Proposed Medicare Rule Would Restrict Permitted Business Arrangements
|
|
- Virgil Marshall
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Proposed Medicare Rule Would Restrict Permitted Business Arrangements July 2007 Boston Brussels Chicago Düsseldorf London Los Angeles Miami Munich New York Orange County Rome San Diego Silicon Valley Washington, D.C. Strategic alliance with MWE China Law Offices (Shanghai)
2 Introduction The proposed Medicare physician fee schedule (PFS) regulations released on July 2, 2007, include provisions that will affect the entire health care industry, not just physicians and other providers paid under the fee schedule. The proposed rule includes a nearly 10 percent decrease in Medicare physician fee schedule payments, which when coupled with proposed relative value unit (RVU) changes and changes required by statute would result in decreases of from 6 percent to 12 percent across physician specialties other than anesthesiology, which would receive an increase. The proposed rule also addresses a variety of other fee schedule related matters, including the Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI); Comprehensive Outpatient Rehabilitation Facility (CORF) regulations; requirements for Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, and Speech-Language Pathology services; Part B drug payment; and clinical laboratory fee schedule, including provisions for incorporating new tests. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is also using this PFS rulemaking as a vehicle for revisions to the Stark Law regulations and certain rules regarding reassignment and purchased services, Independent Diagnostic Testing Facilities (IDTFs), and services under arrangements, which individually, and in combination, would limit the options for structuring arrangements for many health care services and require restructuring many existing arrangements that comply with current law. This white paper summarizes the proposals affecting permissible arrangements for health care services and the effect of the proposed regulations on common arrangements across the United States. Physician Self-Referral (Stark Law) Issues The CMS press release issued with the proposed rule states that the proposed Stark Law revisions are intended to close loopholes that have made the Medicare program vulnerable to abuse. The proposed changes, combined with CMS requests for comments on certain additional issues (without specific proposed language) and foreshadowing of the Phase III regulations reflect an intent to significantly narrow the scope of certain exceptions and would adversely affect a number of common arrangements that currently comply with the law based on the indirect compensation exception, the in-office ancillary services exception, and the definition of a designated health services (DHS) entity for Stark Law purposes. REASSIGNMENT/ANTI-MARKUP PROVISIONS In the proposed 2007 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Update, CMS expressed concerns about so-called pathology pod labs pathology laboratory in-sourcing arrangements between pathology laboratories and physician practices involving the shared use of equipment, technologists and interpreting pathologists. These arrangements, which enable gastroenterology, urology and other high utilizers of pathology services to bring pathology services in-house, have been possible because of the Stark in-office ancillary services exception (the In-Office Exception ) and the contractual arrangement exception to the general prohibition on reassignment of Medicare benefits (the Contractual Exception ). CMS believes that these types of diagnostic testing arrangements between medical practices or between diagnostic test suppliers and medical practices are an abuse of these two exceptions. After considering a variety of approaches to addressing its concerns, CMS is proposing to prohibit physicians and medical practices from marking up to the Medicare program the outside supplier s net charge to the practice for the diagnostic testing, i.e. the outside supplier s charge net of any payment by the outsider supplier for use of the medical practice s facility. Notably, this anti-markup rule applies regardless of whether the diagnostic test is purchased from the outside supplier or the medical practice is billing Medicare in reliance on a reassignment from the outside supplier performing the diagnostic test pursuant to a contracted services arrangement (i.e., the Contractual Exception). The only exception to the rule is reassignment from a full-time employee of the medical practice. CMS did not propose amendments to the In-Office Exception, most notably the definition of centralized building, believing that its anti-markup approach will sufficiently address its concerns. However, CMS recognizes that contractual arrangements between medical practices and technologists (and, by implication, contractual arrangements between medical practices and diagnostic testing equipment lessors or suppliers) involve neither the purchase of the technical component of a diagnostic test nor billing by the medical practice in reliance on a reassignment of benefits from the technologist (or equipment lessor or supplier). Consequently, CMS anti-markup rule will not apply to the technical component of diagnostic testing billed by medical practices pursuant to pathology pod lab or similar diagnostic testing arrangements (in reliance on the In-Office Exception, and, in particular, the definition of centralized building ). CMS requests comments on the notion of an anti-markup rule that would apply to any diagnostic test billed by a medical practice in reliance on the In-Office Exception s centralized building approach. This approach would result in the closure of numerous group practice DHS sites operating currently in reliance on the centralized building approach, and that have nothing to do with pathology pod - 2 -
3 labs or other in-sourcing arrangements that are the target of CMS concerns. Presumably, CMS will receive many comments challenging such an approach. The net effect of CMS proposed rule, if adopted, will be to eliminate any economic incentive for a medical practice to bill Medicare for the professional component (interpretation) of a diagnostic test not performed by a full-time employee of the practice. Notably, the medical practice will not even be able to recover from Medicare the overhead practice expense of interpretations performed in the practice s facilities by part-time or independent contractor physicians, while such on-site interpreting physicians will be able to separately bill and receive Medicare payment that reflects such overhead expense, using the medical practice s office as the site of service, i.e. non-facility practice expense RVUs. Consequently, if the proposed rule is adopted, medical practices with arrangements for on-site interpretations by part-time or independent contractor physicians may elect to stop billing Medicare for such interpretations (since there is no incremental margin on such interpretations) and, instead, charge the interpreting physician for use of the practices facilities, a cost to the interpreting physician for which he or she can be reimbursed by Medicare (through the non-facility practice expense RVUs). BURDEN OF PROOF CMS proposes to clarify that in any appeal of a denial of payment based on the Stark Law prohibition, the burden of proof is on the entity submitting the claim that the service was not furnished pursuant to a prohibited referral. In practice, this generally means that the burden is on the provider to prove every element of a Stark exception. CMS position is consistent with the weight of cases that have examined the question of burden of proof in connection with False Claims Act actions predicated on an alleged Stark violation. The burden on the provider is a particular challenge when invoking the regulatory exceptions, which typically require that the arrangement not violate the federal anti-kickback law. IN-OFFICE ANCILLARY SERVICES The in-office ancillary services exception is the key exception that permits physicians to furnish DHS in their medical practices. CMS states that Congress original intent underlying the exception was to allow for the provision of certain services necessary to the diagnosis or treatment of the medical condition that brought the patient to the physician s office, and expresses concern that the exception currently permits arrangements that appear to be nothing more than enterprises established for the self-referral of DHS. CMS is particularly concerned about arrangements that are not closely connected to the physician practice, and singles out arrangements where nonspecialists use the exception to bill for specialized services; physical and occupational therapy services; and turn-key in-office laboratory and imaging operations being marketed to physicians over the internet. CMS is not proposing any specific changes at this time, but rather solicits comments on whether the in-office ancillary services exception should be narrowed to address CMS concerns. PER