Category Archives: Health Care Industry

The health care industry includes health care providers (hospitals, nursing homes, pain management clinics, doctor’s offices, surgical centers, rehab facilities, etc.) and health care professionals (physicians, nurses, dentists, pharmacists, therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, medical students, medical interns, hospital administrators, etc.). These health care providers and health care professionals are often the subject of legal issues.

The Ins and Outs of Florida’s 2015 Legislative Session for Health Care Providers

10 Indest-2008-7George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in the Legal Specialty of Health Law

Committees are busy in Tallahassee as the 2015 Legislative Session is set to begin on March 3, 2015. For Florida physicians and other health care providers, now is the time to review the legislative bills that could affect you and your practice. There are many bills pending that could impact the future of medical practice and health care delivery in Florida.

On the table are some recognizable bills from last year, as well as a few new ones. To stay up to date on the 2015 Legislative Session as it relates to health care, check this blog regularly.

Bills Up for Consideration.

The two most profiled issues from the 2014 Legislative Session are back.

– House Bill (HB) 547 and the companion Senate bill (SB) 614 would give nurse practitioners the ability to prescribe controlled substances. It would also expand their scope of practice, which would exempt them from the requirement that certain medical acts be performed or supervised by a physician. To learn more on this bill, click here for our previous blog.

– HB 545 and the companion Senate bill SB 478 defines what is determined to be telemedicine or telehealth. These bills call for coverage in Medicaid programs. Lawmakers state an agreement has been made to require health care providers to be licensed in Florida to provide telemedicine in the state. House and Senate leaders have expressed confidence they will reach an agreement this year on telemedicine. Click here to learn more on telemedicine in Florida.

Each bill could dramatically change the landscape of the practice of Florida medicine.

Keep an Eye on These Additional Bills.

Other pending bills that could impact the delivery of health care in Florida, include:

– SB 516 addresses insurance coverage and reimbursement issues for emergency services;

– HB 279 would allow pharmacy interns to administer vaccinations to adults;

– HB 281 and SB 532 would allow licensed physician assistants under physician supervision to order controlled substances in the hospital setting; and

– HB 515 and SB 710 revise the scope of physical therapists and prohibit individuals with doctorates in physical therapy to present themselves as a doctor without informing the public of his or her actual profession as a physical therapist.

In Conclusion.

The 2015 Legislative Session is packed with bills that, if approved, will affect physicians, physician assistants, nurses, and other health care providers. As a health care provider, knowing the ins and outs of these bills can save you from the headache and possible fines that could come from non-compliance. We urge you to become involved with these issues. If you would like to know more, you can contact your local medical society. Again, we will stay on top of the progress of these bills, so check this blog regularly.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys.

The Health Law Firm routinely represents physicians, pharmacists, pharmacies, optometrists, nurses and other health providers in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, litigation, HIPAA complaints and violations, NPDB actions, inspections and audits involving the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Health (DOH) and other law enforcement agencies. Its attorneys include those who are board certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at http://www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

Stone, Rick. “PAs, Nurse Practitioners Could Get Prescribing Authority.” Health News Florida. (February 11, 2015). From: http://health.wusf.usf.edu/post/pas-nurse-practitioners-could-get-prescribing-authority?utm_source=Health+News+Florida+eAlert+subscriber+list&utm_campaign=e231ee3f8a-Friday_February_13_20152_13_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8d22eaa6f6-e231ee3f8a-249582973

Saunders, Jim. “Telemedicine Deal Likely in 2015, Legislators Say.” Orlando Sentinel. (February 3, 2014). From: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/os-florida-telemedicine-deal-20150203-story.html

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. http://www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1999-2015 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Open for Registration: Telemedicine Association Begins Telemedicine Accreditation

Lance Leider headshotBy Lance O. Leider, J.D., The Health Law Firm

The American Telemedicine Association (ATA) recently announced that it was accepting a limited number of applications for its telemedicine provider accreditation program. According to the ATA the purpose of the accreditation is to recognize organizations that provide top-notch online health care services. The ATA calls the service its “Accreditation Program for Online Patient Consultations.”

Details on ATA’s Accreditation Program.

Eligibility to register and apply for accreditation is aimed at any United States based organization that provides real-time interactive doctor-patient interactions via live online video services. Currently the ATA is not certifying so-called “store-and-forward” providers. However, this may be a possibility in the future as this technology becomes more widely used.

