Duane Morris Health Law

April 6, 2015April 6, 2015 by Seth A. Goldberg

Specific Facts Suggest Hospitals and Insurers Agreed to Group Boycott

A per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, generally requires an agreement among horizontal competitors that unreasonably restrains trade. To withstand a motion to dismiss, a Section 1 plaintiff must allege facts that suggest direct of evidence of an agreement among the defendants, as opposed to alleging facts that merely are consistent with parallel conduct. These principles have been referred to by some courts as creating a heightened pleading standard for Section 1 claims.

In Arapahoe Surgery Center, LLC, et al. v. Cigna Healthcare, Inc., et al., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 28375 (D. CO.), the Colorado District Court determined that the plaintiffs’ allegations of a group boycott were sufficient to meet the pleading requirements under Section 1, and therefore denied a motion to dismiss filed by three insurance carrier defendants. The specificity of the factual allegations concerning the agreement among the defendants, and the acts in furtherance thereof, underscore the importance of antitrust compliance in the healthcare and health insurance industries. Continue reading “Specific Facts Suggest Hospitals and Insurers Agreed to Group Boycott”

April 6, 2015 by Philip H. Lebowitz

On-call coverage contracts are OK

An orthopedic surgeon agreed on two separate occasions to an on-call coverage contract with a local hospital in which he warranted that no portion of his compensation was in exchange for referrals. When the contracts were terminated by the hospital after the surgeon invested in a competing surgery center, the surgeon brought a whistleblower False Claims Act action against the hospital, alleging that the contract was intended to induce his referrals.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in Cooper v. Pottstown Hospital Co., LLC, et al., dismissed the surgeon’s complaint. The district court’s description of the failure of the complaint illustrates the characteristics of on-call contracts that make them a permissible relationship between hospitals and physicians. Continue reading “On-call coverage contracts are OK”

March 29, 2015 by Elinor H. Murarova

Certain FCA Defendants Dismissed; “Lumping” Defendants Together Is Not Enough To State An FCA Claim

A district court in the Northern District of Illinois recently partially granted a motion to dismiss the Government’s False Claims Act (“FCA”) complaint filed against IPC The Hospitalist Company, Inc. (“IPC”) and its subsidiaries and affiliates. The district court dismissed IPC’s subsidiaries and affiliates because the Government simply “lumped” those subsidiaries and affiliates in with IPC, and did not plead facts tying the subsidiaries and affiliates to the alleged fraud. The decision underscores an important defense available to FCA defendants, and highlights the nuanced pleading requirements that the Government must meet in an FCA case. Continue reading “Certain FCA Defendants Dismissed; “Lumping” Defendants Together Is Not Enough To State An FCA Claim”

February 23, 2015February 27, 2015 by Philip H. Lebowitz

Consultants’ Communications Privileged from Discovery

In healthcare, companies often hire consultants to review billing and coding, privacy and security and a host of other technical issues that regular staff does not have the time or expertise to pursue. A recent discovery ruling in federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania holds that communications with such outside consultants are privileged from discovery if they are made for the purpose of assisting the company in securing legal advice or making legal decisions.

In Smith v. Unilife Corporation, a whistleblower brought an action under Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank alleging shareholder fraud and failure to comply with certain FDA requirements. The plaintiff sought discovery of two non-lawyer consultants regarding drafts of the company’s SEC Form 10-K filing. The Court’s decision to deny the plaintiff’s motion to compel was based on the “functional equivalent” doctrine, a principle already adopted in the 8th, 9th and D.C. Circuits, but not yet in the 3rd Circuit.

Continue reading “Consultants’ Communications Privileged from Discovery”

February 6, 2015 by Patricia S. Hofstra

Virtual Credit Card Payments

Paying for Health Care by Virtual Credit Card
On January 30, 2015, several healthcare organizations sent a group letter to CMS protesting the use of virtual credit cards by health plans to pay providers. In a virtual credit card payment (a nonstandard type of electronic funds transfer EFT), a health plan or its payment vendor issues single-use credit card information to a provider via mail, fax or email; the payment is “virtual” in that there is not a physical credit card. Providers then manually enter the virtual credit card number into their point-of-sale (POS) processing terminal, and the card processing network authorizes the payment. Virtual credit card programs are generally rolled out as an opt-out function and providers can end up being enrolled without their knowledge or consent.
The letter states that “While the process described above may sound benign and similar to provider processing of patient credit cards, virtual credit card payments can have a significant negative financial impact on a provider. Interchange fees of up to five percent are imposed on virtual credit card payments; these fees essentially reduce the contracted fee rate that has been negotiated with the health plan for a particular service or services. Unfortunately, many providers are unaware of these fees when accepting virtual credit card payments. Yet while providers are losing income from this payment method, health plans and intermediaries can profit from virtual credit cards, as they often receive cash-back incentives from credit card companies.”

The letter recommended that CMS provide the following direction to the health care industry regarding virtual credit card and Automated Clearing House ACH EFT payments:
• Require that a provider explicitly opt-in to virtual credit card payments prior to the issuance of any payments via this method;
• Require that prior to opting in to virtual credit card payments, the provider must receive a complete disclosure of all fees associated with this payment option;
• Require that virtual credit card programs provide clear and hassle-free instructions to providers on how to opt-out of these payments, should they later decide to choose another payment method;
• Prohibit health plans from requiring acceptance of virtual credit card payments as part of their provider contracts;
• Clarify the definition of “excessive fees” in the context of ACH EFT payments to prohibit health plans and their vendors from charging fees for ACH EFT payments in excess of the nominal charge assessed by the providers’ financial institution; and
• Require that any services designed to supplement the standard ACH EFT process be independently selected at the provider’s discretion and be unambiguously separate from ACH EFT enrollment forms.
Providers need to examine the impact of virtual credit cards on their practices and consider the merits of opting in or opting out.