CLICK LEASES The regulations currently permit payments on a per service basis (often referred to as per click payments) for personal services, as well as space and equipment leases, so long as the payment per unit is at fair market value and does not change during the term of the arrangement in a manner that takes into account DHS referrals. Accordingly, a physician may lease a piece of equipment to a hospital on a per click basis, even if the physician refers patients to the hospital for services using the equipment. CMS has now determined that such arrangements are inherently susceptible to abuse, and accordingly has proposed to narrow the exceptions for space and equipment leases (but not for services) so that per click payments would not be permitted to the extent that such charges reflect services provided to patients referred by the lessor to the lessee. As currently drafted, the narrowing of the exceptions would apply only if an individual physician was the lessor, and would not currently apply to per click arrangements where the physician owns an entity that in turn has a per click relationship with a hospital. Such arrangements would still be subject to an indirect compensation analysis rather than a lease exception analysis. However, as noted below, CMS has also indicated that it is likely that an upcoming rule (possibly Phase III of the Stark Law regulations) may provide that a physician stands in the shoes of his/her practice entity and possibly other entities, which would significantly broaden the scope of the proposed change and further narrow the protection of the indirect compensation exception. CMS also is soliciting comments on whether a parallel prohibition on per click payments should be imposed where the physician is the lessee (e.g., where a physician leases a piece of equipment on a per click basis from a hospital)
4 PERIOD OF DISALLOWANCE FOR NONCOMPLIANT RELATIONSHIPS The preamble states that as a starting point CMS believes that the period of payment disallowance resulting from a Stark Law violation should begin with the date that a financial arrangement failed to comply with the statute and the regulations and end with the date that the arrangement came into compliance or ended. CMS also believes that in some instances it may not be clear when a financial arrangement has ended and that some prohibited financial arrangements might be intended to affect referrals even after the legal arrangement has ended (e.g., below market rent was in exchange for future referrals, including referrals made beyond the expiration of the lease). While not proposing any new regulatory interpretation at this time, CMS is seeking comments regarding when the prohibition should end in particular situations. CMS is also seeking comments about whether there should be a mechanism for early termination of the prohibition in cases in which the parties have returned, or paid back the value of, the improper consideration and neither knew nor should have known that an arrangement failed to satisfy the requirements for an exception. CMS is also considering whether it should disqualify parties from using an exception for some additional period where an arrangement has failed to satisfy the applicable requirements. The preamble discussion does not indicate how broadly such a disqualification would be applied. For example, would failure to satisfy the conditions for an exception in an individual case disqualify the provider from relying on that exception in all other cases or only regarding the particular arrangement that has previously failed to satisfy the requirements? SET IN ADVANCE/PERCENTAGE COMPENSATION Several of the compensation exceptions require that compensation be set in advance, including the space and equipment lease exceptions, the personal service arrangement exception, the fair market value exception and the academic medical center exception. The current Stark rules provide that percentage compensation arrangements are set in advance so long as the percentage is fixed. CMS now proposes that only percentage arrangements based on revenues directly resulting from physician services and used to pay for personally performed physician services are set in advance. This would have the effect of, among other things, prohibiting percentage leases (even where unrelated to DHS) that have relied on the lease exceptions for protection. Perhaps of equal importance, in the past some have argued that percentage arrangements that include DHS do not take into account DHS. CMS increasingly restrictive view of percentage arrangements may cast doubt on that position. STAND IN THE SHOES CMS proposes that where a DHS entity owns or controls an entity to which a physician refers Medicare DHS, the subsidiary would be collapsed into the parent for purposes of the Stark analysis. This would have the effect of converting some current indirect compensation arrangements into direct ones, necessitating the use of the direct exceptions. CMS also indicates that it may treat physicians as standing in the shoes of their group practices or other physician practices (it is unclear whether this would apply to all group members or just to owners). Again, this could have the effect of limiting the number of arrangements protected by the indirect compensation exception and necessitating that more arrangements be structured to meet a direct exception. Coupled with the proposed restrictions on percentage arrangements, the stand in the shoes proposals, if finalized, would require the restructuring of many existing hospital-physician joint ventures and lease and management arrangements, even where the compensation is fair market value and does not vary based on DHS referrals. ALTERNATIVE CRITERIA FOR SATISFYING EXCEPTIONS In response to comments on the Phase II regulations suggesting that CMS should exercise its discretion regarding minor and technical violations and failure to meet the procedural requirements of an exception (e.g., failing to obtain all required signatures prior to commencement of the agreement), CMS is considering whether to provide for an alternative method for satisfying certain exceptions. An alternative method, if adopted, would be applicable only in cases of inadvertent violations in which an agreement fails to satisfy the procedural [or ] form requirements of an exception, but would not be available with respect to fair market value, not related to volume or value of referrals, or set in advance issues. CMS proposes to limit the availability of the alternative method to cases in which: there has been a self-disclosure to CMS; the arrangement satisfied all but the prescribed procedural or form requirements at the time of the referrals and the claims; failure to meet all the prescribed requirements was inadvertent; - 4 -
5 the referrals and the claims were not made with knowledge (or reckless disregard) that the prescribed criteria were not met; the arrangement did not pose a risk of program or patient abuse; no more than a set amount of time has passed since the original noncompliance; the arrangement is not the subject of any ongoing federal investigation or other proceeding; the parties have brought (or will bring as soon as possible) the arrangement into complete compliance with the prescribed criteria of the exception or have terminated (or will terminate as soon as possible) the financial relationship between or among them. (According to CMS, this item was inadvertently left out of the rule as originally published, but will be added to the version to be published in the Federal Register. The comment period for this section will be extended to September 7, 2007.) Furthermore, the applicability of the alternative method in a particular case would be in the sole discretion of CMS, and the parties would not have any procedural or appeal rights regarding its determinations. As currently contemplated, the proposal appears too restrictive and subject to interpretation to be useful in practice. CMS is seeking comments on all aspects of the proposal, including time lines and standards of documentary proof for the proposed determinations. SERVICES FURNISHED UNDER ARRANGEMENTS Under current Stark regulations, an entity is not considered the entity that furnishes Stark s designated health services (the DHS Entity ) unless it is the entity that is paid by Medicare for the DHS. Consequently, investment by a physician in an entity that supplies, leases or otherwise furnishes services or items to, a DHS Entity that the physician makes referrals to for DHS (the Intermediary Entity ) is not considered ownership or investment by the physician in a DHS Entity, because the Intermediary Entity is not paid by Medicare for the DHS. This is the case even if the physician-owned Intermediary Entity furnishes or performs the DHS under arrangements with a hospital paid by Medicare for the DHS, e.g., imaging services or radiation therapy services furnished directly to registered outpatients of a hospital pursuant to a contractual arrangement between the Intermediary Entity and the hospital. Since an Intermediary Entity