health law

The Affordable Care Act Offers the Government New Tools to Fight Healthcare Fraud

By Catherine T. Hollis, J.D., The Health Law Firm

In 2013, the government reported recovery of a record-breaking $10.7 billion in healthcare fraud in the past three years, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The HHS credits the Affordable Care Act’s tough stance on fraud for improving the efforts to fight Medicare fraud.

The increase in fraud recovery is attributed in part to the Act’s proactive approach to preventing fraud. The Act contains several initiatives that address Medicare fraud, resulting in increased fraud-fighting tools available to the government. The joint effort between the HHS, the DOJ and the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team has been a primary driving force in seeking out fraud and securing recoveries. The HHS and DOJ’s website highlights some of the Act’s “powerful steps” toward fighting fraud, waste and abuse. Click here to read more from www.stopmedicarefraud.gov.

Tougher Punishment.

The Act increases federal sentencing guidelines for healthcare fraud by twenty percent (20%) to fifty percent (50%) for crimes that involve more than $1 million in losses. The Act also establishes penalties for obstructing a fraud investigation or an audit.

Stricter Screening for Enrollment and Revalidation.

According to the HHS, the new screening procedures include licensure checks and site visits for all providers and suppliers. In addition, the Act imposes higher scrutiny on providers and suppliers who may pose a higher risk of fraud or abuse. High risk providers and suppliers can be subject to unscheduled site visits and fingerprint-based criminal background checks.

The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has started to revalidate the enrollment of all 1.5 million existing Medicare providers and suppliers, using the new screening requirements set forth by the Act. Thousands of enrollments have already been deactivated or revoked as the result of this effort. There is a blog on our website about the devastating and far reaching effects of being excluded from the Medicare program. Click here to read that blog.

New Detection Technology.

CMS is using the Fraud Prevention System to screen all fee-for-service Medicare claims. This system uses advanced predictive technology, similar to that used by credit card companies, to analyze claims prior to payment. It also scans for suspicious billing patterns. Claims identified by the Fraud Prevention System as suspect are reviewed by CMS for possible fraud.

Increased Resources.

The Act provides an additional $350 million over ten years (2011 through 2020) through the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Account.

These steps represent a more proactive approach to Medicare fraud. The government is focusing on preventing fraud before it happens, rather than paying fraudulent claims and seeking reimbursement after the fact. The tools contained in the Act, as implemented by CMS and HHS, further the goal of the Act to reduce fraud, waste and abuse in the Medicare system. To read a summary of the anti-fraud provisions in the Affordable Care Act, click here.

Anti-Fraud Provisions At Work.

On May 14, 2013, the HHS and DOJ announced the arrest of 89 people, including doctors, nurses and other medical professionals, in eight cities. These people are allegedly charged in separate Medicare fraud schemes. According to the DOJ, the scans involve approximately $223 million in false billing. Click here to read a blog on these arrests. To read more blogs on Medicare and Medicaid fraud, visit our website.

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

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm represent healthcare providers in Medicare audits, ZPIC audits and RAC audits throughout Florida and across the U.S. They also 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.

For more information please visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com or call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001.

Comments?

Do you think the Affordable Care Act will help cut down on healthcare fraud? Why or why not? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Sjoerdsma, Donald. “The Affordable Care Act Bolstered, Didn’t Drive Medicare Anti-Fraud Efforts.” The Medicare Newsgroup. (March 22, 2013). From: http://medicarenewsgroup.com/context/understanding-medicare-blog/understanding-medicare-blog/2013/03/22/the-affordable-care-act-bolstered-didn-t-drive-medicare-anti-fraud-efforts

“The Affordable Care Act and Fighting Fraud.” U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and U.S. Department of Justice. From: http://www.stopmedicarefraud.gov/aboutfraud/aca-fraud/index.html

Health Benefits ABCs. “Summary of Anti-Fraud Provisions in the Affordable Care Act.” U.S. Administration on Aging, Department of Health and Human Services. From: http://www.smpresource.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ConsumerProtection/HealthCareReform/Anti-Fraud_Provisions_in_Health_Care_Reform.docx

