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.
One of the reasons why consumers, healthcare providers, investors, the government and others have been slow to adopt mobile health applications and software (apps), are concerns about the privacy and security of data collected through the apps. For instance, Appthority, a service provider that offers an app risk management solution, recently reported that the iPharmacy Drug Guide and Pill ID app “is playing fast and loose with your personal info.” www.appthority.com/news/mobile-threat-monday-android-app-leaks-your-medical-info-online. iPharmacy is a free app that allows consumers to maintain a personal health record on their prescription drugs, look up information on a drug, provide reminders, and maintain pharmacy discount cards. Continue reading mHealth App Use: Is Data Truly Protected?
The meaningful use (MU) regulations provide incentive monies for hospitals and physicians that establish electronic health records systems (EHRs) and satisfy other criteria, such as providing new forms of ‘patient engagement’ like technologically-enabled patient-provider communications. The advantages of a wireless record-sharing are enormous – quicker diagnoses, better quality tracking, and seamless payment systems. But there are lots of steps and decisions required in setting up EHRs and developing broader data exchange systems like health information organizations/exchanges (HIOs or HIEs). Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the National Coordinator denied certification for two small EHRs and promised ongoing rigorous enforcement of EHRs. Continue reading Electronic Health Records and Health Information Exchanges/Organizations: The Changing Landscape
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.
Continue reading Thoughts on Physician Employment and Corporate Bookkeeping