Referrals Within Practices for Imaging Regulated

Though most of the conversations concerning healthcare reform focus on payment reform, there are a number of new provisions that affect medical practices in unexpected ways.  One of them is the provision that requires written notice to practice patients receiving CT, MR and PET services furnished by the practice.

Effective January 1, 2010, any medical practice that provides CT, MR or PET to its patients must provide written notice to such patients, in advance, that the patient may obtain the test from another supplier and must further provide the patient a list of suppliers offering the service located in the same area where the patient resides.  The Secretary of DHHS has the power to expand this requirement to other diagnostic imaging procedures provided by medical practices to their own patients.

Closely Monitoring the 26.5% Medicare Physician Payment Threat

Via HCMA, SGR Advocacy Alert from the AMA – – – –  The negotiations between Speaker Boehner and President Obama on the Lame Duck tax and deficit reduction package are at an impasse. There is a very real threat of the 26.5 percent Medicare physician payment cut taking effect on January 1, 2013, at least temporarily.

If Congress does adjourn without addressing the payment cut being induced by the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula, the Administration announced today that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will follow normal claims processing procedures.

That is, claims will not be held and Medicare carriers will process payments for physician services provided after December 31 under the normal 14-day cycle required by law.  Payment for these claims would be based on the new, lower fee schedule conversion factor of $25.0008, as opposed to the current rate of $34.0376.

At this time, it is impossible to predict whether the 112th Congress will find a way to pass a stop-gap measure before adjourning, how long such a measure would last, or how long payment cuts will be in effect before legislation can be passed after the 113th Congress convenes in January.  It is highly unusual for a new Congress to enact significant legislation in the first month of its session, but the circumstances facing our nation today are far from typical.

It is inexcusable that Congress is once again putting the 47 million Medicare patients and the practices of physicians who provide them needed health care at significant risk.  The Medicare program has become unreliable and its instability undermines efforts by physicians to implement new health care delivery models that stand to improve value for seniors and other beneficiaries through better care coordination, chronic disease management, and keeping patients healthy.

The AMA believes that the financial disruption this situation will cause for physicians and their practices is unacceptable, and we will continue to fervently convey this message in the strongest possible terms to Congress and the Administration, as we have for the past several weeks.  Our patient and physician grassroots networks have been activated, and we are seeking your voices to tell Congress just how deeply its inaction will affect you.

Despite these efforts, at this time we feel compelled to advise physicians to start making plans for steps they can take to mitigate this disruption and meet their own financial obligations in January, in case the 26.5 percent cut actually takes effect.  Given the potential impact on practice revenue in early January, physicians should be certain adequate arrangements are in place to sustain their practices.  For those physicians who are forced into the untenable position of limiting their involvement with the Medicare program because it threatens the viability of their practices, we urge that patients be notified promptly so that they, too, can explore other options to seek health care and medical treatment.

Physicians & Facilities Frustrated in Upcharging Lab Fees

Licensed healthcare providers and facilities (including many drug and alcohol recovery businesses) who enter into arrangements with clinical labs to provide services to their patients and who then wish to charge more for those lab services will be very disappointed to learn about the restrictions under Florida law.

Section 456.054, Florida Statutes prohibits “kickbacks” and reads—

(1) As used in this section, the term “kickback” means a remuneration or payment, by or on behalf of a provider of health care services or items, to any person as an incentive or inducement to refer patients for past or future services or items, when the payment is not tax deductible as an ordinary and necessary expense.

(2) It is unlawful for any health care provider or any provider of health care services to offer, pay, solicit, or receive a kickback, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, for referring or soliciting patients.

(3) Violations of this section shall be considered patient brokering and shall be punishable as provided in s. 817.505.

The issue involved in a provider or facility charging more for lab services than they were charged by the lab itself is that the prohibition above applies to healthcare providers and “any provider of healthcare services.”  Regulators may find any reduced fee by the lab to constitute a kickback in exchange for a volume of patient referrals.

A related issue has to do with Florida insurance laws that pertain to charging more for an item or service than the provider or facility was charged.  For instance, if Lab 1 charges the provider/facility $10 for lab work, and the provider/facility charges an insurer $20, that can be found to constitute insurance fraud.

