Tag: health

Whistleblowers Put Magnifying Glass on Optical Lens Manufacturer’s Kickback Scheme

September 1, 2022.  The United States Department of Justice settled two civil fraud cases against an optical lens manufacturer, marketer, and distributor Essilor regarding allegations that the company violated the Anti-Kickback Statute and the False Claims Act.  Under the terms of the settlement, the optical lens companies, Essilor International, Essilor of America, Inc., Essilor Laboratories of America, Inc., and Essilor Instruments USA, paid $16.4 million.  The three whistleblowers were former district sales managers.  The whistleblowers—or relators—filed two qui tam lawsuits under the False Claims Act, and as relators, they entitled to 15-25% of the government’s recovery.

According to the allegations, the optical lens companies created incentive programs which they marketed to eye care providers.  The programs offered incentives for optometrists and ophthalmologists to steer patients to choose Essilor brand products because the providers received (unlawful) remuneration for doing so.  When a healthcare provider’s choice of medication or device is driven by a financial reward from that device’s manufacturer, that is misconduct that violates the Anti-Kickback Statute.  Since providers submitted claims to Medicare and Medicaid for Essilor optical products allegedly chosen as part of these incentive programs, those claims violated the False Claims Act.

The optical lens company has to hire an Independent Review Organization (IRO) as part of the five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) it entered into with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Independent Review Organization will review any discount programs Essilor plans to roll out in the future.  The Acting Chief Counsel at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General emphasized the impact of this case, “Kickback schemes can impact medical judgment, eroding the trust of both patients and taxpayers.”  Patients—and taxpayers—should not wonder whether their healthcare provider is recommending a particular healing modality because they are incentivized to make that recommendation.  Whistleblowers, such as the sales representatives in these two cases, can spot unlawful kickback schemes and be rewarded—properly—for reporting them.

Article By the Whistleblower Practice Group at Tycko & Zavareei LLP

For more criminal law and business crimes legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 by Tycko & Zavareei LLP

Medicare CERT Audits and How to Prepare for Them

CERT audits are an unfortunate part of doing business for healthcare providers who accept Medicare. Failing the audit can mean the provider has to pay back overcharges and be subjected to increased scrutiny in the future. 

The best way to be prepared for a CERT audit is to have a compliance strategy in place and to follow it to the letter. Retaining a healthcare lawyer to craft that strategy is essential if you want to make sure that it is all-encompassing and effective. It can also help to hire independent counsel to conduct an internal review to ensure the compliance plan is doing its job.

When providers are notified of a CERT audit, hiring a Medicare lawyer is usually a good idea. Providers can fail the audit automatically if they do not comply with the document demands.

What is a CERT Audit?

The Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) program is an audit process developed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). It is administered by private companies, called CERT Contractors, which work with the CMS. Current information about those companies is on the CMS website.

The CERT audit compares a sampling of bills for Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) payments, which were sent by the healthcare provider to its Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC), against medical records for the patient. The audit looks at whether there is sufficient documentation to back up the claim against Medicare, whether the procedure was medically necessary, whether it was correctly coded, and whether the care was eligible for reimbursement through the Medicare program.

Every year, the CERT program audits enough of these FFS payments – generally around 50,000 per year – to create a statistically significant snapshot of inaccuracies in the Medicare program.

The results from those audits are reported to CMS. After appropriately weighing the results, CMS publishes the estimated improper payments or payment errors from the entire Medicare program in its annual report. In 2021, the CMS estimated that, based on data from the CERT audits, 6.26 percent of Medicare funding was incorrectly paid out, totaling $25.03 billion.

The vast majority of those incorrect payments, 64.1 percent, were marked as incorrect because they had insufficient documentation to support the Medicare claim. Another 13.6 percent were flagged as medically unnecessary. 10.6 percent was labeled as incorrectly paid out due to improper coding. 4.8 percent had no supporting documentation, at all. 6.9 percent was flagged as incorrectly paid for some other reason.

The CERT Audit Process

Healthcare providers who accept Medicare will receive a notice from a CERT Contractor. The notice informs the provider that it is being CERT audited and requests medical records from a random sampling of Medicare claims made by the provider to its MAC.

It is important to note that, at this point, there is no suspicion of wrongdoing. CERT audits examine Medicare claims at random.

