health care attorney | The Health Law Firm Blog

Don’t Voluntarily Relinquish Your Medical License or DEA Registration Number, Here’s Why
Gallery
Don’t Voluntarily Relinquish Your Medical License or DEA Registration Number, Here’s Why

DEA, Licensing issues, The Health Law Firm Blog

Don’t Voluntarily Relinquish Your Medical License or DEA Registration Number, Here’s Why

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

I am often contacted by clients who are health professionals or own businesses in the health care industry who have been approached by government agents or investigators regarding possible complaints or charges. In many cases, the individuals involved do not think to consult with an attorney until many months later. This may be too late to save the business or professional practice involved. This holds for physicians, dentists, nurses, pharmacists, pharmacies, pain management clinics, physician assistants, group homes, assisted living facilities (ALFs), and home health agencies.

“Voluntary” Relinquishment Treated the Same as a Revoked License.

We have seen a trend recently, especially here in Florida, of investigators immediately offering the person being investigated the option to voluntarily relinquish his or her professional license. This is offered as an option to being investigated, even in the event of very minor or frivolous complaints. The problem is that once an investigation has been opened, voluntary relinquishment of a license is treated as if it were revoked for disciplinary reasons. It will be very difficult, if not impossible, to ever get a new license under the circumstances.

Furthermore, if the professional has other licenses or similar licenses in other states, this will be reported to the other states, and disciplinary action will probably be initiated against those other licenses.

We have heard horror stories of investigators, accompanied by police or sheriff’s deputies, or Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents, making all sorts of threats against health professionals to intimidate them into giving up a DEA registration number or professional license, including medical licenses, nursing licenses, and pharmacy licenses.

In the case of such an incident occurring in Florida, the “voluntary” relinquishment must still be presented to the applicable professional Board and voted on at a scheduled meeting since it is considered disciplinary. It may be possible to withdraw the “voluntary” relinquishment before it is voted on, so all may not be lost.

Think Long and Hard About Relinquishing DEA Registration Number.

However, in the case of the DEA, a DEA registration number is considered gone as soon as the “voluntary” relinquishment paper is signed. This is one of the reasons it is crucial to talk with a knowledgeable health law attorney before making such a decision. The ones putting pressure on you to do this will do everything they can to persuade you not to talk to an attorney. But it is your right to do so. Don’t be rushed or intimidated into making a foolish decision you regret.

We have represented clients attempting to obtain a new DEA registration number or a new professional license years after their voluntary relinquishment. In most cases, it is a highly uphill battle and is often not successful.

Additional Consequences of Voluntary Relinquishment of a Professional License or DEA Registration Number.

The following are some of the additional consequences of voluntary relinquishment of a professional license or DEA number after notice of an investigation:

1. Disciplinary action will be commenced against any other professional licenses in the state.

2. Disciplinary action will be commenced against similar licenses in other states.

3. The matter will be reported to any national certification boards of which you are a member. They will most likely commence an action against you to revoke your national certification.

4. You will be placed on the Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) List of Excluded Entities and Individuals (LEIE) and excluded from the federal Medicare Program.

5. You will be terminated from the state’s Medicaid Program if you are a Medicaid provider.

6. You will be terminated from the panels of any health insurers or managed care plans of which you are a provider member.

There are many other possible repercussions to such actions, so it is extremely important to be prepared for such an event. To prepare, you can:

1. Purchase professional licensing defense insurance coverage through Lloyd’s of London, Healthcare Provider’s Service Organization (HPSO), Nurses Service Organization (NSO), or one of the other reputable insurance companies that provide such coverage.

2. Have the names, telephone numbers, and other information on good, reputable criminal defense and health law attorneys. Make sure your practice manager has this information as well.

3. Call as soon as an investigator walks in. Don’t wait.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced with Investigations of Health Professionals and Providers.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm provide legal representation to physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, CRNAs, dentists, pharmacists, psychologists and other health providers in Department of Health (DOH) investigations, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigations, FBI investigations, Medicare investigations, Medicaid investigations and other types of investigations of health professionals and providers.

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

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. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

Attorney Positions with The Health Law Firm. The Health Law Firm is always looking for qualified attorneys interested in the practice of health law. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. If you are a member of The Florida Bar and are interested, forward a cover letter and your resume to: PAlexander@TheHealthLawFirm.com or fax to: (407) 331-3030.