The key Florida prohibition, however, is found in the Florida Administrative Code, which reads—

59A-7.037 Rebates Prohibited – Penalties.

(1) No owner, director, administrator, physician, surgeon, consultant, employee, organization, agency, representative, or person either directly or indirectly, shall pay or receive any commission, bonus, kickback, rebate or gratuity or engage in any split fee arrangement in any form whatsoever for the referral of a patient. Any violation of Rule 59A-7.037, F.A.C., by a clinical laboratory or administrator, physician, surgeon, consultant, employee, organization, agency, representative, or person acting on behalf of the clinical laboratory will result in action by the agency under Section 483.221, F.S., up to and including revocation of the license of the clinical laboratory. In the case of any party or individual not licensed by the agency acting in violation of this Rule, a fine not exceeding $1,000 shall be levied and, as applicable, the agency shall recommend that disciplinary action be taken by the entity responsible for licensure of such party or individual.

(2) No licensed practitioner of the healing arts or licensed facility is permitted to add to the price charged by any laboratory except for a service or handling charge representing a cost actually incurred as an item of expense. However, the licensed practitioner or licensed facility is entitled to fair compensation for all professional services rendered. The amount of the service or handling charge, if any, shall be set forth clearly in the bill to the patient.

(3) Each licensed laboratory shall develop a fee schedule for laboratory services which shall be available to the patient, the authorized person requesting the test or agency upon request and shall be subject to subsection 59A-7.037(2), F.A.C.

In this era where healthcare providers and facilities are struggling to hold onto dwindling profit margins, it is understandable why some are considering arrangements with clinical labs.  Still, Florida providers and facilities have to be extremely cautious when entering into such arrangements.

 

FTC Interim Final Red Flags Rule a Reprieve for Health Care Providers

By:  Rodger Hochman, Board Certified in Health Law

On November 30, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued its interim final “Red Flags Rule” which narrowed the definition of “creditor” in such a way that essentially confirms that most health care service providers are not subject to its requirements.

The Red Flags Rule was originally promulgated in reaction to the perceived risk of identity theft in various transactions involving financial institutions and creditors, and it required them to develop and implement a written identify theft program to combat these risks, including internal processes for identifying “red flags” of identity theft.  The application of the Red Flags Rule to health care service providers was controversial since it advanced a counterintuitive notion that a provider who engaged in ordinary course business activities, such as rendering health care services where insurance or other payment would be received later, was a “creditor” by definition, thus was equated with the business of financial institutions and subject to standards more applicable to the relationship between commercial creditors or lenders and their customers.

Under the original rule, any “creditor” was required to establish an identity theft program.  The definition included “any person who regularly extends, renews, or continues credit…”  The FTC interpreted this expansively to include physicians and other providers who accept insurance as payment or who permit payment plans, where payment in full was not received at the time of service.  Thus, if a physician or hospital were to accept a patient’s insurance coverage or bill the balance not covered by insurance to the patient, that was viewed as an extension of credit to the patient which triggered regulatory compliance obligations by the provider.  Although the FTC later clarified its position in saying that it applied only to creditors that regularly and in the ordinary course of business advance funds, there was still some ambiguity.

The interim final rule now makes clear that advancing funds does not include what is routine health care services billing and collection activities (such as deferring payment of fees in connection with providing services) and that most service providers are not subject to the rule.  Nevertheless, while the interim final rule confirms that most providers are not subject to the Red Flags Rule, entities that collect consumer data should still carefully consider how they collect and use such data.   To the extent that they use or provide patient information in connection with credit reporting services, the Red Flags Rule would apply.  Further, health care providers remain subject to the HIPAA/HITECH privacy and security rules with respect to all patient identifying information regardless of whether they are subject to the Red Flags Rule.