“New Tools to Fight Fraud, Strengthen Federal and Private Health Programs, and Protect Consumer and Taxpayer Dollars.” U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (March 15, 2011). From: http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2011/03/fraud03152011a.html

About the Author: Catherine T. Hollis 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 © 1996-2012 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

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

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T10:01:00-04:00June 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|Comments Off

Health Care Professionals and Providers Beware: The Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) Is Catching Fire

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

In May 2009, the Department of Health and Humans Services (HHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) created the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT). HEAT’s mission is to focus its efforts on preventing and deterring fraud and to enforce current anti-fraud laws around the country. To date, almost 1,400 individuals have been charged in connection with schemes involving more than $4.8 billion in fraudulent billings in these HEAT takedown operations.

To learn more about HEAT, click here to visit the website.

The Success of the HEAT Team.

According to the website, between 2008 and 2011, HEAT actions led to a seventy-five percent (75%) increase in individuals charged with criminal health care fraud. So far there have been six nationwide HEAT sting operations.

In 2011, HEAT agents led the largest-ever federal health care fraud takedown involving $530 million in fraudulent billing. To read more on this sting, click here.

On May 14, 2013, the DOJ announced that more than 400 law enforcement officials with HEAT spread out between eight cities including Miami and Tampa Bay to arrest 89 people accused of false billing. A majority of these arrests were allegedly of health care professionals. Click here to read a blog with more information on this takedown.

HEAT Captures One of Medicare’s Most-Wanted Fugitives.

On June 1, 2013, a former Los Angeles physical therapy clinic owner, and one of Medicare’s most-wanted fugitives, was arrested by HEAT agents at the Los Angeles International Airport on his return flight. According to a Los Angeles Times article, the clinic owner was an acupuncturist who billed Medicare for $2.1 million in false claims and was paid about $1.2 million. To read more from the Los Angeles Times, click here.

Expanding the Medicare Fraud Strike Force Efforts.

HEAT is a multi-agency team of federal, state and local investigators who combat Medicare fraud through the use of Medicare data analysis techniques and an increased focus on community policing.

The Affordable Care Act has given HEAT additional tools to preserve Medicare by expanding the team’s authority to suspend Medicare payments and reimbursements when fraud is suspected.

To better combat fraud, the government has established HEAT in a number of cities, such as Los Angeles, Miami, Tampa Bay, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, Brooklyn, Baton Rouge and Detroit.

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

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm represent health care providers in Medicare audits, ZPIC audits and RAC audits throughout Florida and across the U.S. They also 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.

For more information please visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com or call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001.

Comments?

Have you heard of HEAT? Do you think the team’s efforts are curbing Medicare fraud around the country? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Department of Justice. “Medicare Fraud Strike Force Charges 89 Individuals for Approximately $223 Million in False Billing.” Department of Justice. (May 14, 2013). From: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/May/13-crm-553.html

Terhune, Chad. “One of Medicare’s Most-Wanted Fugitives is Arrested in L.A.” Los Angeles Times. (June 3, 2013). From: http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-medicare-most-wanted-fugitive-arrest-20130603,0,7474342.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. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

Breach of HIPAA Privacy Regulations May be a Basis for Negligence Actions

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

Given the advances in information technology, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) was enacted by Congress as a comprehensive legislative and regulatory scheme to ensure basic protections of patients’ right of privacy regarding their health information. HIPAA, standing alone, does not provide a private right of action. It also preempts contrary state laws. A recent case in the Supreme Court of Connecticut, Byrne v. Avery Center for Obstetrics and Gynecology, P.C., 102 A.3d 32 (Conn. 2014), addressed these issues. The decision answered the question of whether HIPAA preempts state law claims for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress against a healthcare provider who released medical records in the course of complying with a subpoena.

The Facts of Byrne v. Avery Center for Obstetrics and Gynecology, P.C.

During May 2004, Byrne started a personal relationship with Andro Mendoza, which lasted four months. At some point during May 2004 and July 12, 2005, the Avery Center provided Byrne with gynecological and obstetrical care and treatment. During the visit she was given the center’s privacy policy regarding protected health information. The policy, and the law, state that a patient’s health information will not be disclosed without their authorization. After Byrne’s relationship with Mendoza ended she instructed the center not to release her medial records to him.

On May 31, 2005, Mendoza filed paternity actions against Byrne. The Avery Center was served with a subpoena requesting its presence, along with Byrne’s medical records, at Probate Court. The center did not alert Byrne of the subpoena, file a motion to quash or appear in court. Instead, it mailed a copy of Byrne’s medical file to the court.

The Supreme Court of Connecticut’s Holding.

The Supreme Court of Connecticut reasoned that the fact a state law that allows an individual to file a civil action to protect their privacy exist does not mean that the law conflicts with the HIPAA penalty provisions. Therefore, the court concluded that HIPAA does not preempt causes of action when they are based on a state common or statutory law due to a healthcare provider’s breach of confidentiality.

The court found that a number of federal and state courts have ruled that a breach of the HIPAA Privacy Rule may be the basis for a breach of a duty of care in state court negligence actions. A patient’s private right of action does not conflict with or complicate healthcare provider’s compliance with HIPAA. In fact, negligence claims in state courts are furthering HIPAA’s goal of deterring wrongful disclosure of patient’s healthcare information. To view a past blog on a HIPAA violation case in California, click here.

Editors’ Comments on Byrne.

This is the latest of several recent cases where state courts have allowed cases to proceed against health care providers who breached the medical confidentiality of their patients, based in part on the HIPAA Privacy Regulations. In this case, the court correctly held that, although HIPAA does not afford a private right of action by itself, it does establish the duty that is owed by a healthcare provider to its patients to protect their medical information. With this duty being established, the plaintiff can then proceed under a straight negligence tort cause of action.

It is also noteworthy that the HIPAA Privacy Regulations are just one source of “evidence” or standards that can be used to establish th duty owed by medical professionals and theories.

This case also helps to put to rest the spurious defense that HIPAA might “preempt” such a cause of action that is brought under state law. We have seen this theory used by defendants just about any time a federal statute or federal regulation might come into play in a tort law suit. The court correctly determined that this defense theory was not valid.

If anything, HIPAA has better defined and strengthened a duty that has been owed to patients by physicians, nurses, health professionals and health facilities since the time of Hippocrates.

Comments?

What are your thoughts on the Supreme Court of Connecticut’s ruling? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

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

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

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

Source:

Byrne v. Avery Center for Obstetrics and Gynecology, P.C., 102 A.3d 32 (Conn. 2014). From:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6869878125055474806&q=Byrne+v.+Avery+Center+for+Obstetrics+and+Gynecology,+P.C.,+102+A.3d+32+(Conn.+2014)&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

About the Authors: Shelby Root is a summer associate at The Health Law Firm. She is a student at Barry University College of Law in Orlando. 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: Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, HIPAA, HIPAA Privacy Rules, HIPAA compliance, protected health information, patient privacy, patient rights, HIPAA violation, penalties for HIPAA violation, civil penalties for HIPAA violation, privacy, defense attorney, defense lawyer, HIPAA defense attorney, HIPAA violation help, HIPAA attorney, HIPAA lawyer, compliance plans, health law, The Health Law Firm

Orlando Health Law Attorneys to Speak at Florida Hospital

Attorneys from The Health Law Firm will be presenting a seminar on contracts to Florida Hospital’s family medicine residents and medical students on Wednesday, December 7, 2011 at Florida Hospital East Orlando. The lecture aims to provide information on contract negotiations and employee contract review.

This seminar is part of a series that will be presented to Florida Hospital’s family medicine department by The Health Law Firm‘s attorneys. Other lecture topics will include top legal concerns common to doctors, such as navigating a Department of Health complaint.

Based in Altamonte Springs, Fla., The Health Law Firm concentrates in representing health care providers, exclusively. Services provided by the firm include reviewing and negotiating contracts, defense of professional licensing cases, representation in investigations, defense in credentialing matters, Medicare and Medicaid audits, formation of corporations and limited liability companies (LLCs), Board of Medicine hearings, peer review actions, Department of Health investigations, pain management and pain medicine physician and clinic defense, representation of medical students, and other matters of Health Law and legal representation of health care professionals.

