United States: Healthcare Legal News: July 2014 - Volume 4, Number 2

DO SUBSIDIZED HEALTH CARE PLANS PURCHASED UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT TRIGGER THE ANTI-KICKBACK STATUTE?

by Scott F. Roberts.

The advent of federally subsidized private pay health insurance under the Affordable Care Act has the potential to expand the application of the federal anti-kickback statute beyond just Medicare, Medicaid, and Tricare. The Affordable Care Act (sometimes referred to as "Obamacare") currently allows individuals to purchase and receive private health insurance coverage from state or federal health insurance exchanges. While not all individuals are eligible for subsidies, a substantial number of people will receive income-based federal subsidies that have the potential to trigger the federal anti-kickback statute, and by extension, the False Claims Act.

The federal anti-kickback statute applies to referrals involving a "Federal health care program," which is defined as "any plan or program that provides health benefits, whether directly, through insurance, or otherwise, which is funded directly, in whole or in part, by the United States Government." On October 30, the Secretary of Health and Human Services announced in a letter to a member of Congress that under HHS's interpretation of the anti-kickback statute, Qualified Health Plans subsidized under the Affordable Care Act would not be considered to be a part of a "federal health program". The letter states that HHS's position was based on "careful review" of the definition of a "Federal health care program" and was made "in consultation with the Department of Justice." It would therefore appear that HHS is taking the position that the federal government is not directly funding health insurance benefits but is instead providing indirect financial support to purchasers in the form of tax subsidies and premium assistance.1 However, this rationale would likely not apply to "reduced cost sharing subsidies" that provide lower premiums and co-pays to low income individuals because such subsidies are paid directly to the insurance plans.

There are many reasons to take HHS's October 30th letter with a grain of salt. First, this was not formal guidance issued by the HHS, but instead came in the form of a non-binding letter, meaning HHS could very well change its interpretation with little to no warning. Courts would not be bound by this type of informal guidance, meaning a federally subsidized Qualified Health Plan could still be the basis for a whistleblower's Qui Tam lawsuit based on an anti-kickback claim. Moreover, HHS's interpretation does not appear to be on particularly strong legal footing with respect to "reduced cost sharing subsidies," and the precise legal analysis was never explained in the letter.

Nonetheless, there is likely not an immediate need to ensure that practitioners who accept Qualified Health Plans, but do not accept Medicare, Medicaid, and Tricare comply with the federal anti-kickback statute. However, given the lack of legal analysis contained in the October 30, 2013 letter, it is likely that HHS's position will be readdressed, and possibly even reversed, in future guidance documents.

1 HHS has yet to publically explain its legal reasoning for not applying the antikickback statute to the ACA. However, many commenters believe the actual rationale is based on policy, as opposed to legal, reasons. Some commenters have speculated that the decision was made in order to allow pharmaceutical companies to provide co-payment assistance to those who could not afford to purchase pricey prescription drugs. Such payments would be considered illegal "kickbacks" under the anti-kickback statute. Still others have speculated that the rationale behind the October 30, 2013 letter is that HHS feared that application of the act to Qualified Health Plans would confuse certain providers, which could in turn interfere with, or at the very least distract from, the 2014 ACA rollout. This confusion could result from the fact that providers may not be able to readily distinguish between subsidized and non-subsidized health insurance policies.

LEGISLATION PERMITTING HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS TO NEGOTIATE JOINTLY WITH HEALTH INSURERS INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS

by James M. Burns.

Legislation was recently introduced by Representative John Conyers (D-Michigan) that would permit healthcare providers to negotiate jointly with health insurers concerning contract terms without running afoul of the antitrust laws. The bill, the "Quality Health Care Coalition Act of 2014," (H.R. 4077), has been referred to the House Judiciary's Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law for further action.

In introducing the legislation, Representative Conyers stated that:

[O]ver the last several decades, the health insurance market has become exceedingly concentrated, dominated by a few large insurers offering a limited number of health insurance plans. This has occurred in large part because of insurers' immunity from federal antitrust laws. In contrast, our nation's physicians and health care providers are afforded no comparable protections. This unbalanced playing field ultimately means consumers lose out with higher healthcare costs and poorer care. H.R. 4077 allows for physicians to negotiate with insurers on a level playing field, ensuring heightened quality standards for patient care.