Florida Board of Medicine Set to Tackle Telemedicine Issue

laptop doctor

Florida laws that pertain to telemedicine are precious few.  In fact, there is really only one regulation dead on target, and that requires face to face physician contact with a patient in order to write a prescription.  The impact of the hormone replacement therapy (HRT) providers was pretty immediate, but the legal issues related to telemedicine are just not currently addressed in Florida law.  Does providing a telemedicine consult create a physician patient relationship?  What are the requirements related to the medical records arising out of the consult, and who owns the records?  These issues and many more are simply not handled.  And yet, if it is true that telemedicine will be an important tool in the effort to both broaden the availability of care while reducing associated costs, we can be sure that Florida law will evolve on these issues.Continue reading

South Florida Drug, Alcohol & Rehab Business: Big Business, Bigger Rules

The drug and alcohol rehab business is especially abundant in South Florida, yet few entrepreneurs are aware of the many laws that apply.  The recovery business is a highly regulated one, with great intricacy in terms of the options and also the applicable laws.

Substance abuse services in Florida are broadly regulated by Chapter 397, Florida Statutes.  The applicable regulations, however, drill down with remarkable granularity.  For instance—

The broadly crafted Client Rights listed in Section 397.501, like the ones applied to nursing home residents, are very open ended (requiring things like the “Right to Individual Dignity”) and yet create the basis of a lawsuit!  That said, people acting “in good faith, and without negligence” can rest assured they will not be found liable.

Though some may intuitively understand the specificity and seriousness of the regulations dealing with medical detox, residential treatment and Partial Hospitalization Programs (PHPs), including the staffing, service and supervision requirements, it may not be as readily apparent with the lower intensity of service options, like Intensive Outpatient Programs (IOPs).

Even PHP requirements can, however, be confusing.  For instance, it is well known that PHPs are not for people who require 24/7 residential treatment.  They stand somewhere between residential inpatient and intensive outpatient programs.  What is less known is that the staffing requirements are particularly detailed.  For instance, each PHP has to have a paid, awake employee on premises at all times when even one client is on the premises and also must have a paid employee on call when clients are at the community housing location.

Intensive inpatient programs are required to provide detailed services, to include 14 hours of counseling each week and 20 hours of “other structured activities.”  Like IOPs, staff coverage is very specific.  Nursing coverage must be available 24/7.  More specifically, an RN must supervise all nursing staff and an RN or LPN has to be physically present on site.  Finally, a physician has to be on call 24/7.

Outpatient programs have similarly detailed requirements, including the minimum counseling requirements and staffing client ratios.  Intensive Outpatient Programs (IOPs) of course have far greater service requirements (at least nine hours of services each week) and yet share the same staffing ratio as regular outpatient (50 clients per counselor).

One of the more vexing issues the recovery industry faces deals with marketing.  The industry is flush with commission based marketing professionals, and yet there are very detailed state and federal regulations that threaten that practice.  At the federal level, the Anti Kickback Statute, a criminal statute that criminalizes remuneration for patient referral, threatens these percentage based arrangements.  State laws also strike them hard.  For instance, the Florida Patient Brokering Act (PBA) is a criminal statute with serious consequences for violations.  While the PBA does have an exception for federal law compliance, many entrepreneurs may find themselves hard pressed to comply.

Though the term “recovery business” may seem like an oxymoron to some, it is an area of significant business opportunity that many have dug into.  Knowing the regulatory minefields of the industry is, however, an important step forward in both a successful business and a stable platform of care.

Sample Letter for Physicians – Medicare Open Enrollment

letter

Via Marilyn Tavenner,  Acting Administrator, Center for Medicare Services 

It’s picking season – pumpkins, apples, Halloween candy…and a Medicare health or drug plan. Today is the start of Medicare Open Enrollment!

In my work with Medicare, one of the questions people ask me often is which plan is the best one. That’s not something I can answer, because picking a plan is an important and personal decision. Each person has a unique set of priorities. How do you weigh your options? Now’s the time to think about what matters to you, and pick the Medicare plan that meets your needs.

When you sit down to review your Medicare health and drug plan choices this year, keep track of the things you may want in a plan, and pick one that’s right for you. Here are some things to keep in mind while you consider your choices:

Costs

You should look at your current health care costs to find coverage that works with your financial situation. How much are your premiums and deductibles? How much do you pay for hospital stays and doctor visits? Just like with everything else, the lowest-premium health plan option might not be the best choice for you.