For more information about The Health Law Firm visit http://www.thehealthlawfirm.com.

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T10:00:28-04:00June 1, 2018|Categories: Our Firm, The Health Law Firm Blog|Tags: florida hospital, health law, physician contracts, seminar, the health law firm|Comments Off

George F. Indest III, Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

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

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 17, 2013, that pay-for-delay agreements between brand name and generic drug manufacturers are subject to anti-trust scrutiny. These pay-for-delay agreements, or reverse payments, are usually a form of settlement between the two manufacturers in patent litigation. The Supreme Court decided that each instance must be considered on a case-by-case basis. This verdict rewrites the rules governing the release of generic drugs. It is likely to increase the number of generic drugs in the marketplace and reduce the price of generic drugs.

To read a previous blog on pay-for-delay agreements, click here.

What is a Pay-for-Delay Agreement?

Pay-for-delay agreements came as the result of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act gives generic drug manufacturers an incentive to challenge brand name drug patents because the first generic drug manufacturer to received U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to launch a generic copy of a brand name drug can receive a 180-day marketing exclusivity period for the product. The FDA cannot approve any other generic applications for the same drug until the first-to-file generic manufacturer has sold its product for 180 days or has given up its exclusivity period. Click here to read the Hatch-Waxman Act.

Brand name manufacturers often challenge generic drug manufacturers who try to sell their product prior to patent expiration. This results in litigation to determine whether the generic manufacturer is violating the brand name manufacturer’s patents.

Instead of going to court over this, brand name manufacturers often choose to pay a settlement to the generic drug manufacturers for agreeing to delay the launch of its competing product.

Why the Supreme Court Overruled Court of Appeals Decision.

The 5-3 vote overruled the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that said pharmaceutical companies can’t be sued unless the patent litigation is a sham or a generic drug maker agrees to delay introduction of a generic drug into the market even after the patent has expired.

A Med Page Today article lists the Supreme Court’s five reasons why the appellate court made a mistake in giving blanket immunity to pay-for-delay agreements from the decision written by Justice Stephen Breyer:

– “A reverse payment, where large and unjustified, can bring with it the risk of significant anticompetitive effects.”

– “One who makes such a payment may be unable to explain and to justify it.”

– “Such a firm or individual may well possess market power derived from the patent.”

– “A court, by examining the size of the payment, may well be able to assess its likely anticompetitive effects along with its potential justifications without litigating the validity of the patent.”

– “Parties may well find ways to settle patent disputes without the use of reverse payments.”

Click here to read the entire Med Page Today article.

Pay-for-Delay Agreements Allegedly Cost Patients Millions of Dollars a Year.

According to Bloomberg, the high court’s decision may discourage brand name and generic pharmaceutical companies from reaching settlements. It’s been found that pay-for-delay agreements can delay a generic drug almost 17 months before it can be put on the market. In the meantime, patients must pay higher prices for the brand name version. This also impacts Medicare and Medicaid programs. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) claims pay-for-delay agreements cost consumers $3.5 billion a year in the form of higher drug prices.

To read the Bloomberg article, click here.

The Case of the FTC v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals.

The Supreme Court case center around AndroGel, a treatment for low testosterone in men, made by Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The FTC sued Solvay and three generic drug companies. According to Bloomberg, the FTC said that a payment made by Solvay, the holder of a patent on AndroGel, to the generic drug manufacturers represented an unlawful restraint of trade because it was intended to keep cheaper, generic versions of AndroGel off the market until 2020.

FTC Enthusiastic About the Decision.

In a statement, the FTC Chairwoman said the Supreme Court’s decision is a “significant victory for American consumers, American taxpayers and free market.” She also stated, “The court made it clear that pay-for-delay agreements are subject to antitrust scrutiny.”

Click here to read the full statement from the FTC.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Pharmacies and Pharmacists.

The Health Law Firm represents pharmacists and pharmacies in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, litigation, inspections and audits. The firm’s attorneys include those who are board certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.

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

Comments?

