Little Health Law Blog

Cell Phones and Medical Malpractice

March 5, 2015 | Little Health Law

Post by Guest Author: Gyalia Rutledge RN, LNC

mobile-phone-in-hand-1438231-1-m Attorneys are increasingly becoming aware of distractions caused by cell phones, tablets and other technology in the clinical setting and how they play a role in medical malpractice cases. In fact, attorneys are now advertising statistics about “Distracted Doctors” on their website in hopes of garnering new clients. Interestingly, what they are advertising is happening and the number of instances is steadily increasing and ever more apparent in today’s medical malpractice cases.

In December 2011, The New York Times quoted doctors who have witnessed others texting, updating Facebook, and shopping at Amazon and eBay during surgical procedures. According to a survey in Perfusion, half of the heart-monitor technicians stated they’ve texted during surgery along with 55% of OR technicians who stated they made cell phone calls while in surgery – though 40% of that number admitted it was an unsafe practice. Additional examples found in literature include nurses not taking care of patients because they were on their phone at the nurse’s station; an anesthesiologist on Facebook while monitoring a patient during surgery; a neurosurgeon making personal calls during an operation; a nurse checking airfares during surgery; and a poll showing that half of the technicians running a bypass machine admitting to texting during a procedure.

As a result of these technological distractions, physicians can be sued for medical mistakes caused by inattentiveness. Hospitals that employ distracted nurses and operating room technicians and other patient care staff, can also face lawsuits under the legal theory of “respondeat superior,” which holds an employer liable for employees’ negligence.

Georgia Medical Practices: Not Having a Compliance Program is AT YOUR FINANCIAL PERIL

February 26, 2015 | Little Health Law

law-education-series-3-68918-m Some critical details of The Affordable Care Act (ACA) are often omitted from the political rhetoric and other noise during public debate about whether the ACA is a “good” or “bad” thing. One such detail – and a huge one – is the ACA’s significant expansion of compliance risks for medical practices and other health care entities.

Our Georgia business and health care law firm follows compliance and other developing regulatory issues that impact the business of providing health care. The ACA mandates that health care providers, suppliers and nursing facilities who participate in Medicare or other federal programs establish effective compliance and ethics programs. See ACA § 6401. The United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General (OIG) made the creation of guidelines for compliance programs a “major initiative” in its efforts to stem health care fraud. See Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 1994. Copies of the OIG’s compliance program guidelines are on the government’s OIG website.

The OIG has formulated seven basic components that may serve as the core of a proper compliance program:

ICD-10 Implementation: What To Do Now

February 19, 2015 | Little Health Law

Post by Guest Author: Robert F. Polglase, MD, JD, CHCQM

stethoscope-notepad-1004854-m On Wednesday February 11, 2015 the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on healthcare held its much-awaited hearing on ICD-10 implementation, scheduled for October 1, 2015.

Since the implementation delay last year, many providers have slowed down or stopped their preparation for the ICD-10 transition in hopes of another delay, or outright abandonment of the ICD-10 code set. Although CMS has issued a final rule stating October 1, 2015 is the implementation date, there is still much skepticism as to whether this will actually move forward.

At the hearing, several members of the subcommittee, including the chairman, voiced their support for moving forward with ICD-10 implementation on October 1. It remains to be seen whether amendments will be offered to the upcoming annual “doc fix,” or the Sustainable Growth Rate rule that would trigger Medicare pay cuts to physicians, or any other legislation between now and October 1. There’s a lot of skepticism out there and for good reason. However at this point it’s a good idea to have processes in place to be ready for October 1 to be sure your practice or organization isn’t caught off guard.

Here are some things you can (and should) be doing right now:

Georgia Healthcare Providers Prepare: More HIPAA Audits in 2015

February 12, 2015 | Little Health Law

HIPAA Audits 2015

Auditing is to Increase; Increased Contractors; Business Associates at Risk

By: Brian L Tuttle, CHP, CHA, CPHIT, CBRA, CCNA, CISSP

Brian Tuttle

Well D-Day in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) world (September 23, 2013) has come and gone and we are all still here, the world hasn’t ended, the Feds still haven’t kicked down your doors demanding to comb over your practice or business……yet. As of now the Federal government has a heavy workload in terms of who, what, when, and where will be affected by their new enforcement efforts. Their progress was stunted a bit by the recent government shut down, but as of this writing (November 14, 2013) they are back in business.

