OIG Approves Healthcare Coupon Website

The economy has heated up the marketing activity of many healthcare businesses, including physicians. Marketing devices like Groupon have become commonplace, but raise some significant legal issues. So.one such business requested guidance from the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services and got a nice response.

The requestor operates a website that includes coupons for healthcare items and services and also advertising on behalf of individuals and businesses in the healthcare industry. The healthcare professionals and business people would post coupons on the website, which would give discounts, including discounts on items and services that are covered by Medicare and other state or federal healthcare programs. The website business would have different levels of membership and would charge flat fees for each level of membership. Additionally, the requestor would sell advertising on the website.

The arrangement had certain limitations, including:

1. The providers would not advertise free services, only discounted services; and
2. The providers would be required to give the same discount to any third party payer or insurance carrier, not just to the patient.

The OIG approved the proposal and noted the following key things:

1. The requestor is not a healthcare provider;
2. Payments from providers and advertisers are a set fee, are consistent with fair market value and don’t depend on customers (patients) using coupons or buying services;
3. Advertising would only be received by customers that elected to receive it; and
4. The business structure is not likely to increase utilization.

In short, the OIG thought the requestor was serving only as a conduit of advertising and was not paying anyone to influence any patient’s choice of a provider or supplier.

Noncompete Case Underscores the Need for Right Wording

Noncompetition provisions are tricky.  Courts generally don’t like them; and the law is very particular about them.  Generally speaking, a noncompete is enforceable if it is well written and the employer has complied with the contract that contains it.  That said, since courts are not big fans of noncompetes and since the law is that a noncompete is to be strictly construed (against the party that drafted it), the devil is clearly in the details.  For instance, one court refused to uphold a noncompete when the wording was that it complied in the event the employment agreement was terminated, but in the case at hand the contract simply expired.  In other words, the contract said that it applied in the event the contract was terminated.  Since the contract simply ran out, the court refused to enforce the noncompete.

The same sort of thing has happened to a Florida veterinarian.  The employment agreement he signed prohibited the doctor from having anything to do with a competing business within a 35 mile radius, so the doctor located his practice outside that zone when the contract was terminated.  When the doctor provided services within the 35 mile zone, the employer sued…and lost.  Here’s why:  the contract did not prevent the doctor from practicing in the 35 mile zone.  It just prevented him from having anything to do with a competing business that practiced in that zone.  Tricky.

10 Lesser Known Effects of Healthcare Reform Law

This is a great article published by CNN this morning.

View it in it’s entirety Here

(CNN) — On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court takes on a political, social, economic and medical hot potato: the health care reform law that was signed into law two years ago.

For six hours during each of the next three days, attorneys will argue and justices will consider legal questions about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate and issues surrounding federal versus state powers.

Read a transcript of Monday’s Supreme Court arguments

Many of the law’s major aspects have been the topic of much discussion. But are you aware that deep within the sweeping law’s 2,700 pages are many lesser known changes that could affect your life in unexpected ways?

CNN Explains: Health care reform

1. How many goodies your doctors get

Is your doctor prescribing you certain drugs because those are the best for your condition or because of a pharmaceutical company’s influence? Here’s one way you can find out.

The Physician Payment Sunshine Act under health care reform requires drug, device or medical supply companies to report annually certain payments or things of value that they’ve given physicians and teaching hospitals. This could be speaking fees, consulting fees, meals and travel. So, you can find out which and how much companies pay doctors or health care workers. The companies are obligated to report annually about physician ownership and their financial investments.

Continue Reading Here

Noncompetes Are Once Again Relevant For Recruited Doctors

NON COMPETE AGREEMENTS TEXAS COURTS DALLAS

When the Stark II (Phase III) regulations were released in August, 2007, they clarified that when a hospital recruits a physician to a medical practice, the employment agreement between the medical practice and the newly recruited physician may contain practice restrictions as long as they do not “unreasonably restrict the recruited physician’s ability to practice medicine within the recruiting hospital’s service area. This stymied many medical practices which were reluctant to hire a new physician without a noncompete and nonsolicitation provision. A 2011 CMS Advisory Opinion (No. CMS-AO-2011-01) changed this.

The Advisory Opinion involved a pediatric orthopedist who was recruited by a hospital to a medical practice. The medical practice wanted to hire the new doctor, but was not willing to do so without a noncompetition provision and other restrictive covenants. The practice asked CMS for guidance because the Stark regs suggested that perhaps a noncompete could not be contained in the employment agreement of a physician recruited by a hospital to join a local medical practice. In fact, a prior version of the Stark regs was clear that noncompetes were not permitted in the employment agreements of physicians recruited by hospitals.

