Florida Oncology Group Agrees to Pay $100 Million in Antitrust Probe
Attorney Geroge F. Indest III
By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law
On April 30, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that a major Florida oncology group will pay $100 million to resolve a criminal charge that it conspired with competitors to divvy up cancer treatments in the area. This marks the first settlement in an ongoing oncology market allocation probe against Florida Cancer Specialists & Research Institute LLC (FCS).
Details of the Antitrust Complaint.
The oncology group, which is based in Fort Myers, Florida, admitted to a single felony antitrust charge under the agreement, the DOJ said. Additionally, FCS inked a civil antitrust settlement with the Florida attorney general requiring it to pay the state $20 million, plus interest.
According to the DOJ, federal prosecutors filed a one-count felony charge against the company in Florida federal court. Prosecutors allege the company of participating “in a criminal antitrust conspiracy” with unnamed oncology competitors in the southwest Florida counties of Lee, Collier, and Charlotte.
The antitrust complaint states: “FCS and its co-conspirators agreed not to compete to provide chemotherapy and radiation treatments to cancer patients in Southwest Florida. Beginning as early as 1999 and continuing until at least 2016, FCS entered into an illegal agreement that allocated chemotherapy treatments to FCS and radiation treatments to a competing oncology group.” Therefore, according to the DOJ, “This conspiracy allowed FCS to operate with minimal competition in Southwest Florida and limited valuable integrated care options and choices for cancer patients.”
We want to point out that the quotations above are statements that were made by the government in relation to this case and were not necessarily proven or agreed to by FCS.
The Settlement Agreement.
Under the settlement agreement, the Florida oncology company admitted to a conspiracy to divvy up the radiation and chemotherapy treatments. In addition to the $100 million, which is the statutory maximum, FCS will have to “cooperate fully with the Antitrust Division’s ongoing investigation” being run with the FBI’s Fort Myers satellite office and must keep up a compliance program aimed at stopping and ferreting out criminal antitrust violations.
Additionally, the deal also obliges FCS to follow a “non-compete waiver” under which it promises not to enforce any non-compete provisions with current and former oncologists. Other employees who open an oncology practice in southwest Florida or join one are also included in the provision, said the DOJ.
Criminal Antitrust Charges are Rarely Sought.
Criminal antitrust charges are rarely brought by the government, especially under the current administration. Anyone that has ever been involved in bringing or defending an anti-trust case knows that it is difficult enough to even have the government open a civil case or investigation, much less a criminal case.
Click here to read the press release issued by the DOJ.
To view the antitrust complaint about this case on our website, click here.
You can read the state of Florida’s deal with FCS here.
To learn more, click here and read one of my prior blogs on a similar antitrust case.
Contact Health Care Attorneys Experienced in Negotiating and Evaluating Physician’s Complex Business Litigation, and Transactions
At the Health Law Firm, we provide legal services for health professionals and facilities. This includes physicians, medical groups, nurses, pharmacists, pharmacies, dentists, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, ambulatory surgical centers, pain management clinics, assisted living facilities, home health agencies, nursing homes, and any other health care provider.
The services we provide include representation in complex state and federal litigation, reviewing and negotiating contracts, preparing contracts, business transactions, professional license defense, opinion letters, representation in investigations, fair hearing defense, representation in peer review and clinical privileges hearings, litigation of restrictive covenant (covenants not to compete), 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 www.TheHealthLawFirm.com
Sources:
Koenig, Bryan. “DOJ Cuts $100M Deal In Oncology Antitrust Probe.” Law360. (April 30, 2020). Web.
Office of Public Affairs. Press Release. “Leading Cancer Treatment Center Admits to Antitrust Crime and Agrees to Pay $100 Million Criminal Penalty.” U.S. Department of Justice. (April 30,2020). Web.
About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.
KeyWords: Noncompetition agreement litigation, representation for noncompetition agreements, noncompetition agreement litigation attorney, noncompetition agreement attorney, restrictive covenant attorney, representation for restrictive covenants, covenant-not-to-compete representation, health care litigation representation, representation for employer enforcement of restrictive covenants, representation for complex litigation, restrictive covenant defense attorney, complex healthcare litigation attorney, anti-trust legal counsel, physician employment agreements, health professional employment contracts, legal counsel for defeat of noncompetition agreement, physician employment contract litigation, health professional contracting, negotiating health business transactions, health care business contract attorney, health care professional contract litigation, healthcare complex business litigation, representation for physician agreements, representation for physician business transactions, representation for physician complex litigation, representation for antitrust, representation for healthcare facilities, oncologist defense, licensed oncologist defense lawyer, The Health Law Firm reviews, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews
“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.