The ATA’s standards for the accreditation program are modeled after those found in state and federal laws and regulations, industry best practices, and input from the community. The primary focus is on robust policies and procedures, appropriate areas of practice (i.e. online treatment is appropriate for the illness), and patient health and safety.

Telemedicine Laws Different in Every State.

As with any health care good or service, the rules and regulations differ widely from state to state and with federal payors like Medicare. It is important to check your state medical board’s rules and opinions on telemedicine to avoid disciplinary action for inadvertently violating the medical practice act or some other applicable regulation.

Also note some states that permit telemedicine still require the physician to be licensed in the state in which the patient resides. Before engaging in telemedicine services, you should also look at the regulations in the states in which your patients are located to see if you need to have a license. Being accredited, while certainly a step in the right direction, will not necessarily exempt you from compliance with the law.

There has been a recent push to expand the scope of telemedicine services that are payable by Medicare. If these efforts are successful, there will undoubtedly be a spike in the number of providers offering remote services. Additionally, many private insurers have been piloting programs to see if the purported savings offered by telemedicine actually reduce the cost of claims.

Comments?

What do you think about the ATA’s accreditation program? Where do you think telemedicine will be in five years? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Health Care Professionals and Providers.

At the Health Law Firm we provide legal services for all health care providers and professionals. This includes physicians, nurses, dentists, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, Durable Medical Equipment suppliers, medical students and interns, hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers, pain management clinics, nursing homes, and any other health care provider. We represent facilities, individuals, groups and institutions in contracts, sales, mergers and acquisitions.

The services we provide include reviewing and negotiating contracts, business transactions, professional license defense, representation in investigations, credential defense, representation in peer review and clinical privileges hearings, Medicare and Medicaid audits, commercial litigation, and administrative hearings. To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at http://www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

About the Author: Lance O. Leider is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. http://www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2015 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Physician Argues Definition of “Peer” at Formal Administrative Hearing

peer reviewFACTS: The Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) is responsible for administering Florida’s Medicaid program and conducting investigations and audits of paid claims to ascertain if Medicaid providers have been overpaid. With regard to investigations of physicians, section 409.9131, Florida Statutes, provides that AHCA must have a “peer” evaluate Medicaid claims before the initiation of formal proceedings by AHCA to recover overpayments. Section 409.9131(2)(c) defines a “peer” as “a Florida licensed physician who is, to the maximum extent possible, of the same specialty or subspecialty, licensed under the same chapter, and in active practice.” Section “109.9131(2)(a) deems a physician to be in “active practice” if he or she has “regularly provided medical care and treatment to patients within the past two years.”

Alfred Murciano, M.D., treats patients who are hospitalized in Level III neonatal intensive care units and pediatric intensive care units in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach County hospitals. His practice is limited to pediatric infectious disease. He has been certified by the American Board of Pediatrics in two areas: General Pediatrics and Pediatric Infectious Diseases. AHCA initiated a review of Medicaid claims submitted by Dr. Murciano between September 1, 2008, and August 31, 2010, and referred those claims to Richard Keith O’Hern, M.D., for peer review. Dr. O’Hern practiced medicine for 37 years, and was engaged in a private general pediatric practice until he retired in December of 2012. During the course of his career, he was certified by the American Board of Pediatrics in General Pediatrics, completed a one-year infectious disease fellowship at the The University of Florida, and treated approximately 16,000 babies with infectious disease issues. However, he was never board certified in pediatric infectious diseases, and at the time he reviewed Dr. Murciano’s Medicaid claims, Dr. O’Hern would have been ineligible for board certification in pediatric infectious diseases. In addition, Dr. O’Hern would have been unable to treat Dr. Murciano’s hospitalized patients in Level III NICUs and PICUs.

After Dr. O’Hern’s review, AHCA issued a Final Agency Audit Report alleging Dr Murciano had been overpaid by $l,051.992.99, and that he was required to reimburse AHCA for the overpayment. In addition, AHCA stated it was seeking to impose a fine of $210,398.60.

OUTCOME: Dr. Murciano argued at the formal administrative hearing that Dr O’Hern was not a “peer” as that term is defined in section 409.9131(20)(c). The ALJ agreed and issued a Recommended Order on May 22, 2014, recommending that AHCA’s case be dismissed because it failed to satisfy a condition precedent to initiating formal proceedings. While recognizing that AHCA is not required to retain a reviewing physician with the exact credentials as the physician under review, the ALJ concluded Dr. O’Hern was not of the same specialty as Dr. Murciano.

