How Many Lobbyists Does It Take to Write A Statute ?

change

By: David W. Hirshfeld, Esq.

When the text of the new PIP law became public, our jaws went slack.  The new law imposed incongruous effective dates that would seemingly put many providers out of the PIP business for six months.  How could the insurance industry’s best and brightest have screwed this up?

The new law requires providers to be licensed as “clinics” in order to receive PIP payments, unless an exclusion to that licensing requirement applies.  The incongruity arises because the provision requiring licensure seems to become effective July 1, 2012; but the provision creating the exclusions from that licensure requirement do not seem to become effective until January 1, 2013.  Many providers are rightly concerned that they must either: become licensed as a clinic in order to receive PIP payments, or stop treating PIP patients from July 1, 2012 through January 1, 2013 when an appropriate exclusion will exist.

Thank goodness for Stuart Williams, AHCA’s General Counsel.  In his May 8, 2012 memorandum, Mr. Williams artfully reasons that the statute could and should be interpreted so that both the licensure requirement and its applicable exclusions become effective January 1, 2013.  Now most providers can continue to treat PIP patients without interruption.  Whew!!!

We hope and expect that Florida’s Office of Insurance Regulation will adopt Mr. Williams’ reasoning and educate the PIP insurers.

Compliance Alert for Providers Operating as Independent Diagnostic Testing Facilities

The Florida Medicaid program does not enroll or reimburse for the services performed by an Independent Diagnostic Testing Facility (IDTF). Medicaid policy allows physicians practicing in an IDTF to enroll as a physician group so that they may only bill Medicaid for the professional component when services are rendered at the IDTF. Florida Medicaid does not reimburse for the technical component or global fee for services performed by an IDTF. This is not a new policy and it applies to both physician-owned and non-physician-owned IDTFs. This notice is being provided to you in anticipation of Agency-conducted audits regarding this policy.

If your practice is performing diagnostic testing, the global fee (or technical component) is only properly reimbursed when your practices’ physicians are also the treating providers (for the patient’s condition that warranted the testing). Physician practices that do not include the treating provider should immediately stop billing Medicaid for the global fee and/or technical component for diagnostic testing. Also, providers may choose to voluntarily conduct a self-audit and repay any overpayments prior to an Agency-conducted audit. When the Agency conducts an audit, it is entitled to recover the costs of the audit and is required to assess sanctions for the non-compliance.

It is recommended that you review claims from January 1, 2011, to present and submit self-audit findings as well as a refund check to the Agency for any improper payments detected in the audit. A provider who conducts a self-audit, submits the results, and remits payment, may avoid sanctions for the voluntary disclosure and repayment of overpayments. Information about conducting self audits, as well as the contact information for your local area office, is available on the agency’s website.

Questions specific to the anticipated recoupment project may be directed to Kelly Bennett via email at [email protected]. Please include the question in the email as opposed to a request for a return phone call.

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.

HHS PROPOSES ONE-YEAR DELAY OF ICD-10 COMPLIANCE DATE

Via CMS Online 4-9-2012

Action:

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) today announced a proposed rule that would delay, from October 1, 2013 to October 1, 2014, the compliance date for the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition diagnosis and procedure codes (ICD-10).

The ICD-10 compliance date change is part of a proposed rule that would adopt a standard for a unique health plan identifier (HPID), adopt a data element that would serve as an “other entity” identifier (OEID), and add a National Provider Identifier (NPI) requirement. The proposed rule was developed by the Office of E-Health Standards and Services (OESS) as part of its ongoing role, delegated by HHS, to establish adopt standards for electronic health care transactions under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). OESS is part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
Background

On January 16, 2009, HHS published a final rule to adopt ICD-10 as the HIPAA standard code sets to replace the previously adopted ICD–9–codes for diagnosis and procedure codes (see HIPAA Administrative Simplification; Modifications to Medical Data Code Set Standards to Adopt ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS, 74 FR 3328). The compliance date set by the final rule was October 1, 2013.

Implementation of ICD-10 will accommodate new procedures and diagnoses unaccounted for in the ICD-9 code set and allow for greater specificity of diagnosis-related groups and preventive services. This transition will lead to improved accuracy in reimbursement for medical services, fraud detection, and historical claims and diagnoses analysis for the health care system. Many researchers have published articles on the far-reaching positive effects of ICD-10 on quality issues, including use of specific reasons for patient non-compliance and detailed procedure information by degree of difficulty, among other benefits.

Some provider groups have expressed serious concerns about their ability to meet the October 1, 2013 compliance date. Their concerns about the ICD-10 compliance date are based, in part, on implementation issues they have experienced meeting HHS’ compliance deadline for the Associated Standard Committee’s (ASC) X12 Version 5010 standards (Version 5010) for electronic health care transactions. Compliance with Version 5010 is necessary prior to implementation of ICD-10.

All covered entities must transition to ICD-10 at the same time to ensure a smooth transition to the updated medical data code sets. Failure of any one industry segment to achieve compliance with ICD-10 would negatively impact all other industry segments and result in rejected claims and provider payment delays. HHS believes the change in the compliance date for ICD-10, as proposed in this rule, would give providers and other covered entities more time to prepare and fully test their systems to ensure a smooth and coordinated transition among all industry segments.

Provisions of the proposed rule announced today

HHS is proposing to change the ICD-10 compliance date to October 1, 2014.

As stated, the ICD-10 compliance date change is part of a proposed rule that would adopt a standard for a unique health plan identifier (HPID), adopt a data element that would serve as an “other entity” identifier (OEID), and add a National Provider Identifier (NPI) requirement.

Standards compliance date

HHS proposes that covered entities must be in compliance with ICD-10 on October 1, 2014.

The proposed rule, CMS-0040-P, may be viewed at www.ofr.gov/inspection.aspx.