Oncology Practice in Florida Reaches $100 Million Deal With DOJ in Antitrust Probe
Attorney Carole C. Schriefer
By Carole C. Schriefer, J.D.
On April 30, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that a major Florida oncology group will pay $100 million to resolve a criminal charge that it conspired with competitors to divvy up cancer treatments in the area. This marks the first settlement in an ongoing oncology market allocation probe against Florida Cancer Specialists & Research Institute LLC (FCS).
Details of the Antitrust Complaint.
The oncology group, which is based in Fort Myers, Florida, admitted to a single felony antitrust charge under the agreement, the DOJ said. Additionally, FCS inked a civil antitrust settlement with the Florida attorney general requiring it to pay the state $20 million, plus interest.
According to the DOJ, federal prosecutors filed a one-count felony charge against the company in Florida federal court. Prosecutors allege the company of participating “in a criminal antitrust conspiracy” with unnamed oncology competitors in the southwest Florida counties of Lee, Collier, and Charlotte.
The antitrust complaint states: “FCS and its co-conspirators agreed not to compete to provide chemotherapy and radiation treatments to cancer patients in Southwest Florida. Beginning as early as 1999 and continuing until at least 2016, FCS entered into an illegal agreement that allocated chemotherapy treatments to FCS and radiation treatments to a competing oncology group.” Therefore, according to the DOJ, “This conspiracy allowed FCS to operate with minimal competition in Southwest Florida and limited valuable integrated care options and choices for cancer patients.”
We want to point out that the quotations above are statements that were made by the government in relation to this case and were not necessarily proven or agreed to by FCS.
The Settlement Agreement.
Under the settlement agreement, the Florida oncology company admitted to a conspiracy to divvy up the radiation and chemotherapy treatments. In addition to the $100 million, which is the statutory maximum, FCS will have to “cooperate fully with the Antitrust Division’s ongoing investigation” being run with the FBI’s Fort Myers satellite office and must keep up a compliance program aimed at stopping and ferreting out criminal antitrust violations.
Additionally, the deal also obliges FCS to follow a “non-compete waiver” under which it promises not to enforce any non-compete provisions with current and former oncologists. Other employees who open an oncology practice in southwest Florida or join one are also included in the provision, said the DOJ.
Criminal Antitrust Charges are Rarely Sought.
Criminal antitrust charges are rarely brought by the government, especially under the current administration. Anyone that has ever been involved in bringing or defending an anti-trust case knows that it is difficult enough to even have the government open a civil case or investigation, much less a criminal case.
Click here to read the press release issued by the DOJ.
To view the antitrust complaint about this case on our website, click here.
You can read the state of Florida’s deal with FCS here.
To learn more, click here and read one of my prior blogs on a similar antitrust case.
Contact Health Care Attorneys Experienced in Negotiating and Evaluating Physician’s Complex Business Litigation, and Transactions
At the Health Law Firm, we provide legal services for health professionals and facilities. This includes physicians, medical groups, nurses, pharmacists, pharmacies, dentists, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, ambulatory surgical centers, pain management clinics, assisted living facilities, home health agencies, nursing homes, and any other health care provider.
The services we provide include representation in complex state and federal litigation, reviewing and negotiating contracts, preparing contracts, business transactions, professional license defense, opinion letters, representation in investigations, fair hearing defense, representation in peer review and clinical privileges hearings, litigation of restrictive covenant (covenants not to compete), 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 www.TheHealthLawFirm.com
Sources:
Koenig, Bryan. “DOJ Cuts $100M Deal In Oncology Antitrust Probe.” Law360. (April 30, 2020). Web.
Office of Public Affairs. Press Release. “Leading Cancer Treatment Center Admits to Antitrust Crime and Agrees to Pay $100 Million Criminal Penalty.” U.S. Department of Justice. (April 30,2020). Web.
