Photo of Nicole Aiken-Shaban

Nicole Aiken-Shaban

Subscribe to Nicole Aiken-Shaban's Posts
Contact:Read more about Nicole Aiken-Shaban

As promised back in April in an announcement of its plans to modernize compliance program guidance, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued the first of its new guidance documents for the health care industry on November 6, 2023. The first release is a general compliance program guidance (GCPG) designed to serve as a resource to all segments of the health care industry, regardless of the particular items or services offered.

In its newest release, OIG reiterates its view that the GCPG is by its very nature a voluntary guidebook that can act as a roadmap for a compliance program to follow, but that it is not binding on any individual or entity in the health care industry. This updated GCPG includes the following information for health care compliance programs, which we summarize further below: (1) key Federal authorities for entities engaged in health care business; (2) the seven elements of a compliance program; (3) adaptations for small and large entities; (4) other compliance considerations; and (6) OIG processes and resources.

Additional industry specific compliance guidance documents will be forthcoming, according to OIG, with its first updated guidance setting the stage for those to follow.Continue Reading HHS OIG Issues General Guidance as First Step in Effort to Modernize Compliance Guidance

In an advisory opinion released on October 13, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) approved a plan by a muti-specialty practice to pay its employed physicians bonuses related to outpatient procedures performed by those physicians at ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) operated by the physician practice entity requesting the opinion (the Requestor).

According to the facts as presented by the Requestor, the practice employs a group of physicians across a range of specialties. The Requestor also operates two ASCs as corporate divisions of the practice’s legal entity and not as subsidiaries or affiliates. The Requestor plans to pay each employed physician who performs a procedure at either of the ASCs a quarterly bonus equal to 30% of the net profits generated by the facility fees that are directly attributed to that physician’s procedures performed at the ASCs during the preceding quarter.

Notably, there is no indication in the request that the bonus payments would be based solely on the professional component of services personally performed by the physicians; the measurement of profit per physician would be expected to include the technical component of the procedures.Continue Reading OIG Permits Multi-Specialty Practice to Pay Doctors Bonuses for Outpatient Procedures

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) issued an unfavorable advisory opinion (the “Opinion”) last Friday in which it refused to bless a proposed arrangement involving an intraoperative neuromonitoring (“IONM”) company (the “Requestor”) and various surgeons who perform procedures for which IONM is used, desiring to form a physician-owned entity (“Newco”) that would arrange to provide both the technical and professional components of IONM services (the “Proposed Arrangement”).

The Proposed Arrangement would essentially create a “turn-key” entity owned by the surgeons (the “Surgeon Owners”) that would subcontract to the Requestor and its affiliated physician practice (the “Practice”) “virtually all of the day-to-day requirements of an IONM business.” The Surgeon Owners would be responsible for forming Newco, preparing Newco’s internal governance documents, and determining the methodology for distribution of Newco’s profits amongst themselves. However, the Surgeon Owners would be passive investors, with limited involvement in Newco’s day-to-day operations.Continue Reading OIG Issues Unfavorable Advisory Opinion, Upholding Longstanding Contractual Joint Venture Concerns

The Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has released an advisory opinion permitting a technology company to charge health care providers “per booking” fees to participate in its online provider directory and to allow the same providers to bid on advertising that appears as specialized search results or banner ads within its digital “marketplace.” This is the second time that the OIG has opined on this particular arrangement, having approved an earlier, although slightly different, version of the arrangement by the same company in Advisory Opinion 19-04, which was issued in 2019.

In the most recent opinion, the OIG determined that, although the arrangement might violate the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and the Beneficiary Inducement Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) law, the office would not enforce those statutes against the company because the nature of the revised fees and search functionality presents a sufficiently low risk of fraud and abuse. Important to the OIG’s decision was the requestor’s certification that the fees do not exceed fair market value of the requesting company’s services to providers related to its marketplace nor do they take into account the user’s insurance status or the volume or value of referrals to the providers.