What do you think of the Supreme Court’s ruling? Do you agree or disagree? What effect do you think it will have on the pharmaceutical industry? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Stohn, Greg. “Drugmakers Opened to ‘Pay for Delay’ Suits by High Court.” Bloomberg. (June 17, 2013). From: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-17/drugmakers-opened-to-pay-for-delay-suits-by-high-court.html

Frieden, Joyce. “Supreme Court Split on Pharma ‘Pay for Delay’ Deals.” Med Page Today. (June 17, 2013). From: http://bit.ly/18SfhKb

Kaplan, Peter. “Statement of FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in FTC v. Actavis, Inc.” (June 17,2 013). From: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2013/06/actavis.shtm

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.

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T10:00:49-04:00June 1, 2018|Categories: Appeal, Health Care Industry, In the Know, In the News, Pharmaceutical Drugs, Pharmacy, The Health Law Firm Blog|Tags: AARP, American Medical Association, brand name drugs, brand name prescriptions, brand-name drug manufacturers, defense attorney, defense lawyer, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), florida attorney, Florida lawyer, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), generic drug manufacturers, generic drugs, generic medications, generic prescriptions, health law, medicaid, medicare, Pay-for-Delay Drug Agreement, pay-for-delay practices, pharmaceutical industry, pharmacist, pharmacy, pharmacy law, prescription, supreme court, the health law firm|Comments Off

Appeals Court Upholds Medical Malpractice Law Changes

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

On July 21, a state appeals court in Tallahassee upheld the constitutionality of a controversial change in Florida’s medical malpractice law. It ruled that some privacy rights are waived when patients pursue medical malpractice lawsuits. A federal appeals court last year also upheld the change in Florida’s law.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the First District Court of Appeal resulted from a 2013 change in the medical malpractice law. The Republican-controlled Florida Legislature passed the amendments to the laws after a lobbying dispute between groups like doctors and plaintiffs’ attorneys.

Ex Parte Communications Play a Major Role.

The disputes in whether the changes were constitutionally valid centered around what is known as “ex parte communications.” The amended statute allowed doctors being sued for malpractice (or their attorneys) to speak with the patients’ other physicians, whether the patient consents or not. The new law also requires patients to sign forms authorizing the release of medical information before filing malpractice claims.

Ex parte communications allow a patient’s personal health information be obtained and used in a case. Other doctors who have treated the patient could provide the information. Additionally, without the patient’s knowledge or the patient’s attorney present, a disclosure of medical information could occur.

This Ruling Stemmed From a 2013 Case in Escambia County.

In 2013, Emma Gayle Weaver of Escambia County, Florida wanted to file a medical-malpractice lawsuit against a physician. According to court documents, her concern was about the constitutionality of the ex parte provision of the law. She challenged having to disclose her medical information to the other physician she was suing in order to bring her case.

The challenge raised legal questions about privacy rights given to all citizens by the Florida Constitution. But the panel of appeal judges disagreed that the ex parte provision violates her privacy rights.

The appeal decision, written by Judge James Wolf, stated: “It is well-established in Florida and across the country that any privacy rights that might attach to a claimant’s medical information are waived once that information is placed at issue by filing a medical malpractice claim. Thus, by filing the medical malpractice lawsuit, the decedent’s medical condition is at issue.”

To read more about the Weaver v. Myers decision, click here.

Another Issue Was Addressed.

Another issue questioned whether the ex parte change violated the constitutional separation of powers. The contention dealt with whether the Legislature overstepped the role of the Florida Supreme Court. But the appeals court ruled that the change was not procedural but rather was “integral to the substantive pre-suit notice” requirements that are in the law and mandated before the filing of a medical malpractice case.

The Federal Appeals Court Also Said the Law Doesn’t Violate HIPAA.

Last year, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ex parte change in a ruling that focused on whether the 2013 law violates the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which prevents disclose of personal medical information. The federal appeals court said the law did not violate HIPAA, a decision also cited in the First District Court of Appeal’s decision.

Comments?