February 3, 2015February 27, 2015 by Philip H. Lebowitz

Health System Integration and Antitrust Laws on Collision Course

Health systems attempting to fulfill the mandate of integrating hospitals and physicians may find themselves accused of going too far. Although the Affordable Care Act, shared savings, gainsharing and other alternative payment methodologies have made integration of physicians, hospitals and other providers an operational goal, success in reaching that goal may be challenged by private antitrust actions.

In a recent Florida federal court decision, the antitrust complaint of “several of Southern Brevard County’s physicians and physicians practice groups” was held to have stated a monopolization claim against Health First, Inc. and three of its wholly-owned subsidiaries — an insurer, a hospital and a physician practice group. Essentially, by fully integrating its business, and incentivizing in-network referrals and managed care pricing, Health First became vulnerable to claims of tying, exclusive dealing, price discrimination and monopolization.

Continue reading “Health System Integration and Antitrust Laws on Collision Course”

January 29, 2015 by Amy E. McCracken

Health Care Workers May Think Twice Before Becoming a Relator

The Federal False Claims Act (and many similar state false claims acts) allow an individual—called a “relator”—to file a lawsuit on behalf of the United States Government. If successful, the relator stands to collect a portion of the amount collected. Since the False Claims Act provides for treble damages and statutory penalties of up to $11,000 per false claim, the reward to the relator can be considerable.

Complaints by relators must filed under seal. This allows the Government time to investigate the relator’s allegations before deciding whether to intervene in the case. Cases in which the Government intervenes tend to have higher judgments or settlements. Once the Government makes this decision, the complaint is unsealed and the case can move forward.

Earlier this week, an Alabama judge ruled that the relators could not keep their identities secret, even though they voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit against Great Bend Regional Hospital. Frank Coyle and Randy Bruce argued that their careers in health care may be damaged if their identities are revealed. However, the court agreed with the Government, that the reason for sealing the complaint is for the limited purpose of protecting the Government’s investigative process.

It may have been a bad choice for Coyle and Bruce to ask for anonymity. If they had merely dismissed their case, the dismissal may have been a mere footnote or back page news item. By seeking anonymity and losing, it is front page news. When filing a case, relators may think that they will no longer have to work once they win millions of dollars. As these relators have learned, you don’t always win. And there are consequences to your actions.

January 27, 2015 by Amy E. McCracken

ACOs are More Important Than Ever for LTC Facilities

On January 26, 2015, the United States Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) announced its timeline for shifting Medicare reimbursements from volume-based criteria to value-based criteria. HHS has adopted a framework that categorizes health care payments according to how providers receive payment to provide care:

• Category 1—fee-for-service with no link of payment to quality
• Category 2—fee-for-service with a link of payment to quality
• Category 3—alternative payment models built on fee-for-service architecture
• Category 4—population-based payment

In Monday’s announcement, HHS disclosed its initiative to drive more of the Medicare payments to categories 3 and 4. This is the first time in history that HHS has set explicit goals for alternative payment models and value-based payments. HHS declared: “Improving the quality and affordability of care for all Americans has always been a pillar of the Affordable Care Act, alongside expanding access to such care. The law gives us the opportunity to shape the way health care is delivered to patients and to improve the quality of care system-wide while helping to reduce the growth of health care costs.”

By the end of 2016, HHS has set a goal of tying 30 percent of traditional, fee-for-service, Medicare payments to quality or value through alternative payment models, such as Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) or bundled payment arrangements. By the end of 2018, the goal is 50 percent of these payments.

An ACO is an organization of health care providers that agree to be accountable for the quality, cost, and overall care of a group of Medicare beneficiaries. Reimbursement is tied to quality metrics to reduce the total cost of care for the assigned population of patients. Hospitals and physicians have been forming ACOs, and HHS’s most recent initiative should drive even more dollars in this direction.

However, in our experience, long-term care facilities (LTC Facilities) have been slow to adopt the ACO model. Refusal to join an ACO could result in fewer referrals from hospitals and other providers, since ACO members will refer to the facility (or facilities) within the ACO. LTC Facilities with high ratings for their Quality Measures (on Nursing Home Compare) and low re-hospitalization rates will be more attractive to ACOs. Now is the time to join an ACO, before it is too late.

January 16, 2015January 23, 2015 by Amy E. McCracken

Mayo Lawsuit Against Former Exec Raises Numerous Health Care and Business Litigation Issues

A recent settlement between Mayo Collaborative Services d/b/a Mayo Medical Laboratories (“MML”) and Mayo Clinic (together with MML, “Mayo”) and a former Mayo executive, Dr. Franklin Cockerill, reveals the potential legal issues that may arise when health care executives seek new employment and the high stakes litigation that may ensue-regardless of which party may or may not be at fault.

As set forth in Mayo’s complaint, Dr. Cockerill was a former senior officer and director of MML and Chair of the Mayo Clinic Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, where he managed several thousand medical professionals handling laboratory testing and intellectual property development for Mayo and MML. According to Mayo’s complaint, as a result of Dr. Cockerill’s various positions he had first-hand knowledge of confidential strategic, business, marketing, sales, pricing, and data management information from MML and Mayo. Eventually, Dr. Cockerill retired and obtained employment with a Mayo competitor.

Continue reading “Mayo Lawsuit Against Former Exec Raises Numerous Health Care and Business Litigation Issues”