About the Author: Carole C. Schriefer is an attorney and former registered nurse. She practices with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its regional office is in the Northern Colorado, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 155 East Boardwalk Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525. Phone: (970) 416-7456. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida area.
KeyWords: Noncompetition agreement litigation, representation for noncompetition agreements, noncompetition agreement litigation attorney, noncompetition agreement attorney, restrictive covenant attorney, representation for restrictive covenants, covenant-not-to-compete representation, health care litigation representation, representation for employer enforcement of restrictive covenants, representation for complex litigation, restrictive covenant defense attorney, complex healthcare litigation attorney, anti-trust legal counsel, physician employment agreements, health professional employment contracts, legal counsel for defeat of noncompetition agreement, physician employment contract litigation, health professional contracting, negotiating health business transactions, health care business contract attorney, health care professional contract litigation, healthcare complex business litigation, representation for physician agreements, representation for physician business transactions, representation for physician complex litigation, representation for antitrust, representation for healthcare facilities, oncologist defense, licensed oncologist defense lawyer, The Health Law Firm reviews, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews
“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.
Florida Defends Medical Marijuana Law in High-Stakes State Supreme Court Battle
By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law
On May 6, 2020, in a highly-important case for the medical marijuana industry in Florida, the state defended its regulatory framework before the Florida supreme court. The case focuses on whether Florida has properly carried out a 2016 constitutional amendment that broadly legalized medical marijuana for patients. The Florida Department of Health (DOH) argues that there is no conflict between the voter-approved medical marijuana amendment and the state’s caps on providers.
Ongoing Battle in the Courts.
The case primarily centers on a requirement that the Legislature put in the 2017 law about marijuana firms allowed to operate in the state. That requirement says the companies must be able to handle all aspects of the business, including growing, processing, and distributing products. The Florida DOH appealed to the Supreme Court after lower courts sided with Florigrown, a Tampa-based company. For several years, Florigrown has unsuccessfully sought approval to become a licensed medical-marijuana operator in Florida. Click here to read my prior blog and learn more.
Arguing Over Semantics.
The key part of the case focuses on the text of the amendment in determining whether the vertical integration model is proper. The language in question is the difference in the words “or” and “and” in the amendment’s definition of a medical marijuana treatment center (MMTC).
The constitutional amendment defined MMTCs as “an entity that acquires, cultivates, possesses, processes … transfers, transports, sells, distributes, dispenses, or administers marijuana, products containing marijuana, related supplies, or educational materials.”
Meanwhile, the implementing 2017 law defines MMTCs as an entity that “cultivates, processes, transports and dispenses marijuana for medical use.”
Florigrown argues that the switch from “or” to “and” creates wording that establishes the vertically integrated system, as it establishes a need to perform all aspects of the business.
In its defense, the Florida DOH argued that the 2017 law does not directly conflict with a “proper, textual interpretation” of the constitutional amendment and directly calls for regulations on the availability and safe use of the substance.
To read more on this ongoing case and Florigrown’s lawsuit, click here to read my prior blog.
Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys for Medical and Recreational Marijuana Concerns.
The Health Law Firm attorneys can assist health care providers and facilities, such as doctors, pharmacists, and pharmacies, wanting to participate in the medical marijuana industry. We can properly draft and complete the applications for registration, permitting and/or licensing, while complying with Florida law. We can also represent doctors, pharmacies and pharmacists facing proceedings brought by state regulators or agencies.
To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.
Sources:
Saunders, Jim. “Case challenging Florida law on medical marijuana licenses may hinge on ‘and’ vs. ‘or’.” Miami Herald. (May 6, 2020).
Bolado, Carolina. “Fla. Defends Medical Pot Regulations Before State High Court.” Law360. (May 6, 2020). Web.
About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.
KeyWords: medical marijuana regulation attorney, legal representation for medical marijuana issues, health care business application attorney, Florida marijuana law attorney, representation for marijuana growers, representation for marijuana distributors, defense attorney for marijuana growers, defense attorney for marijuana distributors, defense lawyer for medical marijuana, health law defense attorney, Florida medical cannabis legal representation, medical cannabis lawyer, cannabis defense lawyer, health lawyers for medical marijuana distributors, legal counsel for medical marijuana growers and distributors, The Health Law Firm reviews, reviews of The Health Law Firm Attorneys, legal counsel for complex medical business dispute, complex healthcare law dispute attorney, complex healthcare business transaction attorney
“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.
