Home Health |

Feds Arrest 36 More California & Florida Providers On Defrauding Medicare Of More than $66 Million

May 16, 2013

The Federal Medicare Fraud Strike Force’s arrest of 36 providers in California and Florida highlights again the continuing and growing zeal of federal health care fraud investigation and enforcement efforts. On May 14, 2013 the Justice Department announced it arrested and charged with Medicare fraud 12 defendants in Los Angeles here and 24 South Florida residents here in fraud enforcement actions on opposite coasts. The charges show the continuing commitment by Federal officials to find an prosecute health care fraud.

Florida Arrests

In South Florida, Federal officials announced charges against 24 South Florida residents for their alleged participation in various schemes to defraud Medicare out of more than $45,299,935 million. The charges in South Florida are part of a nationwide takedown by Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations in eight cities that resulted in charges against 89 individuals, including doctors, nurses and other licensed professionals, for their alleged participation in Medicare fraud schemes involving approximately $223 million in false billings.

Specifically, the South Florida cases announced as part of the nationwide Medicare Fraud Strike Force takedown include the following:

U.S. v. Emilio Amador, Cristobal Gonzalez, Eduims Mora, Jose Contreras, and Elizabeth Monteagudo, where five defendants are charged with conspiracy to receive health care kickbacks and substantive counts of receiving kickbacks in connection with a federal health care program. According to the indictment, the defendants participated in a scheme involving Caring Nurse Home Health, Corp. and Good Quality Home Health, Inc. The defendants allegedly supplied patients to Caring Nurse and/or Good Quality in exchange for kickbacks and bribes. Caring Nurse and Good Quality, in turn, fraudulently billed Medicare for approximately $50 million for home health services that were not provided and/or were not medically necessary. If convicted, the defendants face up to five years for each count.
United States v. Rafael Meana and Janet Farigola, where Defendants Rafael Meana and Janet Farigola are charged with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and several substantive counts of health care fraud. According to the indictment, the defendants participated in a scheme involving Lord’s Medical & Rehab Center, Inc. (Lords), a medical clinic that purportedly provided Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with medical items and services. From February 2010 through July 2011, Meana and Farigola allegedly caused Lord’s to submit approximately $5,497,047 in Medicare claims falsely claiming that health care benefits and services were medically necessary and had been provided to Medicare beneficiaries. As a result of the submission of these claims, Medicare paid Lord’s approximately $2,240,134. If convicted, the defendants face up to ten years in prison for each count of health care fraud.
United States v. Jose Moran, Rafael Meana, and Armando Rubio Cordero, where the defendants are charged with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and several substantive counts of health care fraud. According to the indictment, the defendants participated in a scheme involving Lord Family Services, Inc., a medical clinic that purportedly provided Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with medical items and services. From January 2010 through September 2011, the defendants allegedly caused Lord Family Services, Inc. to submit approximately $1,919,751 in Medicare claims falsely claiming that health care benefits and services were medically necessary and had been provided to Medicare beneficiaries. As a result of the submission of these claims, Medicare paid Lord Family Services, Inc. approximately $976,476. If convicted, the defendants face up to ten years in prison for each count of health care fraud.
United States v. Karina Merino, where defendant Karina U. Merino is charged with a single count of health care fraud in connection with her role in a massive health care fraud scheme involving Ideal Home Health, Inc. (Ideal), which submitted more than $40 million in fraudulent claims to Medicare. The Information alleges that Merino, as a nurse for Ideal, falsified patient visitation logs to reflect that home health care nursing services had been provided to beneficiaries when such services had, in fact, not been provided. Ideal fraudulently billed the Medicare program for approximately $148,000. If convicted of the health care fraud charge, Merino faces up to ten years in prison.
United States v. Delia Y. Chaveco and Arturo Y. Chaveco,
where Delia Y. Chaveco and Arturo Y. Chaveco (the Chavecos) were charged by Information with a single count of conspiracy to receive kickbacks in connection with a federal health care benefit program. This charge stems from the Chavecos’ role in a health care fraud scheme involving Ideal Home Health Inc. (Ideal), an agency that submitted more than $40 million in fraudulent claims to the Medicare program. The Information alleges that Ideal and other Miami-Dade area home health agencies paid the Chavecos kickbacks in exchange for recruiting Medicare beneficiaries that they later used to bill the Medicare program. If convicted, the defendants face up to five years in prison.
United States v. Roberto Marrero, Sandra Fernandez Viera and Enrique Rodriguez, where defendants are charged with conspiracy to commit health care fraud, conspiracy to receive and pay health care kickbacks, and substantive kickback charges. Defendants Roberto Marrero and Sandra Fernandez Viera were the owners and operators of Trust Care Health Services, Inc. (Trust Care), which allegedly paid kickbacks and bribes to patient recruiters and beneficiaries to obtain Medicare beneficiaries, and then submitted more than $20 million in false and fraudulent claims to Medicare, primarily for skilled nursing diabetic care and physical/occupational therapy. Defendant Enrique Rodriguez worked as a patient recruiter for Trust Care, supplying patients in exchange for kickbacks and bribes. A civil injunction is being filed under 18 U.S.C. § 1345 to restrain the defendants’ assets to satisfy restitution in the criminal matter. If convicted, the defendants face up to ten years for the health care fraud charges and five years for each count of the kickback charges.
United States v. Dora Moreira, Ivan Alejo, and Hugo Morales,
where the defendants are charged with conspiracy to commit health care fraud, conspiracy to receive and pay health care kickbacks, substantive kickback charges, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and substantive money laundering. Defendant Dora Moreira was the owner and operator of Anna Nursing Services Corp. (Anna Nursing), which paid kickbacks and bribes to patient recruiters and beneficiaries to obtain Medicare beneficiaries. Anna Nursing was paid more than $7 million for the false claims it submitted to Medicare, which claims were primarily for physical/occupational therapy. Defendant Ivan Alejo worked at Anna Nursing, and was responsible for, among other things, negotiating kickback rates and distributing kickback payments to patient recruiters on behalf of Anna Nursing. Defendant Hugo Morales worked as a physical therapist on behalf of Anna Nursing, and was responsible for, among other things, fabricating patient medical documentation. Defendant Dora Moreira laundered money for the purpose, among others, of concealing the proceeds of the fraud and the payment of kickbacks to recruiters. The Asset Forfeiture Section has obtained restraining orders on the corporate bank account and on real property that is traceable to the fraud. If convicted, the defendants face up to ten years for the health care fraud charges, five years for each count of the kickback charges, and twenty years for the money laundering charges.
United States v. Marina Sanchez Pajon and Miguel Jimenez,
where Federal officials charge defendants with conspiracy to commit health care fraud, conspiracy to receive and pay health care kickbacks, and substantive kickback charges. Defendants Marina Sanchez Pajon and Miguel Jimenez were the owners and operators of Flores Home Health Care Inc. (Flores Home Health), which allegedly paid kickbacks and bribes to patient recruiters and beneficiaries to obtain Medicare beneficiaries. Flores Home Health was paid more than $8 million for the false claims it submitted to Medicare, which claims were primarily for physical/occupational therapy. The Asset Forfeiture Section has obtained seizure warrants and restraining orders on five vehicles and bank accounts containing $160,000. They have also filed lis pendens against four real properties that were purchased with proceeds of the fraud. If convicted, the defendants face up to ten years for the health care fraud charges and five years for each count of the kickback charges.
United States v. Miguel A. Rodriguez, where defendant Miguel A. Rodriguez is charged with three counts of paying kickbacks in connection with a federal health care program. The defendant allegedly paid kickbacks and bribes to induce medical providers to refer Medicare beneficiaries to his medical company for services, including x-rays. If convicted, the defendant faces up to five years in prison for each count of the kickback charges.
United States v. Enrique Alberto Siret Rodriguez, where defendant Enrique Alberto Siret Rodriguez is charged with four counts of health care fraud and two counts of paying kickbacks in connection with a federal health care program. The defendant allegedly paid kickbacks and bribes to a doctor for fraudulent home health care prescriptions that could be used to fraudulently bill Medicare. If convicted, the defendant faces up to 10 years in prison for each health care fraud count and up to five years for each of the kickback counts.
United States v. Alberto Cosme Garcia, where defendant Alberto Cosme Garcia is charged with one count of health care fraud and two counts of paying kickbacks in connection with a federal health care program. The defendant allegedly paid kickbacks and bribes to a doctor for fraudulent home health care prescriptions that could be used to fraudulently bill Medicare. If convicted, the defendant faces up to 10 years in prison for the health care fraud count and up to five years for each of the kickback counts.

Los Angeles Charges

In Los Angeles, the Health Care Fraud Task Force action resulted in 12 arrests including California’s second-largest biller for chiropractic services, a physician’s assistant, and owners of durable medical equipment and ambulance companies, in relation to seven criminal cases that the Justice Department alleges resulted in the cumulative submission of more than $22 million in false billings to Medicare. The charges filed in Los Angeles are part of a nationwide “takedown” by Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations in eight cities that led to charges against 89 individuals for their alleged participation in schemes to collectively submit about $223 million in fraudulent claims to Medicare. See here.

The dozen defendants taken into custody are among 13 people charged in Los Angeles in cases that allege health care fraud. A thirteenth defendant is a fugitive.

Federal officials charge Dr. Houshang Pavehzadeh, of the Sylmar Physician Medical Group, allegedly billed Medicare more than $1.7 million for chiropractic treatments he never performed. During the scheme, which ran from 2005 through 2012, Dr. Pavehzadeh, 40, of Agoura Hills, became the second-largest Medicare biller in California for chiropractic services – even though he was not in the United States when some of the alleged services were performed. In addition to being charged with health care fraud, Pavehzadeh is charged with aggravated identity theft related to Medicare beneficiaries whose information he used to bill Medicare as a part of the scheme. When investigators tried to conduct an audit of Pavehzadeh’s claims, he falsely reported to the Los Angeles Police Department that he had been carjacked and that patient files requested by the auditors had been stolen from his car. Pavehzadeh surrendered this morning, and he is scheduled to be arraigned with other Los Angeles-area defendants this afternoon in the Roybal Federal Building.

Nine defendants affiliated with DME companies were also charged in five separate indictments.

Olufunke Fadojutimi, 41, of Carson, a registered nurse; Ayodeji Temitayo Fatunmbi, 41, formerly of Carson, and now believed to be residing in Nigeria; and Maritza Velazquez, 40, of Las Vegas, were charged with health care fraud. The scheme allegedly revolved around Lutemi Medical Supplies, a DME company Fadojutimi owned and where Fatunmbi and Velazquez worked. According to the indictment in this case, Lutemi billed Medicare more than $8.3 million in claims, primarily for medically unnecessary power wheelchairs. Fadojutimi and Fatunmbi allegedly laundered Medicare funds in order to purchase fraudulent prescriptions for those power wheelchairs and pay illegal kickbacks to recruit Medicare beneficiaries. Fadojutimi was arrested this morning in Los Angeles, while Velazquez was arrested in Las Vegas. Fatunmbi is currently a fugitive being sought by federal authorities.
Susanna Artsruni, 45, of North Hollywood, and Erasmus Kotey, 76, of Montebello, a licensed physician’s assistant, allegedly worked together to commit health care fraud out of a medical clinic on Vermont Avenue where they both worked. Kotey allegedly prescribed medically unnecessary DME, including power wheelchairs, for Medicare beneficiaries. Many of those power wheelchair prescriptions were then used by Artsruni’s DME company, Midvalley Medical Supply, to support fraudulent claims to Medicare. In only four months, the clinic and Midvalley billed Medicare more than $525,000 for these fraudulent claims. Artsruni has previously been convicted of health care fraud and was on pretrial supervision at the time she allegedly laundered some of the proceeds of this fraud. Artsruni was arrested this morning, while Kotey self-surrendered.

Three other DME cases were also charged, alleging fraudulent Medicare billing for medically unnecessary power wheelchairs that were sometimes never even delivered.

In one case, Akinola Afolabi, 53, of Long Beach, the owner of Emmanuel Medical Supply, allegedly submitted more than $2.6 million in in false and fraudulent billing to Medicare.
In another case, Queen Anieze-Smith, 52, of Encino, and Abdul King-Garba, 47, of Westwood, the owners and operators of ITC Medical Supply, allegedly submitted more than $1.8 million in false and fraudulent billing to Medicare.
In the third case, Clement Etim Aghedo, 53, of Fontana, the owner of Ace Medical Supply Company, allegedly submitted more than $1.8 in false and fraudulent claims to Medicare. Afolabi, Anieze-Smith, and King-Garba were all arrested this morning, while Aghedo self-surrendered.

In the seventh case brought as part of today’s takedown, three defendants affiliated with Gardena-based ProMed Medical Transportation, an ambulance company, were charged with submitting more than $5.9 million in false claims to Medicare between 2008 and 2011. ProMed’s owner, Yaroslav Proshak, 45, of Valley Village; general manager Sharetta Wallace, 35, of Inglewood; and office manager and biller Sergey Mumjian, 40, of West Hollywood, submitted claims for medically unnecessary transportation services and then created fake documentation purporting to support those claims. Proshak, Wallace, and Mumjian were arrested this morning.

The charge of health care fraud carries a statutory maximum penalty of 10 years in federal prison. Money laundering carries a potential penalty of 20 years in prison. Aggravated identity theft carries a mandatory two-year prison term.

Aggressive Medicare Health Care Fraud Task Force Enforcement Continues

The announcement of these arrests provides more evidence of the continuing zealousness of Federal health care fraud investment and enforcement efforts targeting heath care providers for health care fraud or other aggressive activities.

The Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations that lead to todays’ charges are part of the continuing activities Health Care Fraud Prevention & Enforcement Action Team (HEAT), a joint initiative announced in May 2009 between the Department of Justice and HHS to focus their efforts to prevent and deter fraud and enforce current anti-fraud laws around the country.

Since March 2007, Federal officials credit Strike Force operations in nine locations with leading to charges against more than 1,500 defendants who collectively have falsely billed the Medicare program for more than $5 billion.

In addition, the HHS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, working in conjunction with the HHS-OIG, are taking steps to increase accountability and decrease the presence of fraudulent providers.

In announcing the Florida charges, HHS Secretary Sebelius commented on the effect of recent legal changes that have given Federal officials new tools in investigating and fighting health care fraud. She said, “The Affordable Care Act has given us additional tools to preserve Medicare and protect the tens of millions of Americans who rely on it each day,” said Secretary Sebelius. “By expanding our authority to suspend Medicare payments and reimbursements when fraud is suspected, the law allows us to better preserve the system and save taxpayer dollars. Today we’re sending a strong, clear message to anyone seeking to defraud Medicare: You will get caught and you will pay the price. We will protect a sacred trust and an earned guarantee.”

Meanwhile, U.S. Attorney General Holder said, “Today’s announcement marks the latest step forward in our comprehensive efforts to combat fraud and abuse in our health-care systems.”

In the face of these criminal efforts and expanding civil and administrative enforcement actions by Federal officials targeting heaelth care fraud and other aggressive billing and referral efforts, health care providers should exercising continuing care to maintain compliance with applicable rules and carefully document these and other compliance and risk management efforts.

For Help With Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

If you need assistance providing compliance or other training, reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer medical privacy and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns/ She also regularly designs and presents risk management, compliance and other training for health care providers, professional associations and others. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, compensation, data security and privacy, health care, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources including:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here. For important information concerning this communication see here.

THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

Leave a Comment » | DME, Doctor, false claims act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Plan, Health Plans, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Money Laundering, OIG, Physician, Physician Licensing, Reimbursement | Tagged: Physician, false claims act, HEAT, Health Care Fraud, texas medical board, Medical Licensure | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Medical Device Excise Tax Rules Supplemented

December 9, 2012

Medical device manufacturers heads up! The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has adopted interim rules for relating to the excise tax on medical devices imposed by § 4191 (the “medical device excise tax”) of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”).

Section 4191, enacted by section 1405 of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 in conjunction with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the Affordable Care Act) enacted a new excise tax on the sale of certain medical devices. The excise tax imposed by Code section 4191 is 2.3% of the price for which the taxable medical device is sold. The medical device excise tax is codified in chapter 32, subtitle D of the Code (“chapter 32”), which pertains to excise taxes imposed on the sale or use of taxable articles by manufacturers, producers, and importers (commonly referred to as “manufacturers excise taxes”). See § 48.0-2(a)(4)(i) of the Manufacturers and Retailers Excise Tax Regulations (Regulations). The Code defines the term “manufacturer” to include a “producer” and an “importer”.

On December 7, 2012, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Treasury Department issued TD 9604, containing final regulations under § 4191. The final regulations did not address certain issues that the IRS and the Treasury Department continue to study. These issues included the determination of price under § 4216(b); the tax treatment of medical software licenses; the taxability of donated medical devices; and the taxability of medical convenience kits.

The IRS recently followed up by issuing Notice 2012-77. Notice 2012-77 available here contains the IRS’ rules about:

How to determine price for purposes of the medical device excised tax under Code section 4216(b);
Donated taxable medical devices;
Licensing of taxable medical devices;
The tax treatment of medical convenience kits;
Transition relief to medical device manufacturers from the failure to deposit penalties imposed by § 6656; and
Invites comments from taxpayers about its rules.

As these rules take effect January 1, 2013, device manufacturers should review the new guidance and update their procedures to provide for timely determination and payment of any required device taxes. In addition, device manufacturers also will need to kep an eye out for potential changes in the rules. The IRS and the Treasury Department have said they may issue additional published guidance on these issues in the future.

For Help With Monitoring Developments, Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

If you need help reviewing or commenting on the Tests Procedures or monitoring or responding to these or other health care or health IT related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, can help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and A Fellow in the American Bar Association, State Bar of Texas and other prominent organizations, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers, health plans, their business associates and other health industry clients to set up and administer medical privacy, EHR and other technology and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. She regularly designs and presents HIPAA and other risk management, compliance and other training for health plans, employers, health care providers, professional associations and others.

Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance often appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others.

You can get more information about her experience here.

Other Recent Updates & Resources

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in the following recent updates on health care, health plan and employee benefits, human resources and other risk management and compliance matters. Recent examples on health care compliance and risk management matters include:

Congress Sends Bill Amending Lab Testing Rule Violation Sanctions

Learn Latest On OCR New HIPAA De-Identification Guidance & Other HIPAA Developments In 12/12 HIPAA Update Workshop!

$12M+ Settlement Recoveries In 2 Health Care Fraud Whistleblower Claims Shows Providers, Owners, Management & Staff Must Manage Compliance & Risks

Feds Health Fraud Suit Against Psychiatrists Shows Risks Providers Run From Aggressive Referral or Billing Activities

ONC Releases Next Wave of 2014 Draft Test Methods For Public Review and Comment; Plans 11/13 Virtual Workshop

Recent OIG Audit Reports Provide Insights Where Fraud Audits Likely To Look Next

Hospital Chain HCA Inc. Pays $16.5 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations That Hospital

Detroit-Area Doctor Charged for Role in Alleged $40 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme

Five More Individuals Charged in Detroit for Alleged Roles in $24.7 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme

Massachusetts Ear Group To Pay $1.5 Million To Resolve HIPAA Charges

Personal Consumer Information Protection In Health Care Operations Topic of Stamer’s 11/1 Speech

ONC Releases First Wave of EHR Test Procedures; More To Come

OCR Releases HIPAA Compliance Training Tool As Enforcement Risks Rise

Health Care Orgs Disability Exposure High As $475K Paid To Settle Justice Department Charges Medical Fitness Screenings of EMTs, Others Violated ADA

HHS/DOJ Partner With Private Health Plans To Further Ramp Up Health Care Fraud Heat!

AHRQ Issues New Guide for Use of Interactive Preventive Care Record

Nextcare Inc. $10 Million False Claims Act Settlement Shows Qui Tam Role In False Claims Act Prosecutions

For more resources and publications training materials by Ms. Stamer, see here.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ARRA, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Meaningful Use, Mental Heatlh, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, DME, medical device, medical device excise tax, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Updated 2013 ACA Prescription Drug Fee Calculation & Payment Rules Released; 12/18 Deadline To File Form 8947

December 4, 2012

December 17, 2012 is the deadline for covered entities to file a Form 8947 as part if its reporting and payment of the Form 8947The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Notice 2012-74 sets forth the instructions for calculation and reporting branded prescription drug fee for the 2013 fee year under Section 9008 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by section 1404 of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Affordable Care Act).

The Act imposes an annual fee on covered entities engaged in the business of manufacturing or importing branded prescription drugs. The Branded Prescription Drug Fee Regulations in 26 C.F.R. Part 51 published on August 18, 2011 provide the method for calculating each covered entity’s annual fee and the fee year for purposes of these rules and how the fee must be reported and paid. See 76 Fed. Reg. 51245. These regulations also define terms for the administration of the fee.

Notice 2012-74/s instructions on the 2013 prescription drug fee discusses:

The submission of Form 8947, “Report of Branded Prescription Drug Information,”
The time and manner for notifying covered entities of their preliminary fee calculation;
the time and manner for covered entities to submit error reports for the dispute resolution; process; and
The time for the IRS to notify covered entities of their final fee calculation.

12/18/12 Deadline to File Form 8947

One of the deadlines for this process is rapidly approaching. Section 51.3T provides that annually, each covered entity may submit a completed Form 8947, “Report of Branded Prescription Drug Information,” in accordance with the instructions for the form. Generally, the form solicits information from covered entities on National Drug Codes, orphan drugs, designated entities, rebates, and other information specified by the form or its instructions. The form is to be filed by the date prescribed in guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin.

Notice 2012-74 sets the deadline for a covered entity that chooses to submit Form 8947 for 2013 at December 17, 2012.

Preliminary Fee Calculation

For the 2013 fee year, the IRS will mail each covered entity a paper notice of its preliminary fee calculation by April 1, 2013. This mailing will include a National Drug Code (NDC) attachment (NDC attachment) that lists the covered entity’s NDCs and the sales data reported to the IRS by each government program pursuant to § 51.4T.

A covered entity may request that the IRS send a CD-ROM with the NDC attachment in Microsoft Excel format. The covered entity must make this request by March 15, 2013. This request must be made either by telephone to Ingrid Taylor at (908) 301-2118 or Mi Lim at (312) 292-3775 (not toll-free calls) or by email to it.bpd.fee@irs.gov. If a covered entity makes this request timely, the IRS will mail the covered entity its notice of preliminary fee calculation on paper and the NDC attachment on paper and CD-ROM by April 1, 2013.

Submitting Error Reports For The Dispute Resolution Process

For the 2013 fee year, a covered entity that chooses to submit an error report regarding its preliminary fee calculation must mail the error report by May 16, 2013. When the IRS mails each covered entity a notice of its preliminary fee calculation by April 1, 2013, the IRS will also send each covered entity a template on a CD-ROM that the covered entity must use to prepare its error report. All completed templates and the supporting documentation must be submitted on a CD-ROM to the IRS in a timely fashion.

Final Fee Calculation & Payment

The IRS will notify each covered entity of its final fee calculation for 2013 by August 31, 2013. In accordance with § 51.8T(c), each covered entity must pay this fee by September 30, 2013.

For Help With Monitoring Developments, Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance often appear in medical privacy and other technology, risk management and compliance-related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others.

You can get more information about her experience here.

Other Recent Updates & Resources

OIG Recommends CMS, ONC Tighten EMR Incentive Program Rules To Improve Oversight

Congress Sends Bill Amending Lab Testing Rule Violation Sanctions

Learn Latest On OCR New HIPAA De-Identification Guidance & Other HIPAA Developments In 12/12 HIPAA Update Workshop!

$12M+ Settlement Recoveries In 2 Health Care Fraud Whistleblower Claims Shows Providers, Owners, Management & Staff Must Manage Compliance & Risks

Feds Health Fraud Suit Against Psychiatrists Shows Risks Providers Run From Aggressive Referral or Billing Activities

ONC Releases Next Wave of 2014 Draft Test Methods For Public Review and Comment; Plans 11/13 Virtual Workshop

Recent OIG Audit Reports Provide Insights Where Fraud Audits Likely To Look Next

Hospital Chain HCA Inc. Pays $16.5 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations That Hospital

Detroit-Area Doctor Charged for Role in Alleged $40 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme

Five More Individuals Charged in Detroit for Alleged Roles in $24.7 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme

Massachusetts Ear Group To Pay $1.5 Million To Resolve HIPAA Charges

Personal Consumer Information Protection In Health Care Operations Topic of Stamer’s 11/1 Speech

ONC Releases First Wave of EHR Test Procedures; More To Come

OCR Releases HIPAA Compliance Training Tool As Enforcement Risks Rise

Health Care Orgs Disability Exposure High As $475K Paid To Settle Justice Department Charges Medical Fitness Screenings of EMTs, Others Violated ADA

HHS/DOJ Partner With Private Health Plans To Further Ramp Up Health Care Fraud Heat!

AHRQ Issues New Guide for Use of Interactive Preventive Care Record

Nextcare Inc. $10 Million False Claims Act Settlement Shows Qui Tam Role In False Claims Act Prosecutions

For more resources and publications training materials by Ms. Stamer, see here.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ARRA, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Meaningful Use, Mental Heatlh, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy | Tagged: CMS, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Fraud Task Force, Health Care Reimbursement, HHS, Hospitals, Inpatient, Medicare, OIG, outpatient, Physicians | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Hospitals Urged To Tighten Inpatient & Outpatient Admission Records As OIG Audits Hospitals for New vs. Established Patients,

November 29, 2012

Hospitals should act quickly to adopt appropriate compliance policies and tighten outpatient and inpatient admissions recordkeeping and associated billing activities to minimize exposures signaled by audits announced by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG).

OIG reportedly is auditing inpatient and outpatient hospital claims for new and established patients to identify potential overcharges by some hospital-based outpatient clinics that may have resulted from treating established patients as if they were new patients. OIG’s Office of Audit Services reportedly sent letters to some hospitals in October, asking about a handful of claims for new patient visits that OIG suspects the hospital should have billed as established patient visits. In addition to requesting specific information about line items on the claims and their internal controls for billing new versus established patients and provide descriptions of written policies and procedures governing the facilities classification of new versus established patients and internal controls for detecting errors.

Medicare typically pays more for new versus established patients since CMS implemented the outpatient prospective payment system in 2000. Since 2008, CMS rules have specified that patients who visit the hospital outpatient clinic within three years are established patients, and after that they are new, with Medicare paying more for the latter. See(73 Fed. Reg. 68502, 68679 (November 18, 2009). Data mining technology increasingly used by CMS and other federal fraud investigators facilities the ability of Medicare and others to identify errors in coding and billing resulting from misclassication of existing patients as new.

Many hospitals may be exposed under this requirement for a variety of reasons including failure to appropriately track and coordinate inpatient and outpatient admission data, defaults built into recordkeeping systems and omissions to timely update practices or training. In contrast to the risk of overbilling from incorrectly treating patients as new, hospitals that bill all patients as established to overcome inadequacies in their ability to track new versus established patients often leave money on the table unnecessarily by foregoing added reimbursement that the facility otherwise would qualify for it could reliably identify new patients.

While strengthening coding and billing to ward of risks, may debate the appropriateness of CMS’ new versus existing patient distinction outside the physician office context. Critics contend that unlike in the physician office context, the level of care or resources delivered for a new patient compared to a patient who previously visited the hospital doesn’t generally differ. Parties with these concerns should continue to ensure appropriate compliance with existing rules while providing input and feedback to CMS and other regulators about their concerns with the policy’s suitability.

For Help With Monitoring Developments, Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance often appear in medical privacy and other technology, risk management and compliance-related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others.

You can get more information about her experience here.

Other Recent Updates & Resources

OIG Recommends CMS, ONC Tighten EMR Incentive Program Rules To Improve Oversight

Congress Sends Bill Amending Lab Testing Rule Violation Sanctions

Learn Latest On OCR New HIPAA De-Identification Guidance & Other HIPAA Developments In 12/12 HIPAA Update Workshop!

$12M+ Settlement Recoveries In 2 Health Care Fraud Whistleblower Claims Shows Providers, Owners, Management & Staff Must Manage Compliance & Risks

Feds Health Fraud Suit Against Psychiatrists Shows Risks Providers Run From Aggressive Referral or Billing Activities

ONC Releases Next Wave of 2014 Draft Test Methods For Public Review and Comment; Plans 11/13 Virtual Workshop

Recent OIG Audit Reports Provide Insights Where Fraud Audits Likely To Look Next

Hospital Chain HCA Inc. Pays $16.5 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations That Hospital

Detroit-Area Doctor Charged for Role in Alleged $40 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme

Five More Individuals Charged in Detroit for Alleged Roles in $24.7 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme

Massachusetts Ear Group To Pay $1.5 Million To Resolve HIPAA Charges

Personal Consumer Information Protection In Health Care Operations Topic of Stamer’s 11/1 Speech

ONC Releases First Wave of EHR Test Procedures; More To Come

OCR Releases HIPAA Compliance Training Tool As Enforcement Risks Rise

Health Care Orgs Disability Exposure High As $475K Paid To Settle Justice Department Charges Medical Fitness Screenings of EMTs, Others Violated ADA

HHS/DOJ Partner With Private Health Plans To Further Ramp Up Health Care Fraud Heat!

AHRQ Issues New Guide for Use of Interactive Preventive Care Record

Nextcare Inc. $10 Million False Claims Act Settlement Shows Qui Tam Role In False Claims Act Prosecutions

For more resources and publications training materials by Ms. Stamer, see here.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ARRA, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Meaningful Use, Mental Heatlh, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy | Tagged: CMS, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Fraud Task Force, Health Care Reimbursement, HHS, Hospitals, Inpatient, Medicare, OIG, outpatient, Physicians | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OIG Recommends CMS, ONC Tighten EMR Incentive Program Rules To Improve Oversight

November 29, 2012

The Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General is recommending the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) act to improve the effectiveness of its oversight and management of the Medicare electronic health record (EHR) incentive program. The recommendations are likely to impact on the requirements that hospitals and other professionals will be required to meet to get and keep EHR program incentive payments. Consequently, hospitals, physicians and other providers and their technology and other systems advisors and vendors should carefully watch and respond to changes that these two agencies implement in response to the OIG feedback.

According to an OIG study reported here, the CMS estimates that it will pay $6.6 billion in EHR incentive payments to providers under the program between 2011 and 2016. Many hospitals, physician organizations and other providers are making substantial investments in EHR and related technologies in reliance of expectation of receiving program incentive payments. Accordingly, parties hoping to qualify for incentive programs need to watch closely the actions that the agencies take in response to this OIG input or otherwise that impacts on qualification and audits.

OIG Study & Findings

OIG’s early assessment of CMS’s oversight of the Program found that because professionals and hospitals self-report data to prove fulfillment of program requirements, CMS’s efforts to verify these data will help make sure the integrity of Medicare EHR incentive payments.

The recommendation comes from an OIG study reviewing CMS’s oversight of professionals’ and hospitals’ self-reported meaningful use of certified EHR technology in 2011, the first year of the program. OIG evaluated self-reported information against program requirements. It also looked at CMS’s audit planning documents, regulations and guidance for the program and conducted structured interviews with CMS staff on CMS’s oversight.

Based on this evaluation, OIG foundCMS faces obstacles to overseeing the Medicare EHR incentive program that leave the program vulnerable to paying incentives to professionals and hospitals that do not fully meet the meaningful use requirements. OIG says CMS has not yet implemented strong prepayment safeguards, and has limited ability to safeguard incentive payments postpayment. OIG also reports that the ONC requirements for EHR reports may contribute to CMS’s oversight obstacles.

OIG Recommended Corrective Action

Based on its study, OIG is recommending that CMS take the following actions.

Obtain and review supporting documentation from selected professionals and hospitals prior to payment to verify the accuracy of their self‑reported information and
Issue guidance with specific examples of documentation that professionals and hospitals should maintain to support their compliance.

CMS did not agree with our first recommendation, stating that prepayment reviews would increase the burden on practitioners and hospitals and could delay incentive payments. Despite this CMS feedback, OIG nevertheless is continuing to recommend that CMS conduct prepayment reviews to improve program oversight. CMS concurred with our second recommendation.

OIG also recommended that ONC take the following actions:

Require that certified EHR technology be capable of producing reports for yes/no meaningful use measures where possible and
Improve the certification process for EHR technology to make sure applicants provide accurate EHR reports.

ONC concurred with both recommendations.

Recommended Provider Action

Hospitals and providers looking to take advantage of the HER incentive payments should carefully monitor the developments resulting from these recommendations and take proper actions to stay compliant with evolving requirements as they move forward.

Along with monitoring these responses, providers participating in the incentive program also need to stay abreast of other developments. For instance, last month, ONC announced the release of the Wave 7 2014 Edition Draft Test Methods (test procedures, tools, and applicable test data and files). See 2014 Edition Draft Test Procedures webpage. Additional waves of test methods are impending. ONC says it expects the final set of Test Methods to be available for use in early 2013.

For Help With Monitoring Developments, Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

You can get more information about her experience here.

Other Recent Updates & Resources

Congress Sends Bill Amending Lab Testing Rule Violation Sanctions

Learn Latest On OCR New HIPAA De-Identification Guidance & Other HIPAA Developments In 12/12 HIPAA Update Workshop!

$12M+ Settlement Recoveries In 2 Health Care Fraud Whistleblower Claims Shows Providers, Owners, Management & Staff Must Manage Compliance & Risks

Feds Health Fraud Suit Against Psychiatrists Shows Risks Providers Run From Aggressive Referral or Billing Activities

ONC Releases Next Wave of 2014 Draft Test Methods For Public Review and Comment; Plans 11/13 Virtual Workshop

Recent OIG Audit Reports Provide Insights Where Fraud Audits Likely To Look Next

Hospital Chain HCA Inc. Pays $16.5 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations That Hospital

Detroit-Area Doctor Charged for Role in Alleged $40 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme

Five More Individuals Charged in Detroit for Alleged Roles in $24.7 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme

Massachusetts Ear Group To Pay $1.5 Million To Resolve HIPAA Charges

Personal Consumer Information Protection In Health Care Operations Topic of Stamer’s 11/1 Speech

ONC Releases First Wave of EHR Test Procedures; More To Come

OCR Releases HIPAA Compliance Training Tool As Enforcement Risks Rise

Health Care Orgs Disability Exposure High As $475K Paid To Settle Justice Department Charges Medical Fitness Screenings of EMTs, Others Violated ADA

HHS/DOJ Partner With Private Health Plans To Further Ramp Up Health Care Fraud Heat!

AHRQ Issues New Guide for Use of Interactive Preventive Care Record

Nextcare Inc. $10 Million False Claims Act Settlement Shows Qui Tam Role In False Claims Act Prosecutions

For more resources and publications training materials by Ms. Stamer, see here.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ARRA, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Meaningful Use, Mental Heatlh, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, CMS, EHR, Electronic Health Records, Health Care, health care IT, Health Care Provider, Health Plans, HIPAA, OIG, ONC, PHI, Physicians, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

ONC Changes Start Time, Releases Agenda For 11/13 Virtual Workshop On Health IT Test Standards

November 9, 2012

The Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) today (November 9, 2012) announced a preliminary agenda of topics and the procedures that health care providers and other interested parties wishing to participate in a public virtual workshop on the ONC Health Information Technology (IT) Certification Program and 2014 Edition Test Methods that ONC plans to host on Tuesday, November 13, 2012 from 8:15 AM-4:30PM EST.

The announced commencement time is 45 minutes earlier than the originally announced 9:00 AM start time that ONC had announced as the start time for the workshop in November 8 announcements.

To review the preliminary agenda for the workshop, see http://www.healthit.gov/policy-researchers-implementers/2014-edition-draft-test-methods.

According to today’s ONC announcement, parties wishing to participate in the virtual workshop should register for ONC Certification Technical Workshop on Nov 13, 2012 8:15 AM EST at https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/2114316126469925632 . ONC says that successful registrants will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

The planned workshop follows ONC’s anno0uncement of the release for review of the latest in a series of electronic medical records Test Standards that ONC has issued recently in its march to implement its mandate. ONC says all Test Methods will undergo public review and comment before being finalized and approved by ONC for use in testing and certification. ONC typically allows a two week period of public review and comment from the date posted for public review and comment on each Wave.

In keeping with this process, ONC is inviting interested persons to submit comments and suggestions to ONC.Certification@hhs.gov. All submissions should include “2014 Test Methods” in the subject line. ONC asks that parties submitting input to be as specific as possible in their comment submissions.

ONC says it expects the final set of Test Methods to be available for use in early 2013.

For Help With Monitoring Developments, Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

If you need help reviewing or commenting on the Tests Procedures or monitoring or responding to these or other health care or health IT related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, can help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers, health plans, their business associates and other health industry clients to establish and administer medical privacy and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. She regularly designs and presents HIPAA and other risk management, compliance and other training for health plans, employers, health care providers, professional associations and others.

Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance frequently appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others.

You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here.

Other Recent Updates & Resources

For additional resources and publications training materials by Ms. Stamer, see here.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ARRA, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Meaningful Use, Mental Heatlh, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, EHR, Electronic Health Records, Health Care, health care IT, Health Care Provider, Health Plans, HIPAA, ONC, PHI, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

ONC Releases Next Wave of 2014 Draft Test Methods For Public Review and Comment; Plans 11/13 Virtual Workshop

November 8, 2012

The Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) today (November 8, 2012) announced the release of the Wave 7 2014 Edition Draft Test Methods (test procedures, tools, and applicable test data and files). To review the 2014 Edition draft Test Methods, visit the 2014 Edition Draft Test Procedures webpage. As a follow up to this announcement, ONC is inviting interested parties to participate in a public workshop on the ONC HIT Certification Program and 2014 Edition Test Methods on Tuesday, November 13^th, 9AM-4:30PM EST.

The Test Procedures announced today are the latest in a series ONC has issued recently. ONC says all Test Methods will undergo public review and comment before being finalized and approved by ONC for use in testing and certification. ONC typically allows a two week period of public review and comment from the date posted for public review and comment on each Wave.

ONC says it expects the final set of Test Methods to be available for use in early 2013.

To help interested parties stay informed about the Test Messages, ONC also announced today it will host a virtual public workshop on the ONC HIT Certification Program and 2014 Edition Test Methods on Tuesday, November 13^th, 9AM-4:30PM EST. According to ONC, the topics to be covered include 2014 Test Procedures, Test Tools, Test Data, ONC Timeline, and the Certified Health IT Product List (CHPL). ONC says additional details regarding access and agenda will be forthcoming. Watch the ONC website.

For Help With Monitoring Developments, Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

If you need help reviewing or commenting on the Tests Procedures or monitoring or responding to these or other health care or health IT related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, can help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers, health plans, their business associates and other health industry clients to establish and administer medical privacy and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. She regularly designs and presents HIPAA and other risk management, compliance and other training for health plans, employers, health care providers, professional associations and others.

Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance frequently appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others.

You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here.

Other Recent Updates & Resources

For additional resources and publications training materials by Ms. Stamer, see here.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ARRA, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Meaningful Use, Mental Heatlh, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, EHR, Electronic Health Records, Health Care, health care IT, Health Care Provider, Health Plans, HIPAA, ONC, PHI, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Five More Individuals Charged in Detroit for Alleged Roles in $24.7 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme

September 23, 2012

New Charges Bring To A Total of 9 Charged for Their Roles in the Scheme

Charges against five more individuals for their alleged participation in a $24.7 million Medicare fraud scheme involving purported home health and psychotherapy services were unsealed and made public in the Eastern District of Michigan on September 20, 2012 bring to a total of nine individuals now charged in the scheme.

The Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) jointly announced the charges.

DOJ charges in court documents that the scheme allegedly involved a total of more than $24.7 million in fraudulent claims submitted to Medicare for purported home health care and psychotherapy services that were medically unnecessary and/or never provided. Court documents allege that the defendants are operators, employees and marketers associated with home health care and psychotherapy clinics operating in and around Detroit. Defendants charged in the unsealed court documents unsealed today include: Mohammed Sadiq; Jamella Al-Jumail; Firas Alky; Clarence Cooper and Beverly Cooper.

Four defendants charged in the superseding indictment were previously charged and arrested in May 2012 for their roles in the scheme. Defendants previously charged include: Sachin Sharma, Dana Sharma, Abdul Malik Al-Jumail, and Felicar Williams.

The superseding indictment charges all defendants with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud; Sachin Sharma with five counts of health care fraud; Sachin Sharma, Abdul Malik Al-Jumail, Williams, Sadiq, Alky and Clarence Cooper with one count of conspiracy to pay and receive health care kickbacks; and Jamella Al-Jumail with one count of destruction of records in a federal investigation. The superseding indictment also seeks forfeiture from all defendants.

According to the superseding indictment, from January 2007 through April 2012, the defendants operated a large network of purported home health care and psychotherapy companies in the Detroit area through which they conspired to defraud Medicare.

According to court documents, Sachin Sharma, Dana Sharma, Abdul Malik Al-Jumail, Williams, Jamella Al-Jumail, Sadiq, Alky and other alleged co-conspirators incorporated home health care, psychotherapy and other medical service companies to carry out the scheme, including Reliance Home Care, LLC; First Choice Home Health Care Services Inc.; Associates in Home Care Inc.; Haven Adult Day Care Center LLC; Swift Home Care LLC; ABC Home Care Inc.; Accessible Home Care Inc.; and Be Well Home Care LLC. The defendants, along with co-conspirators, allegedly submitted Medicare enrollment applications to let these companies to bill Medicare. Sachin Sharma, Abdul Malik-Al-Jumail, Sadiq, Alky and others allegedly paid kickbacks and bribes to recruiters, including Williams and Clarence Cooper, to get Medicare beneficiaries’ information, which could be used to fraudulently bill Medicare for purported services provided by the companies they operated and controlled. The defendants then allegedly caused these companies to bill Medicare for home health and psychotherapy services, even though these services were not medically necessary and were often not provided.

According to the superseding indictment, the defendants caused Reliance, First Choice, Associates, Haven, Swift, ABC, Accessible and other home health, psychotherapy and medical services companies to bill approximately $24.7 million in claims to Medicare for services that were medically unnecessary and/or not provided. In addition, Jamella Al-Jumail is charged with destroying records relating to Accessible’s Medicare billings upon learning of the May 2012 arrest of Abdul Malik Al-Jumail, her co-conspirator and father.

Clarence and Beverly Cooper, Sadiq and Jamella Al-Jumail were arrested on September 21.

The case is being prosecuted by Fraud Section Assistant Chief Gejaa T. Gobena and Trial Attorney William G. Kanellis. The investigations were conducted jointly by the FBI and HHS-OIG, as part of the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, supervised by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan and the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.

Act To Manage Health Care Fraud Exposures

As health care fraud enforcement remains a lead Federal priority, health care providers face ever-heightening exposures to HEAT task force scrutiny and prosecution. Along with these criminal investigation and enforcement activities, health care providers also face civil monetary penalty, federal program disqualification and other civil and administrative remedies from billing, reimbursement and other health care fraud, billing audits and other enforcement and audit activities.

In response to these and other investigation and oversight activities, health care providers should strengthen their compliance practices and oversight and take other special care to position themselves and their billings to defend against possible challenge.

For Help With Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

If you need help providing compliance or other training, reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers and other health industry clients to establish and administer medical privacy and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns/ She also regularly designs and presents risk management, compliance and other training for health care providers, professional associations and others. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. Contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Health Care, OIG, Health Care Fraud, Physician, Health Care Provider, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Hospital, Health Plan, Physician Licensing, Doctor, Medicare Advantage, Reimbursement, Health Care Finance, Medicare, Medicaid, false claims act, Health Plans, Health Care Quality, Money Laundering, Hospital, DME, Home Health | Tagged: Physician, false claims act, HEAT, Health Care Fraud, texas medical board, Medical Licensure | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

With Risks Rising, Listen To 9/19 OCR Webinar On Civil Rights Enforcement In Health Care

September 18, 2012

With the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and other federal agencies stepping up their civil rights and discrimination compliance audits and enforcement activities and private plaintiff discrimination suits against health care providers and other health industry organizations rising, health care, housing, health insurance and other organizations subject to these requirements are encouraged to learn more about HHS’ view and enforcement of these civil rights rules by participating in the webcast on “Addressing Health Disparities through Civil Rights Compliance and Enforcement” on Wednesday, September 19 from 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. eastern daylight savings time (EST).

September 19 Webinar

According to HHS, the September 19, 2012 webinar will be jointly hosted by the Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Equal Opportunity, Civil Rights & Diversity Management (OEOCRDM) Office of Federal Assistance Management (OFAM) and the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources (ASFR).

Topics of discussion will include:

How non-compliance can contribute to health disparities and disparities in quality care;
Opportunities to ensure HHS-funded programs are in compliance with civil rights laws;
How HHS OCR enforces compliance in your neighborhood.
A panel of OCR and ASFR experts answering questions

To join the webcast click here.

Rising Civil Rights Law Exposures Require Management

Public and private health care and housing providers may face discrimination exposures under various federal laws such as the public accommodation and other disability discrimination prohibitions of the ADA, Section 504, the Civil Rights Act and various other laws. Section 504 requires recipients of Medicare, Medicaid, HUD, Department of Education, welfare and most other federal assistance programs funds including health care, education, housing services providers, state and local governments to ensure that qualified individuals with disabilities have equal access to programs, services, or activities receiving federal financial assistance. The ADA extends the prohibition against disability discrimination to private providers and other businesses as well as state and local governments including but not limited to health care providers reimbursed by Medicare, Medicaid or various other federal programs The ADA requirements extend most federal disability discrimination prohibits to health care and other businesses even if they do not receive federal financial assistance to ensure that qualified individuals with disabilities have equal access to their programs, services or activities. In many instances, these federal discrimination laws both prohibit discrimination and require health care and other regulated businesses to put in place reasonable accommodations needed to ensure that their services are accessible and available to persons with disabilities. Meanwhile the Civil Rights Act and other laws prohibit discrimination based on national origin, race, sex, age, religion and various other grounds. These federal rules impact virtually all public and private health care providers as well as a broad range housing and related service providers.

As part of a broader emphasis on the enforcement of disability and other federal discrimination laws by the Obama Administration, OCR is making investigation and prosecution of suspected disability discrimination by health industry organizations a priority. OCR recently has announced several settlement agreements and issued letters of findings as part of its ongoing efforts to ensure compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) as well as various other federal nondiscrimination and civil rights laws.

Defending or paying to settle a disability discrimination charge brought by a private plaintiff, OCR or another agency, or others tends to be financially, operationally and politically costly for a health care organization or public housing provider. In addition to the expanding readiness of OCR and other agencies to pursue investigations and enforcement of disability discrimination and other laws, the failure of health care organizations to effectively maintain processes to appropriately include and care for disabled other patients or constituents with special needs also can increase negligence exposure, undermine Joint Commission and other quality ratings, undermine efforts to qualify for public or private grant, partnerships or other similar arrangements, and create negative perceptions in the community.

As a result of its stepped up enforcement of the ADA, Section 504 and other civil rights and nondiscrimination rules, OCR is racking up an impressive list of settlements with health care providers, housing and other businesses for violating the ADA, Section 504 or other related civil rights rules enforced by OCR. While OCR continues to wage this enforcement battle in the programs it administers, the Departments of Justice, Housing & Urban Development (HUD), Education, Labor and other federal agencies also are waging war against what the Obama Administration perceives as illegal discrimination in other areas. Along side their own enforcement activities, OCR and other federal agencies are maintaining a vigorous public outreach to disabled and other individuals protected by federal disabilities and other civil rights laws intended to make them aware of and to encourage them to act to enforce these rights. To be prepared to defend against the resulting risk of claims and other enforcement actions created by these activities, health care, housing and other U.S. providers and businesses need to tighten compliance and risk management procedures and take other steps to prepare themselves to respond to potential charges and investigations.

Recent Settlements Highlight Risk

Within recent settlement agreements, entities agreed to take steps to come into compliance with Section 504 and ADA, including: review and revision of policies and procedures; training staff on their non-discrimination obligations; providing a grievance procedure for patients; and other corrective actions specific to each entity’s violations. To learn more details about these actions and settlements, see here.

These and other enforcement actions by OCR and other agencies demonstrate the significant increased federal emphasis on the enforcement of federal discrimination laws against private and public health care and housing providers, state and local governments and other businesses under the Obama Administration. In keeping with this renewed emphasis, the DCF settlement is the latest in a series of federal disability, national origin and other discrimination charges and settlements OCR, has brought over the past year against physicians, public and private hospitals, insurers, federally financed housing providers and other parties providing services financed under programs administered by OCR. As HUD, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and other federal agencies also similarly have increased emphasis in federal discrimination law enforcement during this period, health care providers and other federal program service providers need to be prepared to defend their programs and practices to withstand federal discrimination charges or other investigations by federal agencies, private plaintiffs or both.

As for employment discrimination, violators of these and other federal discrimination prohibitions applicable to the offering and delivery of services and products also face exposure to large civil damage awards to private plaintiffs as well as federal program disqualification, penalties and other federal agency enforcement. Unfortunately, while most businesses and governmental leaders generally are sensitive to the need to maintain effective compliance programs to prevent and redress employment discrimination, the awareness of the applicability and non-employment related disability and other discrimination risk management and compliance lags far behind.

Many private health care organizations assume that OCR’s enforcement actions are mostly a problem for state and local government agencies because state and local agencies and service providers frequently have been the target of OCR discrimination charges. However the record shows OCR enforcement risks are high for both public and private providers.

OCR can and does investigate and brings actions against a wide variety of public and private physicians, hospitals, insurers and other private health care and other federal program participants. In October, 2009, for instance, OCR announced that an Austin, Texas orthopedic surgeon whose practice group sees an average of 200 patients per week, had entered into a settlement agreement to resolve OCR charges that he violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by denying medically appropriate treatment from patients solely because they are HIV-positive.

Invest in Prevention To Minimize Liability Risks

In light of the expanding readiness of OCR to investigate and take action against health care providers for potential violations of the ADA, Section 504 and other federal discrimination and civil rights laws, health care organizations and their leaders should review and tighten their policies, practices, training, documentation, investigation, redress, discipline and other nondiscrimination policies and procedures. In carrying out these activities, organizations and their leaders should keep in mind the critical role of training and oversight of staff and contractors plays in promoting and maintaining required operational compliance with these requirements. Reported settlements reflect that the liability trigger often is discriminatory conduct by staff, contractors, or landlords in violation of both the law and the organization’s own policies.

To achieve and maintain the necessary operational compliance with these requirements, organizations should both adopt and policies against prohibited discrimination and take the necessary steps to institutionalize compliance with these policies by providing ongoing staff and vendor training and oversight, contracting for and monitoring vendor compliance and other actions. Organizations also should take advantage of opportunities to identify and resolve potential compliance concerns by revising patient and other processes and procedures to enhance the ability of the organization to learn about and redress potential charges without government intervention.

For More Information Or Assistance

If you need assistance reviewing or tightening your policies and procedures, conducting training or audits, responding to or defending an investigation or other enforcement action or with other health care related risk management, compliance, training, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Her experience includes advising hospitals, nursing home, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; prevent, conduct and investigate, and respond to peer review and other quality concerns; and to respond to Board of Medicine, Department of Aging & Disability, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, HHS, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns.

A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her presentations and programs include How to Ensure That Your Organization Is In Compliance With Regulations Governing Discrimination, as well as a wide range of other workshops, programs and publications on discrimination and cultural diversity, as well as a broad range of compliance, operational and risk management, and other health industry matters.

Her insights on these and other related matters appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. You can get more information about her health industry experience here. If you need assistance responding to concerns about the matters discussed in this publication or other health care concerns, wish to obtain information about arranging for training or presentations by Ms. Stamer, wish to suggest a topic for a future program or update, or wish to request other information or materials, please contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer, see here.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | ADA, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Employer, Employment, Genetic Information, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Licensing, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, OCR, OIG, Physician, Physician Licensing, Real Estate, Rehabilitation Act, Substance Abuse | Tagged: ADA, controlled substance, DEA, Discrimination, Drug Testing, drugs, Health Care, HHS, Hospital, licensure, Medical Board, Medical Practice, OCR, Office of Civil Rights, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Massachusetts Ear Group To Pay $1.5 Million To Resolve HIPAA Charges

September 17, 2012

Physician practices and other health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates have yet another $1 million plus reminder of the importance of taking proper steps to secure electronic protected health information and take other steps required to comply with the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).

Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary and Massachusetts Eye and Ear Associates, Inc. (collectively referred to as “MEEI”) will pay the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) $1.5 million and take a series of corrective actions to settle potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Security Rule under the resolution agreement available here (“Resolution Agreement”) announced by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) on September 17, 2012.

MEEI Resolution Agreement

The Resolution Agreement settles charges that resulted from an OCR investigation commenced in response to a HIPAA breach report submitted by MEEI reporting the theft of an unencrypted personal laptop containing the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of MEEI patients and research subjects. The laptop information included patient prescriptions and clinical information.

OCR’s investigation indicated that MEEI failed to take necessary steps to comply with certain requirements of the HIPAA Security Rule, such as conducting a thorough analysis of the risk to the confidentiality of ePHI maintained on portable devices, implementing security measures sufficient to ensure the confidentiality of ePHI that MEEI created, maintained, and transmitted using portable devices, adopting and implementing policies and procedures to restrict access to ePHI to authorized users of portable devices , and adopting and implementing policies and procedures to address security incident identification, reporting, and response. OCR’s investigation indicated that these failures continued over an extended period of time, demonstrating a long-term organizational disregard for the requirements of the Security Rule.

To settle the charges, MEEI will pay a $1.5 million settlement to OCR. In addition, the Resolution Agreement also requires MEEI to adhere to a corrective action plan which includes reviewing, revising and maintaining policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the Security Rule, and retaining an independent monitor who will conduct assessments of MEEI’s compliance with the corrective action plan and render semi-annual reports to HHS for a 3-year period.

High Dollar Resolution Agreements Increasingly Common

The MEEI Resolution Agreement follows on the resolution agreement previously announced this year with Arizona-based Phoenix Cardiac Surgery, P.C. (PCS). That resolution agreement required PCS to pay $100,000 and take corrective action to implement policies and procedures to safeguard the protected health information of its patients to settle OCR charges PCS violated HIPAA.

Health care providers and other HIPAA-covered entities should heed the MEEI, PSC and other recent settlements as the latest signal of the risks that health care providers and other covered entities run by failing to adequately implement and administer appropriate HIPAA compliance practices.

Following the announcement by OCR last month that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee (BCBST) would pay $1,500,000 to resolve HIPAA violations charges, and the latest in a series of Resolution Agreements announced by OCR in recent years, the PCS highlights the willingness to sanction health care providers and other covered entities of all sizes. “The case is significant because it highlights a multi-year, continuing failure on the part of this provider to comply with the requirements of the Privacy and Security Rules,” said Leon Rodriguez, director of OCR. “We hope that health care providers pay careful attention to this resolution agreement and understand that the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules have been in place for many years, and OCR expects full compliance no matter the size of a covered entity.”

Enforcement Actions Highlight Growing HIPAA Exposures For Covered Entities

Like the PCS, BCBST and other announced resolution agreements, the MEEI Resolution Agreement provides more evidence of the growing exposures that health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates need to carefully and appropriately manage their HIPAA responsibilities. See HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website. Covered entities are urged to heed these warning by strengthening their HIPAA compliance and adopting other suitable safeguards to minimize HIPAA exposures. For tips, see here.

For Help With Monitoring Developments, Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

If you need assistance monitoring federal health reform, policy or enforcement developments, or to review or respond to these or other health care or health IT related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, can help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers, health plans, their business associates and other health industry clients to establish and administer medical privacy and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. She regularly designs and presents HIPAA and other risk management, compliance and other training for health plans, employers, health care providers, professional associations and others.

Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance frequently appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others.

You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here or contact Ms Stamer here or at (469) 767-8872.

[1] The Breach Notification Rule also requires that covered entities report smaller breaches annually to OCR as part of a consolidated disclosure.

For more tips, see here.

Other Recent Updates & Resources

For additional resources and publications training materials by Ms. Stamer, see here.

[*] The Breach Notification Rule also requires that covered entities report smaller breaches annually to OCR as part of a consolidated disclosure.

1 Comment | Academic medicine, ARRA, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Meaningful Use, Mental Heatlh, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy | Tagged: Breach Notification, Health Care, Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act, HIPAA, OCR, Office of Civil Rights, PHI, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

ONC Releases First Wave of EHR Test Procedures; More To Come

September 14, 2012

On September 7th the ONC published the first wave of draft Test Procedures and applicable test data files for the 2014 Edition Elelctronic Health Record (EHR) certification criteria for public review and comment. ONC will release additional Test Procedures in waves on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. Each set of draft test procedures will undergo a two week period of public review and comment from the date posted. You can now provide input on Wave One 2014 draft Test Procedures. Visit the site for detailed information on the 2014 Test Procedure development process at http://www.healthit.gov/policy-researchers-implementers/2014-edition-draft-test-procedures.

For Help With Monitoring Developments, Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

If you need help monitoring federal health reform, policy or enforcement developments, or to review or respond to these or other health care or health IT related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, can help. Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section and the former Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising health industry clients about these and other matters. Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising and assisting health care providers, health plans, their business associates and other health industry clients to establish and administer medical privacy and other compliance and risk management policies, to health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. She regularly designs and presents HIPAA and other risk management, compliance and other training for health plans, employers, health care providers, professional associations and others.

Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance frequently appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others.

You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here.

Other Recent Updates & Resources

For additional resources and publications training materials by Ms. Stamer, see here.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ARRA, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Meaningful Use, Mental Heatlh, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, EHR, Electronic Health Records, Health Care, health care IT, Health Care Provider, Health Plans, HIPAA, ONC, PHI, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR Releases HIPAA Compliance Training Tool As Enforcement Risks Rise

September 14, 2012

Along with its stepped up enforcement and new audit programs, the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is working to promote and encourage better voluntary compliance by physician and other health care providers by releasing a new interactive security and privacy training game to help educate healthcare providers and their staffs to make more informed decisions regarding privacy and security of health information. Using a game format, the game asks users to respond to privacy and security challenges often faced in a typical medical practice.

With the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) stepping up enforcement and sanctions for health care providers, health plans, health care providers and their businesses associates (covered entities) that violate the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Rules and OCR now auditing HIPAA compliance, covered entities should self-audit within the scope of attorney-client privilege and tighten as necessary existing policies, practices and documentation to comply with evolving requirements of HIPAA and other laws requiring the protection of protected health information (PHI), personal financial information and sensitive data.

As the HIPAA Privacy, Security and Breach Rules include mandates that covered entities train members of their workforce, the new game could be a helpful component for health care providers as part of their organization’s training efforts.

The mounting list of settlement agreements – most of which have required settlement payments of more than $1 million – that OCR has announced show the growing exposures that covered entities face when violating HIPAA. See HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website. These settlements and sanctions prove the importance of covered entities strengthening their HIPAA compliance and adopting other suitable safeguards to keep up HIPAA compliance and minimize HIPAA and other exposures that can arise if PHI, personal financial information and other sensitive data. For tips, see here.

For Help With Monitoring Developments, Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance frequently appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others.

You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here.

Other Recent Updates & Resources

For additional resources and publications training materials by Ms. Stamer, see here.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ARRA, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Meaningful Use, Mental Heatlh, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy | Tagged: Health Care, Health Plans, HIPAA, PHI, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Care Orgs Disability Exposure High As $475K Paid To Settle Justice Department Charges Medical Fitness Screenings of EMTs, Others Violated ADA

August 13, 2012

The Justice Department’s announced prosecution and settlement of a disability discrimination lawsuit against Baltimore County, Maryland for allegedly violating the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by screening emergency medical technicians (EMTs) and other public safety workers provides another reminder to health care providers and other public and private organizations of the need to strengthen their disability discrimination management practices to defend against rising exposures to actions by the U.S. Department of Justice, Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and other agencies as well as private law suits.

In the employment arena, a settlement announced August 7 with Baltimore County is particularly notable as part of this trend, both for its challenge of medical exams and inquiries for EMTs and others in health care and other areas where safety could be a concern, as well as its objection to medical inquiries made to workers on medical leave during the course of that leave.

Baltimore County Nailed For Health Screening of Public Safety Workers

Employment disability discrimination risk management clearly must be a key element of health care and other organization’s disability discrimination risk management and risk assessments should not take for granted the defensibility of practices previously assumed defensible as required by law or for health and safety reasons. Rather, health care and other employers that require employees to submit to medical examinations, question employees about physician or mental conditions or disabilities, or engage in other similar activities should check the defensibility of those practices in light of the growing challenges to these and other employee screening practices by the Obama Administration and private plaintiff attorneys like the Justice Department disability discrimination complaint that lead to a $475,000 settlement against Baltimore County, Maryland announced by the Justice Department on August 7, 2012. According to the Justice Department, Baltimore County, Maryland will pay $475,000 and change its hiring procedures to resolve a Justice Department lawsuit filed that charged the county violated the ADA by requiring employees to submit to medical examinations and disability-related inquiries without a proper reason, and by excluding applicants from EMT positions because of their diabetes.

ADA Employment Discrimination Generally

Title I of the ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of disability in various aspects of employment. The ADA’s provisions on disability-related inquiries and medical examinations show Congress’s intent to protect the rights of applicants and employees to be assessed on merit alone, while protecting the rights of employers to make sure that individuals in the workplace can efficiently do the essential functions of their jobs. An employer generally violates the ADA if it requires its employees to undergo medical examinations or submit to disability-related inquiries that are not related to how the employee performs his or her job duties, or if it requires its employees to disclose overbroad medical history or medical records. Title I of the ADA also generally requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees’ and applicants’ disabilities as long as this does not pose an undue hardship or the employer the employer otherwise proves employing a person with a disability with reasonable accommodation could not eliminate significant safety concerns. Employers generally bear the burden of proving these or other defenses. Employers are also prohibited from excluding individuals with disabilities unless they show that the exclusion is consistent with business necessity and they are prohibited from retaliating against employees for opposing practices contrary to the ADA. Violations of the ADA can expose businesses to substantial liability.

As reflected by the Baltimore County settlement, violations of the employment provisions of the ADA may be prosecuted by the EEOC or by private lawsuits and can result in significant judgments. Employees or applicants that can prove they were subjected to prohibited disability discrimination under the ADA generally can recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and up to $300,000 of exemplary damages (depending on the size of the employer).

Baltimore County Nailed For Medical Fitness Screening Of EMTs, Other Public Safety Workers

The U.S. Justice Department lawsuit against Baltimore County, Maryland is one in a growing series of lawsuits in which the Justice Department or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is aggressively challenging medical examination and other medical screenings by private and public employers. In its lawsuit against the County, the Justice Department complaint identified 10 current and former police officers, firefighters, EMTs, civilian employees and applicants who were allegedly subjected to inappropriate and intrusive medical examinations and/or other disability-based discrimination. Justice Department officials claimed the County required some employees to undergo medical examinations or respond to medical inquiries that were unrelated to their ability to perform the functions of their jobs. The complaint also alleged the County required employees to submit to medical examinations that were improperly timed, such as requiring an employee who was on medical leave and undergoing medical treatment to submit to a medical exam even though the employee was not attempting to return to work yet.

According to the complaint, many affected employees – some of whom had worked for the County for decades – submitted to the improper medical exams for fear of discipline or termination if they refused. The complaint also alleges that the county retaliated against an employee who tried to caution against the unlawful medical exams and refused to hire two qualified applicants for EMT positions because they had diabetes.

In the proposed consent decree filed on August 7, 2012 and awaiting District Court approval, the County seeks to resolve the lawsuit by agreeing to:

Pay $475,000 to the complainants and provide more work-related benefits (including retirement benefits and back pay, plus interest);
Adopt new policies and procedures on the administration of medical examinations and inquiries;
Refrain from using the services of the medical examiner who conducted the overbroad medical examinations in question;
Stop the automatic exclusion of job applicants who have insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus; and
Provide training on the ADA to all current supervisory employees and all employees who participate in making personnel decisions.

Obama Administration Aggressively Enforcing & Interpreting Employment & Other Disability Discrimination Laws

The Baltimore County suit is reflective of the aggressive emphasis that the Obama Administration is placing on challenging employers that require employees to undergo medical screening, respond to medical inquiries or engage in other practices that the EEOC, Justice Department or other Obama Administration officials under Title I of the ADA, as well as its heavy emphasis upon enforcement of the ADA and other disability discrimination laws against U.S. businesses and state and local government agencies generally.

The Justice Department action against Baltimore County is part of the Obama Administration’s sweeping effort to enforce employment and other disability discrimination laws against businesses and state and local government agencies alike. While the Administration’s disability law enforcement reaches broadly, disability discrimination enforcement is particularly notable in the area of employment law. This enforcement targets both public employers like Baltimore County, and private employers. In the private employer arena, for instance, the EEOC earlier this year sued Wendy’s franchisee, CTW L.L.C., (Texas Wendy’s) for allegedly violating the ADA by denying employment to a hearing-impaired applicant. In its suit against Texas Wendy’s, the EEOC seeks injunctive relief, including the formulation of policies to prevent and correct disability discrimination as well as an award of lost wages and compensatory damages for Harrison and punitive damages against CTW L.L.C. In the suit, the EEOC charged that the general manager of a Killeen, Texas Wendy’s refused to hire Michael Harrison, Jr. for a cooker position, despite his qualifications and experience, upon learning that Harrison is hearing-impaired.

According to the EEOC, Harrison, who had previously worked for a different fast-food franchise for over two years, was denied hire by the general manager. Harrison said that after successfully interviewing with the Wendy’s shift manager, he attempted to complete the interview process by interviewing with Wendy’s general manager via Texas Relay, a telephonic system used by people with hearing impairments. Harrison’s told the EEOC that during the call he was told by the general manager that “there is really no place for someone we cannot communicate with.”

As illustrated by the suits against Baltimore County, Texas Wendy’s and many other public and private employers, employers must exercise care when making hiring, promotion or other employment related decisions relating to persons with hearing or other conditions that could qualify as a disability under the ADA.

Defending disability discrimination charges has become more complicated due to both the aggressive interpretation and enforcement of the ADA under the Obama Administration and amendments to the ADA that aid private plaintiffs, the EEOC, the Justice Department and others to prove their case. Provisions of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) that expand the definition of “disability” under the ADA, signed into law on September 25, 2008, broadened the definition of “disability” for purposes of the disability discrimination prohibitions of the ADA to make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that a person has a disability within the meaning of the ADA. The ADAAA retains the ADA’s basic definition of “disability” as an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. However, provisions of the ADAAA that took effect January 1, 2009 change the way that these statutory terms should be interpreted in several ways. Most significantly, the ADAAA:

Directs EEOC to revise that portion of its regulations defining the term “substantially limits;”
Expands the definition of “major life activities” by including two non-exhaustive lists: (1) The first list includes many activities that the EEOC has recognized (e.g., walking) as well as activities that EEOC has not specifically recognized (e.g., reading, bending, and communicating); and (2) The second list includes major bodily functions (e.g., “functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions”);
States that mitigating measures other than “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” shall not be considered in assessing whether an individual has a disability;
Clarifies that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active;
Changes the definition of “regarded as” so that it no longer requires a showing that the employer perceived the individual to be substantially limited in a major life activity, and instead says that an applicant or employee is “regarded as” disabled if he or she is subject to an action prohibited by the ADA (e.g., failure to hire or termination) based on an impairment that is not transitory and minor; and
Provides that individuals covered only under the “regarded as” prong are not entitled to reasonable accommodation.

The ADAAA also emphasizes that the definition of disability should be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA and generally shall not require extensive analysis. In adopting these changes, Congress expressly sought to overrule existing employer-friendly judicial precedent construing the current provisions of the ADA and to require the EEOC to update its existing guidance to confirm with the ADAAA Amendments. Under the leadership of the Obama Administration, the EEOC and other federal agencies have embraced this charge and have significantly stepped up enforcement of the ADA and other federal discrimination laws.

The ADAAA amendments coupled with the Obama Administration’s emphasis on enforcement make it likely that businesses generally will face more disability claims from a broader range of employees and will possess fewer legal shields to defend themselves against these claims. These changes will make it easier for certain employees to qualify as disabled under the ADA. Consequently, businesses should act strategically to mitigate their ADA exposures in anticipation of these changes. Given the Obama Administration’s well-documented, self-touted activism of the EEOC, Justice Department and other federal agencies in prosecuting disability discrimination and promoting a pro-disability enforcement agenda, businesses are encouraged to review and tighten their employment disability discrimination compliance procedures and documentation.

Likewise, businesses should be prepared for the EEOC and the courts to treat a broader range of disabilities, including those much more limited in severity and life activity restriction, to qualify as disabling for purposes of the Act. Businesses should assume that a greater number of employees with such conditions are likely to seek to use the ADA as a basis for challenging hiring, promotion and other employment decisions. For this reason, businesses should exercise caution to carefully document legitimate business justification for their hiring, promotion and other employment related decisions about these and other individuals who might qualify as disabled taking into account both the broadened disability definition and the aggressive interpretative stance of the Obama Administration. Businesses also generally should tighten job performance and other employment recordkeeping to promote the ability to prove nondiscriminatory business justifications for the employment decisions made by the businesses.

Businesses also should consider tightening their documentation regarding their procedures and processes governing the collection and handling records and communications that may contain information regarding an applicant’s physical or mental impairment, such as medical absences, worker’s compensation claims, emergency information, or other records containing health status or condition related information. The ADA generally requires that these records be maintained in separate confidential files and disclosed only to individuals with a need to know under circumstances allowed by the ADA.

As part of this process, businesses also should carefully review their employment records, group health plan, family leave, disability accommodation, and other existing policies and practices to comply with, and manage exposure under the new genetic information nondiscrimination and privacy rules enacted as part of the Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) signed into law by President Bush on May 21, 2008. Effective November 21, 2009, Title VII of GINA amends the Civil Rights Act to prohibit employment discrimination based on genetic information and restricts the ability of employers and their health plans to require, collect or retain certain genetic information. Under GINA, employers, employment agencies, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees face significant liability for violating the sweeping nondiscrimination and confidentiality requirements of GINA concerning their use, maintenance and disclosure of genetic information. Employees can sue for damages and other relief like currently available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other nondiscrimination laws. For instance, GINA’s employment related provisions include rules that will:

Prohibit employers and employment agencies from discriminating based on genetic information in hiring, termination or referral decisions or in other decisions regarding compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment;
Prohibit employers and employment agencies from limiting, segregating or classifying employees so as to deny employment opportunities to an employee based on genetic information;
Bar labor organizations from excluding, expelling or otherwise discriminating against individuals based on genetic information;
Prohibit employers, employment agencies and labor organizations from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information of an employee or an employee’s family member except as allowed by GINA to satisfy certification requirements of family and medical leave laws, to monitor the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace or other conditions specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit employers, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees from discriminating in any decisions related to admission or employment in training or retraining programs, including apprenticeships based on genetic information;
Mandate that in the narrow situations where limited cases where genetic information is obtained by a covered entity, it maintain the information on separate forms in separate medical files, treat the information as a confidential medical record, and not disclosure the genetic information except in those situations specifically allowed by GINA;
Prohibit any person from retaliating against an individual for opposing an act or practice made unlawful by GINA; and
Regulate the collection, use, access and disclosure of genetic information by employer sponsored and certain other health plans.

These employment provisions of GINA are in addition to amendments to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and Title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act that are effective for group health plan for plan years beginning after May 20, 2009. Added together, employment related disability discrimination are large and growing, meriting stepped up risk assessment and management.

Health Care & Other Organizations Also Targeted For Violations Of Public Accommodation & Other Federal Disability & Other Disability Discrimination Laws

In addition to the well-known and expanding employment discrimination risks, public and private health care and housing providers also increasingly face disability discrimination exposures under various federal laws such as the public accommodation and other disability discrimination prohibitions of the ADA, Section 504, the Civil Rights Act and various other laws that the Obama Administration views as high enforcement priorities.

Section 504 requires recipients of Medicare, Medicaid, HUD, Department of Education, welfare and most other federal assistance programs funds including health care, education, housing services providers, state and local governments to ensure that qualified individuals with disabilities have equal access to programs, services, or activities receiving federal financial assistance. The ADA extends the prohibition against disability discrimination to private providers and other businesses as well as state and local governments including but not limited to health care providers reimbursed by Medicare, Medicaid or various other federal programs The ADA requirements extend most federal disability discrimination prohibits to health care and other businesses even if they do not receive federal financial assistance to ensure that qualified individuals with disabilities have equal access to their programs, services or activities. In many instances, these federal discrimination laws both prohibit discrimination and require health care and other regulated businesses to put in place reasonable accommodations needed to ensure that their services are accessible and available to persons with disabilities. Meanwhile the Civil Rights Act and other laws prohibit discrimination based on national origin, race, sex, age, religion and various other grounds. These federal rules impact virtually all public and private health care providers as well as a broad range housing and related service providers.

As a result of its stepped up enforcement of the ADA, Section 504 and other civil rights and nondiscrimination rules, OCR is racking up an impressive list of settlements with health care providers, housing and other businesses for violating the ADA, Section 504 or other related civil rights rules enforced by OCR. While OCR continues to wage this enforcement battle in the programs it administers, the Departments of Justice, Housing & Urban Development, Education, Labor and other federal agencies also are waging war against what the Obama Administration perceives as illegal discrimination in other areas. Along side their own enforcement activities, OCR and other federal agencies are maintaining a vigorous public outreach to disabled and other individuals protected by federal disabilities and other civil rights laws intended to make them aware of and to encourage them to act to enforce these rights. To be prepared to defend against the resulting risk of claims and other enforcement actions created by these activities, health care, housing and other U.S. providers and businesses need to tighten compliance and risk management procedures and take other steps to prepare themselves to respond to potential charges and investigations.

Recent Settlements Highlight Risk

Enforcement of Discrimination & Other Civil Rights Laws Obama Administration Priority Putting Public & Private Providers At Risk

These and other enforcement actions by OCR and other agencies demonstrate the significant increased federal emphasis on the enforcement of federal discrimination laws against private and public health care and housing providers, state and local governments and other businesses under the Obama Administration. In keeping with this renewed emphasis, the DCF settlementis one of a growing list of federal disability, national origin and other discrimination charges and settlements OCR, has brought over the past year against physicians, public and private hospitals, insurers, federally financed housing providers and other parties providing services financed under programs administered by OCR. As the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and other federal agencies also similarly have increased emphasis in federal discrimination law enforcement during this period, health care providers and other federal program service providers need to be prepared to defend their programs and practices to withstand federal discrimination charges or other investigations by federal agencies, private plaintiffs or both.

Obama Administration Also Aggressively Prosecutes Disability Discrimination In Other Business Operations

Guarding against disability discrimination in employment is not the only area that businesses need to prepare to defend against. The Obama Administration also has trumpeted its commitment to the aggressive enforcement of the public accommodation provisions of the ADA and other federal disability discrimination laws. In June, 2012, for instance, President Obama himself made a point of reaffirming his administration’s “commitment to fighting discrimination, and to addressing the needs and concerns of those living with disabilities.”

As part of its significant commitment to disability discrimination enforcement, the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department has aggressively enforced the public accommodation provisions of the ADA and other federal disability discrimination laws against state agencies and private businesses that it perceives to have improperly discriminated against disabled individuals. For instance, the Justice Department entered into a landmark settlement agreement with the Commonwealth of Virginia, which will shift Virginia’s developmental disabilities system from one heavily reliant on large, state-run institutions to one focused on safe, individualized, and community-based services that promote integration, independence and full participation by people with disabilities in community life. The agreement expands and strengthens every aspect of the Commonwealth’s system of serving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in integrated settings, and it does so through a number of services and supports. The Justice Department has a website dedicated to disabilities law enforcement, which includes links to settlements, briefs, findings letters, and other materials. The settlement agreements are a reminder that private businesses and state and local government agencies alike should exercise special care to prepare to defend their actions against potential disability or other Civil Rights discrimination challenges. All organizations, whether public or private need to make sure both that their organizations, their policies, and people in form and in action understand and comply with current disability and other nondiscrimination laws. When reviewing these responsibilities, many state and local governments and private businesses may need to update their understanding of current requirements. Statutory, regulatory or enforcement changes have expanded the scope and applicability of disability and various other federal nondiscrimination and other laws and risks of charges of discrimination.