On July 31, 2014, AHCA rendered a Partial Final Order rejecting the ALJ’s conclusion that Dr. O’Hern was not a “peer.” In the course of ruling that it has substantive jurisdiction over such conclusions and that its interpretation of section 409.9131(2)(c), Florida Statutes, is entitled to deference, AHCA stated that it interprets the statute “to mean that the peer must practice in the same area as Respondent, hold the same professional license as Respondent, and be in active practice like Respondent.” AHCA concluded that “Dr. O’Hern is indeed a ‘peer’ of Respondent under the Agency’s interpretation of Section 409.9131(2)(c), Florida Statutes, because he too has a Florida medical license, is a pediatrician and had an active practice at the time he reviewed Respondent’s records. That Dr. O’Hern did not hold the same certification as Respondent, or have a professional practice identical to Respondent in no way means he is not a ‘peer’ of Respondent.” AHCA’s rejection of the ALJ’s conclusion of law regarding Dr. O’Hern’s “peer” status caused AHCA to remand the case back to the ALJ to make the factual findings on the claimed overpayments that were not made in the Recommended Order because of the ALJ’s conclusion that Dr. O’Hern did not qualify as a “peer.”

On August 18, 2014, the ALJ issued an Order respectfully declining AHCA’s remand. AHCA then filed a Petition for writ of Mandamus in the First District Court of Appeal, asking the court to direct the ALA to accept the remand and to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to each overpayment claim. The court assigned case number 1D14-3836 to AHCA’s Petition, and the case is pending.
Source:

AHCA v. Alfred Murciano, M.D., DOAH Case No. 13-0795MPI (Recommended Order May 22, 2014), AHCA Rendition No. 14-687-FOF-MDO (Partial Final Order July 31, 2014)
About the Author: The forgoing case summary was prepared by and appeared in the DOAH case notes of the Administrative Law Section newsletter, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Dec. 2014), a publication of the Administrative Law Section of The Florida Bar.

Cyber Attack at Community Health Systems Affects 4.5 Million Patients-Could This be a New Trend?

Patricia's Photos 013By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar  in Health Law

On August 18, 2014, Community Health Systems, a Tennessee-based hospital chain that has 206 hospitals in 29 states, announced that its computer system was hacked. According to a number of news reports, an outside group of hackers, originating in China, used highly sophisticated malware and technology to steal 4.5 million patients’ non-medical data. The hackers were able to obtain patients’ names, Social Security numbers, addresses, birth dates, and telephone numbers.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, in Florida, St. Cloud Surgical Associates, St. Cloud Medical Group, and Urology Associates of St. Cloud were among the practices where medical data was stolen. The article did not mention how many patients in Florida were affected. Click here to read the story from the Orlando Sentinel.

How Community Health Systems will Handle Being Hacked.

According to The New York Times, Community Health Systems believes the attacks happened from April to June 2014. The company will be notifying affected patients and agencies under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

The hospital system is now working with a security company to investigate the incident and help prevent future attacks. Federal law enforcement agents are also investigating the incident. Click here to read the entire article from The New York Times.

Because this breach affected more than 500 individuals, it will soon be posted on the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Wall of Shame. The law requires that any breach involving 500 or more individuals be publicly posted. To learn more on the Wall of Shame, click here for my previous blog.

Protect Your Practice As Best You Can From Cyber Attacks.

Cyber hacking in the medical community appears to be a crime of opportunity. Quickly there are becoming two types of companies: those that have been hacked and those that will be hacked.

While there is no way to guarantee protection from extrusion and external sources, there are steps that can be taken. For medical practices, many of these are required as part of a HIPAA risk assessment. Some areas to focus on include:

–    Background checks;
–    Comprehensive policies and procedures;
–    Vigilance when it comes to monitoring and data-leakage prevention tools; and
–    Employee education.

Medical practices are going to become bigger targets as the health care industry transitions to electronic health records. In addition, the hacking community is figuring out it is easier to hack a hospital or private practice, than it is a bank and you get the same information. To learn more on HIPAA risk assessments, click here.

Comments?

How do you protect your medical practice from hackers? Do you have regular risk assessments? Why or why not? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Contact a Health Law Attorney Experienced in Defending HIPAA Complaints and Violations.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm represent physicians, medical groups, nursing homes, home health agencies, pharmacies, hospitals and other health care providers and institutions in investigating and defending alleged HIPAA complaints and violations and in preparing Corrective Action Plans (CAPs).

For more information about HIPAA violations, electronic health records or corrective action plans (CAPs) please visit our website at http://www.TheHealthLawFirm.com or call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001.

