The United States Department of Labor’s (DOL) initial temporary regulations that interpreted and implemented the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) permitted employers to elect to exclude healthcare provider employees from eligibility for the COVID-related leave benefits made available under FFCRA. The initial DOL regulations provided a broad definition of healthcare provider, allowing most employees working for a healthcare provider employer to be excluded from FFCRA leave benefits, including Paid Sick Leave (PSL) and Extended Family and Medical Leave (EFMLA). After a federal district court decision struck down parts of the DOL’s prior final rule, the DOL now has issued revised regulations, which became effective on September 16, 2020, and expire along with the FFCRA on December 31, 2020. For a detailed discussion of the FFCRA requirements and the DOL’s revised temporary regulations, see our April 3, 2020 Alert and our September 17, 2020 Alert. Continue reading “Healthcare Employers Who Have Excluded Employees from COVID-related Leave Benefits under FFCRA Must Reconsider after USDOL Amends Temporary Regulations”
As part of a suite of COVID-19 relief programs, the CARES Act appropriated $100 billion into a Provider Relief Fund meant for “hospitals and other healthcare providers on the front lines of the coronavirus response.” Medicare providers and facilities should have seen funds appear in their accounts between April 10 and April 17 when the first $30 billion of the $50 billion general allocation was distributed. Further, eligible recipients should begin to see funds from the remaining $20 billion of the general allocation as well as additional targeted allocations for hospitals in hot zones or rural areas.
The initial distribution was based on providers’ proportional share of Medicare Fee-For-Service reimbursements in 2019. For the sake of efficiency, these distributions were made based on the Tax Identification Numbers used when submitting bills. This approach, while expeditious, has also resulted in several potentially undesirable consequences. For example, practices or facilities that experienced a change of ownership during 2019 may notice that their distribution excluded the proportional share of reimbursement for the period prior to the change of ownership when the prior owner’s TIN was still in place. In fact, the prior owner may have received those funds attributable to that time period. Additionally, the interests of facilities and group practices may not align with the providers for whom they bill as they face the dilemma of how to appropriately allocate relief funds and whether credit should be given for compensation based on collections. The resolution of these issues will likely hinge on the terms of the contracts that govern these employment relationships.
Hospitals, facilities, providers, and all other affected parties are advised to consult with legal counsel when faced with the nuances of CARES Act funding. Further, as Congress debates additional funding packages, stakeholders should have a plan in place that suits their particular and unique needs. The Health Law Practice Group at Duane Morris is prepared to guide clients through the intricacies of these programs and advise on the most advantageous approach for future relief fund packages. Facilities and providers should contact Neville Bilimoria, Erin Duffy, Kirk Domescik, Ryan Wesley Brown, or your usual contact within the Health Law Practice Group with any questions regarding CARES Act funding.
More thoughts on physician employment by hospitals
One of my clients, who was approached by a hospital for possible employment, proposed a trial period of 12 months. During that 12 months, she would be employed by the hospital and at the end of 12 months either party could walk away for any reason with no strings attached. No strings in this case meant no non compete and the hospital would pick up any tail insurance liability.
Since I always recommend an exit plan just in case hospital employment doesn’t work out, this trial period seems like a good idea. The hospital is seriously considering it and will let us know this week. Stay posted.
Those of us who have been in the health care industry for awhile have seen hospital employment of physicians come and go several times. In my early years as a health care attorney, I was an in-house counsel in the hospital industry. I represented hospitals in the rush to jump on the band wagon of physician employment. I am now in the private practice of law and while I continue to represent hospitals, I also represent physicians and physician groups exploring various relationships with hospitals including employment.