Hospitals & Health Systems

In 2021, Congress enacted the Corporate Transparency Act (the “CTA”) to “better enable critical national security, intelligence, and law enforcement efforts to counter money laundering, the financing of terrorism, and other illicit activity.”[1] The CTA, which became effective January 1, 2024,[2] is described, in detail, in a series of Proskauer alerts compiled by Proskauer’s CTA Task Force. The CTA will create a national registry of the “beneficial owners” and “company applicants”[3] of millions[4] of entities across the country. A reporting company must disclose certain information about its beneficial owners and (for entities formed in 2024 and later) company applicants, including: (i) legal name; (ii) date of birth; (iii) residential address (or business address for certain company applicants); (iv) unique identifying number from a non-expired government-issued identification document; and (v) an image of such identification document.[5] In addition, states are following the Federal government’s lead and have adopted similar regulatory regimes; last month, for example, New York enacted the LLC Transparency Act, which comes into effect in December 2024.

On Tuesday, January 16, 2024, Governor Kathy Hochul released the SFY 2025 New York State Executive Budget (“Executive Budget”). While still subject to legislative approval, the Executive Budget incorporates the recently approved amendment (“Waiver Amendment”) to New York’s Medicaid Section 1115 Demonstration that includes $7.5 billion in Medicaid investments over

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) has expanded upon its recent Healthcare Sector Cybersecurity Concept Paper (which we covered in a prior blog post), issuing cybersecurity performance goals (“CPGs”) for the healthcare and public health (“HPH”) sector. These CPGs aim to help healthcare organizations protect against

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently issued a strategy paper highlighting key aspects of its plan to revamp cybersecurity requirements in the healthcare industry. Citing a 93% increase in large data breaches in healthcare from 2018 to 2022 and a rapid increase in ransomware attacks against

Last month, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reaffirmed its longstanding position that an arrangement that “carves out” Federal health care program (FHCP) business is not dispositive with respect to whether such arrangement implicates the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS).  Specifically, OIG

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.

We previously discussed the requirements of the Hospital Price Transparency Rule (“Rule”) on health care providers and health plans, as well as CMS’s proposal to increase penalties for a hospital’s failure to comply with the Rule.  About a year and a half after the Rule became effective, CMS has now imposed its first set of civil monetary penalties (“CMPs”) on Northside Hospital Atlanta and Northside Hospital Cherokee, which have been fined $883,180 and $214,320, respectively.

The Rule requires, in part, hospitals to make public a machine-readable file containing a list of all standard charges for all items and services, such as, e.g., supplies, room and board, and use of the facility, among other items.  See 45 C.F.R. § 180.40(a); id. at § 180.20.  The Rule also requires hospitals to display shoppable services in a consumer-friendly manner.  See id. at § 180.60(d)(2); id. at § 180.60(b).  The goal of these specific requirements, in addition to those set forth in the remainder of the Rule, is to provide consumers with sufficient information about the charges for certain items and services by requiring health care providers and health plans to be publicly transparent about such charges.

Based on CMS’s CMP letters, dated June 7, 2022, Northside Hospital Atlanta and Northside Hospital Cherokee were non-compliant with the aforementioned specific requirements of the Rule.  The chronology of events is important to understand how CMS ended up issuing its CMP letters.

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.

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

Earlier this month, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released its final rules for the 2022 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS Final Rule) and 2022 Medicare Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment System (OPPS Final Rule).  Both rules take effect January 1, 2022.  This post is the first in a series covering the myriad Medicare-related changes set forth in those rules.  We turn first to an area addressed extensively in the PFS Final Rule—the amendments to the Physician Self-Referral Law (Stark Law) regulations.

Those amendments correct inadvertent omissions in a previous CMS rulemaking and clarify the reach of the prohibition related to “indirect compensation arrangements.”  As the tale unfolded, within a matter of months of publishing its Modernizing and Clarifying the Physician Self-Referral Regulations Final Rule (MCR Final Rule), which went into effect January 19, 2021, and which made significant changes to the Stark Law, CMS identified certain crucial omissions related to the regulatory calculus for analyzing indirect compensation arrangements, and sought to correct those oversights through its 2022 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Proposed Rule (PFS Proposed Rule).  85 Fed. Reg. 77492 (Dec. 2, 2020); 86 Fed. Reg. 39104 (July 23, 2021).  After a short notice-and-comment period, on November 2, 2021, CMS announced that it had taken care of the issues through the PFS Final Rule, which is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on November 19, 2021.

As explained in more detail below, the import of the PFS Final Rule for physicians, their immediate family members, and entities furnishing designated health services (DHS) is that, while indirect compensation arrangements still must satisfy the requirements of an applicable exception to avoid the Stark Law’s referral and billing prohibitions, the number of indirect compensation arrangements subject to those prohibitions, currently enforceable under the law set forth in the MCR Final Rule, is now reduced.  More specifically, CMS’s corrections to that rule ultimately reduce the number of arrangements that satisfy the definition of “indirect compensation arrangement” and, thus, decrease the number of arrangements that fall within the prohibitions’ purview.  To CMS’s credit, the changes appear to be consistent with its long-standing policy of ensuring program integrity against the risk of program or patient abuse.  To better understand the significance of CMS’s clarifications, we provide a chronological-based history of the amendments to the definition of “indirect compensation arrangement.”