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.
COVID is proving to be so burdensome on employers that we are seeing lay-offs and furloughs all over the country. As the virus curve bends back in a positive direction and physician and patient concerns for safety wane, patients will stream back to office. But what happens to the laid off (or furloughed) employees and contractors with non-competes? Will they come back or will they have moved on, possibly in a way that violates their noncompetes? And will a court think a noncompete has been violated when an employee or contractor was let go and there is no specific provision in their written contract that allows the employer to immediately let someone go without notice due to this type of situation? How will the COVID based lay-offs and furlough affect noncompetes? The short answer is we don’t yet know, but widespread lay-offs and furloughs may result in a flood of cases being filed because (1) many have been let go, (2) there likely isn’t a provision in their contract with the employer that specifically authorizes that sort of termination, and (3) a contract’s “breach” (e.g. no contract based allowance for the prompt termination) is traditionally a defense to an action to enforce a noncompete.
The COVID Issue
Though there is an exception for unusual specialties or where there is essentially a community need, noncompetition covenants are generally enforceable in Florida with respect to doctors and other healthcare professionals. Many people think doctors in particular can’t be restricted from practicing medicine under any circumstances. That is just not true.
Getting to the bone of the issue, noncompetes are enforceable in Florida if: read more
Florida’s Governor passed an Executive Order Friday which essentially shuts down all elective medical treatment. The Order (20-72) only allows “non-urgent or non-emergency procedure or surgery which, if delayed, does not place a patient’s immediate health, safety, or wellbeing at risk, or will, if delayed, not contribute to the worsening of a serious or life-threatening medical condition.” read more
The core aspect of EKRA has to do with how to properly compensate marketing personnel who market the services of labs, addiction treatment facilities and recovery homes. For those of you already familiar with existing federal law pertaining to compensation arrangements (e.g. the bona fide employee exception (the “BFE”) and the personal services arrangement and management contract safe harbor (the “PSA”)), the EKRA provisions will look familiar! Key aspects of this law (which has to be read together with similar existing laws) include— read more
Private money (e.g. private equity) is in full swing purchasing medical practices with large profit margins (e.g. dermatology). This is NOT the same thing as when physician practice management companies (PPMCs) bought practices the 90s. Back then, the stimulus for the seller was (a) uncertainty re practice profits in the future, and (b) the stock price. Selling practices got some or all of the purchase price in stock, with the hopes the purchasing company stock would far exceed the multiplier applied to practice “earnings” (the “multiple”). Buyers promised to stabilize and even enhance revenues with better management and better payer contracting. If the optimism of the acquiring company and selling doctors was on target, everyone won because the large stock price made money for both the buyer and seller. The private equity “play” today is a little different.
Today’s sellers are approaching the private equity opportunity the same way they did with PPMCs, except for the stock focus since most private equity purchases don’t involve selling doctors obtaining stock. Sellers hope their current practice earnings will equate to a large “purchase price.” And they hope the buyer have better front and back office management that will result in more stable and even enhanced earnings. And for this, the private equity buyer takes a “management fee,” which they typically promise (though not in writing) to offset with enhanced practice earnings. read more
A recent ruling by a state trial court handling the Palm Beach County Sober Home Task Force prosecutions against providers of addiction treatment and sober home services is creating lots of confusion and alarm around the state and could have very far reaching consequences for the entire healthcare industry well beyond addiction treatment.
The issue presented by the prosecution focuses on whether a person charged with violating the state’s Patient Brokering Act (PBA) can be found guilty even if he/she didn’t know what he was doing was unlawful. The PBA broadly prohibits paying someone for patient referrals, very much like the federal Anti-Kickback statute. If allowed, the client would have gotten legal advice, paid for it, followed it, and still not be able to show a judge or jury that, despite all their best efforts, they simply followed the law as instructed.
