Hospitals & Health Systems

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) published its final revisions (“Final Rule”) to the Medicare Conditions of Participation (CoPs) on May 12, 2014. Among other things, CMS proposed to revise its current interpretation of the hospital medical staff composition at 42 C.F.R. § 482.22 and modified the prohibition on the use of a unified and integrated medical staff for a multi-hospital health system.

Many pediatric hospitals have an opportunity to be a lead provider of patient care and administrative services to patients in states that are outsourcing Medicaid program administration to managed care companies.  Winn Halverhout presented on this topic for an AHLA webinar titled “Innovative Pediatric Hospital/Provider Partnerships.”

Thirty-seven states currently outsource all or part of their Medicaid administration to managed care companies.  Many states are dividing into regions and awarding Medicaid contracts in each region to only one or a handful of managed care companies, which creates opportunities for pediatric providers that MCCs regard as critical providers within a service region.  Pediatric hospitals are well-positioned to be the lead provider if they can build a critical mass of physicians and other pediatric care providers in the contract region.

The Federation of State Medical Boards recently endorsed a model policy that addresses the proper use of telemedicine services.  Only a few weeks later, a not-for-profit foundation released  a report highlighting the benefits of telemedicine and making recommendations for telehealth services.  It’s no surprise that telehealth and telemedicine have been in the news with increasing frequency given that the demand for telemedicine services are rising sharply.  According to a Law360 article, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Ltd. estimates that 75 million digital doctor visits will occur this year in North America.

For many years, healthcare providers – particularly children’s hospitals – took comfort in a belief held widely throughout the healthcare industry that the Stark Law did not apply to Medicaid. That belief has now been challenged by several district court cases involving alleged False Claims Act violations, most recently in U.S. v. All Children’s Health System.

In a recent article in Health Value Digest, Tiffany Hetland explored two items a hospital should have on its checklist when acquiring a physician practice: a billing and coding audit and a review of documentation practices.  The article is below.

Hospital acquisitions of physician practices have been on the rise for some time. At…

On April 1, 2014, the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs agreed to the dismissal of its December 2008 complaint against Florida Hospital of Orlando. This action follows DOL’s March 11, 2014 agreement to a five-year moratorium on compliance and enforcement actions against Tricare service providers. These developments reflect a significant rollback of OFCCP’s prior position as to the scope of its jurisdiction. In his March 11, 2014 letter to Congress, Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez recognizes that Congress had intended to limit OFCCP’s jurisdictional authority over Tricare healthcare providers.

Read the press about Judge James Gwin’s decision in United States ex rel. Barko v. Halliburton Co., No. 1:05-cv-1276 (D.D.C. Mar. 6, 2014), and you might see it as the beginning of the end for the attorney-client privilege in internal investigations. While the ultimate implications of the decision remain to be seen, that’s not how we see it.

The attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine are alive and well, as is their application to internal investigations. The FAR clause implementing the requirement for a Code of Business Ethics and Conduct preserves the contractor’s right to conduct an internal investigation subject to the protections of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. See FAR 52.203-13 (Dec. 2008). The Justice Department’s Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations explicitly states that a company is not required to waive privilege in order to get credit for cooperating with a government investigation. “[W]aiving the attorney-client and work product protections has never been a prerequisite under the Department’s prosecution guidelines for a corporation to be viewed as cooperative.”

On March 6, 2014, the District Court for the District of Columbia issued an opinion in United States ex rel. Barko v. Halliburton Company et al. requiring Kellogg, Brown & Root Engineering Corporation (“KBR”) to produce documents originally withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. The Court found that the documents, which related to internal investigations of possible violations of KBR’s code of conduct, were ordinary business records created to satisfy regulatory requirements and were not created for purposes of obtaining or receiving legal advice. The Court’s decision was based on the fact that KBR’s internal investigation was required under the Federal Acquisition Regulation and internal KBR policy, and that the investigation was conducted by non-lawyers. The Court’s holding raises significant questions about existing corporate compliance and investigation programs in regulated industries, including healthcare.

In Barko, the plaintiff brought a qui tam complaint alleging that KBR employees subcontracted to certain third parties who inflated invoices for substandard work, resulting in overcharges to the government. Barko sought, in the course of discovery, documentation from the internal review performed by KBR’s Office of Business Conduct into these allegations. After an in camera review of the documents at issue, the Court determined that the documents were not protected.

On March 10, 2014, the parties to U.S. ex rel. Baklid-Kunz v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center et al. entered into a Settlement Agreement to the resolve the claims in the United States’ Complaint in Intervention in this matter. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Halifax must pay the settlement amount of $85 million by…

This morning, March 3, at what was to be the commencement of the jury trial in U.S. ex rel. Baklid-Kunz v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center (Case No: 6:09-cv-1002-Orl-31TBS), the parties informed the Court that they had reached a tentative settlement.  The parties were given until March 10, 2014 for file a Joint Motion to …