Healthcare providers have 75 days to provide these medical records. Failing to provide the requested records is treated as an audit failure. In 2021, nearly 5 percent of failed CERT audits happened because no documentation was provided to support a Medicare claim.

Once the CERT Contractor has the documents, its team of reviewers – which consists of doctors, nurses, and certified medical coders – compares the Medicare claim against the patient’s medical records and looks for errors. According to the CMS, there are five major error categories:

  • No documentation

  • Insufficient documentation

  • Medical necessity

  • Incorrect coding

  • Other

Errors found during the CERT audit are reported to the healthcare provider’s MAC. The MAC can then make adjustments to the payments it sent to the provider.

Potential Repercussions from Errors Found in a CERT Audit

CERT audits that uncover errors in a healthcare provider’s Medicare billings lead to recoupments of overpayments, future scrutiny, and potentially even an investigation for Medicare fraud.

When the CERT audit results are brought to the MAC’s attention, the MAC will adjust the payments that it made to the provider. If the claims led to an overpayment, the MAC will demand that money back.

But Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) can go further than just demanding restitution for overpayments. They can also require prepayment reviews of all of the provider’s future Medicare claims, and can even suspend the provider from the program, entirely.

Worse still, CERT audits that uncover indications of Medicare fraud may be reported to a law enforcement agency for further review. This can lead to a criminal investigation and potentially even criminal charges.

Appealing a CERT Audit’s Results

With penalties so significant, healthcare providers should seriously consider hiring a lawyer to appeal the results of a CERT audit.

Appeals are first made to the MAC, requesting a redetermination of the audit results. The request for redetermination has to be made within 120 days of receiving notice of the audit results. However, if the provider wants to stop the MAC from recouping an overpayment in the meantime, it has to lodge the request within 30 days.

Providers can appeal the results of the redetermination, as well. They can request a reconsideration by a Qualified Independent Contractor within 180 of the redetermination, or within 60 days to stop the MAC’s recoupment process.

Providers who are still dissatisfied can appeal the case to an administrative law judge, then to the Medicare Appeals Council, and finally to a federal district court for review.

How to Handle a CERT Audit

The best way to handle and to prepare for a CERT audit is to hire Medicare audit attorneys to guide you through the process. It would also help to start internal audits within the company.

For providers who have been notified that they are under an audit, getting a lawyer on board immediately is essential. An experienced healthcare attorney can conduct a thorough internal investigation of the claims being audited. This can uncover potential problems before the audit points them out, giving the healthcare provider the time it needs to prepare its next steps.

Providers who are not currently being audited can still benefit from an attorney’s guidance. Whether by drafting a compliance plan that will prepare the provider for an inevitable CERT audit or by conducting an internal investigation to see how well a current compliance plan is performing, a lawyer can make sure that the provider is ready for an audit at a moment’s notice.

Taking these preventative steps soon is important. CMS put the CERT audit program on halt for the coronavirus pandemic, but that temporary hold was rescinded on August 11, 2020. While the CMS has reduced the sample sizes that will be used for its 2021 and 2022 reports, it will likely go back to the original numbers after that. Healthcare providers should prepare for this increased regulatory oversight appropriately.

Article By Dr. Nick Oberheiden of Oberheiden P.C.

For more litigation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Oberheiden P.C. © 2022

PFAS Health Advisories Under Legal Attack…Again

On June 15, 2022, the EPA issued Health Advisories (HAs) for five specific PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS. On July 29, 2022, the American Chemistry Council filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia challenging the validity of the EPA’s PFOA and PFOS HAs. The group alleges that the EPA did not follow proper procedure in setting the HAs and that the EPA’s determinations were scientifically flawed. The petition follows closely on the heels of a similar challenge to the EPA’s HA for GenX PFAS. Industries that will be impacted by upcoming EPA PFAS regulations will closely follow the petition as it makes its way through court, as it may provide predictive indicators of arguments that will unfold as the EPA’s PFAS regulations increase.

PFAS Health Advisories

In October 2021, the EPA released its PFAS Roadmap, which stated explicit goals and deadlines for over twenty action items specific to PFAS. As part of the Roadmap, the EPA pledged to re-assess the existing Health Advisories (HAs) for PFOA and PFOS, as well as establish HAs for PFBS and GenX chemicals. In June 2022, the EPA fulfilled its promise on all fronts when it set HAs for PFOA (interim), PFOS (interim), PFBS (final) and GenX (final). While not enforceable levels for PFAS in drinking water, the EPA’s PFAS Health Advisories are nevertheless incredibly significant for a variety of reasons, including influence on future federal and state drinking water limits, as well as potential impacts on future PFAS litigation.

The levels set by the EPA’s PFAS Health Advisories were as follows:

PFOA

.004 ppt

PFOS

.02 ppt

GenX

10 ppt

PFBS

2,000 ppt

Legal Challenge To PFAS Health Advisories

On July 13, 2022, The Chemours Company filed a petition challenging the validity of the EPA’s GenX HA. On July 29, 2022, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) followed suit and petitioned to have the EPA’s HAs for PFOA and PFOS vacated. In the petition, the ACC argues that the EPA circumvented procedural requirements in the Safe Drinking Water Act by setting interim HAs for PFOA and PFOS and that the EPA is improperly attempting to create enforcement standards for drinking water that are unattainable. While the HAs themselves are not enforceable, the ACC argues that the HAs are relied upon by states when they set their own drinking water standards and signal an EPA intent to set unachievably low levels of enforceable PFAS standards at the federal level. The ACC points to recent findings by the Science Advisory Board (SAB) that criticized the EPA’s reliance on the same studies and scientific articles upon which the HAs were based.

Conclusion

Now more than ever, the EPA is clearly on a path to regulate PFAS contamination in the country’s water, land and air. The EPA has also for the first time publicly stated when they expect such regulations to be enacted. These regulations will require states to act, as well (and some states may still enact stronger regulations than the EPA). Both the federal and the state level regulations will impact businesses and industries of many kinds, even if their contribution to drinking water contamination issues may seem on the surface to be de minimus. In states that already have PFAS drinking water standards enacted, businesses and property owners have already seen local environmental agencies scrutinize possible sources of PFAS pollution much more closely than ever before, which has resulted in unexpected costs. Beyond drinking water, though, the EPA PFAS Roadmap shows the EPA’s desire to take regulatory action well beyond just drinking water, and companies absolutely must begin preparing now for regulatory actions that will have significant financial impacts down the road.

Article By John Gardella of CMBG3 Law

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.

Erasing the Stigma—Michael Kasdan [PODCAST]

Men often hide their mental health struggles deeming it not manly for them to acknowledge weakness. Michael Kasdan was there at one point in his career, but he’s long since learned better. Today, Michael is an active member of the Good Men Project, sharing his personal struggles with depression with others in the legal profession and beyond. Now, he shares his story and perspective on the state of men’s mental health with Mark Yacano in this episode of Erasing the Stigma.

Michael Kasdan is a partner in Wiggin & Dana’s Intellectual Property Group. He focuses on all areas of intellectual property law, providing his clients with full- service IP expertise that ranges from patent, trademark, copyright and trade secret litigation to IP-related transactions – including licensing and monetization – to helping companies to protect and reap maximum value from their own innovations and brands.

Michael was listed as one of the world’s-leading IP Strategists in the 2103 and 2017 – 2021 editions of IAM Strategy 300 – The World’s Leading IP Strategists and has regularly been listed in Super Lawyers. Clients describe him as creative, energetic, and easy to work with and seek his insight into the business, technology, and legal facets of their IP issues.

Michael writes and speaks extensively. His articles have appeared in Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) Magazine, LEXIS, Thomson/Reuters, Practical Law Company, IP Law360, Bloomberg/BNA, Managing IP Magazine, The National Law Review, and elsewhere. Michael is the sole author of Practical Law Company’s Practice Note on Patent Law and the Lexis Practice Advisor on Patent Licensing and is a co-author of Practical Law Company’s Practice Notes on Global Patent Litigation and Licensing and on Tracking and Privacy.

A member of the firm’s Inclusion, Diversity and Equity Committee, Michael has been the keynote speaker at conferences addressing topics such as diversity and mentorship. He is also a passionate advocate for mental health and wellness in the legal profession and the world at large and serves on the Communications Committee of The Institute for Well-Being in Law.