Can a healthcare facility or provider be guilty of violating a criminal law [the PBA] if they’d gotten legal advice and followed it? Traditionally, the answer would be a clear “no.” The argument against the State’s position would be something like “How can someone intend to violate a criminal law if they got legal advice regarding how to comply with it and then followed that advice?” The argument of the state might look something like “We don’t even think the judge or jury ought to be able to hear that the person got legal advice and followed it.” The court punted the issue to the appellate court. read more
Florida has long been a hot spot for medical malpractice lawsuits. Professionals debate the causes frequently, but the fact remains: Florida is a place where medicine has to be practiced defensively. And it’s likely to get worse because the Florida Supreme Court recently tossed out the state cap on non-economic damages.
Since the cap was found to be unconstitutional, the risk of expensive med mal suits is expected to rise. And the secondary effect will almost certainly be increased med mal insurance premiums. If the upcoming premium rise is like any from the past (this is a cyclic phenomenon), it’s a sure thing that more physicians will decide to self-insure (not carry professional liability insurance). The State of Florida doesn’t require physicians to carry professional liability insurance provided that they have adequate financial backing or provide necessary patient notices read more
Private money (e.g. private equity) is back chasing those selling medical practices and medical business acquisitions. This time around it is very different from similar activity in the 90s. Back then, the movement was public companies aggregating gross income dollars, which for a time drove stock prices. Today’s private money buyers are looking to maximize profitability through achieving efficiency and aggregating large groups for leverage and the development of new income streams. Though stock (in the form of warrants and options or stock itself) if often on the table, it doesn’t have to be. Buyers are doing all cash deals, albeit to some degree on an earnings basis. If you want the full price, you have to remain involved and do what you can to maintain revenues and perhaps even drive them up.
Physicians especially have to know what they’re dealing with and then have at least a basic understanding of the issues that will drive these deals. To begin with, “private equity” simply means private investors (typically a group that pools their capital) that buy a portion or all of a company. Their investments are usually much larger than venture capital firm deals. They are not publicly traded entities. What do they want? To invest money in mature businesses, grow a company’s profitability and then “flip” their ownership to another buyer, typically in three to five years form their launch date. In contrast, venture capital firms usually invest in start-ups, buy 100% of the company and require control. read more
Doctors often consider the idea of clinical research to be an easy “add on” to their practices. The usual idea is “I already have the patients. This’ll be easy.” But that’s not the case when you start to look at the healthcare regulatory compliance issues!
Pharmaceutical companies (“Sponsors”) are often looking for resources for clinical research. They usually turn to clinical research organizations (CROs) to find research centers (Sites) and to manage some of the healthcare regulatory compliance issues in a way that creates enough distance between the Sponsor and the Site in hopes that the metrics from the patients enrolled in the study will provide clarity re the efficacy of a tested drug.
Medical practices that think it’ll be easy to become a Site will be very surprised by some of the key challenges, which include– read more
A new law passed by the Florida Legislature shaves off some of the sharp edges of Florida law that applies to physicians who are impaired by substance abuse or mental illness. The hub of treatment referenced in the law is the Impaired Practitioner Program (IPP). Over the years, the IPP (a quasi-governmental entity) has come under fire for being too aggressive in how it deals with impaired physicians, by acting more like law enforcement than a healthcare provider. Allegations in the past include physicians feeling “hauled off” to treatment before the demonstrated need was clear and being directed to providers that were expensive or inconvenient with reasonable alternatives exist.
The new law rounds out the IPP operations in creating additional accountability through the appointment by the Department of Health (DOH) of one or more consultants. It also:
allows certain providers to report an impaired practitioner to a consultant instead of the DOH. Some in the program felt they were being leveraged into cooperating when they felt it was counter-indicated. This measure might help balance the issues by interposing an independent consultant that is not under the IPP;
prevents the consultant from reporting to DOH a practitioner who is self referring for treatment, but keeps intact features of accountability to help ensure the practitioner completes treatment;
requires the consultant to copy the patient and any legal representative on any information release; and
protects the consultant by extending sovereign immunity to him/her.
Healthcare professionals interacting with the IPP need to know their rights and options. The new law helps facilitate that.