Question: What Should You, as a Dentist, Do If You Or One of Your Employees Tests Positive For the COVID-19 Coronavirus?
By Achal A. Aggarwal, M.B.A., J.D., and George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law
You or a member of your staff has a confirmed case of COVID-19. What now? Your primary concern is for the individual affected. However, as a health professional operating a professional practice, you also have a duty to your employees and to your other patients. You have to be concerned about any patients with whom your infected staff might have had contact. These steps and protocols, all from prominent government agencies, are meant to help guide you if you or someone in your practice tests positive for COVID-19.
Follow these steps below to help ensure the health and safety of others and to reduce the likelihood of additional transmissions:
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that employees who were exposed to the infected staff member should be quarantined for 14 days, keep track of their symptoms, and contact their own healthcare provider if the symptoms progress.
• Your entire dental office and facility, especially the waiting areas, restrooms, and treatment areas, should receive a “deep cleaning.” These should be regularly cleaned and sanitized or sterilized as the case may be. Click here for additional information on the proper ways to do so.
• According to the CDC, the Dental Healthcare Provider (DHP) should ensure that environmental cleaning and disinfection procedures are followed consistently and correctly after each patient. However, according to the CDC, the DHP does not need to attempt to sterilize a dental operatory between each patient.
• Sterilization protocols do not vary for respiratory pathogens. According to the CDC, the dental professional should perform routine cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization protocols, and follow the recommendations for “Sterilization and Disinfection of Patient-Care Items” present in the Guidelines for Infection Control in Dental Healthcare Settings.
• The Dentists should have and implement sick leave policies for any infected staff. These should be flexible, non-punitive, and consistent with public health guidance.
• As part of routine practice, dentists should also monitor themselves for fever and symptoms consistent with COVID-19 regularly.
• The dentists should screen all staff at the beginning of their shift for fever and symptoms consistent with COVID-19. One person, such as the receptionist, might be assigned to this task. Equipment that does not require actual physical contact, such as an infrared thermometer, should be used. The dentists in the practice should be required to undergo this screening, as well.
For additional information, guidance, and resource documents on this topic, please visit our Health Law Articles and Documents page. Be sure to visit our blog page regularly to stay updated on the latest news, policies, and health law topics!
We continue to receive inquiries from healthcare practitioners requesting information regarding health law matters during this time of uncertainty. We are here for you! If you have additional questions in the COVID-19 crisis or any health law matter, please call our office at (407) 331-6620.
Additional Resources.
The following are additional resources dentists should consult on this issue:
- CDC Guidance for Dental Settings During the COVID-19 Response
- Interim U.S. Guidance for Risk Assessment and Work Restrictions for Healthcare Personnel with Potential Exposure to COVID-19
- Guidelines for Infection Control in Dental Healthcare Settings
- Guidelines for Sterilization and Disinfection of Dental Patient-Care Items
Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Dentists.
The attorneys of The Health Law Firm provide legal representation to dentists in the Department of Health (DOH) investigations, Department of Regulatory Affairs (DORA) investigations, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) investigations, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigations, FBI investigations, Office of Civil Rights (OCR) HIPAA complaints and investigations, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) subpoenas and investigations, state board of dentistry complaints and investigations and other types of investigations of health professionals and providers.
Our firm also routinely represents physicians, dentists, orthodontists, medical groups, clinics, pharmacies, home health care agencies, nursing homes and other health care providers in Department of Health (DOH), Department of Regulatory Affairs (DORA), and Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) inspections, audits, and recovery actions, as well as Medicare and Medicaid investigations, audits and recovery actions.
To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.