Michael serves as on the Board and as Director of Communications and Development of the nonprofit MyChild’sCancer and on the Board of the SouthNextFestival. He was formerly Chairman of the Board of the nonprofit CityScience, which focuses on improving STEM education in cities. He is also the Director of Special Projects and Sr. Sports Editor for The Good Men Project.

Michael received his J.D. magna cum laude from New York University School of Law. He was a member of the NYU Law Review and the Order of the Coif, was Fish & Neave Fellow for the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law and Policy, and served as President of the Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law Society. After law school, he clerked for the Honorable Judge Roderick R. McKelvie in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Michael received a B.S.E. in electrical engineering magna cum laude from the University of Pennsylvania, with a minor in mathematics. He was a member of Eta Kappa Nu, Tau Beta Pi, and the Penn Parliamentary Debate Team.

©2022 Major, Lindsey & Africa, an Allegis Group

CareDx v. Natera – The Broad Road to Patent Ineligibility

In CareDx v Natera, Appeal No. 2022-1027, (Fed. Cir., July 18, 2022), a three judge panel of Judges Lourie, Bryson and Hughes, affirmed the district court’s finding that the claims of U. S. patent nos. 8703652, 9845497 and 10329607 are invalid for failing to survive the Alice/Mayo test for patent eligibility. I subtitled this post using Mathew 7:13-14: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road, that leads to destruction.” The appeal to the Federal Circuit, which I wrote about on October 15, 2021, never got on the narrow road that leads to viable diagnostic claims. It may not have been possible to overcome the obstacles that blocked the road, but CareDx managed to hit them all, and ended up with three invalid patents on natural phenomena.

The claims were directed to a method for detecting transplant rejection or organ failure by isolating and genotyping a sample from the subject who received the donation, quantifying the cfDNA, and diagnosing the transplant status for an increase in donor cfDNA over time. An increase indicates possible transplant failure.

Judge Lourie summarized the claims, some of which are more than a page long, this way:

“Here, as in Ariosa, the claims boil down to collecting a bodily sample, analyzing the cfDNA  using conventional techniques, including PCR, identifying naturally occurring DNA from the donor organ, and then using the natural correlation between heightened cfDNA levels and transplant health, to identify a potential rejection, none of which was inventive. The claims here are equally as ineligible as those in Ariosa.”

Let’s take a quick look at how CareDx got onto the broad road. CareRx hoped to avoid Ariosa by arguing that it was doing more than just measuring a biomarker correlated to an existing phenomenon. Problem 1 is that CareDx did not discover the correlation; it just improved on it (or did it?). Louie writes:

“CareDx argues that the patents’ claims are directed not to natural phenomena, but to improved laboratory techniques. CareDx contends that the ‘claimed advance’ is an ‘improved, human-designed method for measuring increases in donor cfDNA in a recipient’s body to identify organ rejection.’ … In particular, CareDx identifies the use of digital PCR, NGS, and selective amplification to more accurately measure the donor SNPs of cfDNA transplant recipients. However, CareDx does not actually claim any improvements in laboratory techniques … Furthermore the specification admits that the laboratory techniques disclosed in the claims require only conventional techniques and off-the-shelf technology.”

In fact, CareDx had at least one claim in the ‘497 patent that recites that the assay detects the donor-specific circulating cfDNA from the organ transplant when the donor-specific circulating cfDNA [makes] up at least 0.3% of the total circulating cfDNA in the biological sample. I presume that this claim limitation was put into the claim so that “improvement”  could be argued, but the limitation is not mentioned in the opinion.

Let’s look at a few other things CareDx encountered on its broad road to legal destruction. The panel looked at every step of the method in isolation. In other words, once CareDx argued “improvement” it was forced to admit that the specification disclosed that all those analytical techniques, such as PCR, NGS and “selective amplification”, would be considered as conventional in the art. CareDx might have relied on some of the decisions finding patent eligibility where physical equipment was necessarily involved, such as XL LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics or Illumina v Ariosa.

The finding of conventionality of individual steps permitted the court and the panel to effectively rule that the method was directed to a natural product, since the devices used to carry it out were given no weight. Therefore, the patents failed to pass Step 1 of Mayo/Alice. Could it have been argued, if that was the case, that the equipment used to carry out the method was arranged in a novel sequence? (Also, is someone going to argue that PCR involves replicating small amounts of DNA to afford useful amounts? – This is accomplished by the hand of man.)

These are minor thoughts, CareDX should left the word “diagnostic” out of the claims and the specification. This is certainly no more of a diagnostic test than the Mayo range-finding step was. It is presently clear that in the life sciences, recognition of the utility of a naturally occurring correlation is not enough to avoid patent ineligibility. Of course, and this is cold comfort to CareDx, would it have helped to get this method into the safe harbor of methods of medical treatment? In other words, the first step could recite the actual transplantation step and/or the final step of the process could recite some sort of medical intervention. Narrower claims might have returned CareDx to the narrow path of patent life.

Article By Warren Woessner of Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.

For more intellectual property legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.

Update to EEOC’s Position on Mandatory COVID Testing

On July 12, 2022, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) updated its guidance regarding COVID-19 workplace viral screening testing. 

The EEOC’s original position on COVID-19 workplace viral screening testing was that it always met the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) standard for conducting medical examinations.

However, on July 12, 2022, the EEOC explained that going forward, “employers will need to assess whether current pandemic circumstances and individual workplace circumstances justify viral screening testing of employees to prevent workplace transmission of COVID-19.”

The EEOC’s FAQ A.6 now provides that an employer, as a mandatory screening measure, may administer a COVID-19 viral test “if the employer can show it is job-related and consistent with business necessity.”

Fortunately, the EEOC has provided eight factors for businesses to consider in determining whether the new “business necessity” standard is met:

  • the level of community transmission;
  • the vaccination status of employees;
  • the accuracy and speed of processing for different types of COVID-19 viral tests;
  • the degree to which breakthrough infections are possible for employees who are “up to date” on vaccinations;
  • the ease of transmissibility of the current variant(s);
  • the possible severity of illness from the current variant(s);
  • what types of contacts employees may have with others in the workplace or elsewhere that they are required to work (e.g., working with medically vulnerable individuals); and,
  • the potential impact on operations if an employee enters the workplace with COVID-19.

It is important for business owners to appropriately conduct and document the above analysis.

The EEOC’s COVID-19 guidance concerning COVID-19 workplace viral testing may further evolve, so it will be important for business owners to periodically review the EEOC’s current FAQs.

Article By William A. Oden, III of Ward and Smith, P.A.

For more coronavirus legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Ward and Smith, P.A.. All Rights Reserved.

CMS Reduces COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Surveys and Rescinds Surveyor Vaccination Requirements

In two recent memoranda, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) made changes to previously issued survey guidance related to COVID-19 vaccination issues.

In QSO-22-17-ALL, CMS modified the frequency by which State Agencies and Accreditation Organizations will survey for compliance with the federal staff vaccine mandate applicable to health care providers and suppliers (discussed in a prior post).  Noting that 95% of providers and suppliers surveyed have been found in substantial compliance with the rule, CMS is eliminating the previous requirement that State Agencies and Accreditation Organizations survey for compliance with the vaccine mandate during every survey.  Review of compliance with vaccine mandate is still required, however, during initial surveys, recertification surveys, and in response to specific complaint allegations that allege non-compliance with the staff vaccination requirement.  This means that a State Agency or Accreditation Organization is not required to review compliance with the staff vaccination requirement during, for example, a validation survey or a complaint survey unrelated to compliance with the staff vaccination requirement.  A State Agency or Accreditation Organization may still choose to expand any survey to include review of vaccine mandate compliance; however, the new guidance should result in a reduction in survey frequency of this issue for providers and suppliers.

In QSO-22-18-ALL, CMS rescinded, in its entirety, the previously issued QSO-22-10-ALL memorandum, which had mandated that surveyors of State Agencies and Accreditation Organizations be vaccinated for COVID-19.  However, CMS noted that the State Agencies and Accreditation Organizations were responsible for compliance and prohibited providers and suppliers from asking surveyors for proof of vaccination.  While CMS is now encouraging vaccination of surveyors performing federal oversight surveys, the mandate for vaccination is no longer in effect.

