Adding Nutritional Supplements Can Contribute to a Healthy Bottom Line

In the past, it was rare for a doctor or healthcare professional to sell nutritional supplements out of their practice. Physicians were used to prescribing drug (x) for condition (y). In recent years, however, more and more doctors are selling supplements out of their office for a variety of reasons.

First and foremost, there is a mountain of clinical research supporting the efficacy of nutritional supplements in helping alleviate a variety of medical conditions. Doctors are also using supplements in conjunction to patient lifestyle modification and standard pharmaceutical treatments. With the changes in healthcare over the last few years combined with rising overhead, doctors are looking for new avenues to generate additional revenue. The medical community in general is finding patients are looking more and more for “natural” or “homeopathic” treatments and physicians are in the position to help educate patients on the use of these supplements.

 

Continue reading

Posted in FHLF Monthly Newsletter | Leave a comment

CMS Clarifies Place of Service (POS) Coding Requirements

Billing Medicare for services requires the correct POS code on the claim form. Improper use of the POS code has been a problem, especially when services are provided in out-patient hospitals and surgery centers. The OIG has found many circumstances where such services were provided in those facilities were billed as though services were provided in the physician office. The POS code is intended to identify where the physician is physically present and has a face to face encounter with a Medicare patient when covered services are provided.

CMS has issues revised and clarified POS coding instructions. They give multiple examples, including one where a Medicare patient receives MRI services at a hospital. The hospital bills the technical component . The physician is to submit a claim showing the professional component POS as his/her office (code 22), since that is where the physician performed the covered service, not the MRI center at the hospital. The Instructions describe the proper use of POS modifiers and are invaluable in avoiding liability to Medicare.


Posted in CMS, FHLF Monthly Newsletter, Group Practice Concerns, Healthcare Law, Healthcare Reform, Imaging Centers, Independent Diagnostic Treatment Facilities, Jeffrey L. Cohen, Medicare Issues, Medicare Recoupment, Physician Issues, Risk Management Program Development, Surgery Centers | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

OIG SLAMS TRUSTING DOCTORS WHO LET OTHERS BILL FOR THEIR SERVICES

Physicians who allow other people or entities to bill for their services are taking a risk. Settlements with eight physicians whose provider numbers were used unlawfully by entities they worked for prompted the OIG to issue an Alert on February 8th. The Alert basically says that physicians who assign to others (e.g. 855R) the right to bill for the services of the physicians will be responsible for the wrongful actions of those using the doctors’ provider numbers. Ignorance will likely not be a good excuse any longer.

What does all this mean to doctors? Simple: VERIFY REGULARLY. If you assign to any person or entity the right to bill for your services, you MUST routinely check to see if they are billing correctly. The fact that some person or entity may bill wrongfully, even fraudulently, without your direct knowledge, will not protect you from liability. Make sure (1) you have written agreements for all arrangements that involve any person or entity billing for your services, and (2) those contracts contain indemnification provisions in case you have to hire a lawyer or pay anything to the government for their wrongdoing.


Posted in Jeffrey L. Cohen, OIG Studies, Healthcare Law, Medical Practices, Compliance Plans, Department of Justice, Risk Management Program Development, Medical Directorships, FHLF Monthly Newsletter, Group Practice Concerns, Physician Issues, Healthcare Reform, Medical Staff Matters, OIG Investigations, Fraud & Abuse, Legislative Updates | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Noncompetes Are Once Again Relevant For Recruited Doctors

When the Stark II (Phase III) regulations were released in August, 2007, they clarified that when a hospital recruits a physician to a medical practice, the employment agreement between the medical practice and the newly recruited physician may contain practice restrictions as long as they do not “unreasonably restrict the recruited physician’s ability to practice medicine within the recruiting hospital’s service area. This stymied many medical practices which were reluctant to hire a new physician without a noncompete and nonsolicitation provision. A 2011 CMS Advisory Opinion (No. CMS-AO-2011-01) changed this.

The Advisory Opinion involved a pediatric orthopedist who was recruited by a hospital to a medical practice. The medical practice wanted to hire the new doctor, but was not willing to do so without a noncompetition provision and other restrictive covenants. The practice asked CMS for guidance because the Stark regs suggested that perhaps a noncompete could not be contained in the employment agreement of a physician recruited by a hospital to join a local medical practice. In fact, a prior version of the Stark regs was clear that noncompetes were not permitted in the employment agreements of physicians recruited by hospitals.