As you may or may not know, the enforcement wing of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which is the Office of Civil Rights (OCR), began a pilot campaign of audits in the summer of 2012. This pilot campaign is to become a full time heavily enforced effort with many more facets involved. Based upon the findings there are many areas that need to be addressed chiefly dealing with the HIPAA Security Rule (65% of fines levied) in comparison with the HIPAA Privacy Rule (26% of fines levied) and the Breach Notification Rule (9% of fines levied). Going forward the OCR plans to evolve this process and give sharp teeth to what’s already going on. Originally the law firm KPMG was given the contract to conduct these pilot audits. According to HHS, the government plans to bring in many more firms (and subcontractors of those firms) to enforce and audit. Leon Rodriguez, director for OCR, stated at the HIMSS Privacy and Security Forum in Boston on September 23, 2013 “We hope to be off and running in the next calendar year.” Additionally, Mr. Rodriguez stated that OCR “will leverage more civil penalties” but more concerning is that fines levied are expected to pay for the audit program and be a revenue generating process for the Feds.

FQHCs AND HOSPITALS: EXPECT MORE SECTION 340B AUDITS THIS YEAR

February 2, 2015 | Little Health Law

While various types of regulatory and insurance “audits” are on the radar of any prudent Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) or hospital, as health care providers, Section 340B audits are a relatively new and unknown animal. The Section 340B Program, whereby qualified covered entities can benefit from substantial discounts on certain patient drugs, has existed since 1992. Section 340B audits, however, began less than three years ago. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, through the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) authorized the first Section 340B Audits in 2012. Since then, the number of Section 340B Audits has been on the rise. In 2014, HRSA audited 99 health care providers and has forecasted doubling that number this year. Increasingly, these audits present serious financial and business risks for Section 340B Program participants.

Presently there are two categories of Section 340B audits: audits conducted by HRSA and audits conducted by the drug manufacturer. Results of HRSA-conducted Section 340B audits are publically available. All Section 340B audits are geared toward requiring and facilitating Section 340B “covered entities” (i.e., the FQHC or hospital that participates in the program) to ensure Section 340B program integrity and accurate record keeping. Requirements are set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 256b, which authorizes Section 340B compliance audits.
Continue reading ›

FQHC Section 340B Audit Readiness: A Pound of Prevention

January 25, 2015 | Little Health Law

For Federally Qualified Health Centers and other eligible safety net health care centers, proper utilization of the federal Section 340B Drug Discount Program can offer enormous financial advantages to facilitate delivery of high quality primary health care services to their communities. The Section 340B Program, created in 1992, requires drug manufacturers to provide outpatient drugs to qualifying health care centers and organizations at reduced prices. The purpose of the Section 340B Program is to provide a financial advantage that supports FQHCs and other safety net providers, enabling them to stretch scarce federal resources as far as possible to the benefit of their patients.

Georgia FQHC Law Firm

The federal Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), which regulates and supervises the Section 340B Program, has legal authority to audit Section 340B Program covered entities. Alternatively, HRSA may authorize a drug manufacturer to audit a covered entity under particular circumstances and according to HRSA’s protocol. An audit is for the purpose of assessing covered entity compliance with HRSA regulations and protocol governing the Section 340B program and, in particular, to identify and remedy diversion of Section 340B drugs or duplicate discounts.

Program Integrity Audits, as they are known, were first initiated in 2012 and have increased each year. Audit results can be reviewed on the HRSA website. A covered entity’s failure to pass audit scrutiny can result in very adverse financial consequences, including having to refund discounts to a drug manufacturer and/or exclusion from the Section 340B Program. Through Fall 2014, approximately 240 audits have been performed. More audits are expected in 2015, as HRSA continues to ramp up its oversight and scrutiny of the Section 340 participants. Many hundreds of FQHCs will be the subject of upcoming audits.

For FQHCs and other covered entities that potentially subject to an audit, the financial stakes are so high that audit readiness should be a top priority. Fortunately, HRSA provides contract pharmacy guidelines that, if properly followed, can reduce the risk of being audited and of a bad audit outcome. For every Section 340B participant, following HRSA guidelines is therefore a must.
Continue reading ›

Physician Practice: Are Physician Non-Compete Agreements Enforceable?