Hospital recruitment transactions involve bringing a physician into a new area and funding the start up period (usually a year). The nice thing for a medical practice is that the dollars given by the hospital to the practice (the difference between salary and benefits and collections) can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars! The down side was that the medical practice could not tie the recruited physician’s hands with a noncompete or other similar restriction. The Advisory Opinion is, however, a game changer because it allowed the medical practice to impose a noncompete on the recruited physician.

As mentioned, the practice would not hire the recruited physician without the noncompete. The noncompete had a 25 mile radius, and the Opinion cited the following relevant facts:

1.The recruited doctor would remain on one of five hospitals within the 25 mile zone;
2.The recruiting hospital’s service area extended beyond the 25 mile zone, in which there were at least three other hospitals within a one hour driving range;
3.The noncompete complied with applicable state law.

Based on these facts, the OIG permitted a one year noncompete because it did not “unreasonably restrict the doctor’s ability to practice in the recruiting hospital’s service area. Certainly, many other medical practices can be sure to follow suit.

Physicians interested in nocompetes must be familiar with state law. Getting to the bone of the issue, noncompetes are enforceable in Florida if:

1.The geographic zone in the noncompete is reasonable. This depends on where the practice draws its patients. If patients come to the practice from just down the street, a ten mile radius is probably overbroad;

2.The duration is two years or less (though it can be longer in some limited circumstances);

3.The employer has complied with all of the terms of the employment agreement. If the employer has breached the contract that contains the noncompete, most courts will reject a claim to enforce it;

4.The employer does the type of thing that the departing employee does. If the employee is the only person performing toe surgery for instance, and the practice will not provide toe surgery services once the employee leaves, the practice probably does not have a legitimate business interest to protect by enforcing the noncompete; and

5.Stopping the ex employee from practicing in the geographic zone does not create a healthcare crisis or shortage. This is tough. Very few practice areas are in such dire straits that the departure of one doctor will adversely affect the provision of such services in the area.

Physicians should also be familiar with the practical aspects involved in noncompetes.

Mistake #1 – Racing to litigation

Going to court is a crap shoot. Once litigation begins, it takes on a life of its own and costs can be nuts, sometimes in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. You may think it’s a simple noncompete case. There rarely is such a thing. And if you sue someone on a noncompete breach, they may turn around and sue you in the same lawsuit for something. And….insurance does not cover any such claims. That means you are paying out of pocket for a lawsuit, the certainty of which can never be guaranteed and which will seem endless once you run out of patience or money for the process. Often, the reality is that noncompete litigation involves the strategy or seeing which party can outspend the other one.

If you are an employer, ask yourself the following two questions before commencing litigation:
1.Does it make good economic sense to enforce the noncompete? Is the former employee a business threat?

2.Is there a way to work out a deal with the employee, short of litigation?

In some situations, it makes no business sense to pursue a noncompete. For instance, if the employee has been employed for several months and if the patients are all referred by the employer, then the employee may not be a competitive threat to the employer. The employer will find a replacement doctor at some point and refer the business to the new doctor. Case closed.

It is also possible to work out settlements before going to court. For instance, you might avoid litigation by lowering the geographic zone or the duration. You might also negotiate a buy out of the noncompete.

If you are an employee who wants out of the noncompete, sit down with the employer and see if you can agree on a way out, so that both of you can have peace and move on.

Mistake #2 – Doing it Yourself

Noncompetes are governed by state law. There are both statutes and cases that inform lawyers about what types of noncompetes are enforceable and which are not. Do not work off of an old contract to create a new noncompete, since the laws (and the cases that construe them) change often. Do not use a friend’s noncompete, since you will not be able to tell if it will be enforceable at this time or under the circumstances that apply to you. The enforceability of noncompetes is extremely fact specific. Since noncompetes are strictly construed by courts, drafting them requires a trained eye.

The Advisory Opinion marks a significant development in the area of noncompetes for physicians recruited to medical practices by hospitals. Though some states do not allow noncompetes to be applied to physicians, many states do, including Florida. Finding a way to satisfy both the federal and state authorities will be essential for ensuring an effective and enforceable noncompete.


Fraud & Abuse Enforcement Soars Sky High

Investigations and successful prosecutions for violation of laws like the Anti Kickback Statute (“AKS”), the Stark Law and the False Claims Act were dramatically up in 2011 and are expected to climb still higher in 2012. For instance 13 doctors were charged in December, 2011 with violating the AKS by receiving payment for referring patients to an MRI center. Physicians and other healthcare business people MUST have any suspect arrangement closely scrutinized by highly qualified counsel. A “suspect arrangement” is any arrangement between providers of healthcare services that involve, to any degree, the exchange or payment of anything of value, including money. The AKS is a criminal statute; and the risks of enforcement are now huge.
Business and arrangements which are designed at all to lock in physician referrals carry particularly large risks and require close scrutiny. For instance, surgery centers that received referrals from non-owner physicians viewed that as a great thing. Now, referrals from unaffiliated physicians are viewed as inherently suspect. “What,” the regulator thinks, “is driving this referral? What wrongful conduct is being engaged in here?” This is especially so with any marketing arrangement as well.