is not considered a DHS Entity under current regulations, investment by a physician in an Intermediary Entity does not have to qualify for one of the Stark ownership/investment exceptions (only one of which, the rural investment exception, would potentially apply to such investment). Instead, physician investment in an Intermediary Entity currently implicates Stark because it generally creates an indirect compensation arrangement between the physician investor and the DHS Entity that contracts with the Intermediary Entity. However, there is a special indirect compensation exception that hospitals and other DHS Entities contracting with physician-owned Intermediary Entities have often relied on as a basis for proceeding with such transactions. In the proposed rule, CMS expresses concerns about under arrangements transactions between hospitals and physician-owned Intermediary Entities that appear to be designed solely to enable the physician-investors to profit from referrals to the hospital, and/or in the case of ambulatory surgery and imaging services, for example, enable the hospital to receive the higher providerbased Medicare payment even though the service is furnished in a less medically intensive setting, e.g., ambulatory surgery center or independent diagnostic testing facility. In addition, CMS concurs with the concern expressed by MedPAC, in its March, 2005 Report to Congress, that physician ownership of entities that provide services and equipment to imaging centers and other providers creates inappropriate financial incentives. MedPAC recommended that CMS should expand the definition of physician ownership in the physician self-referral law to include interests in an entity that derives a substantial portion of its revenue from a provider of designated health services (the MedPAC Approach ). CMS shares MedPAC s concern, and has requested comments on the MedPAC Approach, but did not propose to adopt the MedPAC Approach. The proposed rule provides that the DHS Entity is either the entity that submits a claim to Medicare for the DHS, or the entity that performed the DHS (the CMS Approach ). The CMS Approach, for which no grandfathering is proposed, would, if adopted, require either: divestiture of physician investors in Intermediary Entities that perform DHS, i.e. furnish the DHS to the DHS Entities patients; termination of the contractual arrangements between such Intermediary Entities and DHS Entities; or the cessation of Medicare billing by the DHS Entity for the DHS furnished by the Intermediary Entity
6 For example, mobile or fixed site PET scan, nuclear stress testing and radiation therapy services arrangements between a hospital and an independent, physician-owned provider of these DHS to the hospital s patients would have to be terminated or the associated Medicare billing stopped unless the referring physicians are divested. However, many contractual arrangements between physician-owned Intermediary Entities and DHS Entities, such as hospitals, do not call for the Intermediary Entity to perform DHS. Rather, the Intermediary Entity furnishes to the DHS Entity one or more of the inputs utilized by the DHS Entity in the performance of DHS, e.g. space, management services, staff, medical equipment and/or medical supplies. Depending on the precise facts and circumstances, certain of these inputs might, separately or taken together, arguably constitute a DHS. For example, implantable devices might constitute a hospital service if implanted in a hospitalized Medicare beneficiary, and if so construed, surgeon investment in a wholesaler of implantable devices (the Intermediary Entity) would be substantially restricted by the Stark Law. However, most of the inputs furnished to a DHS Entity by a physician-owned Intermediary Entity, even when viewed in their totality, cannot reasonably be viewed as a DHS performed by the Intermediary Entity. For example, the lease of a technologist and a high-resolution CT scanner to a hospital by a physician-owned Intermediary Entity would not appear to constitute the performance of a hospital service, as hospital services are defined by the Stark regulations. Consequently, even though the CMS Approach will certainly disrupt many existing arrangements between physician-owned Intermediary Entities and DHS Entities, the extent of this disruption may depend on the outcome of CMS request for comments on whether it should adopt the MedPAC Approach, either in combination with the CMS Approach, or as a substitute for the CMS Approach. The MedPAC Approach would apparently put an end to physician investment in any entity that derives a substantial portion of its revenue from the provision of services or items to a DHS Entity, regardless of whether the provision of such services or items constitutes the performance of DHS. If not accompanied by a grandfathering provision, CMS adoption of the MedPAC Approach would cause the unwind of hundreds of contractual arrangements between physician-owned Intermediary Entities and DHS Entities, many of which the parties involved would argue are well-intentioned, commercially reasonable, pro-competitive and likely to improve the quality and lower the cost of health care in their markets. These arguments will likely be the subject of many comments on the proposed rule. Independent Diagnostic Testing Facility (IDTF) Issues Closely related to the general theme of the revisions proposed in connection with the Stark Law, the proposed updates also provide for some significant revisions and clarifications to existing IDTF performance standards and propose several new IDTF performance standards, including one standard that could dramatically impact block leasing and other shared imaging arrangements. The proposed updates, if adopted, will surely create new challenges for IDTFs which are still feeling the impact of reimbursement cuts under the Deficit Reduction Act, the recently imposed multiple procedure discount as well as the reforms to some of the IDTF standards recently enacted by CMS on January 1, Interestingly, some of the proposed updates, including the controversial ban on shared arrangements, address matters that CMS attempted to address in CMS Transmittal 187 issued in late January CMS, however, ultimately rescinded such transmittal due to the controversy and questions elicited from the imaging industry. Below is a summary of some of the more significant changes being proposed. LIABILITY INSURANCE CMS proposes revising the liability insurance standard to clarify that an IDTF must carry liability insurance of not less than three hundred thousand ($300,000) dollars in coverage per incident. The current standard does not use the phrase per incident; however, since many IDTFs already carry such insurance coverage, we do not anticipate this change having a substantial impact on the imaging industry. Of greater controversy is CMS proposal that an IDTF be required to notify its CMS designated contractor of any policy changes or cancellations and add such CMS designated contractor as a certificate holder on the insurance policy. Moreover, failure to maintain the required insurance will result in revocation of the IDTF s billing privileges retroactive to the date the insurance lapsed. Insurance companies may be reluctant to name a government agency as a certificate holder, as that could provide a basis for the government to seek indemnification or payment that it would not otherwise have under the policy. Additionally, IDTFs would be subject to a rather draconian penalty (no reimbursement for services rendered) even in the instance of a mere technical lapse in insurance coverage
7 NOTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT CHANGES Currently, an IDTF must report any change of information required to be disclosed in its CMS Form 855-B application within 30 days after the effective date of the change, regardless of the materiality of the change. CMS proposes revising the (g)(2) standard to require that any change in ownership, location, general supervision, or adverse legal actions must be reported within 30 calendar days of the change and all other changes must be reported within 90 days. This proposal will likely be welcomed by the imaging industry as it should reduce some of the administrative burdens that IDTFs currently face in making timely reporting disclosures to CMS. BENEFICIARY COMPLAINTS CMS proposes changing the standard in (g)(8) to require IDTFs to answer, document, and maintain documentation of beneficiaries questions and responses to their complaints at the physical site of the IDTF. This change also requires an IDTF to document its complaint process. SUPERVISING PHYSICIAN In the final 2007 MPFS rule, it appeared that CMS unintentionally expanded the scope of responsibilities of the physician responsible for providing general supervision for the IDTF by requiring such supervising physician to be responsible for the overall administration of the IDTF and compliance with applicable regulations. In response to negative industry feedback, CMS has proposed deleting such requirement. A physician currently