KeyWords: Health law defense lawyer, legal representation of health care professionals, Medicare fraud defense attorney, Medicare audit defense attorney, Medicaid fraud defense attorney, Medicaid audit defense attorney, disruptive physician defense attorney, legal representation for disruptive physician, legal representation for Medicare fraud, legal representation for Medicaid fraud, legal representation for clinical research investigations, legal representation for clinical research fraud, Florida health law attorney, legal representation for administrative hearings, DEA hearing defense attorney, reviews of The Health Law Firm, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews, Department of Health defense attorney, healthcare employment law representation, legal representation for physicians, doctor defense legal representation, legal representation for healthcare professionals, complex health care litigation attorney, complex civil litigation attorney, complex healthcare litigation lawyer, complex medical litigation lawyer, representation for complex medical litigation, representation for healthcare business litigation matters, administrative procedure act defense, representation for administrative hearing, Board of Dentistry defense lawyer, representation for Board of Dentistry investigation, representation for Board of Dentistry hearing, Board hearing defense attorney, Board of Medicine defense lawyer, dental hygienist defense lawyer, dentist defense lawyer, representation for dentists Department of Health (DOH) representation, DOH defense attorney, representation for DOH hearings, representation for DOH investigations, representation for disciplinary charges, representation for disciplinary complaint
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, and Achal A. Aggarwal, M.B.A., J.D. Its main office is in Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com. The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave. Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.
“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.
Colorado Judge Says Board of Pharmacy Must Hand Over Patient Identifying Data to DEA
By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law
On April 22, 2020, a federal judge ordered the Colorado Board of Pharmacy to give the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) prescription drug monitoring program data on two pharmacies that the DEA is investigating. The data includes patient identifying information of more than 14,000 patients. The state must turn over the data by May 15, 2020, according to the order.
Pharmacy Investigations and Audits.
Citing concerns about the two pharmacies’ handling of controlled-substance prescriptions, the DEA issued subpoenas under the Controlled Substances Act in 2019. The DEA requested the information as part of an investigation into whether the two unnamed pharmacies broke the law in dispensing opioids and other drugs.
Clashing Over Patient Privacy and Data.
The DEA’s requested information is kept under the state’s Prescription Drug Monitoring Program or PDMP. For controlled-substance prescriptions, Colorado pharmacies and pharmacists are required by state law to report information that includes the names of patients, their doctors, and pharmacies.
Colorado state officials refused to release the data citing patient privacy concerns. The DEA’s “overly broad, undifferentiated demand for access would violate the Fourth Amendment right to privacy guaranteed to more than 14,000 patients whose medical data is at issue,” the state said.
According to the order, the Colorado statute allows the prescription-monitoring data to be disclosed but only to specific recipients including in response to law enforcement subpoenas. However, the state argued that the Colorado statute only applies to a “bona fide investigation of a specific individual.”
To read about a similar case involving a DEA investigation into pharmacy prescription practices, click here to read my prior blog.
The Court’s Decision.
U.S. District Judge Raymond P. Moore denied Colorado’s objections to the DEA’s subpoenas for the prescription data including patients’ information such as names, birth dates, and addresses. The judge said the DEA has shown that the requested information is relevant and needed for the ongoing investigation of the two pharmacies, and no warrant is needed to obtain it. The order directs the Colorado Board of Pharmacy and Patty Salazar, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) to provide the data to the DEA no later than May 15, 2020.
To read the court’s order in full, click here.
For more information, click here to read the press release issued from the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado.
States Must Act to Protect the Integrity of Such Programs.
State prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) were sold to pharmacists and physicians based on a promise that they were solely for the purpose of protecting patients from overdoses and preventing “doctor shopping” by dishonest, drug-seeking patients. Inherent in these programs was the promise that they would not be used for the purpose of prosecuting or charging physicians or pharmacists, in criminal proceedings or administrative proceedings, based on their contents. Most of the state laws that authorized the creation of PDMPs specifically forbid their use in such cases. This was required in order to get physicians and state medical societies to buy off on them.
Yet here we are. We see this over and over. the Federal government and federal agencies obtaining copies of these reports from the state and using them as direct evidence against physicians, pharmacists, nurse practitioners, and pharmacies, despite the prohibition of the state statutes.
Moreover, not only does this subvert the purpose behind creating such databases, but then it runs afoul of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and similar provisions of most state constitutions. The doctor or pharmacist is required by law to report the prescriptions to the PDMP, but then the federal agency turns right around and uses it as evidence against the individual who reported it.
The feds take the position: “We do not care why you, the state, authorized it or what its purpose was supposed to be. If we want to take that information and use it for something else, something that was specifically prohibited by the state, then we will do it.”
Until state pharmacy associations and medical associations do something to tighten up the state legislation that created the PDMPs, this situation is not likely to change. The feds will continue to use the state PDMPs to prosecute and to take administrative actions to revoke the DEA registrations of physicians, pharmacists, pharmacies, and other health professionals.
Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Nurses and Other Healthcare Professionals.
The Health Law Firm’s attorneys routinely provide legal representation to nurses, pharmacists, pharmacies, physicians, and other health providers. We provide legal representation for nurses in Board of Nursing investigations and complaints, DORA investigations and complaints, and Department of Health (DOH) investigations and complaints. We defend in state and federal administrative hearings, investigations, and litigation. We also represent health professionals in formal and informal administrative hearings. We have a great deal of experience in defending against DEA actions. We provide legal representation across the U.S., not just in Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.
To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 or (970) 416-7456 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.
Sources:
Zegers, Kelly. “Colo. Must Give DEA Pharmacy Data With Patient Info.” Law360. (April 20, 2020). Web.
Ingold, John. “Why the DEA is suing Colorado’s pharmacy board as part of an opioid investigation.” The Colorado Sun. (November 11, 2019). Web.
Pazanowski, Mary Ann. “Colorado Pharmacy Board Must Give DEA Patient-Identifying Info.” Bloomberg Law. (April 22, 2020). Web.
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 Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.
KeyWords: DEA order to show cause (OSC) defense lawyer, legal representation for administrative hearings, DEA hearing defense attorney, reviews of The Health Law Firm, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews, DEA order to show cause (OSC) defense attorney, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) defense attorney, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigation defense attorney, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) subpoena defense lawyer, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) inspection defense attorney, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) hearing defense attorney, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) order to show cause (OTSC) defense lawyer, DORA defense attorney, Department of Health defense attorney, Florida Board of Pharmacy defense legal representation, legal defense for pharmacists, pharmacist defense lawyer, board of pharmacy defense lawyer, board of pharmacy hearing legal representation, pharmacy license disciplinary charges defense attorney, legal representation for pharmacist, legal representation for pharmacy, pharmacy defense lawyer, pharmacy audit defense representation, pharmacy audit defense attorney, board representation for pharmacists, board representation for pharmacies, board representation for physicians, board of pharmacy investigation representation, legal representation for board investigations, The Health Law Firm, administrative hearing defense attorney
“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.
New Florida Law Allows Limited Pharmacist Medical Practice with Practice Agreements
By Michael L. Smith, R.R.T., J.D., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law
A new Florida law allows pharmacists to practice medicine to a certain extent underwritten collaborative practice agreements with physicians who are licensed to practice medicine or osteopathic medicine in Florida. The new law, signed by Governor DeSantis, took effect on July 1, 2020. However, the initial 20-hour course required by the law has not been approved as of July 22, 2020. Also, the Florida Board of Pharmacy has not adopted the formulary of approved medicinal drugs that are required by the law, as of this writing on July 22, 2020.
What Pharmacists Need to Know About the New Law.
Pharmacists practicing under a collaborative practice agreement with a physician will be permitted to test, screen for, and treat some nonchronic health conditions. The nonchronic health conditions a pharmacist is permitted to treat under a collaborative practice agreement are influenza, streptococcus, lice, skin conditions, and minor infections.
Pharmacists will also be able to initiate, modify, or discontinue drug therapy for chronic health conditions under a written collaboration agreement with a physician. The chronic conditions a pharmacist will be able to treat are arthritis, asthma, COPD, type-2 diabetes, HIV or AIDS, and obesity. The collaborative practice agreement for chronic health conditions must be specific to a patient, or patients, of the supervising physician.
A pharmacist must be certified by the Florida Board of Pharmacy before practicing under a collaborative practice agreement. In order to be eligible for certification, the pharmacist must hold an unencumbered license to practice as a pharmacist in Florida. The pharmacist must also have a doctor of pharmacy degree or 5-years of experience as a licensed pharmacist.
Every pharmacist seeking certification to practice under a collaborative practice agreement will be required to complete an initial 20-hour course approved by the Board of Pharmacy, and complete additional continuing education hours for each license renewal. Pharmacists practicing under collaborative practice agreements will also be required to maintain professional liability coverage of at least $250,000.
Pharmacists will not be permitted to prescribe controlled substances. The new law requires the Florida Board of Pharmacy to adopt a formulary of medicinal drugs that pharmacists may prescribe under collaborative practice agreements with physicians.