Sources:

Perlroth, Nicole. “Hack of Community Health Systems Affects 4.5 Million Patients.” The New York Times. (August 18, 2014). From: http://nyti.ms/1pFpujC

Kutscher, Beth. “Chinese Hackers Hit Community Health Systems; Other Vulnerable.” Modern Healthcare. (August 18, 2014). From: http://bit.ly/1BxsLqH

Jacobson, Susan. “St. Cloud Medical Patients’ Information Among Millions Stolen in Cyber Attack.” (August 18, 2014). From: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-hospital-data-breach-st-cloud-20140818,0,3157319.story

Rose, Rachel. “Protecting Your Medical Practices From Cyber Threats.” Physicians Practice. (July 17, 2014). From: http://www.physicianspractice.com/blog/protecting-your-medical-practice-cyberthreats

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. http://www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2014 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Sexual Misconduct by Rogue Employees Can Cost Big Money: Your Responsibility as an Employer

2 Indest-2009-1By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

Johns Hopkins Health System agreed to shell out $190 million to more than 7,000 women and girls, in one of the largest settlements ever in the United States involving sexual misconduct by a physician.

A gynecologist, practicing in a Baltimore-based Johns Hopkins Hospital, one of the nation’s most prestigious medical institutions, was accused of using a tiny camera to secretly take videos and pictures of his patients. The doctor worked at the hospital for 25 years, but was fired after admitting to the misconduct and surrendering his recording devices to authorities.

This is a chilling example of how employers can be held responsible for “rogue” employees clearly not working under the consent of the employer. In general, employers have a responsibility to properly supervise their employees’ actions. As in this case, failure to do so can cost millions.

Background of the Case.

According to the Wall Street Journal, a co-worker tipped off Johns Hopkins officials that the gynecologist was wearing a pen around his neck that looked like a camera. In February 2013, an investigation revealed that the gynecologist secretly used the device in question to photograph and videotape thousands of women and girls during pelvic exams. The investigation found that the doctor’s camera captured 1,200 videos and 140 images of his patients, that were then stored on his computer. The doctor was fired in February 2013, and committed suicide days later.

Click here to read the entire article from the Wall Street Journal.

“Rogue” Employee.

In this case, Johns Hopkins states that insurance will cover the entire $190 million settlement. The preliminary agreement is awaiting final approval from a judge. In a statement, Johns Hopkins’ attorney said that the hospital was unaware of the doctor’s conduct, and that he had become a “rogue” employee. The hospital sent out letters of apology to the gynecologist’s patient list, calling the incident a “breach of trust.”

Click here to read all of the statements from Johns Hopkins Medicine in regard to this incident.

Employer’s Responsibility.

The lawsuit against Johns Hopkins alleged that the hospital failed to properly supervise the doctor and should have known of his alleged misconduct.

This situation brings up an interesting point, even though the employee was acting on his own accord, the health system would still likely have been held liable if the case was not settled.

Employers are generally “vacariously liable” for their employees’ actions. The basic idea of vicarious liability or the doctrine of respondeat superior is that an employer is held responsible for the negligent acts of its employee that cause injuries to a third party, provided that such acts were committed during the course of and within the scope of the employment.

To establish that the employee’s conduct was within the scope of employment:

1. The conduct must have occurred substantially within the time and space limits authorized by the employment;
2. The employee must have been motivated, at least partially, by a purpose to serve the employer; and
3. The act must have been of a kind that the employee was hired to perform.

In certain circumstances, including the example of the gynecologist, an employer’s vicarious liability can extend to intentional or even criminal acts committed by the employee.

Vicarious liability is a powerful concept and, as evident by the Johns Hopkins case, can result in an employer being responsible for significant sums of money. Employers should institute policies which curb activities that could be injurious to others. The employer has a responsibility to monitor employees and immediately investigate any suspicious activity.

Despite the fact that Johns Hopkins acted quickly, the hospital system will still most likely be left holding a settlement sum of $190 million for actions of an employee.

Comments?

As an employer, how do you make sure your employees aren’t acting on their own or violating company policies and procedures? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Contact Health Attorneys Experienced in Health Law and Employment Law.

The Health Law Firm represents both employers and employees in the health care industry in defending allegations of sexual misconduct and other complaints from employees and patients. We represent employers in unemployment compensation hearings, in defending against EEOC (discrimination) complaints, and in defending litigation involving wage and hour disputes, as well as other types of contract or employment litigation. We also can investigate such allegations and attempt to negotiate settlements where warranted. Our attorneys represent individuals and institutions in litigation, civil or administrative, state or federal.

To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at http://www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

Linderman, Juliet. “Hopkins Pays $190M in Pelvis Exam Pix Settlement.” Associated Press. (July 22, 2014). From: http://apne.ws/UquXOI

Levitz, Jennifer. “Johns Hopkins Agrees to $190 Million Exam-Photos Settlement.” Wall Street Journal. (July 21, 2014). From: http://online.wsj.com/articles/johns-hopkins-hospital-agrees-to-190-million-exam-photos-settlement-1405961572

Johns Hopkins Hospital. “Statement from Johns Hopkins Medicine on the recent news surrounding Nikita Levy, M.D.” Hopkins Medicine. (July 21, 2014). From: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/Nikita_Levy.html

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. http://www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

 

The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2014 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Why Have You Received a Denial on Your Medicare Enrollment Application?

GFI Blog LabelBy George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law and Christopher E. Brown, J.D., The Health Law Firm

Did you receive a denial on your Medicare enrollment application and can’t figure out why? You may be surprised to find out that even the smallest punctuation error, such as a missing comma or period, could be the reason Medicare rejected your application.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will deny Medicare applications of physicians, medical groups, home health agencies (HHAs), pharmacies and durable medical equipment (DME) suppliers because the name on file with the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System (NPPES) is not the same legal business name as reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The use of punctuation marks and abbreviations in your name with NPPES could produce a no match in the CMS records. It is imperative when filling out the Medicare enrollment forms that you use the exact legal business name on file with the IRS.

The easiest way for a health care provider or facility to apply for enrollment or make changes to enrollment information is to use the internet-based Provider Enrollment Chain and Ownership System (PECOS). Click here to utilize PECOS.

Other Reasons Why a Medicare Enrollment Application can be Denied.

Here are some more situations that can cause a provider’s application to be denied:

1. The form CMS-855 or PECOS certification statement is unsigned; is undated; contains a copied or stamped signature; or for the paper form CMS-855I and form CMS-855O submissions, someone other than the physician or non-physician practitioner signed the form.
2. The submitted paper application is an outdated version.
3. The applicant failed to submit all of the forms needed to process a reassignment package within 15 calendar days of receipt.
4. The form CMS-855 was completed in pencil.
5. The wrong application was submitted (for example: a form CMS-855B was submitted for Part A enrollment).
6. If a web-generated application is submitted, it does not appear to have been downloaded from the CMS website.
7. The health care provider sent in an application or PECOS certification statement via fax or e-mail when he/she was not otherwise permitted to do so.
8. The health care provider failed to submit an application fee (if applicable to the situation).

Update All of Your Information with Medicare.

If you are already a Medicare provider, I urge you to personally go into the PECOS and NPPES and print out a copy of the existing information to check it.

If anything is incorrect, including an incorrect or incomplete name for your medical group, corporation or business, immediately fix this. Everything should be consistent. All of your state licenses and corporation/company information on file with your Secretary of State should also contain the same information as well.

Incorrect Information Could Lead to the Termination of Your Medicare Provider Number.

The consequences of not checking your information on file are severe, and can include termination of your Medicare provider number and billing privileges.

The effect of this termination includes:

– You are prohibited from reapplying to Medicare for at least two years.
– You may have to pay back any money received from the Medicare program since the effective date of the termination (often many months prior to the notification letter).
– Other auditing agents may be notified such as the Medicare Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPICs) and the state Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU).
– You may no longer contract with Medicare or anyone who does.
– You may and probably will be terminated from the approved provider panels of health insurance companies with which you are currently contracted.
– You may and probably will be terminated from skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and HHAs with which you have contracts.
– You may and probably will have your clinical privileges terminated by hospitals or ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs).

To read our recommendations on what to do if your Medicare provider number is terminated, click here to read my previous blog.

Comments?

Did you know that even the smallest punctuation errors could lead to a denial of your application for Medicare enrollment? Have you ever had an issue enrolling in the Medicare program? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Don’t Wait Too Late; Consult with a Health Law Attorney Experienced in Medicare and Medicaid Issues Now.

The lawyers of The Health Law Firm routinely represent physicians, medical groups, clinics, pharmacies, durable medical equipment (DME) suppliers, home health agencies, nursing homes and other healthcare providers in Medicare and Medicaid investigations, audits and recovery actions. They also represent them in preparing and submitting corrective action plans (CAPs), requests for reconsideration, and appeal hearings, including Medicare administrative hearings before an administrative law judge. Attorneys of The Health Law Firm represent health providers in actions initiated by the Medicaid Fraud Control Units (MFCUs), in False Claims Act cases, in actions initiated by the state to exclude or terminate from the Medicaid Program or by the HHS OIG to exclude from the Medicare Program.