Do you agree the court’s ruling? Do you think this provision violates privacy rights? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Consult With a Health Law Attorney Experienced in the Representation Health Care Professionals.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm provide legal representation to physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, CRNAs, dentists, pharmacists, psychologists and other health providers 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 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Source:

Saunders, Jim. “Appeals court upholds waiver of privacy rights in malpractice cases.” (July 22, 2015). Palm Beach Post. From: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/florida-appeals-court-backs-controversial-medical-/nm48m/

KeyWords: Medical malpractice, medical malpractice defense attorney, medical malpractice defense lawyer, Florida defense attorney, Florida defense lawyer, health law attorney, health law lawyer, privacy rights, privacy rights violation, appeals court, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, HIPAA, health law, The Health Law Firm

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T10:01:01-04:00June 1, 2018|Categories: In the News, The Health Law Firm Blog|Tags: appeals court, Florida defense attorney, Florida defense lawyer, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, health law, health law attorney, health law lawyer, hipaa, medical malpractice, medical malpractice defense attorney, medical malpractice defense lawyer, privacy rights, privacy rights violation, the health law firm|Comments Off

Patient-supplied Respiratory Equipment in the Hospital

By Michael L. Smith, JD, RRT

Hospitals and respiratory therapists regularly receive requests from patients asking to use their own respiratory therapy equipment in the hospital. Chronic pulmonary patients are generally reluctant to change their treatment regimen and may request they be permitted to continue using their home ventilators or positive airway pressure units in the hospital. Generally, hospitals should not allow patients to use their own medical equipment.

Patient-supplied medical equipment poses numerous risks for hospitals and their RTs. Patient supplied equipment may be a different model than what the hospital’s RTs and other staff routinely use, which can contribute to errors in the equipment and alarm settings. The hospital may not have compatible parts to ensure that the patient-supplied equipment remains functional during the patient’s hospital stay.

Another risk for the hospital and its staff exists because the patient may not have properly maintained the medical equipment. The hospital and its staff cannot easily determine whether the patient-supplied medical equipment has been regularly serviced, including any necessary modifications based upon recalls. While a particular piece of equipment may appear well maintained on the surface, it could have numerous deficiencies that are almost impossible to detect by the hospital and its staff.

The hospital and its staff may be assuming significant legal liability by allowing patients to use their own medical equipment. Patient-supplied medical equipment that malfunctions could conceivably cause injury to multiple patients and hospital staff. Consequently, hospitals should avoid allowing patients to use their own medical equipment in the hospital.

Despite the risks, most hospitals still allow the use of at least some patient-supplied medical equipment under certain circumstances.

Whenever the hospital elects to allow patient-supplied medical equipment, it should involve the hospital’s counsel, risk manager, and all the necessary hospital departments in the process.

Most hospitals that allow patient-supplied medical equipment have some type of policy on the use of that equipment. Those policies should require written approval from the patient’s physician stating that the patient-supplied equipment is suitable based upon the patient’s current medical condition. Every policy also should require notice to all the clinical and non-clinical departments necessary to ensure the equipment is in good working order and safe to operate. Every piece of electrical equipment must be thoroughly checked for electrical safety, usually by the hospital’s biomedical department.

Whenever the hospital agrees to allow patient-supplied medical equipment, the hospital should have the patient sign a waiver that explicitly states that the hospital is not assuming any liability for the equipment. The waiver also should permit the hospital to use substitute equipment in the event the patient-supplied equipment fails or the patient’s condition changes. Unfortunately, the hospital probably cannot completely absolve itself of any liability for patient-supplied medical equipment, even when the patient signs a waiver.

In the event the patient-supplied equipment fails, the hospital staff will need to intervene and provide appropriate care to the patient, even if the patient assumed all responsibility for the equipment. The hospital staff also will need to regularly check to confirm that the equipment is functioning properly and that the medical equipment remains appropriate for the patient’s condition. Of course, the hospital staff must document their regular assessment of the patient-supplied medical equipment.

Michael L. Smith, JD, RRT is board certified in health law by The Florida Bar and practices at The Health Law Firm in Altamonte Springs, Florida. This article is for general information only and is not a substitute for formal legal advice.

This article was originally published in Advance for Respiratory Care and Sleep Medicine.

