Tag Archives: healthcare law

OIG Opines that Charities Allowed to Help with Patients’ Insurance Obligations

Posted on by

financial hardshipBy: Jacqueline Bain

In the healthcare business, giving a patient a break on a health insurance copay is often viewed as suspicious. The reasoning for the suspicion is that the financial incentive may give one provider a competitive advantage over another, or persuade a patient to seek services that might not be medically necessary.  Moreover, any person who interferes with a patient’s obligations under his/her health insurance contract may be viewed as tortuously interfering with that contract. However, in an advisory opinion issued on December 28, 2016, the OIG opined that, in certain instances, a non-profit, tax-exempt, charitable organization could provide financial assistance with an individual’s co-payment, health insurance premiums and insurance deductibles when a patient exhibits a financial need.

The party requesting the advisory opinion was a non-profit, tax-exempt, charitable organization that did not provide any healthcare services and served one specified disease. The non-profit, tax-exempt, charitable organization is governed by an independent board of directors with no direct or indirect link to any donor. Donors to the non-profit, tax-exempt, charitable organization may be referral sources or persons in a position to financially gain from increased usage of their services, but may not earmark funds and or have any control over where their donation is directed. Continue reading →

SHOOT, READY, AIM: Palm Beach County’s Blind Shot at the Addiction Treatment Industry

Posted on by

addiction treatment industryBy: Jeff Cohen

We should all be afraid when there is a “war” declared on anything in our culture because it usually means the complex will be simplified, the innocent will be presumed guilty, details will be ignored and the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater.  Nowhere is that more apparent than the current War on Sober Homes in Palm Beach County.

When we read the stories published by the Palm Beach Post, we learn things like–

  • It is illegal for a sober home to receive payment from an addiction treatment facility for providing so called “case management” services;
  • Addiction treatment providers unethically bill thousands of dollars for urine tests that could be provided for pennies via a cup for sale at Walgreens; and
  • The Patient Brokering Act, a state criminal law, is being broken left and right by sober homes and addiction treatment providers.

Hooey!  It’s completely misleading.  Here’s why:

Case Management Issue.  The arrangement reported In the Post and described in charging documents describes a business arrangement where sober homes are paid by state licensed addiction treatment providers for helping addicts along their path of recovery.  Addiction treatment sees these patients maybe 20 hours a week.  Where are they the rest of the time?  What are they doing?  Addicts seeking treatment often have soft life skills from being off the grid, are often receiving assistance from supportive staff at sober homes who help them get on their feet.  They often come into treatment with no clothes, no money, no food, no job skills and a whole host of medical and psycho social needs.  And addiction treatment facilities want (and sometimes pay for) sober home staff to serve a function in the continuum of care, sometimes want to give them food cards, clothing, cigarettes and whatever they need to accept treatment.  And our sole focus is to do what, focus our regulatory attention on a business relationship that may exist in the treatment industry?  Continue reading →

PAs and ARNPs and Prescribing Controlled Substances

Posted on by

ARNP controlled substancesBy: Jacqueline Bain

For many years, medical providers and regulators have wrestled with whether Advance Registered Nurse Practitioners (“ARNPs”) and Physician Assistants (“PAs”) should be able to prescribe controlled substances.  This past legislative session, several bills were signed into law allowing ARNPs and PAs to prescribe controlled substances subject to several limitations and restrictions. This article will set forth a broad overview of the bills. However, if your practice intends to use ARNPs or PAs to prescribe controlled substances, we strongly recommend that each practitioner is educated about the boundaries set forth in the new law. For instance, there are restrictions on prescribing certain controlled substances in certain circumstances, prescribing controlled substances within a pain management clinic, and prescribing controlled substances for persons under age 18. It is important that all practitioners are properly educated prior to engaging in prescribing or dispensing any controlled substances.

