Tag: health

Surprise! The No Surprises Act Changes Again

The No Surprises Act (Act), which became effective Jan. 1, 2022, is the latest health care law passed with the best of intent: to create consumer protection from unexpected out-of-network medical bills and to create a federal independent dispute resolution (IDR) process to resolve payment disputes between payers and out-of-network providers. Unfortunately, the Act, especially the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) implementation of the IDR process, also creates a new administrative burden for health care providers. Providers and medical associations filed lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions to challenge HHS’ implementation of the IDR process and the constitutionality of the Act before it was even in effect.

On Feb. 24, 2022, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted the Texas Medical Association’s Motion for Summary Judgement to vacate select IDR requirements. The Court found that HHS’ interim final rule’s IDR process, intended to resolve payment disputes regarding reimbursement for out-of-network emergency services and out-of-network services provided at in-network facilities, was contrary to the clear language of the Act[1] (Rule).

In general, the Act[2] requires health insurance payers (Insurers) to reimburse providers for certain out-of-network services at a statutorily calculated “out-of-network rate.”[3] Where an All-Payer Model Agreement or specified state law does not exist, to set such a rate, an Insurer must issue an initial out-of-network rate decision and pay such amount to the providers within 30 days after the out-of-network claim is submitted.[4] If the provider disagrees with the Insurer’s proposed out-of-network reimbursement rate, the provider has a 30-day window to negotiate a different payment rate with the Insurer.[5] If these negotiations fail, the parties can proceed to the IDR process.[6]

Congress adopted a baseball-style arbitration model for the Act’s IDR process. The Insurer and provider each submit a proposed out-of-network rate with limited supporting evidence. The arbitrator picks one of the offers while taking into account specified considerations, including the “qualified payment amount,” the provider’s training, experience, quality, and outcomes measurements, the provider’s market share, the patient’s acuity, the provider’s teaching status, case mix, and scope of services, and the provider’s/Insurer’s good-faith attempts to enter into a network agreement.[7] The “qualifying payment amount” (QPA), is designed to represent the median rate the Insurer would pay for the item or service if it were provided by an in-network provider.[8]

The Rule requires the IDR arbitrator to select the proposed payment amount that is closest to the QPA unless “the certified IDR entity [arbitrator] determines that credible information submitted by either party … clearly demonstrates that the [QPA] is materially different[9] from the appropriate out-of-network rate.”[10] This is a clear departure from the analysis set forth in the Act.

The Texas Medical Association challenged the Rule under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), arguing that the Departments exceeded their authority by giving “outsized weight” to one statutory factor over the others specified by Congress, and that the Departments failed to comply with the APA’s notice and comments requirements in promulgating the Rule. In turn, the Departments argued that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the claims.

After dispensing with defendant’s standing arguments, the Eastern District of Texas Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and determined that “the Act unambiguously establishes the framework for deciding payment disputes and concludes that the Rule conflicts with the statutory text.” Under the Act, the arbitrators (or certified IDR entities) “shall consider … the qualifying payment amounts” and the provider’s level of training, experience, and quality outcomes, the market share held by the provider, the patient’s acuity, the provider’s teaching status, case mix, and scope of services, and the demonstrated good faith efforts of both parties in entering into a network agreement.”[11] The Act did not specify that any one factor should be considered the “primary” or “most important” factor. The Rule, in contrast, requires arbitrators to “select the offer closest to the [QPA]” unless “credible” information, including information supporting the “additional factors,” “clearly demonstrates that the [QPA] is materially different from the appropriate out-of-network rate.”[12] The Departments characterized the other factors as “permissible additional factors” that may be considered only when appropriate.[13] The Court found that the Department’s Rule was inconsistent with the Act and that since Congress had spoken clearly on the factors to be considered in the arbitration process, the Department’s interpretation of the Act was not appropriate and had exceeded the Department’s authority.[14]

Following the Court’s decision, the Departments issued a memorandum on Feb. 28, 2022, clarifying the Act’s requirements for providers and Insurers. The memo specifically noted that the Court’s decision would not, in their opinion, affect the patient-provider dispute resolution process.[15] The Departments also stated they would withdraw any guidance inconsistent with the Court’s Opinion, provide additional training for interested parties, and keep the IDR process portal open to resolve disputes. The Departments also will be considering further rulemaking to address the IDR process.

The No Surprises Act continues to surprise us all with more adaptations. Enforcement of this new law remains uncertain in light of the numerous legal challenges, including at least one constitutionality challenge.

[1] Requirements Related to Surprise Billing: Part II, 86 Fed. Reg. 55,980 (Oct. 7, 2021).

[2] Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260, div. BB, tit. I, 134 Stat. 1182, 2758-2890 (2020).

[3] 300gg-111(a)(1)(C)(iv)(II) and (b)(1)(D).

[4] 300gg-111(a)(1)(C)(iv) and (b)(1)(C).

[5] 300gg-111(c)(1)(A).

[6] 300gg-111(c)(1)(B).

[7] 300gg-111(c)(5).

[8] 300gg-111(a)(3)(E)(i)(I)-(II).

[9] “Material difference” is defined as “a substantial likelihood that a reasonable person with the training and qualifications of a certified IDR entity making a payment determination would consider the submitted information significant in determining the out-of-network rate and would view the information as showing that the [QPA] is not the appropriate out-of-network rate. 149.510(a)(2)(viii).

[10] 45 C.F.R. 149.510(c)(4)(ii).

[11] 300gg-111(c)(5)(C)(i)-(ii).

[12] 45 C.F.R. 149.510(c)(4)(ii)(A).

[13] 86 Fed. Reg. 56,080.

[14] Because the Departments had exceeded their statutory authority, no Chevron deference was owed to their regulations. Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 468 U.S. 837 (1984).

[15] This is a separate dispute resolution process designed to address disputes between patients and providers when bills for uninsured and self-pay patients are inconsistent with the good faith estimate provided by the health care provider.

Article By Stacey A. Borowicz and Joseph D. Wheeler of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

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

© 2022 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

OIG: Telehealth “Critical” to Maintaining Access to Care Amidst COVID-19

The federal Office of Inspector General (OIG) recently published a report (OIG Report) as part of a series of analyses of the expansion and utilization of telehealth in response to the COVID-19 public health emergency.  In its report, the OIG concludes that telehealth was “critical for providing services to Medicare beneficiaries during the first year of the pandemic” and that the utilization of telehealth “demonstrates the long-term potential of telehealth to increase access to health care for beneficiaries.” The OIG’s conclusions are notable because they come at a time when policymakers and health care stakeholders are determining whether and how to make permanent certain expansions of telehealth for patients nationwide.

The OIG Report is based on Medicare claims and encounter data from the “first” year of the pandemic (March 1, 2020 through February 28, 2021) as compared to data for the immediately preceding year (March 1, 2019 through February 29, 2020). Per the OIG Report, the OIG observed that approximately 43% of Medicare beneficiaries used telehealth during the first year of the pandemic, and that office visits were the most common telehealth encounter for those patients. The telehealth utilization data showed an 88-fold increase over the utilization of telehealth services for the prior year, which in part reflects the significant limitations on telehealth reimbursement under Medicare prior to COVID-19, in addition to the significant regulatory expansion of telehealth at the federal and state levels in response to COVID-19.

Interestingly, the OIG Report states that beneficiaries enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan “were more likely to use telehealth” than Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, and that “CMS’s temporary policy changes enabled the monumental growth in the use of telehealth in multiple ways,” including by expanding the permissible patient locations, and the types of services that could be provided via telehealth. In addition, the OIG indicated that the use of telehealth for behavioral health services by beneficiaries “stands out” because of the higher incidence of beneficiaries accessing those services via telehealth, which may in turn influence policymaking and increase access to critical behavioral health care services.

Finally, the OIG Report notably includes a footnote which indicates that a separate report on “Program Integrity Risks” is forthcoming, which may shed light on corresponding compliance concerns that have arisen in connection with the significant expansion of telehealth in response to COVID-19.

Article By Conor O. Duffy of Robinson & Cole LLP

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

Copyright © 2022 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.

Congress Grants Five Month Extension for Telehealth Flexibilities

On Tuesday, March 16, 2022, President Biden signed into law H.R. 2471, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (“2022 CAA”). This new law includes several provisions that extend the Medicare telehealth waivers and flexibilities, implemented as a result of COVID-19 to facilitate access to care, for an additional 151 days after the end of the Public Health Emergency (“PHE”). This equates to about a five-month period.

The 2022 CAA extension captures most of the core PHE telehealth flexibilities authorized as part of Medicare’s pandemic response, including the following:

  • Geographic Restrictions and Originating Sites: During the extension, Medicare beneficiaries can continue to receive telehealth services from anywhere in the country, including their home. Medicare is permitting telehealth services to be provided to patients at any site within the United States, not just qualifying zip codes or locations (e.g. physician offices/facilities).
  • Eligible Practitioners: Occupational therapists, physical therapists, speech-language pathologists, and qualified audiologists will continue to be able to furnish and receive payment for telehealth services as eligible distant site practitioners during the extension period.
  • Mental Health:  In-person requirements for certain mental health services will continue to be waived through the 151-day extension period.
  • Audio-Only Telehealth Services: Medicare will continue to provide coverage and payment for most telehealth services furnished using audio-only technology. This includes professional consultations, office visits, and office psychiatry services (identified as of July 1, 2000 by HCPCS Codes 99241-99275, 99201-99215, 90804-90809 and 90862) and any other services added to the telehealth list by the CMS Secretary for which CMS has not expressly required the use of real-time, interactive audio-visual equipment during the PHE.

Additionally, the 2022 CAA allocates $62,500,000 from the federal budget to be used for grants for telemedicine and distance learning services in rural areas. Such funds may be used to finance construction of facilities and systems providing telemedicine services and distance learning services in qualified “rural areas.”

Passage of the 2022 CAA is a substantial step in the right direction for stakeholders hoping to see permanent legislative change surrounding Medicare telehealth reimbursement.

Article By Joelle M. Wilson and Laura Little of Polsinelli PC

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

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

New York To Require Licensure of Pharmacy Benefit Managers

In an effort to counteract rising prescription drug costs and health insurance premiums, New York Governor Hochul signed S3762/A1396 (the Act) on December 31, 2021.  This legislation specifies the registration, licensure, and reporting requirements of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) operating in New York. The Superintendent of the Department of Financial Services (Superintendent) will oversee the implementation of this legislation and the ongoing registration and licensure of PBMs in New York. Notably, this legislation establishes a duty of accountability and transparency that PBMs owe in the performance of pharmacy benefit management services.

Though the Governor only recently signed the Act, on January 13, 2022, an additional piece of legislation, S7837/A8388, was introduced in the New York Legislature.  If passed, this legislation would amend and repeal certain provisions proposed in the Act.  As of the date of this blog post, both the Senate and Assembly have passed S7837/A8388, and it has been delivered to the Governor for signature. Anticipating that Governor Hochul will sign S7837/A8388 into law, we have provided an overview of the Act, taking into account the impact that S7837/A8388 will have, and the changes that both make to the New York State Insurance, Public Health, and Finance Laws.

New York State Insurance Law: Article 29 – Pharmacy Benefit Managers

The Act adds Article 29 to the Insurance Law.  The Section includes, among other provisions, definitions applicable to PBMs, as well as licensure, registration, and reporting requirements, as detailed below.

Definitions

Section 2901 incorporates the definitions of “pharmacy benefit manager” and “pharmacy benefit management services” of Section 280-a of the Public Health Law.  “Pharmacy benefit management services” is defined as “the management or administration of prescription drug benefits for a health plan.”  This definition applies regardless of whether the PBM conducts the administration or management directly or indirectly and regardless of whether the PBM and health plan are associated or related. “Pharmacy benefit management services” also includes the procurement of prescription drugs to be dispensed to patients, or the administration or management of prescription drug benefits, including but not limited to:

  • Mail service pharmacy;
  • Claims processing, retail network management, or payment of claims to pharmacies for dispensing prescription drugs;
  • Clinical or other formulary or preferred drug  list  development or management;
  • Negotiation  or  administration  of  rebates, discounts, payment differentials, or other incentives,  for  the  inclusion  of  particular prescription  drugs  in a particular category or to promote the purchase of particular prescription drugs;
  • Patient compliance, therapeutic intervention, or  generic  substitution programs;
  • Disease management;
  • Drug utilization review or prior authorization;
  • Adjudication  of appeals or grievances related to prescription drug coverage;
  • Contracting with network pharmacies; and
  • Controlling the cost of covered prescription drugs.

A “pharmacy benefit manager” is defined as any entity that performs the above listed management services for a health plan.  Finally, the term “health plan” is amended to encompass entities that a PBM either provides management services for and is a health benefit plan or reimburses, in whole or in part, at least prescription drugs, for a “substantial number of beneficiaries” that work in New York.  The Superintendent has the discretion to interpret the phrase “substantial number of beneficiaries.”

Registration Requirements

PBMs currently providing pharmacy benefit management services must register and submit an annual registration fee of $4,000 to the Department of Financial Services (DFS) on or before June 1, 2022 if the PBM intends to continue providing management services after that date. After June 1, 2022, every PBM seeking to engage in management services must register and submit the annual registration fee to DFS prior to engaging in management services. Regardless of when a PBM registers, every PBM registration will expire on December 31, 2023.

Reporting Requirements

On or before July 1 of each year, each PBM must report and affirm the following to the Superintendent, which includes, but is not limited to:

  • Any pricing discounts, rebates of any kind, inflationary payments, credits, clawbacks, fees, grants, chargebacks, reimbursement, other financial or other reimbursements, inducements, refunds or other benefits received by the PBM; and
  • The terms and conditions of any contract or arrangement, including other financial or other reimbursement incentives, inducements, or refunds between the PBM and any other party relating to management services provided to a health plan including, but not limited to, dispending fees paid to pharmacies.

The Superintendent may request additional information from PBMs and their respective officers and directors. Notably, the above documentation and information are confidential and not subject to public disclosure, unless a court order compels it or if the Superintendent determines disclosure is in the public’s best interest.

Licensing Requirements

The Superintendent is also responsible for establishing standards related to PBM licensure.  The Superintendent must consult with the Commissioner of Health while developing the standards.  The standards must address prerequisites for the issuance of a PBM license and detail how a PBM license must be maintained.  The standards will cover, at a minimum, the following topics:

  • Conflicts of interest between PBMs and health plans or insurers;
  • Deceptive practices in connection with the performance of management services;
  • Anti-competitive practices connected to the performance of management services;
  • Unfair claims practices in connection with the performance of pharmacy benefit managements services;
  • Pricing models that PBMs use both for their services and for payment of services;
  • Consumer protection; and
  • Standards and practices used while creating pharmacy networks and while contracting with network pharmacies and other providers and in contracting with network pharmacies and other providers.  This will also cover the promotion of patient access, the use of independent and community pharmacies, and the minimization of excessive concentration and vertical integration of markets.

To obtain a license, PBMs must file an application and pay a licensing fee of $8,000 to the Superintendent for each year that the license will be valid.  The license will expire 36 months after its issuance, and a PBM can renew their license for another 36-month period by refiling an application with the Superintendent.

