Health Care Lawyer Blog

The House and Senate this week voted by substantial margins to override President Bush’s veto of a Medicare package (H.R. 6331) that blocks the over 10% reimbursement cut to physicians that went into effect July 1 (See original Alert below.)

The U.S. Senate, this afternoon, passed the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (H.R. 6331) upon voting to end the Republican filibuster with 69 affirmative votes for cloture. The Senators had agreed that the bill would be considered passed if cloture was invoked. The Bill, among other things, eliminates the proposed 10.6% physician pay cut, instead instituting a 1.1% increase effective January 1, 2009.

Senator Ted Kennedy made his first appearance on the Senate Floor since his brain tumor was discovered.

Monica Navarro pointed out to me that WPS Medicare Part B e-News today reported that independent laboratories may no longer (for dates of service on or after July 1, 2008) bill Medicare for the technical component (TC) of physician pathology services furnished to patients of a covered hospital, regardless of the beneficiary's hospitalization status (inpatient or outpatient) on the date that the service was performed.

WPS indicated that this ruling has its genesis In the final physician fee schedule regulation published in the Federal Register on November 2, 1999, where the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) stated that it would implement a policy to pay only the hospital for the TC of physician pathology services furnished to hospital patients. Prior to this proposal, any independent laboratory could bill the carrier under the physician fee schedule for the TC of physician pathology services for hospital patients. At the request of the industry, to allow independent laboratories and hospitals sufficient time to negotiate arrangements the implementation of this rule was administratively delayed. Subsequent legislation formalized a moratorium on the implementation of the rule. As such, during this time, the carriers and, more recently, Medicare Administrative Contractors (MAC), have continued to pay for the TC of physician pathology services when an independent laboratory furnishes this service to an inpatient or outpatient of a covered hospital.

The most recent extension of the moratorium was established by the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act (MMSEA). Section 104 of the MMSEA expired on June 30, 2008, thus ending the moratorium.

Our firm published a series of articles in the Summer, 2008 edition of Michigan Medical Law Report.

Michigan Medical Law Report is published by Dolan Media Company. Frank, Haron, Weiner & Navarro was asked to contribute to this prestigious magazine sent to 20,000 practitioners.

Michelle Bayer's article on Internet pharmacies is entitled "They're efficient, but mail-order Internet pharmacies have intricate legal requirements."

Mercedes Varasteh's article entitled "Joint Commission standard fosters collaboration between medical staffs, hospitals" covered the application of MS 120.

Louis Szura wrote on revisions to Section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code in an article, "Economic Stimulus Act offers big tax breaks for health care providers."

David Haron instructed providers on the federal False Claims Act in "Exposing fraud and abuse--what a private citizen may do."

Finally, Melinda Balian and Ross Hammersley gave excellent employment related information in "Employees--your biggest risk and your biggest ally."

Fortune Magazine recently included comments from Jeff Kindler, CEO of Pfizer, the major pharmaceutical company, that approximately half of written prescriptions go unfilled. Other reports have indicated that the reason is inability to pay by seniors, difficulty finding or travelling to pharmacies (and the cost of gas doesn't help), forgetfulness and problems at the pharmacy, including language difficulties.

Such problems cause significant difficulties for patients. The obvious problem is the loss of the curative properties of prescribed drugs. Less apparent is the effect these unfilled prescriptions have on the efficacy of drugs--that is, when the patients return to their physician for follow-up care--and the previously diagnosed condition has not been alleviated or affected, embarrassed patients often do not advise the physician that the original prescription was not filled. This leads to inaccurate future diagnoses or, worse, prescriptions for more potent dosages--strength that might not have been needed had the original prescription been filled and used. Increased use of some drugs can also lead to immunities and weakening of the efficacy of these drugs.

Why is this happening in America? Why are the drug companies encouraging physicians to write more and more prescriptions--often at higher and higher dosages?

What can be done to encourage and assist patients to fill their prescriptions and to force physicians to follow-up with the patients? One solution is better follow-up calls by physician office staff. Another interesting possibility is office drug drug dispensing using a service/product such as Dispensing Solutions which is legal in all states (with some restrictions in 5 states) and approved by the FDA. More information is available at the Dispensing Solution web-site.

In May, I commented upon the oral arguments presented to the Michigan Supreme Court in the appeal from the Michigan Court of Appeals decision in the case of Miller v Allstate.

This case raised the issue of whether a physical therapy clinic, incorporated under the Michigan Business Corporation Act, was lawfully rendering services entitling it to reimbursement from its auto-accident injured patient's No-fault insurance carrier.

Allstate Insurance Company argued that a physical therapy clinic-a medical service provider-needed to incorporate under Michigan's Professional Service Corporation Act in order to lawfully render services under Michigan's No-Fault auto-insurance act, even though the physical therapist actually performing the services was a lawfully licensed physical therapist.

The lower courts permitted the claim and the Supreme Court issued its opinion affirming those decisions on July 2, 2008, although not for the same reason the lower courts did.

Essentially, the Supreme Court held that once a corporation, of any sort, files its Articles of Incorporation with the State, it is conclusively determined that the incorporation is lawful--unless the state Attorney General successfully challenges that incorporation in a court proceeding. this conclusion was based on statutory language and the Supreme Court's interpretation of long-standing Michigan law.

I believe the result in this case is correct (although one of the two concurring Justices, Elizabeth Weaver, believes that the Court's tortured logic in reaching the decision was incorrect because of a long-standing battle she has on the Court's Standing decisional process (a topic for some law professor's blog some day))because, as the Court stated, allowing challenges to every corporation in every suit brought by a corporation would affect the very stability of the economy. Every patient would have to verify compliance by every provider with every corporate statute before accepting treatment and whether payment would be made would depend on the creativity of every insurance lawyer in every case when payment decisions were made.

For once, the Supreme Court majority seems to have gotten it right.

Let's see if the Michigan Legislature and the Department of Labor and Economic Growth follow suit and picks up on this decision and clarifies the incorporation requirements as Michael Hamblin of our firm has described on his blog, Michigan Business Lawyer, for peripheral medical and other licensed providers.

Until they do, however, every licensed practitioner and other individuals in Michigan must immediately consult competent health care business lawyers such as my firm, to review their corporate status and to consider re-incorporation as Professional Corporations if permitted and advisable.

HAVE A HAPPY AND SAFE 4TH OF JULY HOLIDAY---AND GOD BLESS AND KEEP OUR TROOPS AND THEIR FAMILIES. LET'S BRING THEM HOME SOON!!!

The Detroit Free Press reported last night that a petition drive to give voters a chance to vote on "Universal Health Care" has fallen about 260,000 signatures short of the 390,000 needed to qualify for a ballot position. However, petition drive chairman John Freeman, recognizing that the ballot effort was abandoned because of lack of financial resources and competition from other ballot initiative drives, is reported to have shifted his focus to lobbying attempts.

The petitioners, in my opinion, are well-meaning, but a mandate to the Michigan legislature is doomed to failure. This body is too split by partisan bickering, carried on by inexperienced, term-limited synchophants, to reach a meaningful compromise on such a volatile subject as universal health care. Further, even if they could, the economy in Michigan would never be able to fund such efforts.

Ironically, placement of the petition on the ballot, I believe, would have led to passage where there are some 1.2 million--or more--uninsured Michiganders--and countless other under-insureds. Significantly, the health industry -- the growth engine of Michigan where 1 in 10 Michiganders work (more than twice those directly employed in the auto industry) according to Crain's Detroit Business-- should support a lobbying effort--if it realizes that such a program would mean a million or more new paying customers. Unfortunately, none of the plans on the table in conventional debates will solve the problems with present health insurance by improving health delivery structural deficiencies, the burden on employers and still provide choice to patients and discretion to physicians. I have highlighted a plan which meets all of these objectives in an earlier entry on this Blog--but I doubt it will be debated--it is too logical and efficient.

Nevertheless, the petition effort did keep the dialogue going. Let's hope someone is listening.

The House voted today to postpone a planned cut in payments to physicians who treat Medicare patients. The bill passed by 355 to 59. There was a fear that the cut--some 10.6%--would affect physician's desire to treat medicare patients. Instead, the bill will increase Medicare payments to doctors by 1.1% in January instead of another 10% cut.

The elimination of the cut will be paid for by reducing payments to private Medicare Advantage programs.

Action in the Senate involves drafting a compromise measure that may avoid a White House veto. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and ranking Republican Charles E. Grassley (Iowa) may have reached a deal on the compromise.

The Michigan Medicaid False Claims Act was amended effective January 1, 2006 through the efforts of Attorney General Mike Cox and Representative David Law (R., Commerce). I worked actively for passage of the amendment and testified before the Michigan House of Representative Judiciary committee, then chaired by Rep. Law.

The Amendment brought Michigan into line with 22 other progressive states by adding a Qui Tam provision to the existing Medicaid False Claims Act. According to Wallace Hart, an Assistant Attorney General, actively involved in fraud control, the amendments--giving private citizens the right to bring Qui Tam suits to recover fraudulent monies stolen from the taxpayers by providers treating the Medicaid program as their own private ATM machine--the amendment helped him reduce his in-box.

The Michigan Medicaid False Claims Act prohibits the presentment of any false or fraudulent claim for payment under the Social Welfare Act – namely, for Medicaid benefits. The law currently provides for the State to recover the full amount received by a Medicaid provider due to fraudulent conduct, plus triple the amount of damages suffered by the State as a result of the conduct.

HB 5757, a bill pending before the Michigan Senate after having passed the House in near unanimous fashion, would allow the State of Michigan to recoup extra funds from combined state/federal recoveries because of the provisions of the federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 ('DRA"). To explain, shortly after the the Michigan Medicaid False Claims Act amendment passed the Michigan Legislature and Governor Granholm signed the Act, the U.S. Congress passed the DRA providing for a 10% incentive to States which enacted a "compliant" Qui Tam statute addressing Medicaid fraud. Specifically, the Medicaid program is a joint federal/state program. Thus, in Michigan, the federal government pays about 56% and the state 44% of the costs of the Medicaid program and fraud recoveries are divided on the same percentage.

If the state has a "compliant" Qui Tam statute, the state receives an extra 10% of the recovery--that is, 54% in Michigan--of the recovery.

Continue reading "David Haron Testifies on Michigan Medicaid False Claims Act Revisions" »

My partner, Monica Navarro, and I recently returned from Chicago where we attended the American Bar Association Conference on "Physician-Legal Issues--Physicians Under Siege--What is their Future."

Although it was a long day for us--storms between Chicago and Detroit kept us on our Northwest Airlines plane for two hours before takeoff (fortunately in Business Class because of frequent-flyer updates, with free snacks and foot room)--we learned a lot and were able to interact with many health lawyers from around the country.

The Conference covered Fraud and Abuse Issues Impacting Physicians, CMS pressure on Medicare expenditures, Physician Joint Ventures and other Alternative Practice Strategies, such as, physician owned hospitals, ASCs, under arrangements, diagnostic and other ancillary enterprises, concierge medicine, insurance opt-out, managed care models and sales of health care products. Other topics included responses to marketplace demands that impact physician practice models, relationships with hospitals, employment models, etc.

Finally, a panel discussed the future FOR Physicians in the face of pressure on costs of and access to health care, demands by both Democrats and Republicans for "universal" health care, hospital mergers, productivity demands, hospital governance changes, increased regulatory demands and other negative influences on the profession--pointing out--as all physicians know--that the majority of physicians are unhappy, angry, resigned, scaling back expenditures and expectations and deeply concerned about the future.

The conference presentations were at a very high level and highlighted the need for physicians and other health care entities to be proactive and to consider their legal and professional relationships before they experience a crisis. While specialists and others in unique and specific practice niches may not have experienced significant reductions in income, most internists, family practice and pediatricians, among others, have and all are certainly aware of the pressures that have been building in the industry. Comfort today can turn into difficulty tomorrow in the face of hospital mergers and acquisitions, exclusive arrangements forcing out smaller practices and entities, "sham privileging" schemes, increasing employment of Hospitalists, and unfair payer practices.

Consultation with legal and professional experts prior to eruption of credentialing confrontations and issues, unfair competition or payer practices and regulatory activities and suspensions can--and will--reduce future costs, aggravation--or worse.

The tone of the sessions--and especially the luncheon address by Catherine I. Hanson, Vice-President and director of the AMA's Private Sector Advocacy and the Advocacy Resource Center on unfair payer practices and the AMA' s 1% Campaign to reduce payer's improper rejections to 1% of billings--presented a somewhat dismal picture of practice and a real need for increased physician organization and participation in the debate.

Nevertheless, Monica and I returned with a renewed interest in assisting our health care clients and in working with them to develop workable practice models in line with the most cutting-edge--and compliant--practice models in operation and contemplated across the country and globe.

The Presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, have both proposed forms of "Universal Health Care." However, both plans, and those of the previous candidates, appear to address coverage for the 43,000,000 uninsured Americans--mostly children. little is discussed about the under-insured or those who become uninsured when they lose their jobs. Nor is anything mentioned about eliminating the "600 pound gorilla" in the room with every American employer who is seeing health care benefit payments rising at far more than the cost of inflation.

However, there may be an easy solution--if we had the political will to solve the issue.

We could get the government essentially out of the medical insurance business that Medicare, Medicaid and Tri-Care represent. We could provide every American the same type of coverage that the members of Congress, and their families enjoy. We could relieve every employer in the country of the burden of health care costs.

And we could do this without a painful tax increase or loss of income for the medical providers.

So what's the catch?

There is none, say Ezekiel Emanuel, M.D., PhD., an oncologist, author of No Margin, No Mission, and president of the Posterity Project and Victor R. Fuchs, the Henry J. Kaiser Jr professor emeritus at Stanford University, in their 2005 White Paper, Solved! It covers everyone. It cuts costs. It can get through Congress. Why Universal Health Care Vouchers is the next big idea..

Ezekiel and Fuchs plan envisions a mandatory voucher system providing every American access to the "Rolls Royce" health care protection every member of Congress enjoys, administered by private insurance companies and allowing free choice of providers. Government's only role will be to set up the system, oversee its operation with an independent board, modeled on the Federal Reserve Board, collect the money to pay for the program, through a value-added tax and mailing out the vouchers once a year--like Income Tax refunds.

The details of the system, and the ease of implementation and execution are set forth in their White Paper, but it is clear, as they point out, that the proposal deserves respect and consideration because it meets the obvious goals of any proposal for "health care reform:".

1. Every American is covered,
2. The program is largely paid for by cutting fraud, waste and abuse in the present system--something that has been calculated to be as high as 20% of the present $2 Trillion expense.
3. It reduces the rate of cost increases in the future..
4. The plan will provide more rather than less choice.
5. We will become more productive because of it.
6. Government bureaucracy will be decreased .
7. It will offer much to many interest groups.

Read the plan and let me know how you feel about it---and why you haven't heard of it?

Recently I acted as moderator and presenter for an ABA Business Law Section Teleconference discu