxury condos, it will send a signal to every vulture fund on Wall Street that they can do the same thing, in community after community after community”.
Just from a historical perspective, it should be noted that Hahnemann has had an illustrious clinical history but a recently troubled financial history. Hahnemann was acquired by AHERF, the forerunner of Allegheny Health Network, in 1993. Tenet Healthcare bought Hahnemann out of the AHERF bankruptcy in 1998. Tenet went through its own bankruptcy difficulties and, in 2018, sold its remaining Philadelphia assets, i.e. Hahnemann Hospital and St. Christopher’s Hospital, to American Academic Health System, which then closed Hahnemann Hospital in June of 2019.
In 2017, a whistleblower suit was filed against Surgery Partners, Inc. in United States ex rel. Cho and Baker v. Surgery Partners, Inc. alleging liability on behalf of the private equity managers because of their management control and direction. However, federal appeals court recently upheld the dismissal of the whistleblower suit against the private equity firm, HIG Capital.
In February of 2021, the National Bureau of Economic Research published a paper by Atul Gupta, Sabrina T. Howell, Constantine Yannelis and Abhinav Gupta positing that their research shows that “PE ownership increases short term mortality of Medicare patients by 10%, in nursing homes”.
In November of 2022, the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York and the NY Medicaid Fraud Control Unit filed an action against Comprehensive at Orleans LLC, d/b/a The Villages of Orleans Health and Rehabilitation Center, alleging inadequate care at the facility and naming not only the nursing home facility, i.e. “The Villages”, but the real property holding company, the management company, an entity identified as the pass-through entity “Villages of Orleans LLC” and various other investors.
Multiple sources, including CMS, have reported that healthcare spending in the USA exceeded $4 trillion in 2022, and constituted almost 19% of USA GDP. Therefore, it is obvious that the healthcare sector will provide massive investment opportunities. Those of us who “advise” healthcare clients obviously must recognize all points of view.
On February 24, 2023, the DEA announced “Proposed Permanent Rules” for the prescribing of controlled medications on a telemedicine or telehealth basis.
Attached are:
A summary will follow later this week.
On January 5, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) took a dramatic step by proposing a new rule that would prohibit companies from entering into non-compete agreements with its workers. The proposed rule, if approved, takes sweeping action to prohibit employers from entering into non-compete agreements with both employees and independent contractors. And the proposed rule does not stop there. It would also require that employers take affirmative steps to rescind existing non-compete clauses and explicitly inform workers that the contracts are no longer effective.
As of right now, the FTC’s rule (available here) is merely a proposal, and the agency is soliciting public comments on whether any changes should be made before it is finalized. Litigation challenging the enforceability of the rule is almost sure to ensue, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has already threatened to sue to FTC over its proposed non-compete ban.
Regardless of whether or not the FTC rule is adopted, physician non-compete agreements are closely scrutinized in Pennsylvania under a multi-tiered analysis because of the value of doctors’ services to the public. Initially, the covenant in order to be enforceable must be “reasonably related to the protection of a legitimate business interest*.” As recognized in Wellspan, this type of interest includes showing that a non-competition provision is necessary to protect such things as trade secrets and confidential information, unique or extraordinary skills, customer goodwill, patient relationships, patient referral bases, and investments in an employee’s specialized training. If a post-employment covenant merely seeks to eliminate competition and is not designed to protect a legitimate business interest, it will not be enforced.
If the threshold requirement of a protectable business interest is satisfied, courts will then balance the employer’s interests against that of the employee to find other work in her field and earn a living. Under this factor, the temporal and geographic restrictions imposed on a former physician must be reasonably limited**. If not, the non-compete provision will not be upheld.
After the second step, the interests of the public will be assessed as they are of “paramount importance in the context of non-competition covenants for physicians.” This in essence means that courts will examine whether there is a shortage of physicians in the particular practice area in the relevant geographic region. If patient demand in the geographical area exceeds the ability of appropriately trained physicians to provide expeditious, skilled treatment, the public interest supersedes a right to enforce a non-compete agreement. Following Wellspan, courts in Allegheny County have viewed this factor as critical*.
As we can see, even without the implementation of the FTC rule, an employer faces significant hurdles in attempting to enforce a physician non-compete agreement.
Furthermore, many early comments suggest the FTC proposal would not apply to non-profit healthcare systems, based upon the FTC’s actual jurisdiction and the definition of “employer” in the proposed rule itself. Given the prevalence of non-profit healthcare systems nationwide, and especially in Pennsylvania, it remains to be seen whether this rule would have any significant impact in the healthcare arena.
The Allegheny County Medical Society has been collaborating with various Pennsylvania state legislators over the past few years to restrict or eliminate physician restrictive covenants. The most recent legislative action was the introduction of HB 681 of 2019, the Healthcare Practitioner Non-Compete Agreement Act, which has not been passed. This was an effort to limit this scope and impact of physician’s non-competes. However, as the trend of employing physicians increases, with tens of thousands of physicians employed by healthcare systems rather than private practices in Pennsylvania, there is less support for eliminating restrictive covenants. Organized medicine actively supports and enforces the use of restrictive covenants even the relatively few remaining private practices seem to utilize restrictive covenants.
*Wellspan Health v. Bayliss, 869 A.2d 990 (Pa. Super 2005).
** Wellspan
*** See Allegheny Specialty Practice Network v. Joseph J. Colella, M.D., GD No. 09-006813 (C.C.P. Allegh. Co.) (Ward, J., Opinion entered on Sept. 9, 2009, p. 27) (noting that a physician non-compete was enforceable because there was no shortage of bariatric surgeons in Allegheny County).
This Article was written by Michael A. Cassidy, Esq., Jeremy V. Farrell, Esq., and Ryan James, Esq., and originally appeared in the February 1, 2023 edition of ACMS Insights. ACMS Insights is The Allegheny County Medical Society’s Blog and is the newest addition to the ACMS’s lineup of content for members. Visit ACMS Insights here.
For questions or more information on this article, contact Jeremy Farrell, Ryan James or Mike Cassidy. Visit our Med Law Blog here.
| Michael A. Cassidy, Esq. mcassidy@tuckerlaw.com (412) 594-5515 |
||
| Jeremy V. Farrell, Esq., jfarrell@tuckerlaw.com (412) 594-3938 |
||
| Ryan James, Esq. rjames@tuckerlaw.com (412) 594-5542 |
