On August 31, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued its long-awaited Management Standards for Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals Proposed Rule, which is designed to prevent facilities from disposing of hazardous waste pharmaceuticals by flushing them down the toilet or drain. The proposal creates a new subpart under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act’s (“RCRA”) hazardous waste regulations for the regulation of hazardous waste pharmaceuticals generated by “healthcare facilities” and “pharmaceutical reverse distributors.”

In an Aug. 27, 2015, decision, a majority of the Board found that the Purple Communications standard, with respect to an employer’s email system, would apply without exception to healthcare providers and, in particular, for acute care hospitals. Contrary to the cogent arguments put forth by member Johnson in his dissent, the majority found there should be no exception to the presumption set forth under Purple Communications that employees have a statutory right to use an employer’s email system for Section 7 related communications during non-working time. The majority also found that the hospital failed to show “special circumstances” to rebut this presumption, notwithstanding the fact that evidence was submitted of studies finding a correlation between employee distractions and patients’ safety and identifying computers and other electronic communication devices as sources of such distraction.

Cancer Care Group, P.C. settled alleged violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules on September 2 with the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for $750,000. Cancer Care, a radiation oncology private physician practice located in Indiana, also agreed to adopt a corrective action plan to remedy defects in its HIPAA compliance program.

Proposed Stark exception could impact hospital and physicians timeshare/ part-time agreement arrangements

In July 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) published a proposed rule pertaining to payment policies under the 2016 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (“Proposed Rule”) (80 Fed. Reg. 41,685). In addition to changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and other Medicare Part B payment policies, the Proposed Rule addresses modifications to the Stark Law and provides guidance on CMS’s interpretation of existing Stark Law exceptions.

The Texas Medical Board (TMB) Telemedicine Committee met on Thursday, August 27, 2015. During the meeting they discussed potential changes to the on-call services telemedicine rule (174.11). At the end of the meeting, they instructed board staff to draft proposed revisions to the rule to allow for changes to the rule.

Although the direction to staff was verbal, they focused on several items: expanding the scope of on-call physician specialties a physician can choose from for their on-call services; a diminishing of the current requirement that the on-call physician provide reciprocal services to the original physician; and there also appeared to be consensus that the rule should include a provision which requires the original physician to have responsibility for the on-call care.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion June 12, 2015, lambasting the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (“CMS”) rationale in implementing the ban on “per-click” space and equipment leases under the Stark Law. This ban, which went into effect Oct. 1, 2009, was effectively challenged by the Council for Urological Interests (“Council”), which was also behind the successful challenge against the application of the Stark Law to hospital lithotripsy services in 2002.

Among the more colorful descriptions used by the Court in describing CMS’s position were that it was “incomprehensible,” “tortured”, and “the stuff of caprice.” And on an even more scathing note, the Court described CMS’s reading of the legislative history of the Stark Law as belonging to the “cross-your-fingers-and-hope-it-goes-away school of statutory interpretation.”

The Orphan Drug Act aims to incentivize treatment of rare disorders or conditions affecting fewer than 200,000 persons in the United States through: (1) federal funding of grants and contracts to perform clinical trials of orphan products; (2) a tax credit of 50 percent of clinical testing costs; and (3) an exclusive right to market the orphan drug for approved orphan indications for 7 years from the date of marketing approval. While these financial incentives certainly make the business decision to engage in orphan drug development more palatable, the FDA does not approve orphan drugs on a separate pathway, despite the limited understanding of the diseases in question that presents developers of these drugs with problems stemming from small sample size and lack of well-defined efficacy endpoints.

A New York district court issued the first judicial opinion Monday, Aug. 3 on the Affordable Care Act’s “60-day rule,” which requires that a Medicare or Medicaid overpayment be reported and returned within 60 days of the date on which the overpayment was “identified.” The decision by Judge Edgardo Ramos provided a definition of what it means to “identify” an overpayment and thus begin the 60-day time period in which overpayments must be reported and returned. Given that the 60-day rule maintains that any person who knowingly fails to comply with this obligation within the 60-day timeframe has violated the False Claims Act (“FCA”), the potential implications of Judge Ramos’s decision are significant.

On Thursday, July 16, 2015, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) held a public meeting regarding its request to seek an extension of its Section 1115 Medicaid Transformation Waiver. The current waiver covered a five year period ending September 30, 2016. Under the waiver Texas has expanded Medicaid managed care, created a funding pool to offset uncompensated care and provided incentives for hospitals and other providers to develop delivery system infrastructure in Texas. Over the waiver period, Texas will commit $29 Billion to the uncompensated care and delivery system payment pools (approximately 58% or $16.82 Billion represent federal funds).