Over the past few years, it seems like physician employment agreements are getting shorter and shorter. While I applaud all efforts towards efficiency and economy, you should not always take those documents at face value. For example, I recently reviewed a one page employment contract for a client. That single page basically said, “We are hiring you as our employee for a term of one year, with an annual salary of $$$.”
At first glance, the simplicity of that document might seem refreshing. That’s especially true if you’re worried about how much time it’s going to take for your lawyer to get through it! My client’s second glance revealed a multitude of unanswered (and essential) questions. There was no mention of expected duties, schedules, standards, renewals, terminations, insurance, benefits, vacation time, sick leave, CME, etc. in the employment contract However, when we reviewed the contract together, we discovered that although those points were not even referenced on that single page, they were still legally, “in there.”
Attorneys Susan St. John and Michael Silverman of the Florida Healthcare Law Firm will present this live lunch n’ learn webinar for providers interested in learning more about the direct patient care model. They will discuss the recent legislative updates that have brought this issue to the forefront in Florida.
Further reading per AAFP.org – The direct primary care (DPC) model gives providers a meaningful alternative to fee-for-service insurance billing, typically by charging patients a monthly, quarterly, or annual fee (i.e., a retainer) that covers all or most primary care services including clinical, laboratory, and consultative services, and care coordination and comprehensive care management. Because some services are not covered by a retainer, DPC practices often suggest that patients acquire a high-deductible wraparound policy to cover emergencies. Direct primary care and concierge care are not synonymous. In practices offering concierge care, the patient typically pays a high retainer fee in addition to insurance premiums and other plan obligations (e.g., copays, out-of-pocket expenditures), and the practice continues to bill the patient’s insurance carrier.
Over the past several months, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has taken a number of steps that show an awareness of the regulatory burden placed upon participants in the government’s health care programs, and even some willingness to consider reducing those burdens. While it remains to be seen whether the recent proposals will have measurable results, the following actions can still be viewed with guarded optimism.
Proposed Changes to Medicare
In July, 2018, CMS proposed significant changes to Medicare, to be included in rules that take effect in 2019. These changes cover physician fee schedules, streamlining Evaluation & Management (E&M) billing, advancing “virtual care,” decreasing drug costs, revising the MIPS program and establishing the MAQI demonstration project. The agency also asked for comments on price transparency issues.
Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) is the state’s chief health policy and planning organization. AHCA is also responsible for the state’s Medicaid program. One of the agency’s latest targets are behavioral analysis providers who treat children with autism. Recently, AHCA imposed a temporary six-month moratorium on enrollment of new providers due to newly discovered fraud and abuse. AHCA states that the temporary moratorium will allow the agency the time to complete a full assessment of the current provider population. In other words, all behavioral analysis providers will experience heightened scrutiny in the coming months if not already. This can include in-person interviews and requests for records. Given this increased regulatory action, it is important for behavioral analysis business owners to be aware of the audit process and to prepare for likely future reviews.
Here are a few of the notable findings cited by AHCA regarding the identified fraud and abuse:
President Trump has stated that one of his greatest priorities is to reduce the price of prescription drugs. Alex Azar II, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), believes that while the United States’ system enabled it to become a world leader in the development of cutting edge drugs is also one that has not prioritized the needs of its own citizens.
On May 11, 2018 Trump directed his Administration to fix the injustice of high drug prices to ensure they come down, and unveiled his “blueprint” to put “American Patients First” though a 44 page document released on HHS’ website.
Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs), previously largely unknown ‘middlemen’ in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, whose impact on our healthcare system is just slowly beginning to emerge from the shadows, have been taking a lot of flak from independent pharmacy owners, politicians, and the media for being a cause of the high drug costs that the Trump Administration has vowed will be reduced.
In 2012, the American Hospital Association (AHA) along with three member hospitals filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for the agency’s failure to meet the 90 day decision requirement at the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) level known as the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA). Through the years, the case has moved back and forth between a federal district court and federal appeals court in the District of Columbia. Most recently in March, a federal district court judge ordered the AHA to expand on its suggestions it has made over the course of its litigation for how HHS can clear the ever-growing backlog and additionally, explain why the current procedures are insufficient.
Not too long ago, when something would go wrong in a hospital, a patient’s medical record might note the facts of what had happened (“Mrs. Jones was found on the floor of her hospital room with a swollen wrist. An x-ray revealed a wrist fracture.”), while the hospital’s incident report would analyze why it happened in order to prevent further harm (“Orderly Green forgot to raise the guardrails on Mrs. Jones’ bed. Mrs. Jones fell out of her bed as a result of the displaced guardrail. Let’s put in place a policy that all guardrails must be raised if an orderly steps more than three feet from a patient’s bed.”). Should Mrs. Jones decide to sue the hospital, she and her attorney would have access to the medical record, but not necessarily the incident report.
Incident reports like the one mentioned above have long been meant as a learning tool for facilities to analyze unfortunate occurrences on their premises and learn from their mistakes to prevent future harm. However, these reports often contain admissions of fault, or near admissions of fault. So how can a hospital balance its need to improve on past practices without opening itself to a mountain of liability? Florida’s state laws seemingly contrast with Federal laws.
DME Compliance Alert: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, updated its work plan in January 2018 to include heightened scrutiny of off-the-shelf orthotic devices, specifically back braces for HCPCS Cods L0648, L0650 and L1833 due to one MAC identifying improper payment rates as high as 79 to 91 percent. Of specific concern is the lack of documentation of medical necessity, including Medicare beneficiaries being prescribed back braceswithout an encounter with the referring physician within 12 months prior to an orthotic claim being filed. The OIG plans to analyze billing trends nationwide, and expects to issue a report sometime in 2019.
Attorney Susan St. John of the Florida Healthcare Law Firm will present this live lunch n’ learn webinar to provide a legal look at durable medical equipment (DME) operation in Florida. She will discuss the requirements for operating a licensed DME in Florida that participates in the Medicare program, commercial insurance, telemedicine/telehealth, and drop ships products.
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.