cannot provide general supervision to more than three IDTF sites. The proposed updates clarify that this prohibition includes both fixed and mobile units where three concurrent operations are capable of performing tests. ENROLLMENT STANDARD CMS also proposes a new standard that provides that an IDTF cannot retroactively bill for any services rendered before the IDTF submitted a Medicare enrollment application that is complete and can be processed by CMS for approval. While this new standard will not preclude an IDTF from retroactively billing, it does limit the period in which an IDTF can do so. An IDTF must also be more cautious to submit a thorough and complete application prior to providing any services or risk not receiving any reimbursement for such services. SHARING PROHIBITION CMS also proposes a new standard that would prohibit an IDTF from sharing space, equipment, or staff, or from subleasing its operations to another individual or organization. CMS indicates that the purpose of this new standard is intended to better enable CMS to confirm that an IDTF is operating in compliance with the Medicare conditions of participation. CMS also notes in the proposed updates that shared arrangements raise concerns under the physician self referral prohibition (i.e., Stark law) and the federal anti-kickback statute. If this standard is adopted, it will likely have a significant impact on the shape of the imaging industry. The proposed standard, however, leaves many questions unanswered and will likely solicit significant public comment. For example, will this standard apply to an IDTF wholly owned by a physician practice? CMS had previously carved out such physician-owned IDTFs from a similar restriction that it published in Transmittal 187, which ultimately was rescinded. Moreover, as we had mentioned in the On the Subject issued in February of 2007, will the space sharing prohibition be interpreted consistent with other Medicare rules prohibiting concurrent use of a Medicare certified facility (such as in the ambulatory surgical center setting)? Because the proposed standard uses the phrase sublease, it suggests that will not be the case. If the sublease provision is retained, then material restructuring will likely be required for many arrangements. If the final standard does not prohibit the sublease of operations, then block leasing and other shared arrangements where a participant s use can be easily distinguished from another s use, may not be materially affected. The medical imaging industry was successful in having CMS Transmittal 187 rescinded. It will be interesting to see the imaging industry s reaction to this latest affront on IDTFs. Those already engaged in shared imaging arrangements should have them reviewed, while those contemplating entering into these types of arrangements will need to structure them in a manner that complies with the new standards or otherwise have them unwound
8 Conclusion While one s position in the health care marketplace may affect one s reaction to these proposals, there is no question that CMS proposals to close perceived loopholes will also significantly limit providers flexibility in structuring viable and compliant arrangements for health care services in their communities and their ability to respond creatively to the inevitably evolving economic and regulatory environment. Based on the preamble to the proposed regulations, it is not clear that CMS has considered all of the implications and potential effects of these proposals, individually, collectively or in conjunction with other existing rules and interpretations. This white paper discusses many, but certainly not all, of the implications of these proposals. We recommend that all health care organizations consider the potential impact of these proposals on their arrangements and operations and determine what arrangements would need to be revised to comply with provisions of the proposed rule. We also encourage affected organizations to participate in the policy making regarding these important rules by submitting comments to CMS by the August 31, 2007 regulatory deadline. For more information, please contact your regular McDermott lawyer, or: Timothy P. Blanchard: tblanchard@mwe.com Eric Gordon: egordon@mwe.com Joshua M. Kaye: jkaye@mwe.com Daniel H. Melvin: dmelvin@mwe.com Joan F. Polacheck: jpolacheck@mwe.com For more information about McDermott Will & Emery visit The material in this publication may not be reproduced, in whole or part without acknowledgement of its source and copyright. [Name of publication] is intended to provide information of general interest in a summary manner and should not be construed as individual legal advice. Readers should consult with their McDermott Will & Emery lawyer or other professional counsel before acting on the information contained in this publication McDermott Will & Emery. The following legal entities are collectively referred to as "McDermott Will & Emery," "McDermott" or "the Firm": McDermott Will & Emery LLP, McDermott Will & Emery/Stanbrook LLP, McDermott Will & Emery Rechtsanwälte Steuerberater LLP, MWE Steuerberatungsgesellschaft mbh, McDermott Will & Emery Studio Legale Associato and McDermott Will & Emery UK LLP. These entities coordinate their activities through service agreements. These entities coordinate their activities through service agreements. This communication may be considered advertising under the rules regulating the legal profession
CMS PROPOSED STARK REGULATIONS MATERIALLY IMPACT HOSPITAL-PHYSICIAN JOINT VENTURES AND VARIOUS OTHER PHYSICIAN ARRANGEMENTS
CMS PROPOSED STARK REGULATIONS MATERIALLY IMPACT HOSPITAL-PHYSICIAN JOINT VENTURES AND VARIOUS OTHER PHYSICIAN ARRANGEMENTS Health care providers beware: Many commonplace hospital and physician arrangements
More informationCMS Publishes Phase III Stark Law Rule
CMS Publishes Phase III Stark Law Rule September 2007 Boston Brussels Chicago Düsseldorf London Los Angeles Miami Munich New York Orange County Rome San Diego Silicon Valley Washington, D.C. Strategic
More informationStark Law Introduction
Stark Law Introduction 41 st Annual SCALL Institute March 23, 2013 Eric B. Gordon Partner McDermott Will & Emery LLP egordon@mwe.com www.mwe.com Boston Brussels Chicago Düsseldorf Houston London Los Angeles
More informationCMS Seeks Improved Quality of Care, Patient Engagement Through Stage 2 Meaningful Use Criteria
September 12, 2012 CMS Seeks Improved Quality of Care, Patient Engagement Through Stage 2 Meaningful Use Criteria The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) published on September 4, 2012, a final
More informationFinal Rule Establishes the Permanent Certification Program for EHR Technology
Final Rule Establishes the Permanent Certification Program for EHR Technology March 2, 2011 Boston Brussels Chicago Düsseldorf Houston London Los Angeles Miami Milan Munich New York Orange County Rome
More informationMedicare and Medicaid Extenders Act: Significant Changes for Health Care Providers
Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act: Significant Changes for Health Care Providers December 22, 2010 Boston Brussels Chicago Düsseldorf Houston London Los Angeles Miami Milan Munich New York Orange County
More informationNew Illinois Ethics Rules on Lawyers Reporting Up Responsibilities
New Illinois Ethics Rules on Lawyers Reporting Up Responsibilities August 13, 2009 Boston Brussels Chicago Düsseldorf Houston London Los Angeles Miami Milan Munich New York Orange County Rome San Diego
More informationCMS Publishes Final Stark Law Regulations
11/20/2015 CMS Publishes Final Stark Law Regulations By Karl Thallner and Nicole Aiken, Reed Smith LLP On October 30, 2015, as part of a larger final rule revising the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS)
More informationHealth & FDA Business
ALBANY AMSTERDAM ATLANTA AUSTIN BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DELAWARE DENVER FORT LAUDERDALE HOUSTON LAS VEGAS LONDON* LOS ANGELES MIAMI NEW JERSEY NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY ORLANDO PALM BEACH COUNTY PHILADELPHIA
More informationCMS Releases Final 2010 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Update
CMS Releases Final 2010 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Update November 23, 2009 Boston Brussels Chicago Düsseldorf Houston London Los Angeles Miami Milan Munich New York Orange County Rome San Diego Silicon
More informationGroundbreaking Legislation on Property Tax and Sales Tax Exemptions for Illinois Hospitals
Groundbreaking Legislation on Property Tax and Sales Tax Exemptions for Illinois Hospitals June 14, 2012 Boston Brussels Chicago Düsseldorf Frankfurt Houston London Los Angeles Miami Milan Munich New York
More informationFraud and Abuse Primer. Stark Law The Anti-Kickback Statute False Claims Act
Fraud and Abuse Primer Stark Law The Anti-Kickback Statute False Claims Act Stark Act 42 U.S.C. 1395nn The Stark II Act prohibits a physician from making a Referral to an entity; for the furnishing of
More informationNew Stark Rules Effective October, 2008: Are You In Compliance?