Coverage

Are the services you need covered? We know future health care needs can be hard to predict, but changes happen. Maybe your doctor changed your prescriptions this year or you have different health concerns. Make sure you understand what services and benefits you’re likely to use in the coming year and find coverage that meets your needs.

Convenience

Your time is valuable. When comparing plans, make sure you check which doctors and hospitals you’ll be able to use. Where are they located and what are their hours? Check which pharmacies you can use. Can you get prescriptions by mail? Remember that even if you’re happy with your current plan, these answers might change from year to year.

Quality of care

Ask yourself whether you’re truly satisfied with your medical care. Not all health care is created equal, and the doctors, hospitals and facilities you choose can impact your health. Look for plans with a 5‑star performance rating — the right expertise and care may help speed your recovery and improve your outcomes.

It’s worth your time to take a look and compare coverage between now and when Open Enrollment ends on December 7. Use the Medicare Plan Finder to look at all of the health and drug plan options in your area. If you still need help comparing, call 1‑800‑MEDICARE (1‑800‑633‑4227).

Only you know what’s most important to you and your family – that’s why I want to make sure you have all the information you need to make the best decision. Before you consider your Medicare plan options, think about your personal priorities so you can be sure your plan meets your unique needs.

Stay up to date on the latest Medicare news and follow us on Twitter @Medicarego

Medicare Open Enrollment – What Physicians Need to Know

With special thanks to Dr. Brent Schillinger

The open enrollment period for Medicare Advantage plans runs from October 15 through December 7, 2012.  That is precisely the reason why every form of communication—– be it internet, television, radio or your mailbox is loaded with recruitment messages from the big and not so big companies.  Medicare Advantage Plans is the contemporary name given to the old Medicare HMO insurance programs.  The difference is that today the marketing is particularly intense and slick because under current federal legislation, passed several presidential administrations back, the profits for the commercial insurers is huge.  When the first Medicare HMOs appeared on the scene, they were providing care to seniors at an average cost savings (to the federal Medicare budget) of 5% less than traditional Medicare.  Today, they provide care at upwards of 115% of the average cost per patient per year for traditional Medicare.

The plans market themselves to seniors offering more services for less money than a person would have to pay under traditional Medicare.  In most cases there are savings in terms of reduced monthly out of pocket costs.  And there may be extra services I such as a gym membership or a low-priced pair of eyeglasses.  But there are many tradeoffs for patients tradeoffs that are not referenced in the marketing material.  Patients are limited to doctors who are specifically contracted with the plan, specialist referrals are generally rationed, and it may be difficult, should a person desire care in a specific hospital if that facility is not contracted.

Seniors have options. They can choose from many different Medicare Advantage Plans and probably save some money, but they  need to understand that they are giving up many of the choices they have with the other option, keeping traditional Medicare and adding supplemental medical and pharmaceutical insurance. Identified problems include:

  1. Care can cost more than  it would under original Medicare
  2. Private plans may not be stable and may suddenly cease coverage
  3. Members may experience difficulty in getting emergency care
  4. Continuity of care may be broken if the plan drops a provider
  5. Members have to follow plan rules to get covered,
  6. Members are restricted in their choices of doctors, hospitals, and other providers
  7. It can be difficult to get care away from home
  8. The extra benefits offered often turn out to be less than promised.

Physicians will be approached by patients about the confusion in the choice of the Medicare Advantage plans vs. traditional Medicare.  As your patients’ advocate you should become knowledgeable about the different plans so you can give reasonable guidance to your patients.   This would also be a good time to review your contracts and reimbursement schedules as well the ability to obtain authorizations for prescription drugs and specialist referrals.

From an economic point of view, most physicians, in our area who participate in these Medicare Advantage plans receive reimbursements that are substantially lower than traditional Medicare.   Take the United Health Care product for example.  While United is paid by the government upwards of 115% of the average traditional Medicare cost, many specialists receive less than 70% of the normal Medicare allowable.   Some of the Blue Cross plans work with a number of tightly restricted capitated networks so patients may not be able to see the doctor of their choice, individual physicians may not be able to join these restricted networks,  and the same time the reimbursements through the capitated networks are pathetically low, often less than half of the traditional Medicare allowable.

