Health law is the federal, state, and local law, rules, regulations and other jurisprudence among providers, payers and vendors to the healthcare industry and its patient and delivery of health care services; all with an emphasis on operations, regulatory and transactional legal issues.
As the provision of health care services continues to evolve, many practitioners are contemplating creating membership-based services for their patients through Direct Primary Care Agreements (“DPCA”). Although DPCAs are not necessarily a new concept, the Florida Legislature enacted a bill during the 2018 legislative session making DPCA’s exempt from the Florida Insurance Code. Thus, DPCAs are not a form of insurance subject to regulations of insurance products but are private contracts between practitioner and patient for specified health care services. Here is how the DPCA concept works.
DPCAs are private contracts between patients and primary care providers. Section 624.27, Florida Statutes, defines primary care provider as a provider licensed pursuant to Chapters 458, 459, 460, and 464, or a primary care group practice, who provides primary care services to patients. Included under this broad definition of providers are: allopathic doctors, osteopathic doctors, physician assistants, anesthesiologist assistants, chiropractors, RNs, LPNs and ARNPs. read more
Providers need to comply with all the Medicare ‘red tape’ but need not let fear of non-compliance inhibit their practice from offering Durable Medical Equipment Prosthetics & Orthotics Supplies (“DMEPOS”) to Medicare beneficiaries.
Here’s an overview of the steps providers need to take to enroll as a supplier of DMEPOS with Medicare to be eligible for Part B coverage and reimbursement: read more
Adding Durable Medical Equipment Prosthetics & Orthotics Supplies (“DMEPOS”) to a Chiropractic Practice is a great way to not only increase revenues, but most importantly it is a great way to increase overall patient satisfaction and care.
Providing patients with easy access to DMEPOS allows for more comprehensive care, enabling providers to help further stabilize injuries, maximize patient recoveries, and minimize patient down time. Many existing patients are already buying and utilizing DMEPOS such as back braces, so there is an opportunity to provide that additional supervision and care through an existing practice.
Examples of DMEPOS that would complement a Chiropractic Practice and which patients are likely already using: read more
I’d run out of fingers and toes if i had to recount the rash of remarkably bad legal guidance given to well meaning chiropractors looking to integrate various medical services to their practice. They hook up with an experienced business firm, a Management Company, that specializes in that area, but then get advice from a buddy or a lawyer who simply doesn’t have the depth of experience to correctly advise them. The Management Company is happy because they don’t know the lawyer is oversimplifying things, which has the effect of a stream of chiropractor clients rolling into the Management Company. Well done, except it’s often not!
The last few weeks have seen some significant examples of the federal government’s vigilance in policing the healthcare market. These events serve as a reminder of the highly regulated and scrutinized industry in which we work. They are also a reminder to physicians and other providers to make sure their practices and contractual arrangements can pass this scrutiny.
The most significant recent event is the $115 million settlement between the government and the Adventist Health System. This settlement resolved two whistleblower cases brought against the system by three employees. The lawsuits alleged that the Adventist Health System violated the Stark law, which generally prohibits payments to physicians for making referrals unless an exception to the law is met. The specific allegations against the Adventist Health System were that the compensation paid by the health system to some of its employed physicians exceeded fair market value; that the structure of the practice of the employed physicians did not meet the “group practice” exception; that physician compensation improperly included payment work not performed by the physicians; and that the physicians were paid for making referrals to the system. read more