New Stark Rules Effective October, 2008: Are You In Compliance? Michael W. Paddock, Esq. Crowell & Moring LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington DC 20004 (202) 624-2519 mpaddock@crowell.com Thursday,
More informationRE: File Code CMS-1345-NC2 Medicare Program Waiver Designs in Connection with the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Innovation Center
Donald Berwick, M.D., M.P.P. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services Attention: CMS-1345-NC2 Room 445-G Hubert H. Humphrey Building 200 Independence Ave. S.W.
More informationOver the last few months, several regulatory developments
dorsey HEALTH STRATEGIES A Consulting Firm Affiliated with Dorsey & Whitney LLP DISCOVERY Market Solutions for the Health Care Industry The Real Deals in Health Care By Forrest G. Burke and Claire H. Topp
More informationOn-Site Medical Clinic Guidelines
On-Site Medical Clinic Guidelines Amy Gordon, Partner Daniel Gottlieb, Partner Dale Van Demark, Partner July 24, 2013 www.mwe.com Boston Brussels Chicago Düsseldorf Frankfurt Houston London Los Angeles
More informationWhite House Report May Have Long-Term Effect on Consumer Privacy and How Companies Do Business
White House Report May Have Long-Term Effect on Consumer Privacy and How Companies Do Business April 10, 2012 Boston Brussels Chicago Düsseldorf Houston London Los Angeles Miami Milan Munich New York Orange
More informationStructuring Physician Recruitment Arrangements in Accordance with the Stark II/Phase II Interim Final Rule
Structuring Physician Recruitment Arrangements in Accordance with the Stark II/Phase II Interim Final Rule Stacey A. Tovino satovino@central.uh.edu June 25, 2004 On March 26, 2004, the Centers for Medicare
More informationMEMORANDUM HEALTH CARE CLIENTS. DATE: July 24, 2007
MEMORANDUM TO: HEALTH CARE CLIENTS DATE: July 24, 2007 RE: Update on Important Stark Law Developments: CMS Proposes Regulatory Changes, Solicits Comments on Other Key Related Issues, and Will Mandate Disclosure
More informationStar Quality Ratings: Legal, Operational and Strategic Questions for MA Organizations and Part D Plan Sponsors
Where Do We Go From Here? Star Quality Ratings: Legal, Operational and Strategic Questions for MA Organizations and Part D Plan Sponsors American Health Lawyers Association 2011 Payors, Plans and Managed
More informationDiscovering a Potential Overpayment: An Law, and Medicare Reimbursement Considerations
Discovering a Potential Overpayment: An Overview of the False Claims Act, Stark Law, and Medicare Reimbursement Considerations, Stockholder, Reid & Riege, P.C., Stockholder, Reid & Riege, P.C. Outline
More informationGETTING HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TO PHYSICIANS
Donating Health Information Technology to Physicians: CMS/OIG Regulations Highlight a Key Challenge to Realizing an Electronic Health Record for all Americans November 2005 Boston Brussels Chicago Düsseldorf
More informationThe Stark Law Opportunities to Address Barriers to Clinical Integration January 29, 2016
The Stark Law Opportunities to Address Barriers to Clinical Integration There are several rules governing compensation relationships between hospitals, physicians and other caregivers, including the Anti-kickback
More informationHealth IT: Practical Considerations for the Acquisition and Implementation of Electronic Data Warehouses
Health IT: Practical Considerations for the Acquisition and Implementation of Electronic Data Warehouses November 11, 2014 www.mwe.com Boston Brussels Chicago Düsseldorf Frankfurt Houston London Los Angeles
More informationPaging Providers, CMS Changes To Stark Law May Help You
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Paging Providers, CMS Changes To Stark Law May Help
More informationCMS Issues Final Phase III Regulations Significant Impact on Physician-Hospital and Physician-Driven Relationships
CMS Issues Final Phase III Regulations Significant Impact on Physician-Hospital and Physician-Driven Relationships Scott Becker, Partner 312.750.6016 sbecker@mcguirewoods.com Ron Lundeen, Associate 312.849.8106
More informationReimbursement Rules That Could Trip Up Hospital Attorneys THEMES
Reimbursement Rules That Could Trip Up Hospital Attorneys Cynthia F. Wisner Associate Counsel, Trinity Health 1 THEMES Medicare is eliminating grandfathering and bundling payments Lab technical fees 3
More informationA SELECTICA GUIDE ALL THINGS STARK LAW WHAT IS STARK LAW, AND HOW CAN CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE HELP YOU COMPLY?
A SELECTICA GUIDE ALL THINGS STARK LAW WHAT IS STARK LAW, AND HOW CAN CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE HELP YOU COMPLY? 1 A Selectica Guide All things Stark: What is Stark Law, and how can contract management
More informationSelf-Referral, Markups, Fee Splitting, and Related Practices (Policy Number 04-03)
The American Society for Clinical Pathology Policy Statement Self-Referral, Markups, Fee Splitting, and Related Practices (Policy Number 04-03) Policy Statement: ASCP strongly supports federal and state
More informationNew York State Public Health Law TITLE II-D HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER REFERRALS
New York State Public Health Law TITLE II-D HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER REFERRALS Sec. 238. Definitions. 238-a. Prohibition of financial arrangements and referrals. 238-b. Provider requests for payment. 238-c.