“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 © 2022 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By The Health Law Firm|2022-09-08T21:41:56-04:00September 8, 2022|Categories: DEA, Licensing issues, The Health Law Firm Blog|Tags: DEA attorney, DEA lawyer, DEA registration, defense attorney, defense lawyer, disciplinary action, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), exclusion form Medicaid, exclusion from Medicare, health care attorney, health care investigation, health care lawyer, health care license, health law attorney, health lawyer, health license revoked, investigation of a health care provider, medical license revoked, Office of the Inspector General (OIG) health care complaint, professional license revoked, relinquishment of DEA number, relinquishment of medical license, should I relinquish my DEA number, should I relinquish my medical license, voluntary relinquishment of DEA number, voluntary relinquishment of license|0 Comments

Will a Death from COVID-19 be Considered “Accidental Death” for Life Insurance Policies or a Death from “Accidental Causes?”

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

Almost all life insurance policies, including term policies, pay a “double indemnity,” that is, double the limits of coverage if a death occurs from “accidental causes” as opposed to “natural causes.” A question arises, given the COVID-19 pandemic, of whether a death caused by the novel corona versus would be considered a natural death or an accidental death. Fortunately, there is some guidance on this issue.

One reason it is important to distinguish between “accidental death” and “natural death” is that:

There is no pandemic exclusion for life insurance. General life insurance covers pandemics, assuming you were truthful about your travel plans and exposure to illness during the application process. . . . . An accidental death & dismemberment policy is more limited and covers deaths only when they’re accidental. It generally doesn’t [usually] cover deaths caused by illness and disease.

Nat’l Ass’n of Ins. Comm’rs, COVID-19 & Ins. (2020), https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/Insurance%20Brief%20-%20Covid-19%20and%20Insurance.pdf. (Emphasis added).

Definition of “Accidental Death”

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, an “accidental death” is defined as: “A death that results from an unusual event, one that was not voluntary, intended, expected, or foreseeable.” Accidental Death, Black’s Law Dictionary (4th pocket ed. 2011). Likewise, Ballentine’s Law Dictionary states than an “accidental death” is:

One that occurs unforeseen, undesigned, and unexpected. 29 Am J Rev ed Ins § 1166. One which occurs by accident, that is, was not designed or anticipated, albeit it may occur in consequence of a voluntary act.

Accidental Death, Ballentine’s Law Dictionary (3rd ed. 1969).

Under the above two definitions, definitions that are usually considered to come from the common law, death from the COVID-19 virus would be considered to be an “accidental death.”

Look to State Insurance Laws for Definitions.

One should also immediately look at the state’s insurance statutes to see if their state’s law defines “accidental death” in terms of insurance coverage. As an example, Florida law provides such definitions in Chapter 627 of Florida Statues which deals with insurance contracts.

Section 627.429(5)(c), Florida Statutes, is of particular note. Regarding death from HIV, for example, it states:

Except for preexisting conditions specifically applying to sickness or medical condition of the insured, benefits under a life insurance policy shall not be denied or limited based on the fact that the insured’s death was caused, directly or indirectly, by exposure to the HIV infection or a specific sickness or medical condition derived from such infection. This paragraph does not prohibit the issuance of accidental death only or specified disease policies.

Section 627.429(5)(c), Florida Statutes (emphasis added).

This is significant because the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is a very slow-acting disease that harms one’s immune system by destroying the white blood cells that fight infection. Death may not occur for years, even decades from an infection. Whereas, COVID-19 is a fast-acting respiratory virus. If death from HIV could be considered an “accidental death,” than death from COVID-19 certainly could be classified as “accidental death,” as well.

Legal Arguments for “Accidental Death”

If you have a death in your family and there is life insurance coverage on that person, you should not accept the insurance company’s determination that the death is from “natural causes” as opposed to “accidental death.” Challenge this decision, in court, if necessary.

A death caused by the COVID-19 virus is clearly “from an unusual event.” I doubt that anyone would even contest this issue. It is also clearly “one that was not voluntary, intended, [or] expected.” Again, the novel coronavirus pandemic has taken the world by surprise. How can anyone in their right mind argue that it was truly “expected.” “Foreseeable” would be an objective test as to whether this was something “reasonably foreseeable.” It does not appear, from the shock and unreadiness displayed by state and national governments and health officials, that this event was truly reasonably foreseeable.

I did not foresee it, did you? If 99.999% of the populace did not foresee it, how can it be argued that it is reasonably foreseeable? At the very least, this is a jury question and the foregoing should be argued to the jury. If the average reasonable man (the man who is a legal fiction) did not foresee this pandemic and the deaths that result, how can it not be an “accidental death”? It seems that any jury would be hard-pressed to find other than an “accidental death.”

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 healthcare provider. It also includes medical students, resident physicians, and fellows, as well as medical student professors and clinical staff. We represent 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, in patient complaints, and in Department of Health investigations.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.ThehealthLawFirm.com

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 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.

By The Health Law Firm|2020-05-07T15:34:35-04:00May 7, 2020|Categories: Health Facilities Law Blog|Tags: administrative complaint, Administrative Hearing, Department of Health (DOH), DOH defense attorney, Florida health law attorney, health care attorney, health care fraud, health care fraud defense attorney, health care lawyer, health law defense attorney, health law firm, representation for healthcare professionals, reviews of The Health Law Firm|0 Comments

Massage Therapists: Please DON’T Talk to the DOH Investigator Before Your Attorney!

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

Massage therapists, I beg you: please do not talk to a Department of Health (DOH) investigator until you have talked to a health lawyer who is experienced with DOH investigations and board licensing complaints. Do not answer or respond to even the most basic questions about where you work now, what your address is or if you know the patient.

Admitting to the Simplest Fact May Harm Your Career.

We are routinely consulted by massage therapists and other healthcare providers for representation for DOH investigations. Unfortunately, often times it is after they have already discussed the case and after it is too late to undo the damage they have caused to themselves. Often they do not understand the seriousness of the matter or the possible consequences until it’s too late. Admitting to even the most basic facts causes damage to any possible defense.

Administrative Licensure Investigations Such as These are Considered “Quasi-Criminal.”

The vast majority of massage therapists and even most attorneys do not realize that DOH investigations concerning complaints against a massage therapist’s license are considered to be “penal” or “quasi-criminal” proceedings. This means the same laws and constitutional rights apply to them as apply to criminal investigations. However, since they are also administrative proceedings and not strictly criminal proceedings, investigators do not need to advise you of your Miranda rights or tell you that you have the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, etc.

In any criminal investigation, a good criminal defense attorney would always tell you “Do not talk to the investigator” and “Tell the investigator you have a lawyer.”

Investigators’ Techniques Include Trying to Persuade You to Not Consult a Lawyer.

DOH investigators, police investigators, FBI investigators, and other law enforcement officers, are well trained in investigative techniques and how to get information out of suspects. Often the approach used is to catch you by surprise before you even know there is an investigation and the investigation is of you. Another technique used is to lull you into a false sense of security that the investigation is about someone or something else and not you. Another investigative technique is to convince you that you need to “Tell your side of the story” so that the investigation is accurate. Yet another is that “Things will go much better for you if you cooperate.” None of these things are true.

However, if it is truly in your best interest to cooperate or to make a statement after you consult with your attorney, your legal counsel will surely advise you to do this. The investigator should not mind waiting until you consult your attorney. However, many will go to extremes to convince you that you don’t need an attorney and shouldn’t get an attorney.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in the Representation of Massage Therapists.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm provide legal representation to massage therapists in Department of Health (DOH) investigations, licensing matters and other types of investigations of health professionals and providers. We have represented a number of massage therapists who have had summary actions initiated against their massage therapy licenses by the Department of Health (DOH).

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

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 Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

Disclaimer: Please note that this article represents our opinions based on our many years of practice and experience in this area of health law. You may have a different opinion; you are welcome to it. This one is mine.

Note: This article is for informational purposes only; it is not legal advice.

Keywords: Massage therapy representation, representation for massage therapy, massage therapy defense, massage therapy attorney, massage therapy lawyer, representation for massage therapy investigations, massage therapy licensing investigations, representation for DOH investigations, DOH lawyer, DOH attorney, DOH defense lawyer, DOH investigation representation, representation for DOH investigations, investigation of massage therapist, Florida massage laws, board licensing complaints, representation for board licencing complaints, board licencing defense lawyer, massage therapy licensure defense, representation for administrative complaint, administrative licensure investigation attorney, administrative hearing representation, Florida health law attorney, health care attorney, The Health Law Firm 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 © 2019 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By The Health Law Firm|2019-05-23T18:54:37-04:00May 23, 2019|Categories: Massage Law Blog|Tags: administrative hearing representation, administrative licensure investigation attorney, board licencing defense lawyer, board licensing complaints, DOH attorney, DOH defense lawyer, DOH investigation representation, DOH lawyer, Florida health law attorney, Florida massage laws, health care attorney, investigation of massage therapist, massage therapy attorney, massage therapy defense, massage therapy lawyer, massage therapy licensing investigations, massage therapy licensure defense, Massage therapy representation, representation for administrative complaint, representation for board licencing complaints, representation for DOH investigations, representation for massage therapy, representation for massage therapy investigations, The Health Law Firm reviews|0 Comments

Report: Florida Received an F in Medical Pricing Transparency

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

In Florida, it’s difficult to compare prices for medical services and procedures because the various prices are not made public. In part because of this, a recent study by a health-care advocacy group gave Florida an F for transparencies in pricing.

What Did the Analysis Look For?

The report analyzed whether or not states have laws and regulations that require health prices be made public.

Only One State Received an A.

The only state to receive an A in the study was New Hampshire. This is because of its NH Health-Cost site. The site provides consumers prices based on geography, type of insurance and other factors for everything from a basic visit to complicated medical tests. Consumers are able to go on the site and compare prices.

Florida Was Not the Only State to Receive an F.

Every state except five received the lowest grade from the Catalyst for Payment Reform and the Health Care Incentives Institute. So, if F was the average grade, I guess that means that Florida actually only received a C. Maybe there should be a “No State Left Behind” policy.

Comments?

Would you have given Florida an F? Do you think every state should have a health-cost website? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys.

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

Sources:

Kassab, Beth. “Hidden prices for health care earn Florida an F for transparency.” Orlando Sentinel. (July 16, 2015). Print.

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. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

KeyWords: Florida attorney, health care lawyer, health care attorney, law, health law, health care law, medical services, physician attorney, health care defense attorney, health care defense lawyer, health care, health care coverage, health law attorney, health law lawyer, The Health Law Firm

“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.

By The Health Law Firm|2015-07-20T19:54:33-04:00June 1, 2018|Categories: In the News, The Health Law Firm Blog|Tags: florida attorney, health care, health care attorney, health care coverage, health care defense attorney, health care defense lawyer, health care law, health care lawyer, health law, health law attorney, health law lawyer, healthcare, law, medical services, physician attorney, the health law firm|0 Comments

Author Recommends Medicare Use ‘Procedural Triage’ to Eliminate Backlog of Appeals and Restore Faith in the System

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

In a recent law journal article being considered for publication, Author Matthew J. B. Lawrence of the Harvard University Petrie-Flom Center, makes some bold recommendations for Medicare. His hypothesis seems to be that the extremely long delay that health care providers now face in getting a Medicare appeal hearing might be negatively affecting these providers’ view of the fundamental fairness of the system. Currently, the backlog in obtaining a Medicare Appeal Hearing before an administrative law judge is up to approximately 27 months. Mr. Lawrence argues “procedural triage” may be in order.

Following is an abstract of this article:

Prior scholarship has assumed that the inherent value of a “day in court” is the same for all claimants, and so that when procedural resources (like a jury trial or a hearing) are scarce, they should be rationed in the same way for all claimants. That is incorrect. This Article shows that the inherent value of a “day in court” can be far greater for some claimants, such as first-time filers, than for others, such as corporate entities, and that it can be both desirable and feasible to take this variation into account in doling out scarce procedural protections. In other words, it introduces and demonstrates the usefulness of procedural triage.

The Article demonstrates the real-world potential of procedural triage by showing how Medicare should use this new tool to address a looming administrative crisis that it is facing. In the methodological tradition of Jerry Mashaw’s seminal studies of the Social Security Administration, the Article uses its in-depth study of Medicare to develop a theoretical framework that can be used to think through where and how other adjudicatory processes should engage in procedural triage. The Article concludes by applying this framework to survey other potential applications for procedural triage, from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Blog Editor’s Comments:

The main point of the justice system is that everyone deserves a “day in court.” In this document, Procedural Triage, Matthew J. B. Lawrence argues that the value of a day is different for all claimants; it can be greater for some, so we shouldn’t treat everyone alike. Lawrence suggests some individuals deserve to have a hearing more than others, but sometimes the system compromises that rule.

One thing this article does is show how useful procedural triage can be. “Procedural triage” being a system that makes all medical institutions who are enrolled in Medicare use statistical tools for peoples to retain their right to a full “day in court.” He suggests Medicare uses the tool to face its current administrative crisis. In the end, it would benefit due process in the entire system.

Comments?

What do you think about procedural triage? Do you agree that Medicare should use it? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Contact a Health Care Attorney Experienced with Medicare and Medicaid Cases.

Attorneys with The Health Law Firm represent physicians, medical groups, nursing homes, home health agencies, pharmacies, hospitals and other healthcare providers and institutions in Medicare and Medicaid investigations, audits, recovery actions and termination from the Medicare or Medicaid Program. We also handle Medicare audits, ZPIC audits and RAC audits throughout Florida and across the U.S.

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

Sources:

Lawrence, Matthew J. B. “Procedural Triage.” Social Science Research Network. (June 17, 2015). From: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2619864

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. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

KeyWords: procedural triage, defense attorney, defense lawyer, medical lawyer, lawsuit, medical professionals, healthcare professionals, health care attorney, health care lawyer, The Health Law Firm, Medicare, court, litigation, day in court, procedural protections, Social Security Administration, adjudicatory, procedural justice, behavioral economics, adjudication, administrative process, civil procedure, due process, justice system

“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.

Federal Health Officials Propose Medicare Paying Doctors to Discuss End-of-Life Issues

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

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a new plan for doctors to discuss end-of-life issues with their patients. The plan is part of the CMS annual Medicare physician payment rule. This comes six years after the original controversy when President Obama first announced his health care legislation.

Doctors Will Be Paid for Discussing Treatment Options with Elderly Patients.

In what can only be described as welcomed and needed relief, the rule would reimburse doctors for discussing living wills and end-of-life medical treatment options with older patients. The medical discussions include long-term treatment options, like heart transplants. It also handles advance care planning, including a patient who desires treatment for a condition that affects his or her decision-making. These are conversations already taking place, but physicians are not currently paid for them.

The Pressure is on Medicare.

Medicare reimbursement is extremely important for elderly and disabled persons. As the second-largest insurer, many private insurers also follow the same rules Medicare adopts. Their place in the end-of-life care has long been debated. Whether or not health care professionals should be reimbursed for hospice and end-of-life treatment talks has been the center of debate. Physician groups and patient advocates have been pushing the health program to pay doctors for these consultations.

Many advocacy groups, including the American Medical Association (AMA), support the proposal. The AMA believes it’s the patient’s choice to plan advance-care decisions. Research has shown that there are great benefits to elders in advance-care planning and having their end-of-life wishes known to others. Receiving timely knowledge from physicians and health professionals can result in better decisions and ease of mind.

Rules Previously Criticized as “Death Panels” by Ignoramuses.

Sarah Palin, the towering mountain of medical knowledge and intellectual analysis, who dragged down John McCain into defeat during the elections of 2008, previously denounced similar payment provisions in the past. Sparking a great deal of unnecessary controversy, Palin claimed the health care reform legislation would create “death panels.” As a result of these and other similar accusations, the provision was removed from the final Affordable Care Act legislation. This deprived elders of useful knowledge and deprived health care providers of payment for their services. To read more about the “death panel” controversy, click here.

Comments?

What do you think of end-of-life discussions? Do you think they should be in place? Should physicians be reimbursed? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Grier, Peter. “ ‘Death Panel’ Controversy Very Much Alive.” The Christian Science Monitor. (Aug. 21, 2009). From: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/0821/death-panel-controversy-remains-very-much-alive

Sun, Lena H. “Medicare Proposes to Pay Doctors to Have End-of-Life Care Discussions.” The Washington Post. (July 8, 2015). From:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/medicare-proposes-to-pay-doctors-to-have-end-of-life-care-discussions/2015/07/08/1d7bb436-25a7-11e5-aae2-6c4f59b050aa_story.html

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

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. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

KeyWords: Medicare, federal health, health law, health law attorney, health law lawyer, end-of-life issues, The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), CMS, Medicaid, healthcare, health care, health care attorney, health care lawyer, physicians, physician attorney, health care legislation, Affordable Care Act, ACA, medicine, the health law firm, death panel, death panel controversy, Medicare investigations, Medicaid investigations, elderly healthcare, senior health care, American Medical Association

“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.

Chinese Nationals Indicted in Alleged U.S. Test-Taking Scheme

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

Fifteen Chinese citizens living in the United States reportedly conspired to take college entrance exams for others so they could obtain student visas, according to the Associated Press. The frauds allegedly took standardized exams including the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), the Graduate Record Examination (GRE), and the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL).

The Test-Taking Conspiracy.

According to BBC News, the scheme reportedly took place between 2011 and 2015, mainly in western Pennsylvania. Six individuals named in the indictment were identified as students who supposedly paid up to $6,000 to have other individuals, also charged, take the tests. The test-takers purportedly “impersonated others, and those others were able to use the fraudulent test scores to obtain F1 visas,” U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania David Hickton told the Associated Press. The individuals allegedly used fake passports that contained the students’ personal information, but a picture of the test-taker substituted for the student.

Testing Services Cooperate with the Investigation.

Princeton, New Jersey-based Educational Testing Service and the New York-based College Board are cooperating with the investigation, according to Hickton. “Their actions are consistent with the College Board’s commitment to identify and stop illegal activity that undermines the integrity of our exams and the hard work of students around the world,” College Board vice president Stacy Caldwell told the Associated Press. Educational Testing Service administers the SAT, GRE, and TOEFL exams, while the College Board oversees SAT registration.

Offenders Expected to Receive More Than Just a Slap on the Wrist.

The charges against the suspects include conspiracy, counterfeiting passports, mail and wire fraud, BBC News reported. The defendants, both male and female ranging in age from 19 to 26, could face up to 20 years in prison if convicted. According to BBC’s report, Special Agent in Charge of Homeland Security Investigations of Philadelphia John Kelleghan believes “these students were not only cheating their way into the university, they were also cheating their way through our nation’s immigration system.”

Due to the ongoing investigation, a final number has not yet been released documenting an exact number of suspects believed to be involved in the ruse.

Is There Similar Activity Going On in Medical Testing for NBME, USMLE or ECFMG Administered Tests?

There have been somewhat similar alleged test-taking fraudulent activities involving medical testing. From time to time we are consulted by individuals who have been caught using fraudulent documents to attempt to take the USMLE Step exams. We are also aware of allegations that there have been compromises of actual examinations involving foreign nationals. For example, see the blog I wrote on the Optima scandal.

On the whole, the NBME, USMLE, and ECFMG and their testing centers do an excellent job in screening out fraudulent test takers. It would be foolish for anyone who ever hoped to be a practicing physician to try to perpetrate a fraud in taking these tests.

Comments?

What are your thoughts on these allegations? Do you feel standardized testing should be monitored more heavily to prevent test-taking fraud from occurring? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm provide legal representation to medical, dental, chiropractic, other professional students, residents, interns and fellows in academic disputes, contract negotiations, license applications, board certification applications and hearings, credential hearings, and civil and administrative litigations.

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

Sources:

“Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs for Others.” BBC News. (May 28 2015). From:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32921737

Mandak, Joe. “Feds Indict 15 Chinese in Alleged College Test-Taking Scheme.” The Associated Press. (May 28, 2015). From:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/feds-indict-15-chinese-alleged-college-test-taking-31366456

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. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone (407) 331-6620.

KeyWords: medical students, standardized tests, irregular behavior, fraud, defense attorney, legal representation, criminal proceeding, administrative law, health law, health care attorney, health care lawyer, defense lawyer, GME, graduate medical education, Step exams, medical interns, medical residents, ECFMG lawyer, USMLE attorney, foreign medical graduate attorney, legal counsel, legal advocate

“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

FACTS: 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.

Watch Out for Legal Pitfalls Associated with Telemedicine

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

With all the new technologies, mobile medical applications, expansion of access to health care under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and the emphasis on quality care, telemedicine is at the forefront of the health care industry.

Now is the time to educate yourself on the new opportunities in practicing telemedicine. As with any new health care business model, you also have to assess the risks and be sure you are complying with the ever increasing number of regulations.

Where Telemedicine Stands Today.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) can be credited for the telemedicine revival. In 2011, CMS issued a final rule permitting a more flexible process for credentialing and privileging practitioners who provide telemedicine services. Telemedicine escalated in 2013, when federal and state legislation and major insurers expanded the types of reimbursable telemedicine services. Now in 2014, there are more partnerships between insurers and health care delivery systems to provide patients access to specialists through telemedicine programs.
For example, WellPoint, Inc., and Aetna, Inc., among other health insurers, are letting millions of patients schedule online visits with health care professionals. These insurance companies are working together with companies that offer virtual visits with doctors who, in some states, can prescribe drugs for anything from sinus infections to back pain. According to Bloomberg, this is a major advancement for telemedicine. To read the entire article from Bloomberg, click here.

The Current Status of Telemedicine in Florida.