Notably, Representative Conyers has introduced similar legislation in the past, without success. However, the legislation enjoys a degree of bipartisan support this Congress, with Republicans in both the House and Senate having also introduced legislation containing provisions similar to those in Representative Conyers's bill. Specifically, H.R. 2300, which was introduced by Representative Tom Price (R. Georgia) last June, would permit healthcare providers to negotiate jointly with insurers, as does S. 1851, which was introduced by Senator John McCain (R. Arizona) last December. However, both H.R. 2300 and S. 1851 are much larger bills that also seek to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and thus those bills are unlikely to garner support in the House or Senate from Democratic lawmakers.

Nonetheless, the fact that these Republican-sponsored bills contain language that is virtually identical to that in Representative Conyers's bill suggests that the prospects for H.R. 4077 are probably brighter this year than they have been at any time since 2000, when similar legislation was passed in the House but stalled in the Senate. Will Representative Conyers's legislation finally "cross the finish line" this Congress? Time will tell; stay tuned.

PEER REVIEW IS NOT ALWAYS PRIVILEGED

by Keith C. Dennen.

Hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers and independent diagnostic centers cannot exist without physicians and other medical providers. In order to practice at those facilities, the medical professional often is required to be "admitted" to the medical staff of the facility. Although admission to the medical staff provides privileges, it often requires that the professional agree to a periodic competency review by other members of the medical staff – i.e. a peer review.

In theory, peer review is the best manner for evaluating a practitioner's competency. Presumably, other practitioners in the same location possess an understanding of all of the factors that determine whether a person is professionally competent. In practice, because of professional jealousy, envy or simple competition, peer review has been used to "punish" practitioners who are too successful, too aggressive or who simply do not observe the unspoken rules of the professional hierarchy. In the past, a practitioner who was treated unfairly in a peer review process often would resign from the hospital and relocate. The advent of the National Practitioner Databank requiring the reporting of every negative peer review event makes relocation untenable.

The laws of all states and the District of Columbia provide that "peer review proceedings" are "privileged." Therefore, a practitioner who contends that he or she has been injured by an unfair peer review proceeding is unable to discover what was said or done in the peer review hearing. In many instances, the practitioner is unable to determine what materials the peer review committee reviewed to make its decision.

Although the Health Care Quality Improvement Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 11101 – 11152, grants immunity to participants in a peer review, HCQIA does not make peer review proceedings privileged. Likewise, as noted recently in Roberts v. Legacy Meridian Park Hospital, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-01136-SI (D. Ore. Apr. 25, 2014), federal courts do not recognize a "common law" privilege for peer review proceedings. Therefore, in cases in which violations of federal statutes are alleged (e.g., discrimination, antitrust), the federal courts will allow the physician to obtain discovery concerning the peer review process, including information about peer review proceedings concerning other similarly situated physicians. Consistent with this finding, the federal district court in the Roberts case allowed discovery of the plaintiffs' peer review records as well as the peer review records of other hospital physicians in the same specialty.

For practitioners who are subject to adverse peer review, the lack of a federal peer review privilege makes federal court the best venue for any proceeding. For practitioners who are reviewers in peer review proceedings, the lack of a federal peer review privilege means that great caution should be exercised to ensure that the peer review proceeding is free of bias, prejudice or other impropriety. The record should reflect all materials considered and the basis for any adverse action.

HIPAA VIOLATION RESULTS IN $4.8 MILLION SETTLEMENT

by Rose J. Willis.

While most healthcare providers know to pay close attention to the HIPAA rules when setting up their information technology systems, recent events have demonstrated that this close scrutiny should also be applied to computer reconfigurations and other IT system changes. According to the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights ("OCR"), a "reconfiguration" of a computer server involving two healthcare providers caused the health information of 6,800 patients to be disclosed to Internet search engines. The healthcare providers, New York-Presbyterian Hospital and Columbia University Medical Center, each entered into a settlement and a Corrective Action Plan with OCR requiring payment of $4.8 million to OCR.