January 16, 2015 | Little Health Law

Hospital employment among doctors is increasing. According to Jackson Health’s 2014 Survey, the trend of physician employment is gaining speed. Rapid changes in health care industry fueled by the Affordable Care Act, more insured patients and increasing demands on doctors, decreasing reimbursement, and the growing cost and headaches of owning and running a medical practice are causing more and more doctors to view employment as a preferred career option.

Atlanta and Augusta, Georgia Business and Health Care Law Firm
Inevitably, the termination of some physician employment relationships will trigger issues and some disputes under non-compete agreements contained in physician employment contracts. Although non-competition agreements are not in every physician employment contract, most have them. Many physicians who decide to accept employment are unable to avoid signing a non-compete agreement.

For a hospital or other health care business that employs a physician, the essential advantage of a non-compete agreement is self-evident. The business can expand its medical practice with less risk that a new doctor seeking to build a patient base will depart employment with a large patient base. For the doctor, the disadvantage of a non-compete agreement is that it can limit, often severely, job or career options when the employment relationship ends.

But is a physician non-compete agreement enforceable?

A question for every non-compete agreement is whether it is legally enforceable. While typically enforceable during employment (“moonlighting”), often the legality of physician non-compete agreements prohibiting activities after employment can be challenged. Whether a physician non-compete is legally enforceable is a matter of state law. Some states have statutes that render physician non-compete agreements illegal or severely curtail them (including, Alabama, California, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Louisiana and Montana). Most states do not have such statutes; but instead state common law dictates the parameters of a legal non-compete agreement. In those states, answering the question “is it enforceable?” is not really possible with any certainty before a non-compete agreement is reviewed by a court.
Continue reading ›

January 14, 2015, Kevin Little speaks to American Osteopathic Association physician members on Physician Employment Agreements.

January 14, 2015 | Little Health Law

Kevin Little speaks to American Osteopathic Association physician members on Physician Employment Agreements.

New Medicare Rules Strengthen Regulatory Oversight of Medicare Providers and Increase CMS’ Ability to Remove Providers from Medicare

December 31, 2014 | Little Health Law

Earlier this month, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced implementation of a Final Rule intended to increase oversight of Medicare providers and enable recoveries from those health care providers that commit fraud and violate Medicare rules. According to the press release, Marilyn Tavenner, the CMS Administrator, stated that the new rules “are common-sense safeguards to preserve Medicare for generations to come” and that “[t]he Administration is committed to using all appropriate tools as part of its comprehensive program integrity strategy shaped by the Affordable Care Act [ACA].”

Georgia Medicare Fraud Law Firm

Our Atlanta and Augusta, Georgia health care law firm has reviewed the Final Rule. The Final Rule’s new provisions are intended to preclude doctors and other health care providers with unpaid Medicare debt from re-entering the Medicare program, remove health care providers who engage in abusive Medicare billing, and authorize other provisions that will save more than $327 million annually. The Final Rule makes certain changes to the provider enrollment provisions of 42 CFR part 424, subpart P.

CMS has removed about 25,000 health care providers from the Medicare program. The new rules are designed to “stop bad actors from coming back in as we continue to protect our patients,” according to Ms. Tavenner. Under the ACA, CMS has increased ability to fight Medicare fraud, waste and abuse. CMS believes that removing providers from Medicare has a substantial positive impact on savings, contending that such removals have prevented $81 million in payments from being made.
Continue reading ›

HHS 2015 Quality Improvement Awards for FQHC recipients: HHS Awards $36.3 Million in Affordable Care Act Funding for FQHCs and Other Health Centers

December 17, 2014 | Little Health Law

On December 9, 2014, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) announced substantial financial awards for numerous Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and other health centers nationwide. Our Atlanta, Georgia business and health care law firm represents FQHCs and health centers. We learned from HHS’ press release that it awarded $36.3 million in Affordable Care Act funding for the purpose of rewarding and expanding the quality of care in FQHCs.

FQHCs and other HRSA-supported health centers are designed to provide comprehensive, high quality primary care services to the medically underserved communities of the United States. These health centers are sometimes referred to as “safety net providers.” FQHCs are community-based facilities that serve populations with less access to health care. Grant-supported FQHCs are public or private non-profit healthcare entities that meet particular qualifications under Section 330 of the Public Health Services Act. Non-grant-supported health centers, also referred to as “look-alikes,” are healthcare entities that HRSA and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have determined meet the definition of “health center” under Section 330 of the Public Health Services Act, but do not receive grant funding under Section 330.
Continue reading ›