Article By Allen R. Killworth of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

For more coronavirus legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

Health Care Providers on Alert: Two Hospitals Penalized for Continuous Noncompliance with the Hospital Price Transparency Rule

We previously discussed the requirements of the Hospital Price Transparency Rule (“Rule”) on health care providers and health plans, as well as CMS’s proposal to increase penalties for a hospital’s failure to comply with the Rule.  About a year and a half after the Rule became effective, CMS has now imposed its first set of civil monetary penalties (“CMPs”) on Northside Hospital Atlanta and Northside Hospital Cherokee, which have been fined $883,180 and $214,320, respectively.

The Rule requires, in part, hospitals to make public a machine-readable file containing a list of all standard charges for all items and services, such as, e.g., supplies, room and board, and use of the facility, among other items.  See 45 C.F.R. § 180.40(a); id. at § 180.20.  The Rule also requires hospitals to display shoppable services in a consumer-friendly manner.  See id. at § 180.60(d)(2); id. at § 180.60(b).  The goal of these specific requirements, in addition to those set forth in the remainder of the Rule, is to provide consumers with sufficient information about the charges for certain items and services by requiring health care providers and health plans to be publicly transparent about such charges.

Based on CMS’s CMP letters, dated June 7, 2022, Northside Hospital Atlanta and Northside Hospital Cherokee were non-compliant with the aforementioned specific requirements of the Rule.  The chronology of events is important to understand how CMS ended up issuing its CMP letters.

Northside Hospital Atlanta

For Northside Hospital Atlanta:

  • CMS documented the hospital’s non-compliance since March 24, 2021.
  • CMS issued a Warning Letter, dated April 19, 2021, to the hospital and provided it the opportunity to respond and to provide supporting documentation to CMS.
  • Northside Hospital Atlanta did not respond.
  • On September 2, 2021, CMS reviewed the hospital’s website and determined that the non-compliance persisted.
  • On September 30, 2021, CMS issued a Request for Corrective Action Plan (CAP) to the hospital, stating that it was non-compliant with the aforementioned specific requirements of the Rule.
  • On November 15, 2021, in response to the Request for CAP, the hospital stated that patients could request specific price estimate quotes by calling or emailing Northside Hospital Atlanta, which CMS determined was insufficient in response to its Request for CAP and to comply with the Rule.
  • On December 20, 2021, CMS requested a revised CAP from the hospital.
  • Northside Hospital Atlanta did not respond.
  • On January 11, 2022, CMS conducted a technical assistance call with the hospital, during which the hospital confirmed that it was non-compliant with the Rule and explained that it had intentionally removed all previously posted pricing files.
  • On January 24, 2022, CMS, again, requested a revised CAP from the hospital.
  • Northside Hospital Atlanta did not respond.

Based on the foregoing, CMS imposed an $883,180 CMP on Northside Hospital Atlanta, calculated as follows, pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 180.90:

  • $36,300
    • $300 per day of non-compliance times 121 days.
    • 121 days represents the number of calendar days during 2021 that Northside Hospital Atlanta was non-compliant with the Rule (September 2, 2021 through December 31, 2021), pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 180.90(2)(i).

 plus

  • $846,880
    • $10 per bed per day times 536 beds times 158 days.
    • 158 days represents the number of calendar days during 2022 that Northside Hospital Atlanta was non-compliant with the Rule (January 1, 2022 through the date of CMS’s CMP letter, June 7, 2022), pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 180.90(2)(ii).

Northside Hospital Atlanta has until 60 calendar days from the date of CMS’s CMP letter to pay.  Until the hospital notifies CMS that all non-compliance has been corrected, CMPs will continue to accrue.

Northside Hospital Cherokee

For similar reasons as Northside Hospital Atlanta, Northside Hospital Cherokee was fined $214,320.  CMS noted that Northside Hospital Cherokee was non-compliant since April 16, 2021, and notified the hospital by Warning Letter, dated May 18, 2021.  CMS reviewed the hospital’s website on September 9, 2021, and issued a Request for CAP on October 27, 2021—to which the hospital did not respond.  Similar to Northside Hospital Atlanta, CMS held a technical assistance call on January 11, 2022, during which Northside Hospital Cherokee notified CMS that it had intentionally removed all previously posted pricing files.  CMS requested a Request for CAP on January 24, 2022—to which the hospital did not respond.

Similar to Northside Hospital Atlanta, Northside Hospital Cherokee was penalized $214,320, calculated as follows:

  • $34,200
    • $300 per day of non-compliance times 114 days.
    • 114 days represents the number of calendar days during 2021 that Northside Hospital Cherokee was non-compliant with the Rule (September 9, 2021 through December 31, 2021), pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 180.90(2)(i).

plus

  • $180,120
    • $10 per bed per day times 114 beds times 158 days.
    • 158 days represents the number of calendar days during 2022 that Northside Hospital Cherokee was non-compliant with the Rule (January 1, 2022 through the date of CMS’s CMP letter, June 7, 2022), pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 180.90(2)(ii).

Similar to Northside Hospital Atlanta, CMS noted that Northside Hospital Cherokee continues to be non-compliant and, thus, CMPs will continue to accrue.

Takeaways

These fines reflect CMS’s willingness to take material enforcement action where the Rule’s regulatory requirements are largely ignored and CMS’s subsequent efforts to obtain compliance are rejected.  Non-compliance carries heavy fines that are calculated, in part, by the number of days of non-compliance and by bed count.  Health care providers should take notice and ensure that they are compliant or, at least, making efforts towards compliance with the Rule’s requirements.  Critically, CMS will not accept a refusal to comply, as reflected in CMS’s responses to Northside Hospital Atlanta’s and Northside Hospital Cherokee’s refusals to submit CAPs.  As noted in CMS’s CMP letters to these providers, CMS is scanning websites and subsequently notifying providers that appear to be non-compliant with the Rule—which are ignored at the provider’s peril.

Article By Edward S. Kornreich and Matthew J. Westbrook of Proskauer Rose LLP

For more health law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Proskauer Rose LLP.

Alabama Enacts New Telemedicine Law

Alabama Governor Kay Ivey recently signed SB 272 into law, setting forth telemedicine practice standards and abolishing Alabama’s previous “special purpose license” that allowed physicians licensed in other states to practice across state lines into Alabama. The law is effective July 11, 2022.

The law creates a new article in the Code of Alabama (Sections 34-24-701 through 34-24-707 of Chapter 24, Title 34). The statutory language is lengthy, but the key provisions are summarized below.

Medical License

Unless the physician meets an exception to licensure (e.g., peer-to-peer consultations, irregular or infrequent services), a physician must obtain either a full Alabama medical license or a license via the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact in order to provide “telehealth medical services” to a patient located in Alabama.

  • Telehealth medical services means “[d]igital health, telehealth, telemedicine, and the applicable technologies and devices used in the delivery of telehealth. The term does not include incidental communications between a patient and a physician.
  • The term “irregular or infrequent” services refers to “telehealth medical services” occurring less than 10 days in a calendar year or involving fewer than 10 patients in a calendar year.

Defined Terms and Allowable Modalities

  • Telehealth is defined as “[t]he use of electronic and telecommunications technologies, including devices used for digital health, asynchronous and synchronous communications, or other methods, to support a range of medical care and public health services.”
  • Telemedicine is defined as “[a] form of telehealth referring to the provision of medical services by a physician at a distant site to a patient at an originating site via asynchronous or synchronous communications, or other devices that may adequately facilitate and support the appropriate delivery of care.” The term includes digital health, but does not include incidental communications between a patient and a physician.
  • Digital Health is defined as “[t]he delivery of health care services, patient education communications, or public health information via software applications, consumer devices, or other digital media.”
  • Asynchronous is defined as “[t]he electronic exchange of health care documents, images, and information that does not occur in real time, including, but not limited to, the collection and transmission of medical records, clinical data, or laboratory results.”
  • Synchronous is defined as “[t]he real-time exchange of medical information or provision of care between a patient and a physician via audio/visual technologies, audio only technologies, or other means.”

Physician-Patient Relationship

A physician-patient relationship may be formed via telehealth without a prior in-person exam.

Telemedicine Prescribing of Medications and Controlled Substances

A practitioner may prescribe a legend drug, medical supplies, or a controlled substance to a patient via telehealth. However, a prescription for a controlled substance may only be issued if:

  1. The telehealth visit includes synchronous audio or audio-visual communication using HIPAA compliant equipment;
  2. The practitioner has had at least one in-person encounter with the patient within the preceding 12 months; and
  3. The practitioner has established a legitimate medical purpose for issuing the prescription within the preceding 12 months.

In-Person Visit for Unresolved Medical Condition

If a physician or practice group provides telehealth medical services more than 4 times in a 12-month period to the same patient for the same medical condition without resolution, the physician must either see the patient in-person within 12 months or refer the patient to a physician who can provide the in-person care within 12 months. This in-person visit requirement does not apply to the provision of mental health services.

The Alabama Board of Medical Examiners and the Alabama Medical Licensure Commission are currently developing administrative rules in accordance with the new law.

Article By Kristen A. Murphy and Jacqueline N. Acosta of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more health law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

Antitrust Enforcers’ “Second Listening” Forum On Merger Reform Highlights Issues In The Healthcare Industry

In March of this year the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) jointly announced a series of “listening forums” that would help gather real world input from participants in key industry segments on possible reforms to the antitrust regulations pertaining to mergers and acquisitions.1 Co-led by DOJ Deputy Assistant Attorney General (“DAAG”) Doha Mekke and FTC Chairperson Lina Khan, the second of the four announced forums, focusing on healthcare, was held on April 14, 2022. 2  In addition to DAAG Mekki and Chairperson Khan, the program included eight panelists that provided perspectives from nurses, doctors, patients, pharmacists and small businesses. 3

DAAG Mekki started off the discussion by reaffirming the antitrust enforcement agencies’ collective commitment that “healthcare markets remain competitive” because it “is essential to our livelihood or the livelihood of the nation.” Mekki referenced ongoing work by the agencies in the healthcare field, including recent DOJ enforcement actions. 4

The healthcare panelists highlighted several ongoing issues in the industry, such as the adverse impact of care due to post-merger hospital staff downsizing that was tied to merger-specific efficiencies, reduced options to tertiary care, higher healthcare costs for patients, and unfair competition in the pharmaceutical and small business markets, and other impacts in the research and labor markets.

Chairperson Khan indicated that the comments resonated with the concerns that the FTC had in the hospital, pharmacy benefits management, and pharmacy industries. Ms. Khan also suggested a renewed interest in examining the potential anticompetitive effects of vertical integration in addition to horizontal mergers and acquisitions, which is consistent with the FTC’s position when it indicated that it wanted to revisit this issue while withdrawing the Vertical Merger Guidelines in 2021. Khan also reaffirmed the importance of examining anticompetitive effects in the labor market. All of these issues, according to Khan, are important in assessing how the antitrust laws can be used to improve the quality of healthcare for patients.

The forum ended with some of the more than two hundred public comments, most of which echoed similar concerns raised by the panelists in addition to concerns such as disparities in hospital-physician group contracting situations and racial disparities in access to healthcare as a result of healthcare system mergers.

Once again, all signs point toward an unprecedented time in antitrust enforcement in the healthcare industry. Accordingly, it is important that healthcare companies revisit, revise, and implement best practices with regard to their respective antitrust compliance programs. A proactive, as opposed to a reactive, approach would provide companies the best risk management strategy. It is also important to engage antitrust counsel early in potential transactions to assess how the antitrust agencies may view the deal.

The DOJ and FTC Listening Forums continue with Media and Entertainment, which was held on April 27, 2022, and the final one on Technology, which will be held on May 12, 2022. Click here to download the alert. 

FOOTNOTES

1    “Forums to focus on markets commonly impacted by mergers: food and agriculture, health care, media and entertainment, and technology,” March 17, 2022, available at: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/03/ftc-justice-department-launch-listening-forums-firsthand-effects-mergers-acquisitions

2   See “Antitrust Enforcers’ First ‘Listening Forum’ On Merger Reform Highlights Ongoing Concerns in the Food and Agriculture Industry” May 9, 2022, available at: https://www.polsinelli.com/intelligence/antitrust-forum-highlights-concerns-in-food-and-ag

3 Full transcript of forum available at: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/FTC-DOJ-Listening-Forum-%20Health-Care-Transcript.pdf. It should be noted that Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter did make an appearance at the end of the session, reiterating the importance of this forum.

4    See “DOJ Faces Two Strikeouts in First Health Care Wage-Fixing and ‘No Poach’ Prosecutions,” April 20, 2022, available at: https://www.polsinelli.com/intelligence/doj-faces-two-strikeouts-in-first-health-care

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California
Article By Arindam Kar with Polsinelli PC.
For more articles about antitrust law, visit the NLR Antitrust law section.