Advance Registered Nurse Practitioners

ARNPs may prescribe or dispense Schedule II, III or IV controlled substances if they have graduated from a program leading to a master’s or doctoral degree in a clinical nursing specialty area with training in specialized skills and have completed 3 hours of continuing education on the safe and effective prescription of controlled substances. ARNPs must limit their prescriptions of Schedule II controlled substances to a 7-day supply. However, this restriction does not apply to psychiatric ARNPs who are prescribing psychiatric medications. Continue reading →

The OIG Addresses Free Patient Transportation Issues

Posted on by

vanBy: Jacqueline Bain

The issue of whether a medical provider can provide free patient transport is one that we are asked to look into a few times every year. Aside from the liability issues that it raises, it is one that we have never been able to justify from an Anti-Kickback and Patient Brokering perspective.  The fact is, even given the good intentions of most providers to allow their patients easier access to healthcare, transporting patients to and from your facility or practice is providing them with something of value in return for coming to see you.  However, under slightly different facts than we are usually asked to consider the question, last week, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) came to a different conclusion.

The OIG issued an advisory opinion upon the request of a hospital system who had asked whether it could provide free transportation to persons who had limited access to public transportation to access the hospital’s facilities. The hospital system offered that the town had inadequate and infrequent public transportation services which would act as a barrier to healthcare for local residents.  The hospital system offered the following facts for consideration: Continue reading →

Addiction Treatment is a Story in Search of a Villain

Posted on by

healthcare business

Hastiness and superficiality are the psychic diseases of the twentieth century, and more than anywhere else this disease is reflected in the press— Alexander Solzhenitsyn

By: Jeff Cohen

I read an article in a local paper the other day.  It was about (a) a guy who owned a treatment center (who has not been charged with committing a crime), (b) a lawsuit filed by a large insurance company against a toxicology lab that the insurer owes millions, and (c) the fact that insurance companies pay a lot for toxicology lab testing.  I scratched my head, wondering how there was anything newsworthy there.  The “story” being sold by the paper, however, created a story with a villain (the providers of services to people in recovery from drug and alcohol addiction) and a “victim” (people receiving care for addiction).  I can’t resist responding.

There’s a difference between something that’s interesting and worthy of comment vs. a journalistic attempt to concoct controversy and intrigue that people might buy.  There’s not much of the former, but a lot of the latter.  People in recovery being victimized by horrible, greedy people is an interesting story.  Unfortunately, it’s off the mark and really not helpful to anyone.

There are three pretty safe assumptions we can almost all agree on:  first, there are a lot of people who want to live life without active addiction.  Second, many of them think they need help to create a better life.  Third, some providers of help to people in recovery make a bunch of money providing that service. Continue reading →

Avoiding Delays in License Renewals

Posted on by

Florida Medical BoardIt’s almost renewal time once again for many health care practitioners.  If this is your renewal cycle, please note the following information provided by the Florida Board of Medicine, which can help you avoid some of the most common delays encountered with license renewals.

It is important to remember the upcoming renewal is the first to have mandatory continuing medical education reporting requirements.  If you have not done so, please activate your account with CE Broker and ensure that all required CME you have completed for this renewal has been uploaded.

Most of the medical practitioners renewing will be required to submit the following:

  • Completed renewal application
  • Required fees
  • Evidence that you have practiced medicine or have been on the active faculty of an accredited medical school for at least two years of the immediately preceding four years
  • Completion of Financial Responsibility form
  • Completion of Physician Workforce Survey
  • Verification of Physician Profile
  • Verification of your current status relating to prescribing controlled substances for the treatment of chronic non-malignant pain

Continue reading →

Florida Recovery Residences on the Chopping Block

Posted on by

gavelTwo separate legislative proposals are aimed to tighten up the sober home industry.  The Bills follow on the heels of legislation proposed last year, which did not become law.  We have a couple weeks left till the Legislative session ends (May 1st), after which time we will see what regulation made its way through the process.  Until then, it’s important to have an idea of what is on the horizon.

Committee Substitute for House Bill 21 and Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 326 contain the following interesting features—

Creates “voluntary” certification for recovery residences;

A. Specifies the requirement of a “recovery residence administrator;”

B. Specifies that the credentialing entity of both the recovery residence and the recovery residence administrator will be a nonprofit organization (not necessarily one that is tax exempt) that “develops, administers professional, facility, or organization certification programs according to applicable nationally recognized certification or psychometric standards,” and requires the credentialing entity to:

  • Establish the recovery residence certification requirements. Interestingly, the Legislature, which states that those in recovery are vulnerable and need to be protected, is offloading to an unspecified nonprofit organization (which anyone can form in five minutes) the responsibility for developing certification requirements;
  • Establish procedures to, among other things, to monitor, inspect and insure compliance with the certification requirements established by this unspecified nonprofit organization entrusted by the state of Florida with this responsibility;
  • Require recovery residences (who are volunteering to be regulated) to submit documents such as job descriptions, drug testing procedures and requirements, to be managed by a “certified recovery residence administrator.”

The Bill also states that a recovery residence cannot be certified if an owner, director or CFO plead guilty, no contest or was found guilty of certain offenses.  Moreover, the non-governmental, not for profit certifying body has authority to suspend or revoke a certification if the entity determines the residence isn’t complying with the law.  No due process is required.  Oh, and finally, as of July 1, 2016, a provider licensed under Chapter 397 may not refer a patient (current or discharged) to a recovery residence unless the residence, which is not required to be certified, actually becomes certified, making the voluntary certification requirement, ummm….mandatory! Continue reading →

Protecting Your Practice Through Restrictive Covenants

Posted on by

Contract CWBy: Charlene Wilkinson

The beginning of a new year is a great time to evaluate your medical practice and determine ways to protect its healthy growth for the future.  The time, effort and dedication that it may take to build a successful practice may be quickly undermined without certain contractual protections in place.   As you seek to establish or expand your practice, it is essential to protect your hard earned efforts from employees and consultants taking a portion of your patient base, employees and valuable proprietary business processes to compete against you.

One of the ways physicians seek to protect the investment that they have made in their practice is through the use of restrictive covenants. Restrictive covenant is an all-inclusive term used to refer to all contractual restrictions upon competitive practices; nonsolicitation; confidential information and use of trade practices.  Restrictive covenants may be found in a number of documents related to your practice. A restrictive covenant may be found in your practice governing documents, such as the shareholder agreement, the partnership agreement of a partnership or the operating agreement of a limited liability company. A restrictive covenant is often included in an employment contract where it prevents an employee from engaging in certain competitive practices while they are an employee and for a period of time after their employment ends. There may be a restrictive covenant provision in a contract for the sale of a party’s interest in the practice. Continue reading →

Breaking Down Legal Buzzwords: Fair Market Value & Commercial Reasonableness

Posted on by

book-stacks-colorful.jpgBy: Jackie Bain

Federal fraud and abuse laws often require that arrangements between health care providers are “fair market value” and “commercially reasonable.” And while these terms look like legalese and are easy to overlook, in fact, they are important. For example, the Federal Stark law requires strict compliance with its terms. A physician may enter into a prohibited arrangement with the intention that it falls within an exception to the law. If, however, the arrangement is not fair market value, the physician’s arrangement would violate the law, subject the physician to fines and risk the physician’s ability to participate in Medicare.  Continue reading →

Recovery Business Industry Forced to Grow Up Fast

Posted on by

bcbs lawsuitBy: Jeff Cohen

When Horizon Blue Cross/Blue Shield of New Jersey blasted Avee Laboratories in connection with a variety of business practices, some of which included kickback violations (in connection with the provision of POCT cups), businesses in the drug and alcohol recovery space took notice.  With the recent FBI raid on a Palm Beach County sober house and the amped up attention of managed care payers to clinical lab testing, the industry is reeling!  The good news, however, is that these recent developments, along with increased payor scrutiny (and payment denial!), is a call to compliance that has long seemed inapplicable to an industry that has been able for many years to operate with simplicity not found in other segments of the healthcare business community.  Where facilities once viewed DCF as the only regulatory parent they had to please, they are now learning there is a far greater degree of regulatory complexity to be considered; and they are rushing towards compliance. Continue reading →