More informationStark Law Basics for Health Care Providers
Stark Law Basics for Health Care Providers Today s Webcast will begin promptly at Noon FOLLOW STEPTOE & JOHNSON ON TWITTER: Follow @Steptoe_Johnson ALSO FIND US ON http://www.linkedin.com/companies/216795
More informationIntroduction to the Anti-Kickback Statute
www.bakerdaniels.com Introduction to the Anti-Kickback Statute and Stark Law October 24, 2011 Isaac M. Willett Baker & Daniels LLP Federal Anti-Kickback Statute Prohibits the offering, paying soliciting
More informationPart II: Exploration of Common Exceptions to the Stark Law. Kristin Cilento Carter 410.347.7309 kccarter@ober.com
Part II: Exploration of Common Exceptions to the Stark Law Kristin Cilento Carter 410.347.7309 kccarter@ober.com Stark Exceptions: Bright line rules? Upon introducing the bill, Congressman Stark explained:
More informationCOMMENTARY. CMS Makes Changes to the Stark Law: Addressing Payment Reform, Reducing Burden, and Facilitating Compliance
DECEMBER 2015 COMMENTARY CMS Makes Changes to the Stark Law: Addressing Payment Reform, Reducing Burden, and Facilitating Compliance On November 16, 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
More informationSPECIAL ALERT OCTOBER 2007. Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. HEALTH CARE AND LIFE SCIENCES. ebglaw.com
SPECIAL ALERT HEALTH CARE AND LIFE SCIENCES The Special Alert is published by the Health Care and Life Sciences Practice to inform health care organizations of all types of new legal developments which
More informationHealth Care Compliance Association 888-580-8373 www.hcca-info.org
Volume Twelve Number Five Published Monthly Meet Miaja Cassidy Director of Healthcare Compliance at Target page 14 Feature Focus: Managing security risks in business associate relationships page 32 Earn
More informationRecent Stark Law Developments State Bar of Michigan Health Care Law Section December 2015
1 Recent Stark Law Developments State Bar of Michigan Health Care Law Section December 2015 Don Romano Of Counsel Foley & Lardner LLP Washington, DC (202) 945-6119 DRomano@foley.com Attorney Advertising
More informationDiagnostic Testing Equipment Leasing Companies Appear To Escape IDTF Enrollment Requirements
2008 American Health Lawyers Association December 19, 2008 Vol. VI Issue 48 Diagnostic Testing Equipment Leasing Companies Appear To Escape IDTF Enrollment Requirements By Thomas W. Greeson and Heather
More informationNew Stark Rules. New Stark Rules Tighten Physician Financial Arrangements
Compliance Overview: New Stark Rules CMS published revisions to the Stark Law regulations on August 19, 2008 as part of its Final Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) rule for 2009. 1 Changes made
More informationMay 8, 2013. The Honorable Fred Upton Chairman House Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20151
May 8, 2013 The Honorable Dave Camp Chairman House Committee on Ways and Means United States House of Representatives Washington D.C. 20515 The Honorable Fred Upton Chairman House Committee on Energy and
More informationHow to Determine Commercial Reasonableness of Hospital- Physician Compensation Arrangements
How to Determine Commercial Reasonableness of Hospital- Physician Compensation Arrangements AHLA Physicians Organizations Law Institute Phoenix, AZ February 11, 2013 Presenters: Marc Goldstone, Esq. Community
More informationIRS Releases Draft Instructions to Revised Form 990
IRS Releases Draft Instructions to Revised Form 990 April 22, 2008 Boston Brussels Chicago Düsseldorf Houston London Los Angeles Miami Munich New York Orange County Rome San Diego Silicon Valley Washington,
More informationThe Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act and Healthcare Reform: Implications for Compliance Initiatives and Fraud Investigations
The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act and Healthcare Reform: Implications for Compliance Initiatives and Fraud Investigations Presented by: Robert Threlkeld, Esq. Holly Pierson, Esq. Paul F. Danello,
More informationOIG Provides Guidance on Internet Advertising Under the Anti-Kickback Law
NUMBER 230 FROM THE LATHAM & WATKINS HEALTH CARE PRACTICE GROUP BULLETIN NO. 230 OCTOBER 25, 2002 OIG Provides Guidance on Internet Advertising Under the Anti-Kickback Law This Advisory Opinion offers
More informationFrequently Asked Questions Related to Change Request 7631 (Revised and Clarified Place of Service Coding Instructions)
Frequently Asked Questions Related to Change Request 7631 (Revised and Clarified Place of Service Coding Instructions) Change Request (CR) 7631 (Transmittal 2679) entitled Revised and Clarified Place of
More informationStark, False Claims and Anti- Kickback Laws: Easy Ways to Stay Compliant with the Big Three in Healthcare
Stark, False Claims and Anti- Kickback Laws: Easy Ways to Stay Compliant with the Big Three in Healthcare In health care, we are blessed with an abundance of rules, policies, standards and laws. In Health
More informationRegulatory Compliance Policy No. COMP-RCC 4.07 Title:
I. SCOPE: Regulatory Compliance Policy No. COMP-RCC 4.07 Page: 1 of 7 This policy applies to (1) any Hospital in which Tenet Healthcare Corporation or an affiliate owns a direct or indirect equity interest
More informationG-2. Report. Compliance. An ambitious health reform subtitle, Transforming the Health
G-2 Kimberly Scott, Managing Editor, kscott@ioma.com Carrie Valiant is a senior member of the health care and life sciences practice of the national law firm, EpsteinBeckerGreen, practicing in its Washington,
More informationO n Aug. 28, the Department of Health and Human
BNA s Health Law Reporter Reproduced with permission from BNA s Health Law Reporter, 24 HLR 1202, 9/17/15. Copyright 2015 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com HRSA