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T10:00:25-04:00June 1, 2018|Categories: In the Know, The Health Law Firm Blog|Tags: attorney, florida, health care, health law, hospital, patient supplied equipment, respiratory therapist|Comments Off

“Cert Audits” Newest in Medicare Audit Contractor Alphabet?

One of the newest acronyms that our law firm has encountered in the Medicare Program’s audit process is the Medicare Comprehensive Error Rate Testing program audit or CERT audit. It could be that we just haven’t had clients who had problems with this in the past, as we have seen plenty of Zone Program Integrity Contractor (ZPIC) audits, Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) audits and actions, Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) audits, etc. However, we did have a client recently who was being audited by a CERT contractor and we assisted in resolving document discrepancies.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) created the Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) program to measure the paid claims error rate for Medicare claims submitted to Medicare administrative contractors, carriers, durable medical equipment regional carriers, and fiscal intermediaries (now Medicare Administrative Contractors or MACs) . CMS receives in excess of two billion claims annually. The CERT program randomly selects approximately 120,000 of these claims for review to determine whether the claims were properly paid.

Statistical samples are selected and the CERT documentation contractor (CDC) submits documentation requests to those providers who submitted affected claims. Once the requested documentation has been received, the information is forwarded to the “CERT review contractor” (or CRC) for review. The CRC will review the claims and supporting documentation to measure compliance with Medicare coverage, coding and billing rules.

As with many audits, it seems like the most common problems being detected have to do with medical records errors, such as the documentation not supporting the code billed, absence of signatures on medical record entries, wrong dates of service, absence of medical record documentation, illegible records, wrong provider being billed for, etc.

We have been pleasantly surprised, however, when our personal phone calls to CDC and the CRC have been answered and actual accurate information provided, as well as letters and documents we provided being promptly acknowledged. Like with any other audit, however, we urge those being audited to seek the advice of an experienced health law attorney who may be able to assist in heading off and avoiding a more serious investigation or a large repayment demand eventually resulting.

For more info see: http://www.cms.gov/MLNProducts/downloads/MCRP_Booklet.pdf

or visit our website at: www.TheHealthLawFirm.com

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T10:00:28-04:00June 1, 2018|Categories: Medicare, The Health Law Firm Blog|Tags: cert audits, fraud control unit, health attorney, health law, medicare, Medicare Comprehensive Error Rate Testing program audit|Comments Off

Top Medicare Prescribers Collect Speaking Fees from Drug Makers-Coincidence?

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

A recent investigation by ProPublica found that certain doctors who prescribed certain drug brands the most, also have financial ties to the companies that manufacture those prescription drugs. Using Medicare payment data, ProPublica and National Public Radio (NPR) researched physicians who prescribed the most heavily promoted drugs of 2010 and 2011. It was discovered that many of the doctors allegedly had financial relationships with prescription drug manufacturers. ProPublica states that they initiated this investigation out of fear that pharmaceutical payments are influencing doctors to prescribe an expensive, brand name drug over a cheaper, generic version.

To read the ProPublica analysis released June 25, 2013, click here.

According to ProPublica, the company is an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest.

By The Numbers.

The ProPublica analysis looked at a number of drug companies. Until now, doctors’ prescribing practices have not been made public. Disclosure of these records is now mandated in the Affordable Care Act.

According to NPR, at least 17 of the 20 doctors who prescribed the blood pressure medicine Bystolic the most often collected money from the maker, Forest Laboratories. Forest paid those doctors speaking fees for promoting Bystolic at seminars to other doctors. These fees allegedly ranged from $1,250 to $85,750. Additionally, seven of the speakers allegedly received at least $1,000 for meals. Nine of the top 10 prescribers of Exelon, an Alzheimer’s drug, collected speakers’ fees from Novartis. Eight of the top 10 Nucynta prescribers were paid by the painkiller’s manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, for similar services, according to NPR.

Click here to read the entire NPR article.

Drug Makers Shell Out Millions in Fines for Using Illegal Kickbacks.

Federal whistleblower lawsuits against several pharmaceutical companies have alleged that these speaking payments are little more than “thinly veiled kickbacks,” which are illegal. According to NPR, three years ago Forest paid $313 million to the federal government to settle allegations about its marketing of drugs. The lawsuit alleged the company made cash payments disguised as consulting fees to doctors.

