The debate over providing transportation to patients is nothing new. Hospitals, doctors and other providers have long struggled with whether they can provide free or discounted taxis, shuttles, metro cards or other transportation means to patients to come to appointments and receive care. On one hand, there is evidence that without reliable transportation options, patients are more likely to miss preventative, primary care appointments, increasing the risk of more costly and unnecessary medical services down the road. On the other hand, certain federal laws like the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) law have given providers serious concerns that such transportation services might be considered an illegal “kickback” to gain patients, or an illegal inducement to receive care.

The Austin City Council is scheduled to vote Thursday, February 15 on a proposed city ordinance which would require all private businesses in the city to offer employees at least 8 paid sick days (or 64 sick leave hours) annually.

Under the proposed ordinance, employees would accrue 1 hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked, with the ability to start using the sick leave as soon as it is earned.  If passed, eligible workers would be able to use sick time if they are hurt or ill, need to care for a family member who is injured or sick, require medical attention or have a doctor’s appointment for preventative care, among other things.  If an employee does not utilize all earned sick leave during the applicable year, any accrued, unused leave may be “rolled over” to the next year.

On January 10, 2018, citing costs associated with record increases in the number of qui tam actions filed under the False Claims Act, the Department of Justice issued a memorandum[1] to certain DOJ attorneys, strongly signaling the Department’s intent to liberalize its use of section 3730(c)(2)(A) to seek dismissal of qui tam actions.

In the recently leaked memo, Michael Granston, Director of the Fraud Section of DOJ’s Commercial Litigation Branch, outlines “a general framework for evaluating when to seek dismissal” by identifying seven factors that have supported DOJ’s previous successful dismissal requests and emphasizes that the Department views its dismissal authority as one subject only to “highly deferential” review by the courts. The memo suggests DOJ will seek dismissal of these actions more often, making use of its authority to seek dismissal as “an important tool to advance the government’s interests, preserve limited resources, and avoid adverse precedent.” As further indication that the Department intends to pursue aggressively any available means of dismissal of these cases, the Director also recommends asserting in the alternative other independently available grounds for dismissal or requesting partial dismissal where appropriate, and the memo reminds attorneys that dismissal may occur at any stage of the proceedings, depending on the circumstances. The Director also stresses the importance of communication between the DOJ, the affected agency, and relators as a means of encouraging voluntary dismissal.

With the New Year underway, the deadline is quickly approaching for HIPAA covered entities to file their annual breach reports with the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”).

While breaches involving 500 or more individuals must be reported no later than 60 calendar days from the date of discovery,…

As is par for the course with the start of a new presidential administration, many changes to employment laws are anticipated, with several already underway. The most recent of which is the test used to determine whether interns must be classified as employees for purposes of the Federal Labor Standards Act. The question of when a person stops being an intern and starts being an actual employee has long been a gray area. On January 5, 2018, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced in a press release it was rescinding its previous six-part test used to determine whether interns at for-profit companies are employees and thus subject to federal minimum wage and overtime laws. Instead, the DOL will now use the so-called “primary beneficiary” test favored by several appeals courts.

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) recently adopted a new and employer welcomed standard for determining whether facially neutral workplace rules unlawfully interfere with the exercise of employee rights that may be protected by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).

Going forward, the NLRB will consider the following factors:

  • the nature and extent of the potential impact on NLRA rights, and
  • legitimate justifications associated with the rule.

Recent press reports are speculating that CVS Health Corporation is seeking to acquire the health insurer Aetna.  The rumored transaction would create a new type of health care company that doesn’t currently exist:  one that combines a commercial health insurer with a retail pharmacy chain and a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM).  According to most reports, CVS would pay $66 – $70 billion to acquire Aetna (with Aetna stockholders receiving cash and CVS stock).  It’s said that the parties are trying to enter into a definitive agreement by year-end.    

On November 2, 2017, the House Ways and Means Committee released draft text of H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, proposing significant changes to the Internal Revenue Code. Of particular concern to private hospitals, healthcare systems and educational institutions operating as 501(c)(3) entities is the bill’s proposed termination of the tax exemption available…

On October 17, 2017, the IRS announced that it will not accept electronically filed tax returns for the year 2017 (to be filed in 2018) that fail to address the health coverage requirements of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). The “IRS Statement on Health Care Reporting Requirement” notes that “‎[t]axpayers remain obligated to follow the law and pay what they may owe at the point of filing‎. The 2018 filing season will be the first time the IRS will not accept tax returns that omit this information.” The prior guidance called into question whether the IRS would enforce the individual mandate provisions of the ACA. The new guidance makes clear that it will do so.