Physicians and other healthcare business people would do well to recall that if even “one purpose” of the arrangement is to compensate (cash or anything of value) someone for a patient referral, the AKS is triggered. Moreover, where Safe Harbor Act compliance was recommended, many now find it necessary.


The 2012 OIG Work Plan – The Government is Still at Work During the Holidays

present

On November 10, 2011, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Humans Services (the “OIG”) issued their 2012 Work Plan. The annual Work Plan is designed to give Medicare providers and supplier notice and information on areas of potential abuse that the OIG to address with particular attention. As we approach a new year, here are some areas that our clients and friends may wish to examine to avoid scrutiny by the OIG

Medical Equipment Companies

Enrollment Abuses

The OIG has discovered a pattern of improper enrollment among supplier of durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics and supplies (DMEPOS). The OIG is looking to Medicare contractors (carriers and intermediaries) to be more scrutinizing in the enrollment of DMEPOS suppliers. The contractors will be assessed on their use of enrollment screening mechanisms and post enrollment monitoring activities to find companies that may pose fraud risks. It is, therefore, important for DMEPOS suppliers to make sure all applications for enrollment and even those for change of ownership are completed accurately and thoroughly.

Payments for High Priced Equipment

Additionally, the OIG will be undertaking a heightened review of the appropriateness of payments to DMEPOS suppliers for “high ticket” items such power mobility devices, oxygen and hospital beds. The medical equipment industry has always been the target of potential abuse. The OIG confirms this stating that there continues to be wide spread abuse of DME not ordered by physicians, not delivered or not needed. The OIG will focus on geographic areas with high volumes of “high ticket” reimbursements and review for compete records demonstrating that the services are “reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis and treatment of the illness or injury.” For frequently replaced supplies such as CPAP and respiratory supplies, the OIG will review compliance with the requirements that a Certificate of Medical Necessity must specify the type of supplies needed and the frequency with which they must be replaced used or consumed.

Diabetic Testing Supplies

The OIG will also review Medicare claims for diabetic testing strips and lancets (diabetic testing supplies) to identify questionable billing. Medicare has utilization guidelines for the amount of diabetic testing supplies (DTS) that beneficiaries may receive. To receive reimbursement from Medicare, suppliers must maintain documentation demonstrating that their DTS claims meet all Medicare coverage, coding, and medical necessity requirements. DTS claims with certain characteristics (e.g., DTS provided to a beneficiary at irregular intervals) may indicate improper supplier billing.

Physicians

Some highlights of physician’s services that are going to be under review include the following:

Place-of-Service Errors

The OIG will be reviewing physicians’ coding practices on Medicare Part B claims for services performed in ambulatory surgical centers and hospital outpatient departments to determine whether they properly coded the places of service. The OIG will particularly pay attention to this as there is evidence of physicians coding for services at the higher non-facility rate when the services were actually performed in an ASC or outpatient setting. Medicare pays a physician higher amounts for serviced performed in a non-facility setting such as the physician’s office.

Incident-To Services

“Incident-to” services will also be reviewed. This is a new initiative on the part of the OIG and therefore, should garner lots of attention. The OIG will try to determine whether payment for such services had a higher error rate than that for non-incident-to services. We will also assess CMS’s ability to monitor services billed as “incident-to.” One of the main focuses of this review is to cut down the amount of billings for incident to services performed by non-physicians without the required direct physician supervision. The OIG has found that unqualified non-physicians performed 21 percent of the services that physicians did not perform personally. Incident-to services represent a potential abuse for the Medicare program in that they do not appear in claims data and can be identified only by reviewing the medical record.

Evaluation and Management Services (“E/M Services”)

In 2009, Medicare paid $32 billion for E/M services. This represented nearly 20% of all Medicare Part B payments. With those dollars at stake, the OIG will be reviewing E/M claims to assure there is appropriate documentation to justify payment for the more intensive E/M codes. It is important to thoroughly document records to demonstrate the type, setting, and complexity of services provided and the patient status, such as new or established. Also under review will cases of multiple E/M services for the same providers and beneficiaries to identify electronic health records (EHR) documentation practices associated with potentially improper payments. Medicare contractors have noted an increased frequency of medical records with identical documentation across services.