New York State Public Health Law: Amendments to Section 280-a

Duty, Accountability, and Transparency of PBMs

As briefly mentioned above, the Act also amends Public Health Law 280-a.  Notably, this legislation imposes imposes new duty, accountability, and transparency requirements on PBMs.  Under the new law, PBMs interacting with a covered individual have the same duty to a covered individual as the PBM has to the health plan for which the PBM is performing management services. PBMs are also compelled to act with a duty of good faith and fair dealing towards all parties, including, but not limited to, covered individuals and pharmacies. In addition, PBMs are required to hold all funds received from providing management services in trust.  The PBMs can only utilize the funds in accordance with its contract with their respective health plan.

To promote transparency, PBMs shall account to their health plan any pricing discounts, rebates, clawbacks, fees, or other benefits it has received. The health plan must have access to all of the PBMs’ financial information related to the management services the PBM provides it.  The PBMs are also required to disclose in writing any conflicts of interest PBMs shall disclose in writing any conflicts of interests, as well as disclose the terms and conditions of any contract related to the PBM’s provision of management services to the health plan, including, but not limited to, the dispensing fees paid to pharmacies.

New York State Finance Law: Addition of Section § 99-oo

If enacted, S7837/A8388 will add Section 99-oo to the Finance Law.  This law would create a special fund called the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Regulatory Fund (Fund).  The New York State Comptroller (Comptroller) and Commissioner of Tax and Finance will establish the Fund and hold joint custody over it. The Fund will primarily consist of money collected through fees and penalties imposed under the Insurance Law.  The Comptroller must keep Fund monies separate from other funds, and the money shall remain in the Fund unless a statute or appropriation directs its release.

Looking Forward: PBM Regulation in New York and Beyond

In a January 2, 2022, press release, Governor Hochul touted the Act as “the most comprehensive [PBM] regulatory framework” in the United States.  The Governor has made clear her intent to regulate PBMs, and New York lawmakers appear to just be getting started.  PBMs in New York and throughout the United States should anticipate their state’s legislatures introducing and enacting more laws and regulations.

©1994-2022 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.
For more about pharmacies, visit the NLR Healthcare section.

Fitness App Agrees to Pay $56 Million to Settle Class Action Alleging Dark Pattern Practices

On February 14, 2022, Noom Inc., a popular weight loss and fitness app, agreed to pay $56 million, and provide an additional $6 million in subscription credits to settle a putative class action in New York federal court. The class is seeking conditional certification and has urged the court to preliminarily approve the settlement.

The suit was filed in May 2020 when a group of Noom users alleged that Noom “actively misrepresents and/or fails to accurately disclose the true characteristics of its trial period, its automatic enrollment policy, and the actual steps customer need to follow in attempting to cancel a 14-day trial and avoid automatic enrollment.” More specifically, users alleged that Noom engaged in an unlawful auto-renewal subscription business model by luring customers in with the opportunity to “try” its programs, then imposing significant barriers to the cancellation process (e.g., only allowing customers to cancel their subscriptions through their virtual coach), resulting in the customers paying a nonrefundable advance lump-sum payment for up to eight (8) months at a time. According to the proposed settlement, Noom will have to substantially enhance its auto-renewal disclosures, as well as require customers to take a separate action (e.g., check box or digital signature) to accept auto-renewal, and provide customers a button on the customer’s account page for easier cancellation.

Regulators at the federal and state level have recently made clear their focus on enforcement actions against “dark patterns.” We previously summarized the FTC’s enforcement policy statement from October 2021 warning companies against using dark patterns that trick consumers into subscription services. More recently, several state attorneys general (e.g., in Indiana, Texas, the District of Columbia, and Washington State) made announcements regarding their commitment to ramp up enforcement work on “dark patterns” that are used to ascertain consumers’ location data.

Article By: Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group at Hunton Andrews Kurth

For more cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.
 
Copyright © 2022, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.

New Tools in the Fight Against Counterfeit Pharmaceuticals

The explosive growth of internet pharmacies and direct-to-consumer shipment of pharmaceuticals has provided increased access to, and reduced the cost of, important medications. Unfortunately, these same forces have increased the risks that counterfeit medicines will make their way to consumers, endangering patient safety and affecting manufacturers’ reputation in the public eye.