Call now at (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 or visit our website www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

About the Authors: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

Christopher E. Brown, J.D., is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2014 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

CMS in the Hot Seat for Lax Oversight of Medicaid Managed Care Organizations

LLA Headshot smBy Lenis L. Archer, J.D., M.P.H., The Health Law Firm

For years, each state has kept an eye on its own Medicaid managed care plans, while the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is required to monitor how well each individual state is doing. However, a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report claims CMS is sleeping on the job. The report, released on June 20, 2014, stresses the need for more federal oversight of these plans.

With the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the Medicaid program is expected to expand significantly. Most of the new beneficiaries enrolled in managed care are covered almost entirely by federal funds. The need for federal oversight in this area is of growing importance to ensure accountability of taxpayers’ dollars.

To read the entire report from the GAO, click here.

Report Findings: MCOs Need to be Watched by the Feds.

The persistent theme of the GAO report is that CMS and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have done little to control the integrity of managed care organizations (MCOs). Federal programs have delegated managed care supervision to each individual state, but fail to provide needed guidelines and resources. CMS has not updated its MCO program guidance since 2000.

The report found neither state nor federal programs are well positioned to identify improper payments made to MCOs. Further, these programs are unable to ensure that MCOs are taking appropriate actions to identify, prevent or discourage improper payments.

For example, the report looked at state program integrity (PI) units and Medicaid Fraud Control Units (MFCU) from seven states. These anti-fraud groups admitted to primarily focusing their efforts on Medicaid fee-for-service claims. Meanwhile, claims made to MCOs have flown under their radar.

GAO Recommendations.

The GAO recommends that CMS:

– Require states to conduct audits of payments to and by MCOs;

– Update its managed care guidance program integrity practices and effective handling of MCO recoveries; and

– Provide states with additional support in overseeing MCO program integrity.

The GAO also suggests that CMS increase its oversight, especially as states expand their Medicaid programs. The GAO report recommends CMS take a bigger role in holding states accountable to ensure adequate program integrity efforts in the Medicaid managed care program. If CMS does not step up to the plate, the report predicts a growing number of federal Medicaid dollars will become vulnerable to improper payments.

The Future of MCOs.

If this report is taken seriously, be assured that audits of MCOs will become more frequent and extensive. If CMS ramps up their efforts, claims could be reviewed in detail by Medicaid integrity contractors. Now is the time to verify you are in compliance and receiving proper payments; before CMS turns the magnifying glass on you or your facility .

Comments?

What do you think of the GAO’s assessment of MCOs? Do you think CMS needs to step up and provide more oversight? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Handling Medicaid Audits, Investigations and other Legal Proceedings.

Medicaid fraud is a serious crime and is vigorously investigated by the state MFCU, the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), the Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPICs), the FBI, and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Other state and federal agencies, including the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), and other law enforcement agencies often participate. Don’t wait until it’s too late. If you are concerned about possible violations and would like a confidential consultation, contact a qualified health attorney familiar with medical billing and audits today. Often Medicaid fraud criminal charges arise out of routine Medicaid audits, probe audits, or patient complaints.

The Health Law Firm’s attorneys routinely represent physicians, dentists, orthodontists, medical groups, clinics, pharmacies, assisted living facilities (AFLs), home health care agencies, nursing homes, group homes and other healthcare providers in Medicaid and Medicare investigations, audits and recovery actions. To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

Mullaney, Tim. “Federal Government Needs to Boost Medicaid Managed Care Oversight, GAO Says.” McKnight’s Long-Term Care & Assisted Living. (June 20, 2014). From: http://www.mcknights.com/federal-government-needs-to-boost-medicaid-managed-care-oversight-gao-says/article/356779/

Adamopoulos, Helen. “GAI Calls on CMS to Increase Medicaid Managed Care Oversight.” Becker’s Hospital Review. (June 20, 2014). From: http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/gao-calls-on-cms-to-increase-medicaid-managed-care-oversight.html

Bergal, Jenni. “Advocates Urge More Government Oversight of Medicaid Managed Care.” Kaiser Health News. (July 5, 2013). From: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2013/july/05/medicaid-managed-care-states-quality.aspx?referrer=search

About the Author: Lenis L. Archer is as attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2012 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.