Hospital recruitment transactions involve bringing a physician into a new area and funding the start up period (usually a year). The nice thing for a medical practice is that the dollars given by the hospital to the practice (the difference between salary and benefits and collections) can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars! The down side was that the medical practice could not tie the recruited physician’s hands with a noncompete or other similar restriction. The Advisory Opinion is, however, a game changer because it allowed the medical practice to impose a noncompete on the recruited physician.

As mentioned, the practice would not hire the recruited physician without the noncompete. The noncompete had a 25 mile radius, and the Opinion cited the following relevant facts:

1. The recruited doctor would remain on one of five hospitals within the 25 mile zone;
2. The recruiting hospital’s service area extended beyond the 25 mile zone, in which there were at least three other hospitals within a one hour driving range;
3. The noncompete complied with applicable state law.

Based on these facts, the OIG permitted a one year noncompete because it did not “unreasonably restrict the doctor’s ability to practice in the recruiting hospital’s service area. Certainly, many other medical practices can be sure to follow suit.

Physicians interested in nocompetes must be familiar with state law. Getting to the bone of the issue, noncompetes are enforceable in Florida if:

1. The geographic zone in the noncompete is reasonable. This depends on where the practice draws its patients. If patients come to the practice from just down the street, a ten mile radius is probably overbroad;

2. The duration is two years or less (though it can be longer in some limited circumstances);

3. The employer has complied with all of the terms of the employment agreement. If the employer has breached the contract that contains the noncompete, most courts will reject a claim to enforce it;

4. The employer does the type of thing that the departing employee does. If the employee is the only person performing toe surgery for instance, and the practice will not provide toe surgery services once the employee leaves, the practice probably does not have a legitimate business interest to protect by enforcing the noncompete; and

5. Stopping the ex employee from practicing in the geographic zone does not create a healthcare crisis or shortage. This is tough. Very few practice areas are in such dire straits that the departure of one doctor will adversely affect the provision of such services in the area.

Physicians should also be familiar with the practical aspects involved in noncompetes.

Mistake #1 – Racing to litigation

Going to court is a crap shoot. Once litigation begins, it takes on a life of its own and costs can be nuts, sometimes in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. You may think it’s a simple noncompete case. There rarely is such a thing. And if you sue someone on a noncompete breach, they may turn around and sue you in the same lawsuit for something. And….insurance does not cover any such claims. That means you are paying out of pocket for a lawsuit, the certainty of which can never be guaranteed and which will seem endless once you run out of patience or money for the process. Often, the reality is that noncompete litigation involves the strategy or seeing which party can outspend the other one.

If you are an employer, ask yourself the following two questions before commencing litigation:
1. Does it make good economic sense to enforce the noncompete? Is the former employee a business threat?

2. Is there a way to work out a deal with the employee, short of litigation?

In some situations, it makes no business sense to pursue a noncompete. For instance, if the employee has been employed for several months and if the patients are all referred by the employer, then the employee may not be a competitive threat to the employer. The employer will find a replacement doctor at some point and refer the business to the new doctor. Case closed.

It is also possible to work out settlements before going to court. For instance, you might avoid litigation by lowering the geographic zone or the duration. You might also negotiate a buy out of the noncompete.

If you are an employee who wants out of the noncompete, sit down with the employer and see if you can agree on a way out, so that both of you can have peace and move on.

Mistake #2 – Doing it Yourself

Noncompetes are governed by state law. There are both statutes and cases that inform lawyers about what types of noncompetes are enforceable and which are not. Do not work off of an old contract to create a new noncompete, since the laws (and the cases that construe them) change often. Do not use a friend’s noncompete, since you will not be able to tell if it will be enforceable at this time or under the circumstances that apply to you. The enforceability of noncompetes is extremely fact specific. Since noncompetes are strictly construed by courts, drafting them requires a trained eye.

The Advisory Opinion marks a significant development in the area of noncompetes for physicians recruited to medical practices by hospitals. Though some states do not allow noncompetes to be applied to physicians, many states do, including Florida. Finding a way to satisfy both the federal and state authorities will be essential for ensuring an effective and enforceable noncompete.