To help mitigate the expanded employment liability risks created by the ADAAA amendments, businesses generally should act cautiously when dealing with applicants or employees with actual, perceived, or claimed physical or mental impairments to decrease exposures under the ADA. Management should exercise caution to carefully and proper the potential legal significance of physical or mental impairments or conditions that might be less significant in severity or scope, correctable through the use of eyeglasses, hearing aids, daily medications or other adaptive devices, or that otherwise have been assumed by management to fall outside the ADA’s scope. Employers should no longer assume, for instance, that a visually impaired employee won’t qualify as disabled because eyeglasses can substantially correct the employee’s visual impairment.

Invest in Prevention To Minimize Liability Risks

In light of the expanding readiness of the EEOC, Justice Department, OCR, HUD and other agencies to investigate and take action against health care providers for potential violations of the ADA, Section 504 and other federal discrimination and civil rights laws, health care organizations and their leaders should review and tighten their policies, practices, training, documentation, investigation, redress, discipline and other nondiscrimination policies and procedures. In carrying out these activities, organizations and their leaders should keep in mind the critical role of training and oversight of staff and contractors plays in promoting and maintaining required operational compliance with these requirements. Reported settlements reflect that the liability trigger often is discriminatory conduct by staff, contractors, or landlords in violation of both the law and the organization’s own policies.

For More Information Or Assistance

A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her presentations and programs include How to Ensure That Your Organization Is In Compliance With Regulations Governing Discrimination, as well as a wide range of other workshops, programs and publications on discrimination and cultural diversity, as well as a broad range of compliance, operational and risk management, and other health industry matters.

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer, see here. About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | ADA, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Employer, Employment, Genetic Information, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Licensing, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, OCR, OIG, Physician, Physician Licensing, Real Estate, Rehabilitation Act, Substance Abuse | Tagged: ADA, Civil Rights, controlled substance, County Hospital, DEA, Discrimination, Drug Testing, drugs, Government, Health Care, HHS, Hospital, licensure, Medical Board, Medical Practice, OCR, Office of Civil Rights, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Director of Texas Office of e-Health Coodination To Discuss Texas HIE Strategy in 3/14 HHS Sponsored Teleconference

March 14, 2012

On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 at 1 p.m. EDT, National eHealth Collaborative’s http://links.govdelivery.com/track?type=click&enid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTIwMzEzLjYxMzk0MTEmbWVzc2FnZWlkPU1EQi1QUkQtQlVMLTIwMTIwMzEzLjYxMzk0MTEmZGF0YWJhc2VpZD0xMDAxJnNlcmlhbD0xNjkxMDkxOSZlbWFpbGlkPWNzdGFtZXJAc29sdXRpb25zbGF3eWVyLm5ldCZ1c2VyaWQ9Y3N0YW1lckBzb2x1dGlvbnNsYXd5ZXIubmV0JmZsPSZleHRyYT1NdWx0aXZhcmlhdGVJZD0mJiY=&&&102&&&http://www.nationalehealth.org/program/nehc-university<br />
NeHC University” href=”http://links.govdelivery.com/track?type=click&enid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTIwMzEzLjYxMzk0MTEmbWVzc2FnZWlkPU1EQi1QUkQtQlVMLTIwMTIwMzEzLjYxMzk0MTEmZGF0YWJhc2VpZD0xMDAxJnNlcmlhbD0xNjkxMDkxOSZlbWFpbGlkPWNzdGFtZXJAc29sdXRpb25zbGF3eWVyLm5ldCZ1c2VyaWQ9Y3N0YW1lckBzb2x1dGlvbnNsYXd5ZXIubmV0JmZsPSZleHRyYT1NdWx0aXZhcmlhdGVJZD0mJiY=&&&102&&&http://www.nationalehealth.org/program/nehc-university”>NeHC University will host Stephen Palmer, Director of the Office of e-Health Coordination at the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, to describe the HIE strategy being pursued by the state of Texas. Palmer will be joined by Kem McClelland of the Integrated Care Collaboration, Tony Gilman of the Texas Health Services Authority, and Bryan White of the North Texas Accountable Healthcare Partnership to showcase the Texas strategy in action and detail the progress that has been made on the ground.

For Help With Monitoring Developments, Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance frequently appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others.

You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here.

If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

If you need help investigating or responding to a known or suspected compliance, litigation or enforcement or other risk management concern, assistance with reviewing, updating, administering or defending a current or proposed employment, employee benefit, compensation or other management practice, wish to inquire about federal or state regulatory compliance audits, risk management or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms Stamer here or at (469) 767-8872.

[1] The Breach Notification Rule also requires that covered entities report smaller breaches annually to OCR as part of a consolidated disclosure.

For more tips, see here.

For Help With Monitoring Developments, Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance frequently appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others.

You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here.

Other Recent Updates & Resources

For additional resources and publications training materials by Ms. Stamer, see here.

[*] The Breach Notification Rule also requires that covered entities report smaller breaches annually to OCR as part of a consolidated disclosure.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ARRA, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Meaningful Use, Mental Heatlh, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy | Tagged: Breach Notification, business associate, Health Care, Health Plan, HIPAA, HITECH Act, OCR | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report

March 13, 2012

Resolution Agreement Also 1^st Announced With Health Plan

Health care providers, health plans and other covered entities beware and prepare! Reporting a large breach under the HITECH Act breach notification rules will trigger a Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) investigation into whether OCR should impose civil monetary penalties against the reporting covered entity under the Privacy and Security Rules of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee (BCBST) has agreed to pay OCR $1,500,000 and to take certain other actions specified in a corrective action plan to avoid civil monetary penalties for charges of HIPAA violations. The BCBST Resolution Agreement is particularly significant, both as:

The first reported enforcement action directly resulting from the filing by a covered entity of a breach report required by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act Breach Notification Rule; and
The first reported resolution agreement reached with a covered entity that is a health plan.

These notable enforcement firsts show the HITECH Breach Notification Rule’s significance as an OCR HIPAA enforcement tool, the heightened exposure to an OCR opening a HIPAA civil monetary penalty (CMP) investigation following a report, as well as the willingness of OCR to sanction health plans as well as other covered entities that breach HIPAA’s Privacy or Security Rules.

BCBST Investigation Began In Response to HITECH Act Breach Notification Rule Report

The OCR investigation that lead to the BCBST settlement began in response to BCBST making a report required under the Breach Notification Rule of the theft of 57 unencrypted computer hard drives from a leased facility in Tennessee, which contained the protected health information (PHI) of over 1 million individuals. Read more details here.

The Breach Notification Rule enacted as part of amendments to HIPAA under the HITECH Act requires covered entities to report an impermissible use or disclosure of protected health information, or a “breach,” of 500 individuals or more to HHS and the media as well as an annual consolidated report of smaller breaches to HHS.[1] Along with the Breach Notification Rules, the HITECH Act also increased the civil monetary penalties (CMPs) that covered entities like BCBST can incur for HIPAA violations. When it imposed its first ever CMP last year, OCR imposed a $4.3 million CMP against Cignet Health of Prince George’s County, Md. (Cignet).

In an apparent effort to impose a potentially larger CMP assessment arising from the investigation of its breach report, BCBST greed to pay $1,500,000 and adopt other corrective actions detailed in a corrective action plan.

Enforcement Actions Highlight Growing HIPAA Exposures For Covered Entities

The BCBST Resolution Agreements, like the Cignet CMP and other high dollar Resolution Agreements OCR has announced against various health care providers highlight the significance of the HITECH Act amendments to HIPAA’s enforcement and CMP rules, as well as the significance of its Breach Notification Rule as a tool in OCR’s investigation and enforcement efforts.

“This settlement sends an important message that OCR expects health plans and health care providers to have in place a carefully designed, delivered, and monitored HIPAA compliance program,” said OCR Director Leon Rodriguez. “The HITECH Breach Notification Rule is an important enforcement tool and OCR will continue to vigorously protect patients’ right to private and secure health information.”

The BCBST Resolution Agreement provides yet another reminder to covered entities and their business associates of the need to carefully and appropriately manage their HIPAA responsibilities. See HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website. Covered entities are urged to heed these warning by strengthening their HIPAA compliance and adopting other suitable safeguards to minimize HIPAA exposures. Fortips, see here.

For Help With Monitoring Developments, Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance frequently appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others.

You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here.

[1] The Breach Notification Rule also requires that covered entities report smaller breaches annually to OCR as part of a consolidated disclosure.

For more tips, see here.

For Help With Monitoring Developments, Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

Ms. Stamer also regularly works with OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. For instance, Ms. Stamer for the second year will serve as the appointed scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance frequently appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others.

You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here.

Other Recent Updates & Resources

For additional resources and publications training materials by Ms. Stamer, see here.

[*] The Breach Notification Rule also requires that covered entities report smaller breaches annually to OCR as part of a consolidated disclosure.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ARRA, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Indian Health, Meaningful Use, Mental Heatlh, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy | Tagged: Breach Notification, business associate, Health Care, Health Plan, HIPAA, HITECH Act, OCR | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Feds Arrest 36 More California & Florida Providers On Defrauding Medicare Of More than $66 Million

Medical Device Excise Tax Rules Supplemented

Updated 2013 ACA Prescription Drug Fee Calculation & Payment Rules Released; 12/18 Deadline To File Form 8947

Hospitals Urged To Tighten Inpatient & Outpatient Admission Records As OIG Audits Hospitals for New vs. Established Patients,

OIG Recommends CMS, ONC Tighten EMR Incentive Program Rules To Improve Oversight

ONC Changes Start Time, Releases Agenda For 11/13 Virtual Workshop On Health IT Test Standards

ONC Releases Next Wave of 2014 Draft Test Methods For Public Review and Comment; Plans 11/13 Virtual Workshop

Five More Individuals Charged in Detroit for Alleged Roles in $24.7 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme

With Risks Rising, Listen To 9/19 OCR Webinar On Civil Rights Enforcement In Health Care

Massachusetts Ear Group To Pay $1.5 Million To Resolve HIPAA Charges

ONC Releases First Wave of EHR Test Procedures; More To Come

OCR Releases HIPAA Compliance Training Tool As Enforcement Risks Rise

Health Care Orgs Disability Exposure High As $475K Paid To Settle Justice Department Charges Medical Fitness Screenings of EMTs, Others Violated ADA

Director of Texas Office of e-Health Coodination To Discuss Texas HIE Strategy in 3/14 HHS Sponsored Teleconference

$1.5 Million HIPAA Settlement Reached To Resolve 1st OCR Enforcement Action Prompted By HITECH Act Breach Report

Recent Posts

Archives

About Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Share this blog

Archives

Solutions Law Press Health Care Update

Follow “”

May 2013
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Apr
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Recent Posts

Archives

About Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Share this blog

Archives

Solutions Law Press Health Care Update

Follow “”