Novartis is currently fielding two different lawsuits filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The first lawsuit was filed on April 23, 2013, alleging the company gave illegal kickbacks to pharmacists. A second lawsuit was filed on April 26, 2013, alleging illegal kickbacks were paid by Novartis to health care providers. According to the DOJ, the government’s complaint seeks damages and civil penalties under the False Claims Act, and under the common law for paying kickbacks to doctors to induce them to prescribe Novartis products that were reimbursed by federal health care programs. Click here to read a previous blog on these lawsuits.

Individual providers are also liable for accepting prohibited remunerations from drug companies. The use of these databases for mining prescribing/promoting practices is likely to lead to increased scrutiny on physicians.

What the Law Says About Using Kickbacks.

For years drug companies have paid doctors to speak about new drugs at educational conferences with other health care professionals. The practice is legal, but considered questionable.

Under the Anti-Kickback Statute, it’s a felony for health care professionals to accept bribes in exchange for recommending a drug or service covered by Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE or the Department of Veterans Affairs health care program.

Relationship Between Physicians and Pharmaceutical Companies Allegedly Does Not Influence Prescribing Practices.

In a survey, doctors said they are not influenced by relationships with pharmaceutical companies, according to a FiercePharma article. The doctors with a relationship to Forest state a number of reasons for prescribing Bystolic versus other blood pressure dugs. None of the reasons for prescribing Bystolic related to the money they received from Forest.

In the same FiercePharma article, drug makers said they do not choose speakers based on a doctor’s prescribing habits. Click here to read the FiercePharma article.

So is this all a coincidence?

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, pain management doctors, 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.

Comments?

Is it a coincidence that top prescribers also collect from drug makers? As a health care professional, would you be influenced to prescribe one drug if you were getting paid by the drug maker? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Staton, Tracy. “Top-Prescribing Docs Collect Cash From Drugmakers.” FiercePharma. (June 25, 2013). From: http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/top-prescribing-docs-collect-cash-drugmakers/2013-06-25

Ornstein, Charles, Weber, Tracy and Lafleur, Jennifer. “Top Medicare Prescibers Rake In Speaking Fees From Drugmakers.” National Public Rado. (June 25, 2013). From: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/06/25/195232541/top-medicare-prescribers-rake-in-speaking-fees-from-drugmakers

Ornstein, Charles, Weber, Tracy and Lafleur, Jennifer. “Top Medicare Prescibers Rake In Speaking Fees From Drugmakers.” ProPublica. (June 25, 2013). From: http://www.propublica.org/article/top-medicare-prescribers-rake-in-speaking-fees-from-drugmakers

About the Authors: 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.

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.

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.

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T10:00:50-04:00June 1, 2018|Categories: Affordable Care Act, Health Care Industry, Medicare, Pharmaceutical Drugs, The Health Law Firm Blog, Whistleblower|Tags: anti-kickback statute, brand name drugs, defense attorney, defense lawyer, Department of Justice (DOJ), doctor, doctor kickbacks, drug companies, drug makers, drug representatives, Florida health care attorney, Florida health care lawyer, generic drugs, health law, health professionals, kickbacks, medicare, Medicare prescriber, physician, physician attorney, physician lawyer, physician prescribing records, the health law firm|Comments Off

Call (407) 331-6620 or Toll-free (888) 331-6620

The Affordable Care Act Offers the Government New Tools to Fight Healthcare Fraud

Report: Florida Received an F in Medical Pricing Transparency

Health Care Professionals and Providers Beware: The Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) Is Catching Fire

Breach of HIPAA Privacy Regulations May be a Basis for Negligence Actions

Orlando Health Law Attorneys to Speak at Florida Hospital

Supreme Court Rules that Government Regulators Can Sue Over Pay-for-Delay Agreements Between Brand and Generic Drug Manufacturers

Appeals Court Upholds Medical Malpractice Law Changes

Patient-supplied Respiratory Equipment in the Hospital

“Cert Audits” Newest in Medicare Audit Contractor Alphabet?

Top Medicare Prescribers Collect Speaking Fees from Drug Makers-Coincidence?