Doctors need to take all of these factors into consideration in order to give their patients good advice.  For additional information and patient resources you can visit www.pbcms.org or email Dr. Schillinger at [email protected].

 

 

Perceived Risk Outweighs Actual Harm in Assessing $1.5M HIPAA Fine

The Office of Civil Rights’ recent assessment of a $1.5 million fine for HIPAA violations should be a shrill wakeup call to all health care organizations that use (or allow their physicians to use) portable devices containing patient identifiable information.  The sanction stems from a physician’s lost laptop computer containing protected health information (ePHI).

Importantly, the OCR’s investigation could not establish whether ePHI was used or even accessed, partly because the device was lost in a foreign country.  However, it was not necessary to definitively conclude if any data had been compromised; the OCR was more concerned that the offending provider had not implemented appropriate measures mandated by the HIPAA Security Rule which could have reduced, mitigated or eliminated the risk altogether.  For the OCR, the heart of the matter was the fact that the covered entity failed to fully assess and evaluate the risk to the confidentiality and security of ePHI on portable devices used by its physicians in their personal activities, and failed to have a process to address when such devices are lost.  In this case, it was the incident itself that caused the organization to formalize and take responsive measures.  The barn door was closed after the horse got out.  To the OCR, the covered entity’s reactive, rather than proactive approach, was totally at odds with HIPAA Security Rule concerns and the mandated obligations of covered entities.

The facts are fairly simple.  A research physician from a Massachusetts specialty hospital facility was traveling to South Korea to give a lecture when he misplaced his backpack in a public area.  A personal laptop, containing health information of several thousand patients, was in the backpack.  The computer was eventually “detected” a few weeks later when it was connected to the internet, and its hard drive was later remotely “wiped”, however, the device was not recovered.  The incident was then reported to the OCR in accordance with the breach notification requirements of the HIPAA Security Rule.

This is an instructive case for a number of reasons.  For one, it is important to recognize that the OCR’s investigation was prompted by the obligatory “breach notification” it received from the provider.  The OCR’s inevitable investigation in turn revealed that there was significant noncompliance with multiple aspects of the Security Rule.  Notably, the OCR determined that the covered entity had lax control over, and little knowledge concerning its own physicians’ use of laptops issued to them by the organization.  Physicians were permitted unfettered access to the entity’s information, took their devices off-site where they were used for personal activities, and could remotely download information and install applications freely to these personal devices.  Further, while the laptop in question was password protected and had “LoJak” tracking and wiping software, encryption was not employed.  Further, many weeks passed before a hard drive wipe was effectuated and only after it was determined that the device had been connected to the internet.  In short, the OCR concluded that the entity had neither conducted an adequate security assessment nor established necessary policies or procedures addressing laptop use, and had not promulgated an appropriate response procedure.  Instead, it reacted to the lost laptop in a scramble of ad hoc activity and only instituted organization-wide changes as a result of this episode.

The most significant issue for the OCR in assessing a $1.5 million fine was not whether the incident caused actual harm to any patient, but the degree of risk of potential harm and whether reasonable steps and safeguards should have been in place to mitigate any data breach.  In short, the entity should have anticipated laptops would be lost and it should have addressed the attendant risks through a deliberate process and in a manner that is “situationally” appropriate for the organization.  Here, the organization abrogated such a duty, thus prompting a fine that may be disproportional to the perceived harm.  This outcome should prompt providers to seriously regard the HIPAA Security Rule, and the OCR’s enforcement efforts, and to abandon any “no harm, no foul” notions they might apply when security breaches occur and must be reported

From Intervention to Prevention

“Healthcare Reform,” “PPACA” and “ACOs” all have one certain thing in common:  cost-saving change.  Though debate swirls about politics, timing and the particulars of change, it seems clear that the changing demographics of our country (aging baby boomers) in our economic climate is not sustainable as is.  And it’s no surprise that a compensation system based on how much is done and how much it costs leads to greater expense.  An economic reward system that drives costs up as more and more people are set to join the ranks of the insured (through mandated health insurance and expanded Medicaid) simply underscores the timing of the change.  What does that mean for physicians?

Physicians are asking three key questions:

  1. Is there a future for small or solo practices?
  2. Is fee for service really gonna change?
  3. What can I do right now to adapt?

The Future of the Small Practice

The only solid answer is “less.”  It really depends on complex things like the demographics of where the doctor practices and the number of competitors close by.  That said, as change happens, the hardest hit will likely be the smaller practices, since they lack the personnel and financial resources to weather the change and to invest in adaptation.  Many small practices will likely experience change in such a way that the best they can hope for is to survive, rather than thrive.  Even worse, solo practitioners already know what it’s like to handle all the duties as a physician, keep track of business operations and keep the patients flowing into the practice.  Exhausting.  Without substantial support and resources, it’s just not realistic for most solos to expect to keep up.

Even larger practices are not often run like a business.  The professionals that generate the revenue often manage as well.  Moreover, most medical practices do not market or do any serious “back office” magic (revenue cycle management).  As such, change hits small practices especially hard.  Implementing even new EHR requirements can be consuming for a small practice.  How will it be as changes are made to reduce cost and improve quality?  How will it be when practices begin to see there is opportunity in change, that they may actually make more money in a risk based compensation environment?  Rougher.  Like a herd of buffalo when attacked, circling together is a good strategy.

That said, the vision has to be clear.  Why circle together?  Most medical practices are combining and growing to guard market share, not to manage costs or measure and demonstrate quality.  This is probably the biggest reason why we see larger practices in single specialties, not multi-specialty or primary/specialty based practices.  Most physicians that are adapting by joining larger practices are doing so for the same reason why buffalos circle together—the threat of change.  Though size alone is no panacea, larger practices are definitely in a better position to adapt.

Let’s face it:  few are running after change in healthcare right now.  Few see the opportunity and are leading the charge.  Most are waiting or are just setting the stage.  And most large practices are, at best, a good platform where change can be implemented and costs can be shared and spread among a larger pool.

Will There be a Change to Fee for Service Payment?

Yep.  Simple as that.  It’s already happening.  Bundled payments are in place, even in Florida.  Capitation is old hat for many now.

When?  Over time…  Not right away.  Even ACOs aspirants are selecting just one sided risk, testing the water as they see how well they do to reduce costs, improve quality and “earn” their right to bonus money.  Physicians that think fee for service will thrive for decades are kidding themselves, at least in the insured market.  Is there a basis for it in a “second tier” or concierge sort of environment?  Probably.

What Can I Do Right Now?

First, accept that we are approaching a new paradigm of healthcare delivery.  The current model of disease/injury crisis management has prepared no one for the move from intervention to prevention.  And yet, systems that are solidly based in wellness and prevention stand to profit most from the change we all face.

Second, look to shore up you business model.  That means:

  1. Look to join a larger practice that is committed to thriving in the future risk-based compensation scenario.  If the practice is there just to thrive in a fee for service environment and has no commitment to thriving in a risk based compensation model, keep looking;
  2. Market.  Most practices do not market at all, and yet consumers are selecting medical care in the most unlikely environment—the internet;
  3. Look at anything concierge-like.  Most of the public conversation centers around the insured market, mostly the Medicare Shared Savings Program (which has spawned the ACO concept).  What about the rest of the consumers?  As the insured market gets squeezed (remember that consumers are feeling the pressure too with heightened copays, deductibles and benefit limits), you can expect growth of the “second tier,” those who want more and are willing to pay for it;
  4. Build in wellness and prevention.  Not all practices lend themselves to wellness related services that can reduce healthcare costs, but those that do must look at ways to offer cost-saving, wellness and prevention-oriented services;
  5. Enlist the patients.  The concept of “partnering” with patients is strange, but consider the amount of savings and the enhancement of outcomes if physicians could incentivize healthy patient behavior.  Though absent from the public policy conversation, health care businesses that build in patient accountability stand to win big in a payment system that rewards clinical outcomes and cost savings.

Change is frightening.  Even “good” change is frightening.  Just look at all the upset stomach meds sold at airport kiosk counters.  Physicians have a terrific burden at this time.  They not only hold our health in their hands.  They are expected to have skills and time to help create a new environment in which care will be delivered.  Denying change in the healthcare sector is a waste of time and energy.  Looking for ways to thrive in it and even drive it is wise.