The OIG’s opinion letter protects only the current arrangement described to it by the requestor, and the agency declined to opine on any continuing contracts under an older version of the program.Continue Reading OIG again approves online health directory’s use of appointment and advertising fees

Almost two years after issuing its Interim Final Rule requiring COVID-19 vaccination for certain health care works, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) has issued a final rule addressing several regulations regarding COVID-19 vaccination, testing, and education requirements in health care facilities.

In short, the rule eliminates the COVID-19 vaccine requirement for staff at certain categories of Medicare-participating health care providers and ends COVID-19 vaccination testing requirements for staff at long-term care (“LTC”) facilities. Additionally, the rule finalizes previously interim provisions regarding COVID-19 vaccination “educate and offer” requirements for residents, staff, and clients at LTC facilities and Intermediate Care Facilities for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities (“ICFs-IID”).

The rule states that rolling back COVID-19 vaccination and testing requirements enacted during the pandemic aligns with the end of Public Health Emergency (“PHE”) on May 11, 2023 and the concomitant reduction in infection rates, decline in deaths, and significant vaccination uptake by the public.Continue Reading CMS Withdraws Health Care Staff Vaccination Requirements

On May 3, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law provisions that will require health care entities to submit a notification to the state Department of Health (DOH) providing information about any material transaction involving that health care entity.

The law, passed as part of the state’s budget, was originally crafted to give the DOH authority to review and approve those transactions. Ultimately, following several iterations during the legislative process, that approval power was stripped out by the state general assembly and replaced with the current notice requirement.

The law will take effect on August 1, 2023 and states on its face that it will apply to all “material transactions” involving health care entities that close on or after that date. That said, the requirements for transactions that close between August 1 and August 31 are a somewhat open question, given the 30-day notice requirement in the law. The DOH is tasked by the law with creating regulations that may address this situation.Continue Reading New York Passes Health Care Transaction Notice Requirements

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a pair of proposed rules on April 27, 2023 that make substantial changes to the structure of Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), both in the traditional fee-for-service setting and for services provided through managed care organizations (MCOs), and incorporate feedback from stakeholders in…

On March 27, 2023, two United States Senators, Bill Cassidy, MD (R-LA) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) introduced the bipartisan No Unreasonable Payments, Coding, or Diagnoses for the Elderly (“No UPCODE”) Act to address perceived financial incentives inherent in the Medicare Advantage patient risk scoring reimbursement methodology. Senator Merkley alleges that the current reimbursement…

The three agencies that oversee the independent dispute resolution (IDR) process established by the No Surprises Act have notified certified IDR entities that they should not issue any new payment determinations while the agencies evaulate and update IDR guidance to comply with a recent court decision vacating provisions of the IDR rule.

The notice comes…

For the second time in 12 months, a federal district court has set aside provisions of the No Surprises Act’s Independent Dispute Resolution Final Rule on the grounds that the portions of the rule that provide guidance to arbitrators on how to weight price submissions violate the statute’s requirements.

This decision from Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in a group of challenges to the rule, consolidated under Texas Medical Association v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (No. 6:22-cv-372), follows closely on the Requirements Related to Surprise Billing Final Rule issued in August 2022 (August Rule), which sought to address earlier criticisms of the independent dispute resolution process, and marks the second time that the rule has been vacated in part and sent back to the three agencies for another chance.

The previous remand was covered in an earlier post on this blog. In both that instance and in this one, the court took issue with the prominence of the “qualifying payment amount” or QPA. The QPA is a statutorily defined payment rate that represents the median contracted rates recognized by an insurer for the same or similar items or services in the same geographic area.Continue Reading Portions of No Surprises Act IDR rule procedures set aside by federal court again

In its latest effort to increase transparency and improve patient access to information about their health care providers the U.S. Department Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) published a Request for Information (RFI) on October 7, 2022, seeking input on creation of a national provider directory for use by patients, regulators, and insurers.  

According to the announcement, the RFI was prompted by inefficiencies arising from “the fragmentation of current provider directories” maintained by providers, insurers and/or third-party sources that CMS believes could be remedied by a federal provider directory containing “digital contact information containing the most accurate, up-to-date, and validated . . . data in a publicly accessible index.”

The stated goal of the RFI is to examine the feasibility and requirements for a proposed National Directory of Healthcare Providers and Service (NDH). Responses to the RFI are due by December 6, 2022, and stakeholder comments already are being submitted.Continue Reading CMS Considers National Directory of Healthcare Providers and Services

Following closely after the clarifying independent dispute resolution process Final Rule, the four executive branch entities tasked with implementing the provisions of the No Surprises Act, the Office of Personnel Management, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Employee Benefits Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service have issued a request for information to help the agencies craft the next stage of regulations for the surprise billing law.

The request is the latest effort by agencies to seek stakeholder input on the contours of the regulations implementing the No Surprises Act, this time with a focus on the requirements in the law for providers to issue a good faith estimate (GFE) to plans for services that their covered patients will submit for reimbursement and for insurers to issue an advanced explanation of benefits (AEOB) to their plan participants based on estimated charges relayed to them by providers.

Specifically, the entities are looking for information and recommendations on the process of transferring data from providers and facilities to plans, issuers and carriers to facilitate the GFE and AEOB processes, as well as the economic impacts of implementing these requirements. The notice was added to the Federal Register on Friday, Sept. 16 and comments are due to the agencies by November 15.Continue Reading Agencies Look for Input on No Surprises Act Good Faith Estimate Rules

After a long line of opinions scrutinizing the use of rewards programs offered by providers, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) issued Advisory Opinion 22-16 on August 19, 2022– a favorable opinion for the provision of gift cards to Medicare Advantage (“MA’) plan enrollees who complete educational modules as part of an online surgical treatment learning tool.

The opinion adds flexibility to existing opinions on gift cards and patient engagement programs and, while binding only on the requestor, provides insight into the OIG’s evolving view of these programs.Continue Reading OIG Approves Rewards Program for Medicare Advantage Organizations

On August 26, 2022, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury (the “Departments”) issued the highly anticipated Requirements Related to Surprise Billing (“August 2022 Final Rule”) and associated guidance materials concerning the independent dispute resolution (“IDR”) process established by the No Surprises Act. The August 2022 Final Rule is narrow in scope and responds to two recent decisions by the Eastern District of Texas vacating portions of the October 2021 Interim Final Rule, Requirements Related to Surprise Billing: Part II (“IFR II”), and incorporates stakeholder comments solicited by the Departments.

Importantly, as discussed more below, the August 2022 Final Rule removes the qualifying payment amount (“QPA”) as the presumptive factor in IDR payment decisions and requires health plans to submit additional information in the IDR process for cases where a claim at issue was “downcoded” by the plan.   

The August 2022 Final Rule will take effect October 25, 2022, 60 days after its publication in the Federal RegisterContinue Reading Departments issue new Final Rule and guidance materials for No Surprises Act IDR process

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) issued the first round of civil monetary penalties to two hospitals in Georgia for failure to comply with the requirements of the Hospital Price Transparency Final Rule (the “Rule”) on June 7, 2022.

According to the Notices of Imposition of a Civil Monetary Penalty published on the CMS Price Transparency Website, Northside Hospital Atlanta (“Northside Atlanta”) and Northside Hospital Cherokee (“Northside Cherokee”) failed to publish their standard charges and provide access to a machine-readable searchable tool, which would include standard prices for the hospitals’ items and services. CMS took this action after both hospitals failed to respond to the Warning Notices and Requests for Corrective Action Plans issued by CMS.

Effective January 1, 2021, hospitals must publish a machine-readable file that discloses the hospital’s negotiated rates with health plans, gross charges, discounted cash prices, and de-identified minimum and maximum negotiated charges for all items and services. Additionally, hospitals must publish a consumer-friendly, searchable tool that displays in plain language the prices of 300 shoppable medical services that a consumer can schedule in advance.Continue Reading CMS levies penalties for non-compliance with Hospital Price Transparency Rule

In a notice published on April 7, 2022, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the division of HHS that manages the distribution and oversight of CARES Act Provider Relief Funds (PRFs), requested comments from stakeholders on proposed changes to its Information Collection Request (ICR) Form that it will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The approved ICR uses an OMB form that is set to expire on January 1, 2023, so HRSA is requesting comments before submitting revisions to OMB. This is the first opportunity for providers who were subject to the first two PRF reporting periods (Period 1 and Period 2) to comment on the reporting program and provide feedback on requirements related to those reports. In addition to revising the PRF reporting form, HRSA is looking to add reporting for the American Rescue Plan (ARP) rural provider program to the ICR.

The ARP rural provider program was put in place by Congress to provide payments to providers and suppliers who served rural Medicaid, CHIP and Medicare beneficiaries from January 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020. The ARP Rural plan is distinct from the PRF, but it has similar reporting requirements and uses the PRF reporting portal for applications.
Continue Reading HRSA asks for comment on provider relief fund and ARP rural reporting requirements

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), through its Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) office, is taking action to recoup CARES Act funding from health care providers who received relief funding but did not meet the reporting requirements set by HRSA.

To receive COVID-19 relief funding from HRSA pursuant to the CARES Act, providers had to attest to compliance with the terms and conditions promulgated by HRSA. Recipients of the funds must agree to the terms and conditions specific to the Phase in which they received funding distribution. Those terms and conditions evolved over time, with different reporting periods for each wave of funding. Under all waves, failure to report to HRSA regarding the use or allocation of received funds constitutes noncompliance with HRSA’s terms and conditions and requires repayment of the funds.

Providers who completed reporting, but reported unused funds, will have 30 days from the end of their specific reporting deadline to return all unused funds.
Continue Reading Provider relief fund reporting: HRSA to recoup funds from providers who didn’t meet deadlines

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) has reopened the comment period on its June 2021 interim final rule establishing an Emergency Temporary Standard governing occupational exposure to COVID-19 in healthcare settings, codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1910 Subpart U (“Healthcare ETS”).

While this reopening reaches certain questions and issues presented by OSHA and not the entire rule, the reopening of the comment period signals the beginning of the effort to finalize a permanent standard by OSHA only three months after the agency withdrew the Healthcare ETS. The Healthcare ETS required healthcare organizations to develop a COVID-19 plan for its workplace that included health screening and management, masking, distancing, and support for vaccination. The Healthcare ETS was withdrawn in December 2021 because OSHA determined that its efforts to establish a permanent standard would exceed the six-month time period allowed under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

The notice reopening the comment period gives stakeholders both an early view into potential regulatory outcomes of the final rule as well as a series of information requests.
Continue Reading OSHA reopens comments on COVID-19 Healthcare Emergency Temporary Standard

On February 23, 2022, a federal district court judge in Texas agreed with the Texas Medical Association that some provisions of the interim final rules implementing the No Surprises Act were promulgated in violation of the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). As a remedy, the court ordered those provisions vacated and remanded the affected rules back to the federal agencies for further consideration.

In a memorandum issued February 28, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, one of the federal agencies that promulgated the rule (along with the Employee Benefits Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service) indicated that it was still reviewing the court’s decision and considering next steps, which could include an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Additionally, CMS said that it was withdrawing any guidance documents based on the invalidated sections and will launch revised guidance and training for certified independent dispute resolution (“IDR”) entities and parties subject to the process. Those guidance documents will be edited to conform to the court’s decision and republished. Important to providers, CMS emphasized that the court’s order does not affect its other rulemaking related to the No Surprises Act.
Continue Reading Portion of No Surprises Act IDR rule procedures set aside by federal district court

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released complementary rules this past Friday, November 20, 2020, to modernize and clarify the regulations that interpret the Physician Self-Referral Law (the Stark Law) and the federal Anti-Kickback Statute.

As we wrote when the proposed rules were released last autumn (see client alerts here and here),…