More informationI. Policy Purpose. II. Policy Statement. III. Policy Definitions: RESPONSIBILITY:
POLICY NAME: POLICY SPONSOR: FRAUD, WASTE AND ABUSE COMPLIANCE OFFICER RESPONSIBILITY: EFFECTIVE DATE: REVIEW/ REVISED DATE: I. Policy Purpose The purpose of this policy is to outline the requirements
More informationEarn CEU credit. James G. Sheehan. Pitfalls with Discharge Status Code corrections
Volume Ten Number Two Published Monthly Meet James G. Sheehan New York State Medicaid Inspector General page 14 Also: Auditing and Monitoring, Part Six: Bringing it all together with good management page
More informationLegal Alert. Long-Awaited 340B Program Guidance Now Available for Comments: What Stakeholders Need to Know. Authors
September 10, 2015 1 Legal Alert Authors Stephanie Trunk Partner stephanie.trunk@arentfox.com Erin E. Atkins Associate erin.atkins@arentfox.com Long-Awaited 340B Program Guidance Now Available for Comments:
More informationWashington Scene. Safe Harbor Rules issued for Medicare/Medicaid antikickback law
Washington Scene KATHLEEN A. MICHELS, RN, JD Director of Federal Government Affairs AANA Federal Government Affairs Office Washington, DC Safe Harbor Rules issued for Medicare/Medicaid antikickback law
More informationThe Stark Law Rules of the Road. An overview of the Stark Law to help interested physicians acquire an introductory knowledge of this intricate law
The Stark Law Rules of the Road An overview of the Stark Law to help interested physicians acquire an introductory knowledge of this intricate law Rules of the Road how physicians can navigate the Stark
More informationA Practical Guide to Stark Compliance Part 1: Stark Law 101: An Introduction to Physician Self- Referral
A smarter way to protect your brand A Practical Guide to Stark Compliance Part 1: Stark Law 101: An Introduction to Physician Self- Referral Presented by: Compliance 360 at a Glance Compliance, Risk and
More informationH.E.A.T. in healthcare fraud enforcement
2 Pro Te: Solutio turning up the H.E.A.T. in healthcare fraud enforcement Every healthcare provider involved in billing federal healthcare programs knows healthcare reform is a reality. The Patient Protection
More informationPROVIDER SERVICES OBTAINED UNDER ARRANGEMENTS STARK, ILLEGAL REMUNERATION, AND PROVIDER-BASED RULES. By Catherine T. Dunlay Dennis Barry 1
PROVIDER SERVICES OBTAINED UNDER ARRANGEMENTS STARK, ILLEGAL REMUNERATION, AND PROVIDER-BASED RULES By Catherine T. Dunlay Dennis Barry 1 I. MEDICARE PAYS HOSPITALS MORE THAN OTHER SUPPLIERS FOR THE SAME
More informationAVOIDING FRAUD AND ABUSE
AVOIDING FRAUD AND ABUSE Responsibility, Protection, Prevention Presented by: www.thehealthlawfirm.com Main Office: 1101 Douglas Avenue Altamonte Springs, FL 32714 Phone: (407) 331-6620 Fax: (407) 331-3030
More informationExpansion of the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) and Update on the First TALF Funding
Expansion of the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) and Update on the First TALF Funding March 26, 2009 Boston Brussels Chicago Düsseldorf Houston London Los Angeles Miami Milan Munich New
More informationQUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON FINAL STARK II RULES
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON FINAL STARK II RULES PLEASE NOTE: ASCRS and ASOA cannot provide specific legal advice as to whether an individual ophthalmology practice complies with the selfreferral ban. We
More informationSTARK AND ANTI-KICKBACK PROTECTION FOR E-PRESCRIBING AND ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS
STARK AND ANTI-KICKBACK PROTECTION FOR E-PRESCRIBING AND ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS Andrew B. Wachler, Esq. Adrienne Dresevic, Esq. Wachler & Associates, P.C. Royal Oak, Michigan On October 11, 2005, in
More informationA Roadmap for New Physicians. Avoiding Medicare and Medicaid Fraud and Abuse
A Roadmap for New Physicians Avoiding Medicare and Medicaid Fraud and Abuse Introduction This tutorial is intended to assist new physicians in understanding how to comply with Federal laws that combat
More informationCONTRACT COMPLIANCE GEORGIA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION CENTER FOR RURAL HEALTH ANNUAL SUMMER MEETING. August 13-15, 2014
GEORGIA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION CENTER FOR RURAL HEALTH ANNUAL SUMMER MEETING August 13-15, 2014 CONTRACT COMPLIANCE Daniel J. Mohan Partner Health Law Group CONTRACT COMPLIANCE Presentation will cover the
More informationHCCA 2013 COMPLIANCE INSTITUTE ANTI-KICKBACK STATUTE 101 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
UW MEDICINE HCAA 2013 Compliance Institute HCCA 2013 COMPLIANCE INSTITUTE ANTI-KICKBACK STATUTE 101 April 23, 2013 Robert S. Brown Senior Compliance Specialist UW Medicine Compliance SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
More informationThe Impact of the PPACA on Fraud and Abuse Issues
The Impact of the PPACA on Fraud and Abuse Issues American Bar Association May 5, 2010 Kirk Ogrosky, Arnold & Porter LLP Lisa M. Ohrin, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Donald H. Romano, Arent Fox LLP The Patient
More information11 Key Concepts from the Stark Law
11 Key Concepts from the Stark Law Scott Becker, Partner 312.750.6016 sbecker@mcguirewoods.com Ji Hye Kim, Associate 312.849.8222 jkim@mcguirewoods.com Jessica L. Smith, Associate 312.849.3687 jsmith@mcguirewoods.com
More informationDavis Wright Tremaine LLP Steve Lipton stevelipton@dwt.com. Robert G. Homchick roberthomchick@dwt.com
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Steve Lipton stevelipton@dwt.com Robert G. Homchick roberthomchick@dwt.com In fall of 2007 CMS released the Phase III Final Stark Regulations Since then CMS has produced nothing
More informationUnderstanding Group Practice Compensation Arrangements: How to Drive Yourself Stark Raving Mad!