According to OCR, the hospitals failed to conduct an accurate and thorough risk analysis that incorporates all information technology ("IT") equipment, applications, and data systems utilizing electronic protected health information ("ePHI"). Additionally, they failed to implement processes for assessing and monitoring all IT equipment, applications, and data systems that were linked to their patient databases prior to the breach incident, and failed to implement security measures sufficient to reduce the risks and vulnerabilities to its ePHI to a reasonable and appropriate level. The hospitals also failed to implement appropriate policies and procedures for authorizing access to their patient databases, and they failed to comply with their HIPAA security policies on information access management.

Under the HIPAA Security Rule, most healthcare providers are required to conduct a risk analysis of, among other things, their IT equipment. Healthcare providers are also required to implement HIPAA security policies and procedures to reduce their risk of a potential HIPAA violation and vulnerabilities in their IT systems. Whenever a change is made to a healthcare provider's IT systems, a new risk analysis should be conducted to identify any potential risk of improper disclosure of ePHI as a result of the change. Any such risk must be eliminated or sufficiently reduced prior to implementing the change to avoid a violation of HIPAA and the costly penalties that go along with it.

HHS HEAT INITIATIVE CONTINUES FRAUD CRACKDOWN

by Scott Roberts

A number of recent cases demonstrate Health and Human Services' ("HHS") Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team's ("HEAT") continued success in cracking down on healthcare provider fraud. Since 2009, the federal government has recovered more than $12 Billion dollars under the False Claims Act from cases involving health care programs. Through the HEAT initiative, HHS has brought a number of False Claims Act cases against hospitals and physician groups resulting in several large settlements and verdicts. These cases typically arise in one of three ways: (1) the physician group or hospital self-reports the problem, (2) violations are discovered in the course of an investigation into another matter or entity, or (3) a person or entity brings a "qui tam" whistleblower suit against the group or hospital.

Typically, physician groups that self-report a violation receive more favorable treatment than those groups that wait until a whistleblower or other investigation brings the violation to light. This was seen in a recent settlement involving a Montana hospital that provided improper financial incentives to individual physicians and physician groups. The incentives were discovered by an internal audit conducted by the hospital, which then reported the violation to the government. The hospital and government settled the matter for $3.85 million.

Situations might also arise where the government discovers certain improprieties when investigating other entities or potential legal violations. One example of this would be a recent Ohio case involving a cardiologist and a medical corporation run by the cardiologist. In that case, the government was investigating a hospital for alleged violations of the Stark Law when it discovered that the cardiologist group caused the hospital to submit fraudulent claims to Medicare. The case was settled for $1 million before it could be brought to trial.

Physician groups and hospitals that wait until a whistleblower suit is brought will often receive the harshest penalties and judgments. This was seen in the Tuomey Healthcare case, which involved a hospital entering into a number of contracts with local physicians that provided financial incentives for physicians referring patients to the hospital. One of the outside physicians eventually blew the whistle on the scheme and brought a qui tam suit against the hospital under the False Claims Act. The hospital took the case to trial, where it eventually received a verdict against it for $237 million. Another recent example would be the Health Dimension Rehabilitation case, where a rival company brought a whistleblower action against a national physical therapy company for paying local companies for Medicare referrals. In that case, the physical therapy company settled the matter after the U.S. D.O.J. took over the case for approximately $30 million.

TENNESSEE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATES THAT PHYSICAL THERAPISTS CANNOT PERFORM TRIGGER-POINT DRY NEEDLING

by Keith Dennen

In an opinion released on June 19, 2014, the Office of the Tennessee Attorney General stated that Physical Therapists cannot lawfully perform Intramuscular Manual Therapy or Trigger-Point Dry Needling.

Dry Needling therapy involves application of a fine, filiform needles to the neuromusculoskeletal system to restore movement, reduce pain and address other musculoskeletal disorders. That practice, the Attorney General found, was similar to acupuncture – a separate branch of medicine.

To support its opinion, the Attorney General noted:

  • The Tennessee Occupational and Physical Therapy Practice Act, does not specifically authorize the invasive use of needles for therapeutic purposes.
  • Dry Needling and acupuncture are similar therapies, and physical therapists may not perform acupuncture pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 63-6-1002(a) – (b).
  • The Rules of the Tennessee Board of Physical Therapy allow physical therapists to perform kinesiologic electromyography and diagnostic electromyography for diagnostic or academic purposes and then only in a university setting or upon referral from an allopathic or osteopathic physician, dentist or podiatrist.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Scott F. Roberts
Rose J. Willis
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions