HEALTHCARE BULLETIN. July 8, 2008 CMS PROPOSES NEW STARK EXCEPTION FOR INCENTIVE PAYMENT AND SHARED SERVICES PROGRAMS

Similar documents
Hospital Incentive Payments to Physicians for Quality and Cost Savings

Caught between Scylla and Charibdis: Regulatory Parameters for Designing P4P and Gainsharing Programs

GAINSHARING & PAY FOR PERFORMANCE -- P4P UPDATE ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND INITIATIVES

Gainsharing Is it Still Feasible? May 14, 2010

2014 Lathrop & Gage LLP Lathrop & Gage LLP Lathrop & Gage LLP

Compensation Paid by Healthcare Providers

Investigator Compensation: Motivation vs. Regulatory Compliance

H e a l t h C a r e Compliance Adviser

Check Your Physician Contracts

Physician Rockstars Toolkit - Common Models and Legal Considerations for Securing the Services of Rockstar physicians. Item 3

Provider and Provider Relationships. Primary Fraud and Abuse Issues

Stark Law Exceptions and Anti-Kickback Safe Harbors

COMMERCIAL REASONABLENESS AND FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS WITH PHYSICIANS

Gifts to Referral Sources. Kim C. Stanger (11-17)

COMPLIANCE WITH PATIENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AND CO-PAY CARDS. Judd Katz JD MHA November 2016

Law Department Policy No. L-8. Title:

Avoiding Regulatory Land Mines in Commercial ACOs

Practical Considerations for Medical Practices Considering Converting Their Vascular Access Centers Into Medicare-Certified Ambulatory Surgery Centers

CBI PAP LEGAL UPDATE MEDICARE & MEDICAID A REVIEW OF COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS. September 26, Sarah difrancesca Partner Cooley LLP

Gainsharing Structure and Related Legal Issues

Supplemental Special Advisory Bulletin: Independent Charity. Patients who cannot afford their cost-sharing obligations

Top 10 Issues in APM Contract Negotiations

Auditing Physician Arrangements

SIGNIFICANT PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ANTI- KICKBACK STATUTE AND THE CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES LAW

Stark and the Anti Kickback Statute. Regulating Referral Relationship. February 27-28, HCCA Board Audit Committee Compliance Conference.

Overview of Pay For Performance

Health Law 101: Issue-Spotting In Dealing With Health-Care Providers. by William H. Hall Jr.

Self-Disclosure: Why, When, Where and How

Physician Contracts GOVERNANCE THOUGHT LEADERSHIP SERIES

Compliance Program. Health First Health Plans Medicare Parts C & D Training

Fraud and Abuse Primer Hypotheticals

ANCILLARY services: How to Stay Out of Trouble. The neurosurgical minefield Informed consent

Co-Management Arrangements and Their Continuing Evolution Trends Issues Fair Market Value

OIG 127 N: Solicitation of New Safe Harbors and Special Fraud Alerts

Contracting with Specialty Pharmacies and Hubs 17 th Annual Pharma and Medical Device Compliance Congress. October 20, 2016

evaluating the fair market value of pay for performance

RUC Practice Expense Recommendations. Proposed Non- Facility

HEALTH CARE FRAUD. EXPERT ANALYSIS HHS OIG Adopts New Anti-Kickback Safe Harbor and Civil Monetary Penalty Exceptions

Evaluating the Fair Market Value of Pay for Performance

PROPOSED STARK LAW REVISIONS COULD AFFECT MANY EXISTING BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND HOSPITALS AND OTHER PROVIDERS

Impact of Stark II, Phase II Regulations on Existing and Future Hospital/Physician Arrangements

Federal Fraud and Abuse Enforcement in the ASC Space

Health Care Contracting

Ensuring Compliance with the Law - Properly Structuring Innovative Marketing and Creative Joint Ventures. Top 5 Things to Know for CE:

Ensuring Compliance with the Law - Properly Structuring Innovative Marketing and Creative Joint Ventures. Clay Stribling, Esq.

Valuation of Alternative Payment Models

Disclaimer. The materials and views expressed in this presentation are the views of the presenters and not necessarily the views of Northwell Health

Fair Market Value Implications for Sleep Transactions National Sleep Foundation

Industry Funding of Continuing Medical Education

RESPIRONICS, INC. CONTRACTING WITH HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS OR PROVIDERS AND REFERRAL SOURCES POLICY

Robert Resnik MD MBA

OIG 125 N: Solicitation of New Safe Harbors and Special Fraud Alerts

Building a Strategic Plan for Physician Employment and Practice Acquisition

LIFEBLOOD OF THE SUCCESSFUL PHARMACY: MARKETING, JOINT VENTURES, AND ARRANGEMENTS WITH REFERRAL SOURCES WHILE REMAINING WITHIN LEGAL PARAMETERS

PHYSICIAN ALIGNMENT: LEGAL AND FAIR MARKET VALUE COMPLIANCE

Stark Self-Disclosure. Thomas S. Crane 1/ Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, PC

The Intersection of Valuation and Physician Productivity

Fundamentals of Healthcare Valuation

Sec of the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act

Legal Issues: Fraud and Abuse Navigating Stark and Kickback. Reece Hirsch, Esq. Jordana Schwartz, Esq. HIT Summit West March 7, 2005

Medicare Program; Request for Information Regarding the Physician Self-Referral Law. AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

Telemedicine Fraud and Abuse Under the Microscope

Physician Lease Arrangements: New Rules

HOSPITAL COMPLIANCE POTENTIAL IMPLICATION OF FRAUD AND ABUSE LAWS AND REGULATIONS FOR HOSPITALS

N R a v e n s w o o d A v e, S t e C h i c a g o, I L w w w. a e g i s - c o m p l i a n c e.

Physician Care: Physician Compensation. Presented by Albert R. Riviezzo, Esq. Fox Rothschild LLP Exton, PA

Health Care Compliance Association

Sender's Direct Phone (202) Sender's Direct Facsimile (202) MEMORANDUM

The Impact of Emerging Reimbursement Models on Physician Compensation

Patient Access Programs: A Legal Perspective

FRAUD AND ABUSE LAW IMPLICATED BY COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS. Lee Rosebush, PharmD, RPh, MBA, JD

PREVENTION, DETECTION, AND CORRECTION OF FRAUD, WASTE AND ABUSE

Fraud and Abuse Compliance for the Health IT Industry

Anti-Kickback Statute Jess Smith

Repay Overpayments (18 USC 1347; 42 CFR et seq.)

The Anti-Kickback Statute. May 3, 2013 Tennessee Hospice Organization Compliance Forum

Manufacturer Patient Support Initiatives: Current Practices and Recent Challenges. Andrew Ruskin Morgan Lewis

CORPORATE INTEGRITY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND TEXAS GENERAL SURGEONS

Managing Financial Interests: The Anti Kickback Statute (AKS)

AHLA. F. Anti-Kickback Primer. David E. Matyas Epstein Becker & Green PC Washington, DC

Stark Self-Disclosure 1/ Thomas S. Crane 2/ Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, PC

Improving Integrity in Nursing Centers

Association of Corporate Counsel January 2012 Teleconference CMS Finally Issues Proposed Sunshine Act Regulations

ACO LEGAL ISSUES. Carson P. Porter Rimon Law Group

The Latest in P4P Arrangements: How to Remain Compliant

PI Compensation: Methods, Documentation, and Execution

PI Compensation: Methods, Documentation, and Execution

Mar. 31, 2011 (202) Federal agencies address legal issues regarding Accountable Care Organizations

Title: Corporate Compliance - Compensation and Business Courtesies - Policy

Stark Law Exceptions and Anti-Kickback Safe Harbors

FTC/DOJ ISSUE JOINT PROPOSED STATEMENT OF ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT POLICY RELATING TO ACOs

Legal Considerations for Patient Assistance Programs

Trends in Physician Compensation Arrangements: Compliance Tips and FMV Health Care Compliance Association. April 22, :30-5:30

Telemedicine Agreements: FMV, Commercial Reasonableness Compliance in Compensation Arrangements

It s Here: The Final 60 Day Overpayment Rule

FMV Considerations for Bundled Payment Arrangements

SCHEMES, SCAMS AND FLIM-FLAMS: HOW THE DME SUPPLIER CAN RECOGNIZE FRAUD LANDMINES. Denise Leard, Esq Brown & Fortunato, P.C.

MANAGING HOSPITAL/PHYSICIAN FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIPS

Product Reimbursement Services and Patient Assistance Programs KATHY CHAURETTE ALESSANDRO MARTUSCELLI

FAST BREAK : STARK LESSONS FOR PHYSICIAN PRACTICE ACQUISITIONS Albert Shay, Eric Knickrehm, and Jake Harper August 23, 2018

Transcription:

HEALTHCARE BULLETIN July 8, 2008 CMS PROPOSES NEW STARK EXCEPTION FOR INCENTIVE PAYMENT AND SHARED SERVICES PROGRAMS The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ( CMS ) issued a proposed rule that would add a regulatory exception to the Stark law to protect incentive payment and shared savings programs between hospitals and physicians. 1 In a proposed rule published in the July 7, 2008 Federal Register (73 Fed. Reg. 38,502), CMS issued its 2009 Physician Fee Schedule along with other proposals, including the new Stark exception. The proposed Stark exception would cover incentive payment programs, also known as pay-for-performance or value-based purchasing, and shared savings programs. Shared savings programs are commonly referred to as gainsharing arrangements. The new exception constitutes the first effort by CMS to directly address the parameters of acceptable pay-for-performance ( P4P ) and gainsharing arrangements under the Stark Law. Although the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General ( OIG ) has issued ten advisory opinions and a Special Advisory Bulletin about gainsharing, CMS has offered little guidance on the status of gainsharing or P4P under the Stark Law. Hospitals and physicians have previously relied on incorporating gainsharing elements into arrangements protected by other Stark exceptions not specifically tailored to P4P or gainsharing, such as bona fide employment relationships, personal services arrangements, fair market value compensation, or indirect compensation arrangements. Three key provisions of the proposed rule define its scope. First, the proposed exception only applies to programs offered by hospitals, and these programs cannot be offered by any other Medicare providers or suppliers. Second, the incentive payment and shared savings programs can only be offered to physicians or qualified physician organization[s], as defined in a proposed regulatory definition to be added to 42 C.F.R. 1 The full text of the proposed rule is located at: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/e8-14949.pdf

411.351. The proposed definition of qualified physician organization means a physician organization comprised entirely of physicians participating in the same incentive payment or shared savings program. Finally, the exception would only apply to cash or cash equivalent forms of payment, and it would not cover non-monetary remuneration. In formulating the exception, CMS explained the fraud, waste and abuse risks against which it intended to protect. According to CMS, P4P arrangements present the risks of disguised payments for referrals, participants cherry-picking healthy patients and steering sicker patients to other hospitals. Gainsharing arrangements, according to CMS, present the risks of: disguised payments for referrals; physicians not using quality, but more expensive, devices, tests or treatments; cherry picking healthy patients; steering sicker patients to other hospitals; and discharging patients quicker than clinically indicated. The proposed exception contains sixteen (16) criteria, many of which contain sub-elements. In addition, CMS has solicited comments and reserved the right to add further requirements to the exception in the final rule. CMS has divided the requirements of the exception into three conceptual categories: (1) design of the program; (2) payments; and (3) arrangements between a hospital and the participating physician or qualified physician organization. A summary table of the components of the proposed exception is below. CMS will accept comments on the proposed rule until August 29, 2008 and anticipates that the final rule will be issued by November 1, 2008. Proposed C.F.R. Section 42 C.F.R. 411.357(x) *** Requirement (1) Remuneration is part of a documented incentive payment or shared savings program to achieve: Sub-Requirement (1)(i) Quality care improvement (1)(ii) (2) Quality care or cost saving measures are identified that: (2)(i) or actual cost savings to the hospital Uses an objective, verifiable methodology supported by credible medical evidence that is individually tracked (2)(ii) Are reasonably related to

(2)(iii) (2)(iv) the hospital s practices and population With respect to quality care measures, are listed in the CMS Specification Manual for National Hospital Quality Measures, and Are monitored throughout the term of the agreement to protect against inappropriate reductions or limitations in patient care services (3) The program establishes: (3)(i) (3)(ii) (3)(iii) (4) At least five physicians participate in each performance measure. Each participating physician must be on the medical staff of the hospital at the beginning of the program and may not be selected based on the value or volume of services or business generated between the parties. Payments allowed to particular hospital departments or specialties as long as all physicians in the department or specialty are offered the right to participate. (5) The program undergoes independent medical review prior to and subsequent to the establishment of the program to measure impact on quality of care. Baseline levels for performance measures Target levels for the performance measures Thresholds above or below which no payments will be made to physicians (6) Under the program:

(6)(i) (6)(ii) (6)(iii) (7) The hospital provides effective prior written notice to patients about the program that: (7)(i) (7)(ii) (7)(iii) (8) The arrangement is in writing, signed by the parties, specifies the remuneration in sufficient detail to be independently verified. (9) The performance measures do not involve the counseling or Physicians must have access to the same services, supplies and tests during the program as were available prior to the program Hospital may not make a payment to a physician or qualified physician organization if the physician or qualified physician organization has a financial relationship with the supplier, distributor or provider of the subject supplies, tests or services. The hospital may not limit the availability of new technology that is demonstrated to improve clinical outcomes and meets the same Federal regulatory standards as the technology offered under the program. Identifies the participating physicians. Discloses that the participating physicians receive payments for meeting performance measure targets. Describes the performance measures to the patients.

promotion of an arrangement that violates the law, and are reasonable necessary for the legitimate business purposes of the arrangement. (10) The term of the arrangement is at least one year and no more than three years. (11) Payments must take into account previous payments made for performance measures already achieved to prevent payments for previously achieved improvements. (12) Payments are limited in duration and amount. (13) The payment over the term (or formula) is: (13)(i) (13)(ii) (13)(iii) (13)(iv) (14) The remuneration paid may not include any amount that takes into account the provision of a greater volume of Federal health care patient procedures or services than Set in advance, does not vary over the term of the agreement, and is not determined in a manner that takes into account the volume or value of referrals or other business generated between the parties. Not based in whole or in part on a reduction in the length of stay for a particular patient or in the aggregate for the hospital. Distributed to physicians in a participating physician pool, which must consist of at least 5 physicians, on a per capita basis. Paid directly to participating physicians or qualified physician organizations.

that prior to the beginning of the agreement. (15) The hospital maintains accurate and contemporaneous documentation of the program and makes such documentation available to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services upon request. (16) The arrangement does not violate the Federal Anti- Kickback Statute or any Federal or State law or regulation governing billing or claims submission. Types of information and documentation required are specified in proposed Sections 15(i) (viii) Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact one of our healthcare attorneys at the offices below. *** H E A L T H C A R E C O N T A C T S BIRMINGHAM, AL Matthew A. Aiken 205.226.3425 maiken@balch.com Colin H. Luke 205.226.8729 cluke@balch.com Jack B. Levy 205.226.8750 jlevy@balch.com MONTGOMERY, AL Dorman Walker 334.269.3138 dwalker@balch.com ATLANTA, GA Richard D. Sanders 404.261.6020 rsanders@balch.com Philip M. Sprinkle, II 404.261.6020 psprinkle@balch.com GULFPORT, MS H. Rodger Wilder 228.214.0412 rwilder@balch.com JACKSON, MS David M. Thomas, II 601.965.8157 dthomas@balch.com

The Healthcare Bulletin is published as an informational resource for clients and friends of Balch & Bingham LLP. It does not contain legal advice, and is not a solicitation to perform legal services. No representation is made that the quality of legal services performed by Balch & Bingham LLP is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers. Design, logo, and content 2008 Balch & Bingham LLP.