Nearly half of U.S. States have already expanded the scope of nursing practice and several more are analyzing whether it is appropriate. The debate between physicians and nurses regarding how much autonomy a nurse should be given is a political hotbed that will likely be revisited by the legislature in the near future. Until that time, the Board of Medicine and the Board of Nursing will quietly continue to enforce the present requirements. Here’s how they stand today:
Under Florida’s current laws, in addition to the practice of professional nursing, an advanced registered nurse practitioner (“ARNP”) may perform acts of medical diagnosis, treatment and prescription. However, for the most part, such acts must be performed under the general supervision of a physician. The nature of such a supervisory relationship should be identified in a protocol which identifies the medical acts to be performed and the conditions for their performance. Continue reading →
A healthcare provider’s “billed charge” is usually the total charges billed before applying any contractual discounts. Where there are no contractual relations, a provider’s charge may be considered the equivalent of fair market value for the service provided. But what is fair market value? If the provider is contracted the rate is confidential and not subject to disclosure. If the provider is non-contracted, there is no standard billing rate for providers, making it difficult to get reliable rate data on what is fair market value for similar services or similar providers. One Florida court has found that “fair market value” is the price that a willing buyer will pay and a willing seller will accept in an arm’s length transaction. Continue reading →
Though it can be tempting to offer help to patients in this era of sky high healthcare costs, out-of-network physicians must remember that they should not only be collecting copayments and deductibles from their patients at the time of service and before they leave the office, but also that collecting these payments is their obligation. For physicians and other providers who engage in the practice of failing to collect payments there is a significant legal exposure under federal and state laws including civil litigation brought by commercial health plans, managed care organizations and medical benefit managers regarding routine waiver of these payments. Continue reading →
When a physician cannot bill for test results, and a company offers to give that physician those test results for free, a Florida Federal Court has ruled that the company is offering the physician prohibited remuneration. On May 5, 2014 the Middle District of Florida granted partial summary judgment on the latest motion in a contentious litigation between Ameritox Ltd. and Millennium Laboratories, Inc. Ameritox and Millennium are competitors and clinical laboratories that screen urine specimens for the presence of drugs.
Millennium provided free point of care testing cups to physicians, who use the cups for initial testing and then return the cups back to Millennium for confirmation tests. Physicians do not bill patients or insurance companies for the point of care tests. Continue reading →
“Shoot, ready, aim” might be the right approach in many situations—like in war or when your kid runs into the street. But the approach never makes much sense in the context of law making. The best law making involves careful analysis, ensuring public protection and basically doing the best for the most (people). The issue of medical marijuana seems, however, to be driven by self interest and seems lacking in balanced and serious concern for the public. Reader caution: this article isn’t intended to subliminally advertise this law firm. It’s just venting, plain and simple.
On August 29, 2013, the Federal Department of Justice issued a memorandum stating it will continue to rely on state and local authorities to address marijuana activity through enforcement of state narcotics laws. Nevertheless, in light of new state laws allowing for possession of a small amounts of marijuana and regulating production, processing and sale of marijuana, the Department designated eight criteria to guide state law enforcement. States must (1) prevent the distribution of marijuana to minors; (2) prevent revenue from the sale of marijuana from flowing to criminal enterprises; (3) prevent the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal to states where it is illegal; (4) prevent marijuana activity from being used as a cover for the trafficking of other illegal drugs; (5) prevent violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana; (6) prevent drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use; (7) prevent the growth of marijuana on public lands; and (8) prevent marijuana possession or use on federal property. In the event that the Federal Government determines that States are not adhering to such criteria, the Federal Government reserves its right to challenge State laws. The Feds didn’t say how any of that was to be done. They simply said the states should do that. But Florida has apparently been looking the other way. Continue reading →
The Federal Government lists marijuana as a “Schedule I” controlled substance, meaning it has a high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use. 21 USC § 812(b)(1). Because there is no current accepted medical use, Federal law prohibits physician from issuing prescriptions for marijuana. 21 CFR § 1306.04(a). However, the Federal Government has traditionally deferred to the States to prosecute small-scale marijuana violations. This lack of Federal enforcement has encouraged the States to enact less stringent controls on the marijuana industry. Continue reading →
Lately we’ve noticed an uptick in criticism of toxicology labs that are owned by the substance abuse treatment programs and recovery residences that refer to them. Sadly, this criticism seems to be coming from within the addiction and recovery industry itself. In addition to being absolutely necessary for substance abuse treatment, toxicology screens have become a meaningful source of revenue that helps to fund treatment programs and scholarships for those who cannot afford to pay the full cost of treatment. We cannot understand why the substance abuse treatment industry would want to help pull the rug out from under itself, but that seems to be what is occurring. Under the current state of Florida law, toxicology labs can be owned by their referral sources without much risk if that arrangement is properly structured. Continue reading →