Consult With A Health Law Attorney Experienced in the Representation of Pharmacists and Pharmacies.
We routinely provide deposition coverage to pharmacists, pharmacies, and other health professionals being deposed in criminal cases, negligence cases, civil cases, or disciplinary cases involving other health professionals.
The lawyers of The Health Law Firm are experienced in both formal and informal administrative hearings and in representing physicians, physician assistants, and other health professionals in investigations and at Board of Pharmacy hearings. Call our office now at (407) 331-6620 or toll-free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.
About the Author: Michael L. Smith, R.R.T., J.D., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He 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. Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.
KeyWords: Florida Board of Pharmacy defense representation, legal defense for pharmacists, pharmacist defense lawyer, Board of Pharmacy defense lawyer, Board of Pharmacy hearing legal representation, pharmacy license disciplinary charges defense attorney, legal representation for pharmacist, legal representation for pharmacy, pharmacy defense lawyer, pharmacy audit defense representation, pharmacy audit defense attorney, board representation for pharmacists, board representation for pharmacies, board representation for physicians, Board of Pharmacy investigation representation, legal representation for board investigations, The Health Law Firm, administrative hearing defense attorney, DEA order to show cause (OSC) defense lawyer, legal representation for administrative hearings, DEA hearing defense attorney, reviews of The Health Law Firm, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews
“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.
Florida Passes New Law for Health Professional Background Screening
By Michael L. Smith, R.R.T., J.D., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law
For several years, many healthcare professionals have been required to pass a Level II background check in order to work in most Florida healthcare facilities licensed by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA). Many healthcare professionals are also required to pass a Level II background check in order to be licensed by the Florida Department of Health (DOH). In March 2020, the Florida Legislature passed House Bill 713, which will add the offenses of battery on a vulnerable adult and battery on a patient or resident of certain healthcare facilities (primarily nursing facilities) as a disqualifying offense. The law took effect on July 1, 2020. Previously, only felony battery and battery on a minor were disqualifying offenses for purposes of the Level II background screening.
More Details on the New Legislation.
A health professional who previously passed the Level II background check may nevertheless be deemed “not eligible” for employment in a licensed health facility on the next Level II background check. This would occur if the practitioner has been found guilty of, regardless of adjudication, or entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty to battery of a vulnerable adult, or battery on a patient or resident of a healthcare facility. (This is the wording of the statute, not mine.)
A practitioner who is determined to be “not eligible” on a Level II background check due to a disqualifying offense must apply for an exemption from that disqualifying offense, in order to be permitted to work. The practitioner seeking an exemption has the burden of proving that the exemption should be granted. The provider must prove this with clear and convincing evidence, a standard that is higher and stricter than that in a civil trial.
Any health professional seeking an exemption from a disqualifying offense should seek the assistance of an experienced health law attorney familiar with the application process, and the types of evidence that can prove that the health professional should be granted an exemption.
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, home health agencies, hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers, pain management clinics, nursing homes, and any other healthcare provider. It also includes medical students, resident physicians, and fellows, as well as medical school professors and clinical staff. We represent health facilities, individuals, groups, and institutions in contracts, sales, mergers, and acquisitions. The lawyers of The Health Law Firm are experienced in complex litigation and both formal and informal administrative hearings. We also represent physicians accused of wrongdoing, patient complaints, and in Department of Health investigations.
To contact The Health Law Firm, please call our office at (407) 331-6620 or toll-free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.ThehealthLawFirm.com
About the Author: Michael L. Smith, R.R.T., J.D., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He 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. Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.
KeyWords: representation for medical license defense, legal representation for nursing license defense, background screening exemption attorney, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) exemption attorney, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) background screening exemption attorney, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) practice disqualification lawyer, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) practice disqualification waiver legal counsel, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) letter disqualifying for employment, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) administrative hearing lawyer, disqualification from employment working in health facility lawyer, healthcare business litigation matters, The Health Law Firm, reviews of The Health Law Firm Attorneys, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews, legal representation for medical license investigation, legal representation for nursing license investigation, professional license defense lawyer, legal representation for physicians, doctor defense legal representation, legal representation for nurses, nurse defense legal representation, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) formal hearing on work exemption, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) formal hearing defense attorney
“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2020 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.