In March 2014, the Florida Boards of Medicine and Osteopathic Medicine adopted updated standards for practicing telemedicine. The final rule, 64B8-9.0141, Florida Administrative Code, defines telemedicine as:

the practice of medicine by a licensed Florida physician or physician assistant where patient care, treatment, or services are provided through the use of medical information exchanged from one site to another via electronic communications. Telemedicine shall not include the provision of health care services only through an audio only telephone, email messages, text messages, facsimile transmission, U.S. mail or other parcel service, or any combination thereof.

The rule states that the standard of care shall remain the same regardless of whether a physician provides services in person or by telemedicine. Also, those providing telemedicine services are responsible for the safety, security and adequacy of their equipment.

Several other parts of the new Florida telemedicine rule are worth noting:

1. Telemedicine is sufficient to establish a physician-patient relationship;
2. All regulations regarding patient confidentiality and record keeping are applicable;
3. The rule specifically exempts medical advice given by emergency responders including EMTs, paramedics and emergency dispatchers;
4. The rule also does not apply to physicians or physician assistants providing emergency care under conditions requiring immediate medical care; and
5. Florida law presently prohibits prescribing controlled substances via telemedicine.

Telemedicine and the Potential Legal Issues.

As telemedicine grows, so will the oversight and scrutiny by state medical boards and federal and state regulatory agencies. Here are some areas to be mindful of:

– Reimbursement: This is continuously an issue with telemedicine. Medicare reimbursement for telemedicine services is limited and generally requires face-to-face contact between patients and providers. Medicaid reimbursement varies from state-to-state, and only about 20 states have enacted statutes that require reimbursement for certain telemedicine services. This means health care providers need to review Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement policies, state health insurance regulations, and provider payer contract requirements so that they are aware of the reimbursement requirements that may affect their billing. Educate yourself on what will and what won’t be reimbursed, and only submit compliant claims to avoid audits.

– Fraud and Abuse: As a telemedicine provider, you will most likely initiate business arrangements between distinct health care entities that may include the lease of equipment or the use of a product owned, in part, by physicians. Arrangements like this need to be written with federal fraud and abuse laws in mind, including the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law. For more advice on telemedicine-related fraud issues, review advisory opinions issued by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG).

– Medical Staff Bylaws: Health care organizations that depend on information from a distant-site hospital or telemedicine entity to credential and privilege telemedicine practitioners must revise their medical staff bylaws and policies to include criteria for granting privileges to distant practitioners, and a procedure for applying the criteria. Additions should also include what category of the medical staff distant-site telemedicine practitioners will join, the level of involvement they may have in medical staff committees, and what procedural rights they should be given.

– Credentialing and Privileging: Under CMS’ final rule, health care organizations may rely on the credentialing and privileging decisions of distant-site hospitals or the information provided by other telemedicine entities when determining privileges for distant-site practitioners who provide telemedicine services, as long as certain conditions are met, including a compliant written agreement.

– Patient Privacy: Providers are responsible for ensuring they have secure communication channels, implementing business associate and other confidentiality and privacy agreements, educating staff regarding the appropriate use of telemedicine, and understanding how and what patient information is being collected and stored.

– Compliance with State Requirements: Most states require physicians engaging in telemedicine to be licensed in the state where the patient is located. It would be wise for health care organizations to seek the legal guidance of an experienced health law attorney to navigate individual state requirements.

– Interactions with Pain Management Laws: Our practice has seen many physicians become the subject of some kind of government investigation or action resulting from the remote practice of medicine in a pain management setting. These telemedicine rules do not alter the status quo in pain management. Physicians are still required to see patients in a face-to-face encounter in order to prescribe controlled substances for the treatment of pain. There are discussions among the members of the Florida Boards of Medicine and Osteopathic Medicine to permit limited prescribing of controlled substances through telemedicine. However, the boundaries of a future rule are unclear. Considering the hard-line stance the Boards have taken toward pain management in general, it is unlikely that any final rule would authorize the remote practice of pain management.

Health care providers need to stay mindful of the listed legal issues, and any others that may come up. It is important when practicing telemedicine to ensure your services are compliant, and you appropriately protect patient safety and privacy.

Comments?