Posted in Jeffrey L. Cohen, Florida Statutes, OIG Studies, Healthcare Law, Medical Practices, Corporate Law, Stark Law, Medical Directorships, Group Practice Concerns, CMS, Physician Issues, Healthcare Reform, Medical Staff Matters, Physician Employment Issues, Physician Employment Agreements, Advisory Opinions | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Representative Corcoran’s HB 1329 Signage and Balanced Billing

Imagine this: the Florida Legislature believes that consumers need to be protected from unscrupulous business practices by physicians and facilities (including physicians, hospitals and surgery centers) and will require things like (1) publishing charges with huge signage, and (2) informing consumers how charges compare to hospital imaging center charges. Failure to do so will subject the physicians and the centers to civil fines of $1,000/day is grounds for professional discipline. The Bill also holds insurers responsible for paying for medical services, but not where the provider doesn’t have a contract with the insurer. This leaves out of network providers out in the cold and will mean significant notice requirements being imposed on all providers.

View the bill in it’s entirety HERE


Posted in Advertising/Solicitation Regulation, FHLF Monthly Newsletter, Group Practice Concerns, Healthcare Law, Healthcare Reform, Jeffrey L. Cohen, Legislative Updates, Medical Directorships, Medical Practices, Medical Staff Matters, Medicare Issues, Physician Issues, Surgery Centers | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Fraud & Abuse Enforcement Soars Sky High

Investigations and successful prosecutions for violation of laws like the Anti Kickback Statute (“AKS”), the Stark Law and the False Claims Act were dramatically up in 2011 and are expected to climb still higher in 2012. For instance 13 doctors were charged in December, 2011 with violating the AKS by receiving payment for referring patients to an MRI center. Physicians and other healthcare business people MUST have any suspect arrangement closely scrutinized by highly qualified counsel. A “suspect arrangement” is any arrangement between providers of healthcare services that involve, to any degree, the exchange or payment of anything of value, including money. The AKS is a criminal statute; and the risks of enforcement are now huge.
Business and arrangements which are designed at all to lock in physician referrals carry particularly large risks and require close scrutiny. For instance, surgery centers that received referrals from non-owner physicians viewed that as a great thing. Now, referrals from unaffiliated physicians are viewed as inherently suspect. “What,” the regulator thinks, “is driving this referral? What wrongful conduct is being engaged in here?” This is especially so with any marketing arrangement as well.

Physicians and other healthcare business people would do well to recall that if even “one purpose” of the arrangement is to compensate (cash or anything of value) someone for a patient referral, the AKS is triggered. Moreover, where Safe Harbor Act compliance was recommended, many now find it necessary.


Posted in Jeffrey L. Cohen, Florida Statutes, Anti Trust, Healthcare Law, Medical Practices, Compliance Plans, Corporate Law, Risk Management Program Development, Stark Law, Medical Directorships, Advertising/Solicitation Regulation, Fee Splitting, Anti Kickback, Group Practice Concerns, Physician Issues, Healthcare Reform, Medical Staff Matters, Physician Employment Issues, Durable Medical Equipment DMEPOS, Fraud & Abuse | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

New Appeals Court Decision Streamlines Stark Challenge

Normally, challenges to healthcare related regulatory changes have to jump through an administrative hoop before they can file suit.  They can’t just run to court.  They have to go through CMS first and allow CMS the opportunity to justify the new regulation.  A recent appellate court ruling changes this.

The Council for Urological Interests (CUI) is a national organization of physician-owned joint ventures.  As many readers know, for instance “under arrangement” lithotripsy services, for instance, are a common joint venture type business for urologists to be engaged in.  The CUI filed suit in response to 2008 changes to the Stark Law, which would have interfered with certain urology-centered joint venture businesses, but the lower court dismissed the suit because the CUI was first required to go through “administrative review” required by the Medicare Act.  The appellate court disagreed and agreed to hear the CUI suit.  The case should make it easier to file legal challenges in response to regulatory changes, like Stark Law developments.

The case is also important because the Stark Law change in 2008 (effective in 2009) made it difficult (impossible in some instances) for physicians to act as service providers to hospitals.  These “under arrangement” transactions were ok because the hospitals billed for the “designated health services,” not the doctors.  The Stark Law change, effective in October, 2009, interfered with such relationships (between physicians and hospitals) by determining that the “under arrangement” providers were actually providing the service (even though the hospital, not the doctor entity, billed for the service).

Though the jury is still out on the substance of the CUI lawsuit (whether the Stark changes are unlawful), the case will pave the way for more legal challenges of this type.


Posted in CMS, Group Practice Concerns, Healthcare Law, Healthcare Transactions, Jeffrey L. Cohen, Medicare Issues, Physician Issues, Risk Management Program Development, Stark Law | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment