This past week, the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) denied UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company’s (UnitedHealthcare) petition for a writ of certiorari (Petition) challenging, in part, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’s (CMS) Overpayment Rule, which requires Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, such as UnitedHealthcare, to return identified “overpayments” to CMS within 60 days. With this denial, the Overpayment Rule remains in full force and effect, and UnitedHealthcare, among other MA plans, must comply or potentially face False Claims Act (FCA) liability.
Continue Reading The Supreme Court Denies Petition Challenging CMS’s Overpayment Rule
Regulatory Compliance
HHS Issues HIPAA Guidance on Remote Communication Technologies for Audio-Only Telehealth
By Ryan P. Blaney on
The Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”), recently issued new regulatory guidance relating to covered entities’ HIPAA-compliant use of remote communication technologies for audio-only telehealth services. This guidance is a direct response to a December 2021 Executive Order that tasked HHS with developing HIPAA guidance for telehealth services, with the stated goals of improving “patient experience and convenience” as the COVID-19 public health emergency subsides. HHS has issued this guidance in anticipation of the national public health emergency ending, at which time OCR’s Telehealth Notification loses effect.
The new HIPAA guidance affects covered entities in four key ways.…
Health Care Providers on Alert: Two Hospitals Penalized for Continuous Noncompliance with the Hospital Price Transparency Rule
By Matthew J. Westbrook on
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.…
Key Legal Issues Facing Telehealth Platforms, as Compliance Concerns Bubble for Platforms Launched During the Public Health Emergency
By Jason S. Madden & Jonian Rafti on
The onset of the COVID-19 public health emergency (“PHE”) led to a surge in the use of telehealth by health care providers. In addition, the PHE fueled a boom in the number of direct-to-consumer (“DTC”) telehealth platforms, many of which have relied upon COVID-19 regulatory waivers to launch and operate in multiple states across the nation. For the reasons discussed below, DTC telehealth platforms should re-visit their compliance plans and be prepared for increased state and federal regulatory scrutiny.
…
Continue Reading Key Legal Issues Facing Telehealth Platforms, as Compliance Concerns Bubble for Platforms Launched During the Public Health Emergency
OIG Approves Cash Equivalents Paid to Patients Participating in Contingency Management Program Offered Through Digital Health Technology
By Matthew J. Westbrook & Ryan P. Blaney on
Contingency management (CM) is a form of intervention treatment program that incentivizes patients with substance use disorders to observe certain conditions—such as non-use of drugs or alcohol confirmed via urine drug screening or breathalyzer test, or even drug therapy adherence—in exchange for something of monetary value. Adherence is often tracked and confirmed by those that provide the incentive payment through digital health technologies—including apps that can be downloaded to the patient’s smart phone or that are already downloaded to a smart phone provided to the patient as part of a CM program. While many contend that CM is an effective, evidence-based treatment, certain legal barriers limit, and often prevent, its widespread adoption and use. When there is the potential for patients to receive items and services payable by Federal health care programs (FHCPs), CM incentives are subject to scrutiny under the Federal anti-kickback statute (AKS) and the Beneficiary Inducements CMP. A recent advisory opinion issued by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Inspector General (OIG), approved a digital health company’s offer to provide cash equivalents to patients participating in a CM program. This favorable result continues to demonstrate OIG’s flexibility notwithstanding regulatory precedent or guidance appearing to the contrary.
…
Continue Reading OIG Approves Cash Equivalents Paid to Patients Participating in Contingency Management Program Offered Through Digital Health Technology
CMS Responds to Industry Stakeholder Feedback, Redesigns and Renames the GPDC Model for DCEs as the ACO REACH Model
By Whitney Phelps & Matthew J. Westbrook on
On February 24, 2022, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), announced the Accountable Care Organization Realizing Equity, Access, and Community Health (ACO REACH) Model, which will begin January 1, 2023, and replace the Global and Professional Direct Contracting (GPDC) Model. The Request for Applications (RFA) has been posted on CMS’s website, and applications are due by April 22, 2022. While the application is not binding, the failure to apply will foreclose any opportunity to participate.
This article discusses the termination of the GPDC Model, the establishment of the ACO REACH Model, and the differences between them.…
No Surprises Act’s Regulation Establishing QPA as Presumptive Payment Amount Vacated by District Court
By Edward S. Kornreich on
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…
OIG Removes Barrier to Requests for and Issuances of Advisory Opinions When the Same Conduct is Under Investigation
By Matthew J. Westbrook on
Posted in Fraud & Abuse, Regulatory Compliance
On January 11, 2022, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued, without an opportunity for public notice and comment,[1] a Final Rule, amending its internal process for accepting and issuing advisory opinions. 87 Fed. Reg. 1367 (Jan. 11, 2022). In response to the industry’s…
New York Enacts Landmark Legislation Regulating PBMs
By Whitney Phelps & Angela Gichinga on
Posted in Legislation, Regulatory Compliance
On December 31, 2021, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed landmark legislation to increase the transparency of prescription drug pricing and to establish requirements on pharmacy middlemen. This new law is amongst 100 [1] state bills introduced in 2021 that shed light on the business practices of pharmacy benefit managers (PBM). In an approval memo,…
Failure to Disclose Speakers at Protected QA Meeting Loses Protection for All Speakers
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.…