Photo of Edward S. Kornreich

Past long-standing chair of Proskauer’s Health Care Department, Ed Kornreich is a recognized authority on the legal, regulatory and business issues related to health care services.

Ed works primarily on health care transactions, regulatory compliance, health care payment and governance issues for varied providers (both for-profit and not-for-profit), vendors, GPOs, distributors and entrepreneurs. His approach combines sensitivity to meeting regulatory business goals with a comprehensive and realistic assessment of the health care environment, and he is particularly experienced in dealing with the complex issues related to integrated health care systems.

After working for the Legal Aid Society, Ed entered private practice, where he helped represent a major public hospital corporation in a series of reimbursement disputes with the state and federal governments, and counseled New York area hospitals and nursing homes on reimbursement and operational issues. Thereafter, Ed served as General Counsel of St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, one of the largest teaching hospitals in New York. After leaving St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, Ed joined Proskauer as a Partner in 1990.

Ed frequently writes and lectures on Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, health care integration, not-for-profit law and corporate governance issues, and the application of federal and state anti-kickback and “Stark” laws to health care transactions.

We previously noted that the regulations implementing the No Surprises Act (“NSA”) appeared to be inconsistent with the NSA because they seemed to establish the qualifying payment amount (“QPA”) as the appropriate payment amount to be used in arbitrations by certified IDR entities (viz. the regulation-established independent dispute resolution (“IDR”) process) between plans and providers, and that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“Texas District Court”) vacated portions of the NSA regulations relating to the QPA for purposes of the IDR process.  The Federal government recently responded to the Texas District Court—by removing such portions of the NSA regulations.

Continue Reading The Saga of the No Surprises Act Continues to be … Surprising

As part of the Fiscal Year 2023 New York state Executive Budget legislation, $1.2 billion in funding has been allocated for the payment of bonuses for certain “frontline” healthcare workers.

With the stated goals to “recruit, retain, and reward health care and mental hygiene workers,” the provision – located within Part D of the Health and Mental Hygiene Bill, as amended – requires the state Commissioner of Health, in consultation with the state Commissioner of Labor and the Medicaid inspector general, to develop procedures to facilitate payment of claims to covered employers for the purpose of funding worker bonuses in accordance with the provision’s requirements.  Bonus amounts will be commensurate with the number of hours worked by covered workers during designated vesting periods up to a total of $3,000 per covered worker.

Continue Reading New York State to Fund Bonuses for Certain Healthcare Workers as Part of State Budget

We previously noted that the No Surprises Act (NSA) regulation’s establishment of the presumption that the qualifying payment amount (QPA)—generally, the median payment by the plan to providers in the region—is the appropriate payment amount in arbitrations between plans and providers under the NSA did not appear to comport with the NSA.

In a recent

Recently, in Siegel v. Snyder, Slip.Op. 07624, New York’s Appellate Division, Second Department interpreted New York’s peer review/quality assurance confidentiality statute in a manner that may require modifications to the standard documentation of such meetings.  New York’s Education Law 6527(3) shields from disclosure “the proceedings [and] the records relating to performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function or participation in a medical . . . malpractice prevention program,” as well as testimony of any person in attendance at such a meeting when a medical or quality assurance review function or medical malpractice prevention program was performed (see Logue v Velez, 92 NY2d 13, 16-17).  Public Health Law 2805-m(2) affords similar protection from disclosure for “records, documentation or committee actions or records” required by law, which includes peer review activity.

Continue Reading Failure to Disclose Speakers at Protected QA Meeting Loses Protection for All Speakers

On November 2, 2021, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) issued its Calendar Year (CY) 2022 Physician Fee Schedule (“PFS”) Final Rule. In this post, we sample some key highlights from the Final Rule.
Continue Reading Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule for Calendar Year 2022 – CMS Cuts Rates and Extends Telehealth

In a November 12, 2021 revision of its prior draft guidelines for hospital co-location compliance with Medicare conditions of participation (COP) for hospitals (QSO-19-13), CMS has apparently softened its approach to co-location. The modified guidance is less prescriptive and appears more practical and supportive of co-location where appropriate. In July 2019, CNS issued draft QSO-19-13

In an advisory opinion posted November 10, 2021 (AO 21-15), the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (OIG) appeared to soften a disturbing position that it had taken in 2012 regarding the employment safe harbor.

The issue is the breadth of the employment safe

This post reviews Part II of the federal No Surprises Act regulations.  In previous publications, we have commented upon the No Surprises Act, and Part I of the regulations.

The “Requirements Related to Surprise Billing; Part II” (the “Part II Rule”), published on October 7, 2021, is the second interim final rule (IFR) implementing the No Surprises Act, following a prior No Surprises Act IFR (the “Part I Rule”) published on July 13, 2021.  Both of these regulations are generally set to take effect on January 1, 2022.

In this post, we outline how the Part II Rule addresses: (A) the independent dispute resolution (IDR) and open negotiation processes for health plans and other payers (“Plans”), (B) patient-provider dispute resolution processes for uninsured individuals, and (C) the expansion of the federal external review provisions of the Affordable Care Act to cover disputes regarding the application of the No Surprises Act.

Continue Reading The Devil may be in the Details of the Part II No Surprises Act IFR

Although the COVID-19 pandemic is still active worldwide, health care industry leaders and regulators have already begun to think about how to implement post-pandemic changes to health care delivery based on lessons learned during the global emergency of the past year and a half. We have reported on some such post-pandemic changes to the health care industry in previous blog posts. For instance, some temporary solutions to challenges presented by COVID-19 are being made permanent due to their proven efficiency or effectiveness. The expansion of telehealth is a primary example of this. We have seen the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), as well as state governors and legislators, expand and extend certain regulatory waivers that were initially designed as temporary solutions to allow for greater access to patient care during the pandemic, but that are becoming permanent fixtures due to their usefulness in innovative patient care delivery generally.

Other post-pandemic changes to the health care delivery landscape will be borne out of sheer necessity rather than innovation.
Continue Reading Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic: Planning for Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management in Hospitals

Over the past few weeks, we have covered recent updates to the False Claims Act (“FCA”), first discussing the recent recension of the “Brand Memo” and the resulting restoration of the Department of Justice’s willingness to use sub-regulatory guidance to bring FCA enforcement actions. In our second post, we outlined S.B. 2428’s proposal to shift the burden of proving materiality to defendants, provide for discovery reimbursement, address deference standards in motions to dismiss brought by the government in qui tam complaints, and extend whistleblower anti-retaliation protections. In this final post of our three-part series, we close out our discussion of the FCA with a review of a recent Seventh Circuit decision endorsing the use of an “objective reasonableness” defense in litigation brought under the FCA. We also highlight other recent court activity affecting enforcement of the FCA.
Continue Reading False Claims Act Spotlight (3 of 3): Changing Landscape of the FCA in the Courts