Understanding Group Practice Compensation Arrangements: How to Drive Yourself Stark Raving Mad! I. Introduction Mike Segal, Esq., Broad and Cassel, Miami, Florida Michele Martello, Esq., Broad and Cassel,
More informationBill Moran and Betta Sherman
Compliance TODAY July 2013 a publication of the health care compliance association www.hcca-info.org How an eye doctor s son sees compliance an interview with Stephen Kiess Assistant General Counsel for
More informationHealth Law Section Spring Conference May 7, 2013 Scott S. Bell. parsonsbehle.com
ANTI-KICKBACK STATUTE AND STARK LAW UPDATE Health Law Section Spring Conference May 7, 2013 Scott S. Bell parsonsbehle.com Anti-Kickback Statute Don t pay for referrals! 2 Anti-Kickback Statute Prohibits
More informationDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. Medicare, Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Programs; Transparency Reports
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 02/08/2013 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2013-02572, and on FDsys.gov 1 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
More informationRe: Comments on the Physician Payments Sunshine Act of 2009, S. 301
May 14, 2009 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL The Honorable Charles E. Grassley Ranking Member, Committee on Finance United States Senate 219 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-6200 Health_Reform@finance-dem.senate.gov
More informationLaw Department Policy No. L-4 Title:
I. SCOPE: Law Department Policy No. L-4 Page: 1 of 10 This policy applies to (1) Tenet Healthcare Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiaries and affiliates (each, an Affiliate ); (2) any other entity
More informationUnderstanding Health Reform s
Compliance 101: Understanding Health Reform s New Compliance Requirements Uri Bilek Feldesman Tucker Leifer Fidell LLP Does your organization have a designated Compliance Officer? a. Yes b. No c. Don't
More informationTPG Capital, Vodafone, China Notice 698 and Beyond: Local Country Taxation of Transfers of Stock Involving Tiered Structures
TPG Capital, Vodafone, China Notice 698 and Beyond: Local Country Taxation of Transfers of Stock Involving Tiered Structures April 26, 2010 Boston Brussels Chicago Düsseldorf Houston London Los Angeles
More information6/12/2013. CMS Proposed Rule on Medicare Incentive Reward Program and Provider Enrollment
CMS Proposed Rule on Medicare Incentive Reward Program and Provider Enrollment 1 Background Medicare Program; Requirements for the Medicare Incentive Reward Program and Provider Enrollment Appeared in
More informationGood News for Rehabilitation Physicians
Good News for Rehabilitation Physicians by CHERILYN G. MURER, J.D., C.R.A. For physicians practicing rehabilitative medicine, recent regulations and program memoranda issued by CMS and the Department of
More informationHHS Releases Long-Awaited 340B Proposed Guidance
AUGUST 31, 2015 HHS Releases Long-Awaited 340B Proposed Guidance David Ivill, Emily Cook and Joseph Parise On August 27, 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released the long-awaited
More informationStark Law and Related Limitations on Financial Interests in Health Care Reimbursement
Stark Law and Related Limitations on Financial Interests in Health Care Reimbursement Linda Grimms, Assistant Attorney General Oregon Department of Justice January 6, 2012 Context This Report was prepared
More informationDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services News Flash Existing regulations at 42 CFR 424.510(e)(1)(2) require that at the time of enrollment, enrollment change request
More informationLESSONS LEARNED: CONDUCTING A COMPLIANCE REVIEW OF HOSPITAL-PHYSICIAN FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS
LESSONS LEARNED: CONDUCTING A COMPLIANCE REVIEW OF HOSPITAL-PHYSICIAN FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS presented by Dennis S. Diaz, Esq. Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Shannon G. Dwyer, Esq. Senior Vice President and
More informationStark and Anti-kickback Regulations: Proposed Changes for E-prescribing and Electronic Health Records
Regulatory Advisory This Regulatory Advisory, a special service to America s hospitals, contains guidance about physician self-referral and anti-kickback regulations. Stark and Anti-kickback Regulations:
More informationUPDATED. Special Advisory Bulletin on the Effect of Exclusion from Participation in Federal Health Care Programs
UPDATED Special Advisory Bulletin on the Effect of Exclusion from Participation in Federal Health Care Programs Issued May 8, 2013 Updated Special Advisory Bulletin on the Effect of Exclusion from Participation
More informationHow To Get A Medical Bill Of Health From A Member Of A Health Care Provider
Neighborhood requires compliance with all laws applicable to the organization s business, including insistence on compliance with all applicable federal and state laws dealing with false claims and false
More informationThe Affiliation of Swedish Medical Center and Minor & James Medical: A New Approach to Physician-Hospital Affiliations
MARCH 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BUSINESS LAW AND GOVERNANCE PRACTICE GROUP The Affiliation of Swedish Medical Center and Minor & James Medical: A New Approach to Physician-Hospital Affiliations Brent R. Eller,
More informationCompliance and Program Integrity Melanie Bicigo, CHC, CEBS mlbicigo@uphp.com 906-225-7749
Compliance and Program Integrity Melanie Bicigo, CHC, CEBS mlbicigo@uphp.com 906-225-7749 Define compliance and compliance program requirements Communicate Upper Peninsula Health Plan (UPHP) compliance
More informationOIG Open Letter Regarding the Self-Disclosure Protocol: Further Refinements
2009 American Health Lawyers Association April 17, 2009 Vol. VII Issue 15 OIG Open Letter Regarding the Self-Disclosure Protocol: Further Refinements By Ritu Kaur Singh, Frank E. Sheeder III, and Gerald
More informationACO Fraud and Abuse Provisions
MAY 6 2011 ACO Fraud and Abuse Provisions BY BRIAN P. DUNPHY AND ELLYN L. STERNFIELD On March 31, 2011, a little over a year after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), as amended by
More informationThe Evolution of Service Line Co-Management Relationships with Physicians - Key Observations on Relationships and Fair Market Value
Healthcare and Life Sciences The Evolution of Service Line Co-Management Relationships with Physicians - Key Observations on Relationships and Fair Market Value Presented by: Scott Safriet, HealthCare
More informationFederal and State Laws Relating to Referrals
POLICY: Federal and State Laws Relating to Referrals DATE: June 24, 2008 PAGES: 1 of 5 INTRODUCTION POLICY The process of referring patients to health care providers has been the subject of significant
More informationPREVENTING FRAUD, ABUSE, & WASTE: A Primer for Physical Therapists
PREVENTING FRAUD, ABUSE, & WASTE: A Primer for Physical Therapists Available at: http://www.apta.org/integrity 2014 American Physical Therapy Association. All rights reserved. All reproduction or redistribution
More informationUSC Office of Compliance
PURPOSE This policy complies with requirements under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and other federal and state fraud and abuse laws. It provides guidance on activities that could result in incidents
More informationTeaching Physician Billing Compliance. Effective Date: March 27, 2012. Office of Origin: UCSF Clinical Enterprise Compliance Program. I.
Teaching Physician Billing Compliance Effective Date: March 27, 2012 Office of Origin: UCSF Clinical Enterprise Compliance Program I. Purpose These Policies and Procedures are intended to clarify the Medicare
More informationHealth October 2005. Proposed Health Information Technology Protections Under New Antikickback Statute Safe Harbors and New Stark Exceptions
Health October 2005 Proposed Health Information Technology Protections Under New Antikickback Statute Safe Harbors and New Stark Exceptions On Tuesday, October 11, the Department of Health and Human Services
More informationDepartment of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD. Civil Remedies Division
Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD Civil Remedies Division Human Services Board Serving North Central Health Care (PTAN: 0750600001), Petitioner v. Centers for Medicare
More informationExpatriation - A Comparison of Tax Issues in the US & UK in an Increasingly Mobile World
Expatriation - A Comparison of Tax Issues in the US & UK in an Increasingly Mobile World Henry Christensen III Jay E. Rivlin www.mwe.com Boston Brussels Chicago Düsseldorf Frankfurt Houston London Los
More information340B Drug Pricing Program: Recent Developments and Compliance Update
340B Drug Pricing Program: Recent Developments and Compliance Update Elizabeth S. Elson, Esq. Anil Shankar, Esq. November 19, 2015 Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome
More informationWaivers of Certain Fraud and Abuse Laws Permitted in CJR Model
Health & FDA Business Alert Waivers of Certain Fraud and Abuse Laws Permitted in CJR Model November 2015 On Nov. 16, 2015, the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a Final Rule implementing
More informationInformal Corporate Disclosure in the Age of Twitter
Informal Corporate Disclosure in the Age of Twitter May 20, 2009 Boston Brussels Chicago Düsseldorf Houston London Los Angeles Miami Milan Munich New York Orange County Rome San Diego Silicon Valley Washington,
More information