While the Food and Drug Administration attempts to police such misconduct through enforcement of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA), the resources devoted to enforcement are simply no match for the size and scope of the counterfeiting threat. Fortunately, pharmaceutical manufacturers are not without recourse, as several well-established tools may be used in the right circumstances to stop counterfeiters from profiting from the sale of knock-offs.

Experienced litigators can use the Lanham Act and the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act to stop unscrupulous individuals and organizations from deceiving customers with counterfeit versions of trademarked drugs. Until recently, these legal weapons – including search warrants, seizures, forfeitures, and significant penalties – were typically wielded only by the government and only in criminal prosecutions.

As one recent case demonstrates, however, many of the tools that law enforcement has used for years to combat counterfeiters are also available to pharmaceutical manufacturers. In Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Safe Chain Solutions, LLC, et al., the manufacturer of several trademarked HIV medications filed a civil complaint, under seal, alleging violations of the Lanham Act and RICO against scores of individuals and companies that were allegedly selling counterfeit versions of these drugs to patients across the country.

By deploying private investigators and techniques typically used by law enforcement, Gilead was able to gather a substantial amount of evidence before even filing the case. The company then used this evidence to secure ex parte seizure warrants and asset freezes, allowing it to locate and seize thousands of counterfeit pills and packaging before they could be shipped to unsuspecting consumers. Through the seizure of the financial proceeds of the alleged counterfeiting, Gilead prevented the dissipation of assets. If the company can successfully prove its RICO case, it stands to recover treble damages and attorneys’ fees as well.

Manufacturers of trademarked pharmaceuticals may consider using these and other tools to tackle the threat posed by counterfeiters. By drawing upon the experience and skills of trained litigators – particularly counsel who previously deployed these tools on behalf of the government while serving as federal prosecutors – companies can proactively protect their intellectual property and the consumers who depend on their products.

Article By Eric J. Beste, Anthony J. Burba and Heather F. Delgado of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

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

© 2022 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Lifts Preliminary Injunctions on Healthcare Worker Vaccine Mandate

On January 13, 2022, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) Interim Final Rule (the “Rule”) in a 5-4 decision, staying the preliminary injunctions issued for 24 states by the District Courts for the Eastern District of Missouri and the Western District of Louisiana.  Therefore, the CMS vaccine mandate is in full effect for all states except Texas, which was not part of the cases before the Court.  The Rule requires nearly all workers at Medicare- and Medicaid-certified facilities—whether medical personnel, volunteers, janitorial staff, or even contractors who service the facilities—to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 unless they qualify for a medical or religious exemption.

The Court based its holding on two main points.  First, the Court held that Congress clearly authorized CMS to put conditions on funding it provides to the Medicare and Medicaid certified facilities.  The Court opined that perhaps CMS’s “most basic” function is to ensure that regulated facilities protect the health and safety of their patients, noting that Medicare and Medicaid patients are often some of the most vulnerable to infection and death from COVID-19.  Because CMS determined that a vaccine mandate is necessary to protect patient health and safety, the Court held the mandate “fits neatly within the language of the [authorizing] statute.”  The Court acknowledged that CMS has never required vaccinations in the past, but attributed this in part to the fact that states typically already require necessary vaccinations like hepatitis B, influenza, and measles for healthcare workers.

Second, the Court held that the mandate is not arbitrary and capricious, and cautioned the district courts that their role is merely to make sure an agency acts within the “zone of reasonableness.”  The Court found the administrative record sufficient to explain CMS’s rationale for the mandate and also accepted that getting the vaccine mandate in place ahead of winter and flu season satisfied the “good cause” standard for skipping the notice and comment period.

Healthcare employers subject to the Rule should immediately start implementing vaccine requirements if they have not already.  It is anticipated that in all states but Texas, CMS will likely begin enforcement of the vaccine mandate in approximately 30 days.  On December 28, 2021, CMS released guidance to state surveyors with enforcement standards to use starting 30 days from the memo, though at the time the memo only applied to the 25 states that were not enjoined.  Healthcare employers should also keep in mind that this is not the end of the road: the Court’s holding only means that the CMS vaccine mandate is in force while the 5th and 8th Circuits complete their review of the underlying state challenges to the mandate.  While the Supreme Court’s opinion sends a strong message that lower courts should uphold the mandate, there is no guarantee they will do so.

The legal landscape continues to evolve quickly and there is a lack of clear-cut authority or bright line rules on implementation.  This article is not intended to be an unequivocal, one-size-fits-all guidance, but instead represents our interpretation of where applicable law currently and generally stands.  This article does not address the potential impacts of the numerous other local, state and federal orders that have been issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including, without limitation, potential liability should an employee become ill, requirements regarding family leave, sick pay and other issues.

Article By Keeley A. McCarty and Ashley T. Hirano of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

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

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

OSHA’s COVID-19 Vaccine, Testing Mandates Back On – Effective Jan. 10, 2022

On December 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit lifted the stay of OSHA’s Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) that had been imposed by the Fifth Circuit, putting the ETS’ employer vaccination and testing requirements for COVID-19 back into effect. Following the decision, OSHA announced a Jan. 10, 2022, effective date, but added it will not cite employers for noncompliance with the testing requirements prior to Feb. 9, 2022.

Accordingly, employers can consider these dates as the new compliance deadlines: Jan. 10 for all ETS requirements except testing and Feb. 9 for testing requirements. Notably, OSHA will require employers to demonstrate good faith efforts to come into compliance. So employers covered by the ETS should begin taking steps to demonstrate compliance and documenting all such efforts.

Right now, employers should conduct vaccination inquiries, create a roster of employee vaccination status, and decide whether to require vaccinations for all employees or allow weekly testing as an alternative.

Employers should also consider reviewing options from payroll providers or HRIS software for the confidential storage and retrieval of vaccination and test information. Unionized employers need to consider their bargaining obligations over the discretionary aspects of the ETS, as well as over the effects of its nondiscretionary requirements.

This court decision adds another twist in the winding litigation challenging President Biden’s federal vaccine mandates. Following the Dec. 17 decision, the parties challenging the ETS immediately filed emergency applications with the U.S. Supreme Court to reimpose the stay. Justice Brett Kavanaugh will review and make a decision on the applications, as he is the justice assigned to hear such petitions arising from the Sixth Circuit. Justice Kavanaugh will have the option to grant the applications and stay the ETS pending review by the full Supreme Court, refer them to the full court for a decision, or take no action pending review.

It is possible the Supreme Court will weigh in on the emergency applications quickly, so employers can expect updates in the coming days and weeks.

© 2021 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
For more about OSHA Mandates, visit the NLR Coronavirus News section.

Study Demonstrates Earlier Physician Retirement Overall and Increased Pay Equity Concerns for Female Doctors During the Pandemic

This month, Doximity issued its Fifth Annual 2021 Physician Compensation Report. With the continued strain of the pandemic spanning 2021, the self-reported physician data reflected widespread burnout and early retirement, especially by female physicians. With respect to physician compensation, Doximity findings demonstrated:

  • While average doctor pay increased 3.8 percent between 2020 and 2021, there was a decline of real income compared to 2020 given the CPI 6.2% rate of inflation in 2021.
  • The top five metro areas with the highest physician pay were Charlotte, NC; St. Louis, MO; Buffalo, NY; Jacksonville, Florida; and, Orlando, Florida.
  • The top five metro areas with the lowest physician pay were Baltimore, MD; Providence, RI; San Antonio, TX; Washington, D.C.; and Boston, MA.
  • A widening gender pay gap of 28.2% this year, with female physicians making $122,000 less than male physicians in 2021.
  • Based on 2014-2019 data, Doximity estimates that over the course of a career, female physicians will earn over $2 million less than male physicians.

Specialties with the largest pay equity gaps between men and women are oral & maxillofacial surgery; allergy and immunology; ENT; pediatric nephrology; and thoracic surgery. Significantly, there is no one medical specialty where women earned the same or more than men in 2021. All specialties had a pay gap over 10%, except Pediatric Rheumatology (which had a gap of 7.9%). To compound matters, a recent Jama Network Open research letter found that physician residents who were mothers – compared to physician residents who were fathers – were more likely to be responsible for childcare or schooling (24.6% v. .8%), household tasks (31.4% v. 7.2%), to work primarily from home (40.9% to 22%), and to reduce their work hours (19.4% to 9.4%). The study reflected the significant concern that these “short-term adjustments can have serious long-term repercussions as they may lead to lower earnings and negatively impact advancement.”

Doximity’s research also revealed that due to the pandemic, over 1% of physicians retired before expected, which is feared to strain an already tight labor market. The report also highlighted studies suggesting about half of doctors are considering an employment change due to the “COVID-related overwork.” The overwork also had a disproportionate impact on women physicians, with 25% of them reporting they are “considering early retirement” due to increased work during the pandemic.

This research reflects the importance of a physician/employer in any setting reflecting on the impact of the pandemic on its healthcare team. Moreover, the research shows continued pay equity deficits between female and male physicians, which may be exacerbated by the pandemic. Internal reflection on current pay practices to identify the factors contributing to it are critical to maintain top talent, improve morale amidst very difficult times and avoid wage and hour litigation.

Article By Dorothy Parson McDermott of Jackson Lewis P.C.

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

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2021

Given Deadlines Set by Sixth Circuit, ETS Likely Stayed Until At Least December 10, 2021

Earlier this month, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) issued its “COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard” (the “ETS”) requiring employers of 100 or more employees to implement policies requiring employee vaccination or enhanced safety measures for unvaccinated employees (including wearing face coverings and weekly COVID-19 testing). Our alert on the ETS is here. The ETS was subject to over 30 petitions for review in the federal circuit courts and was quickly stayed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Although the petitions for review were consolidated before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit’s stay remains in place. While OSHA has publically stated that it will comply with the stay, its position has been – and continues to be – that employers should prepare to comply with the ETS and that OSHA will succeed in litigation challenging the ETS. Yesterday, OSHA filed an emergency motion to immediately lift the stay.

With the stay in place, covered employers have been in the difficult position of trying to determine how much preparation to do to comply with the ETS’s requirements, many of which are scheduled to be effective on December 6, 2021. The question has been whether the stay will continue beyond the initial deadlines and, if not, whether deadlines will be extended to account for the period during which the ETS was stayed.

The deadlines set out in the Sixth Circuit’s Scheduling Order, which is available here, provide some insight into the timing of the requirements of the ETS.  The Scheduling Order sets the following briefing deadlines:

  • Tuesday, November 30, 2021 – motions to join OSHA’s emergency motion or to modify, revoke, or extend the stay.
  • Tuesday, December 7, 2021 – responses to motions regarding the stay.
  • Friday, December 10, 2021 – replies to responsive motions.

Given these deadlines, it is likely that the ETS will continue to be stayed until at least December 10th (past the December 6, 2021 deadline) while the Sixth Circuit considers briefing.  However, it is possible that, before December 10th, the Sixth Circuit lifts the stay. If the stay is lifted, the ETS requirements could become effective on the date of the court’s order or on a later date set by the Sixth Circuit.

While the briefing schedule does not provide definitive answers to employers on the potential deadlines for ETS compliance, it suggests that the ETS’s December 6, 2021, deadlines may be extended for at least a few days while the Sixth Circuit considers briefing.

© 2021 Bracewell LLP
For more on OSHA COVID-19 updates, visit the NLR Coronavirus News section.