Does your practice use telemedicine? In your opinion what are the benefits and what are the difficulties of telemedicine? 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 www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

French, Marie. “The Doctor Will Click on You Now.” Bloomberg. (July 13, 2014). From: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-14/the-doctor-will-click-on-you-now.html

Kadzielski, Mark and Kim, Jee-Young. “Telemedicine: Many Opportunities, Many Legal Issues, Many Risks.” JD Supra. (July 30, 2014). From: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/telemedicine-many-opportunities-many-l-18993/

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. 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 © 1996-2014 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By The Health Law Firm|2014-08-14T09:00:47-04:00June 1, 2018|Categories: HHS, The Health Law Firm Blog|Tags: administrative law, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), defense attorney, defense lawyer, doctor shortage, e-visit, electronic medical questionnaire, Florida standards for telemedicine, Florida telemedicine, health care attorney, health care lawyer, health care reform, health law, online house call, physician shortage, Telemedicine|0 Comments

Fake Surgeon in Florida Accused of Performing Liposuction Without a License

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

A Kissimmee, Florida, man was arrested on December 18, 2013, on charges that he has been allegedly performing liposuction without a medical license in a Central Florida clinic. According to the Orlando Sentinel, the Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation (MBI) began investigating the phony surgeon about a year ago, after Florida Department of Health (DOH) received a complaint about the clinic in which the phony doctor worked. The clinic was called “Sculptural Orlando.”

Click here to read the article from the Orlando Sentinel.

Investigators Looking for More Victims.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, it is alleged the fake surgeon has been performing illegal liposuction surgeries for about a year and telling his patients he was a licensed medical doctor.

After further investigation, MBI agents discovered the clinic was licensed as a massage establishment and the fake surgeon did not hold a valid medical license in Florida. Several MBI agents visited the clinic undercover, posing as potential customers. The agents allege the fake surgeon performed evaluations on them and showed them before-and-after photos of his patients.

The DOH is still looking for victims or tips related to the fake surgeon and any unlicensed activity at the clinic.

Practicing Without a License Is a Crime.

This is by no means the first report we’ve heard of phony health care professionals operating on patients or injecting people with toxic chemicals. For some reason, Florida seems to get more than its fair share of these.

Practicing medicine without a license is a crime. Additionally, so is helping someone practice medicine without a license. As a licensed healthcare practitioner, you may be asked to supervise others or participate in a clinic or practice as a “medical director,” supervisor, or monitor. Remember that your license may be at stake with any wrongdoing by those subordinates under your supervision. Before you join a practice or agree to supervise others, check first with the DOH that the other providers have legitimate, active licenses. You can verify a license for free on the DOH’s website.

Also, remember that a license to practice medicine in Venezuela, Cuba, Mexico or anywhere else, is just that: a license to practice in that country. It does not allow a person to practice medicine in the United States or Florida. A license from the State of Florida is required to practice in Florida, except for certain military and government-employed physicians. Always check a physician’s license.

Additionally, a medical clinic that is not owned 100% by a licensed physician, podiatrist, chiropractor, physical therapist or nurse practitioner (or a few other specified medical professions) must have a separate Health Care Clinic License (HCCL) that is issued by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA).

We have been consulted by many professionals who have found themselves caught working in illegal clinics. For example, a medical clinic cannot be owned by a deceased physician’s spouse who is not a licensed health professional, unless it has a HCCL. A clinic cannot be owned 50% by a CPA and 50% by a doctor, unless it has a separate HCCL. A dental clinic cannot be owned 20% by a non-dentist and 80% by a dentist; this is illegal and even a HCCL will not make it legal.

Always check out the credentials of a clinic, and its owners before you accept a job there or before you seek treatment there.

More Stories on Fake Physicians and Other Phony and Fraudulent Professionals to Come.

On this blog we will include additional articles on fake doctors and health care professionals, similar to those we have published in the past.

To see a blog on a fake dentist in Miami, click here. You can also read the story of a fake plastic surgeon in New York by clicking here. To read the story of a fake doctor in Texas accused of injecting patients with silicone instead of Botox, click here.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced with Investigations of Health Professionals and Providers.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm provide legal representation to physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, CRNAs, dentists, pharmacists, psychologists and other health providers in Department of Health (DOH) investigations, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigations, FBI investigations, Medicare investigations, Medicaid investigations and other types of investigations of health professionals and providers.

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

Comments?

What do you think of all of these news stories of phony health care professionals? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Pavuk, Amy. “Man Accused of Performing Illegal Liposcutions.” Orlando Sentinel. (December 19, 2013). From: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-liposuction-without-license-arrest-20131219,0,7677863.story

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 © 1996-2012 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.