A news release on the proposed rule may be viewed at http://www.hhs.gov/news.

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

Supreme Court Weighing Healthcare Reform Law

So many questions, so few answers. But the answers are coming! Here are some of our favorite stories out right now:

Via Yahoo News, Liz Goodwin, The Lookout

Could President Obama’s sweeping health care reform law survive if the court strikes down the requirement that all Americans buy insurance?

The short answer is yes — but insurance companies certainly won’t be happy about it.

Both Justice Department lawyers and their challengers agree that the individual mandate is not “separable” from the rest of the law, which means the rest of the law can’t survive if the individual mandate is surgically removed by the court.

The lower courts have been split on the question, but one of them, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled in August that only the mandate should be struck down, leaving the rest of the law’s provisions — including an expansion of Medicaid to cover all low-income people and federal subsidies for lower-income and middle-class people to buy insurance — in place.

That decision no doubt sent shivers down the spines of some insurance executives. Striking down the mandate could be a nightmare scenario for the health insurance industry, since the rest of the law compels them to accept sick customers and to not charge higher premiums based on a customer’s health, age or gender. Sick customers would flood the insurance market and drive up costs, while young, healthy uninsured people would take their chances and not buy coverage, in what insurers worry would be a “death spiral” of rising costs.

Via The Associated Press, Boston Herald 

DONALD B. VERRILLI JR.

Verrilli is solicitor general of the United States, the government’s official representative in front of the Supreme Court. He was confirmed to his position last June as the replacement for Justice Elena Kagan after serving as associate deputy attorney general and an associate White House counsel in the Obama administration. A graduate Columbia Law School, where he served as editor-in-chief of the Columbia Law Review, he was a law clerk for Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. and a partner at Jenner & Block, where he co-chaired the firm’s Supreme Court practice. He has argued more than a dozen times before the Supreme Court, and worked as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law School from 1992 through 2008. In 1994, as special counsel to President Bill Clinton, he assisted in the confirmation process for Justice Stephen Breyer.

Official biography: http://www.justice.gov/osg/meet-osg.html

___

PAUL CLEMENT

Clement is a former solicitor general, having served in that position for President George W. Bush. When confirmed, he was the youngest solicitor general in 115 years at age 38. Clement graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School one year behind Obama, and clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia. He has argued more than 55 cases at the Supreme Court, and served as the chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights. A partner at Bancroft PLLC, he is a Georgetown University law professor and a former partner at King & Spalding. He resigned from there after the firm decided not to continue its representation of the U.S. House of Representatives in its attempt to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. Clement was one of the lawyers who made the successful argument in front of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta that would strike down the law’s core requirement that individuals carry health insurance or pay a penalty

Official biography: http://www.bancroftpllc.com/professionals/paul-d-clement/

___

MICHAEL A. CARVIN

Another former Justice Department official, Carvin’s most famous argument was delivered to the Florida Supreme Court on behalf of soon-to-be President George W. Bush in the Florida recount controversy during the 2000 presidential election. A graduate of George Washington University’s law school in 1982, Carvin has worked as deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which is responsible for legal opinions that are binding on the Executive Branch, deputy assistant attorney general and special assistant to the assistant attorney general in the department’s civil rights division. He will be representing the National Federation of Independent Businesses, which was a party to the lawsuit in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta that struck down the law’s core requirement that individuals buy health insurance or pay a penalty.

Official biography: http://www.jonesday.com/macarvin

Richard Wolf, USA Today, via the Pensacola News Journal

WASHINGTON — Health coverage for more than 30 million people. The power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. President Obama’s re-election chances. The reputation of the Supreme Court and the legacy of its chief justice.

And to hear some tell it: liberty.

All that and more could be at stake today when the Supreme Court begins a historic three days of oral arguments on the 2010 health care law that has become a symbol of the nation’s deep political divide.

All that and more could be at stake today when the Supreme Court begins a historic three days of oral arguments on the 2010 health care law that has become a symbol of the nation’s deep political divide.

Not since the court confirmed George W. Bush’s election in December 2000 — before 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq, Wall Street’s dive and Obama’s rise — has one case carried such sweeping implications for nearly every American.

STAY TUNED!

Husband and Wife Kickback Conviction Not Surprising

The convictions of a husband and wife were upheld on February 2nd by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  The couple was convicted of soliciting and receiving kickbacks, among other things.  They argued that, in fact, all they did was to recommend physicians refer patients to a certain imaging center.  Their argument was that the doctors used their own judgment in referring patients.  Audio and video records of their activities, however, supported the prosecution’s case that in fact the couple actually paid cash to referring physicians for referrals made by the doctors to the imaging center.  The couple will spend about two years in prison.  The court did not address the legal issue of whether or not commission based compensation arrangements for marketing services were permissible.

OIG SLAMS TRUSTING DOCTORS WHO LET OTHERS BILL FOR THEIR SERVICES

Physicians who allow other people or entities to bill for their services are taking a risk. Settlements with eight physicians whose provider numbers were used unlawfully by entities they worked for prompted the OIG to issue an Alert on February 8th. The Alert basically says that physicians who assign to others (e.g. 855R) the right to bill for the services of the physicians will be responsible for the wrongful actions of those using the doctors’ provider numbers. Ignorance will likely not be a good excuse any longer.

What does all this mean to doctors? Simple: VERIFY REGULARLY. If you assign to any person or entity the right to bill for your services, you MUST routinely check to see if they are billing correctly. The fact that some person or entity may bill wrongfully, even fraudulently, without your direct knowledge, will not protect you from liability. Make sure (1) you have written agreements for all arrangements that involve any person or entity billing for your services, and (2) those contracts contain indemnification provisions in case you have to hire a lawyer or pay anything to the government for their wrongdoing.


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.