Payments for Services Ordered or Referred by Excluded Providers

Medicare does not allow payment to a physician or supplier for services and items provided that were prescribed or ordered by individuals or entities excluded from the Medicare program. To combat that practice, the OIG will undertake a review of the nature and extent of Medicare payments for services ordered or referred by excluded providers (those who have been barred from billing Federal health care programs) and examine CMS’s oversight mechanisms to identify and prevent payments for such services.

There are numerous other areas of concern that will be reviewed by the OIG during 2012. To assure compliance with the items describes as well as other health care laws, the Florida Healthcare Law Firm offers a comprehensive compliance audit of your organization. For more information please contact us  at 561-455-7700


Supervisory Requirements for IDTFs

medical professionals

supervisionWe get questions all the time regarding the supervisory requirements for Independent Diagnostic Treatment Facilities (IDTF). Here are some tips in complying with one of the key elements in obtaining and maintaining status as an IDTF and as a Medicare provider.

An IDTF must have one or more supervising physicians who are responsible for the direct and ongoing oversight of the quality of the testing performed, the proper operation and calibration of equipment used to perform tests, and the qualifications of non-physician IDTF personnel who use the equipment. Not every supervising physician has to be responsible for all of these functions. One supervising physician could be responsible for operation and calibration of equipment, while other physicians are responsible for test supervision and the qualifications of non-physician personnel.Continue reading

State Appellate Court Allows Burdensome Discovery Request

On August 10, 2011, the Fourth District Court of Appeals supported one litigant’s huge discovery request on the treating physician. The case (Katzman v. Rediron, No. 4D11-1290, August 10, 2011) arose with the following facts:

1.The doctor agreed to treat the patient under a letter of protection (LOP), which means the doctor would be paid out of the recovery of a lawsuit, not from health insurance proceeds;

2.The doctor allegedly performed a “controversial” surgical procedure, so Rediron’s lawyers wanted to know all sorts of information about how often he has ordered discectomies over the past four years and what he charged in litigation and non-litigation cases;

3.The doctor’s lawyer tried to block Rediron’s discovery request on the grounds that it would be a huge undertaking;

4.The trial court supported the discovery request, which was upheld on appeal.

The court’s analysis is interesting and instructive. The court found the treating physician to be BOTH a fact witness (because he treated the patient) and an expert witness (because he gives opinion testimony re the patient’s condition and injury). The court used their characterization of the doctor as a “hybrid” witness in order to support the trial court’s decision, which granted broad discovery on the issue of the reasonableness of the procedure’s cost and its necessity.

Discovery is something that can be used to harass and press someone into settlement. Hence, there are guidelines directed to ensuring that discovery requests are reasonable. That said, physicians who treat patients in lawsuits have a unique role that may expose them to greater than normal discovery requests.

Moreover, with this opinion, the old argument in bodily injury cases “What does reasonableness and necessity matter. It’s a BI lawsuit” will likely hold less water as all payers (including those who pay in BI lawsuits) are looking to reduce costs.


Path Lab Proposal Shot Down by OIG

The Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services recently (October 11, 2011) shook its head at a proposal involving a pathology lab management services business that was to be owned by physicians. The proposed arrangement had the following features:

1.A path lab management business (“Manager”) would be formed and the business would be owned by doctors;
2.The Manager would provide a list of management services to a path lab;
3.The path lab (“Lab”) would not be owned by the doctors that own the Manager;
4.The Manager would provide a fixed amount of hours of services each year and would receive a percentage of the Lab’s income (fixed percentage in advance) and that fee would approximate the Lab’s use of the Manager’s services for the year;
5.The physician Manager investors would be in a position to refer to the Lab;
6.The ownership interests of the physician investors in the Manager would exceed forty percent (40%);
7.More than forty percent (40%) of the Lab’s revenues would come from the physician investors.

The OIG decided that the proposed arrangement posed more than a minimal risk of violating the Anti Kickback statute. The OIG also said the manager cannot refer its own patients or generate business in connection with the proposed arrangement. The OIG focused on the following points in its advisory opinion:

1.The Manager’s “usage fees” to the Lab are percentage based and not flat and set in advance;
2.The ownership interests of the doctor investors in the Manager would exceed what is specified in the so called “small entity” Safe Harbor;
3.The physician owners of the Manager have no experience in managing a lab, but are in a position to generate referrals to it.

Though the regulatory Safe Harbors (to the Anti Kickback Statute) are illustrative of permissible arrangements, the OIG is clearly sticking very close to them. where federal or state healthcare program dollars are involved, physician investors would do well to make sure they are Safe Harbor compliant.