Showing posts with label employment law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label employment law. Show all posts

Friday, March 25, 2022

CIAs, Exclusions, and your medical practice

Before delving into a recent U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) settlement, which involved employing an “excluded” individual, it’s important to appreciate some of the tools that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (HHS-OIG) has at its disposal – corporate integrity agreements (CIA) and exclusion from all federal programs.

CIAs – are negotiated by HHS-OIG “with healthcare providers and other entities as part of the settlement of Federal health care program investigations arising under a variety of civil false claims statutes. Providers or entities agree to the obligations, and in exchange, OIG agrees not to seek their exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid, or other Federal health care programs.” Typically, a CIA lasts 5 years and the person who enters into the CIA must make scheduled reports to HHS-OIG. Importantly, CIAs are specific to the facts and circumstances of a particular matter and include breach and default provisions, which enable HHS-OIG to impose additional monetary penalties (i.e., Stipulated Penalties). A material breach of the CIA “constitutes an independent basis for the provider’s exclusion from participating in Federal healthcare programs.”

Exclusions – have been around since 1977 and are imposed by HHS-OIG; however, they may arise because of a False Claims Act case or other matter that was initiated through or by DOJ. HHS-OIG’s authority to impose exclusions is derived from the Social Security Act §§ 1128, 1156.“The scope of an exclusion under section 1128 of the Act is from all Federal health care programs, as defined in 42 CFR 1001.2. … Exclusions under section 1156 of the Act do not reach other Federal programs (although HHS or another Federal agency could separately initiate a suspension or debarment of an excluded person from other Federal procurement or nonprocurement programs).” The process begins when a person receives a Notices of Intent to Exclude (NOI). From there, the recipient of the NOI is given the opportunity to respond. Once all the information is considered, HHS-OIG renders its decision. If the findings substantiate exclusion, the person is notified. From there, they may appeal to an HHS Administrative Law Judge and further appeal to the HHS Departmental Appeals Board (DAB). After the DAB renders its decision, judicial review in a U.S. District Court is also available. Reinstatement of an individual or entity is not automatic; rather, the person must apply for reinstatement. If reinstated, the person receives written notice from HHS-OIG that they have been reinstated. The excluded individual may begin the process 90 days before their period of exclusion ends.



On March 18, 2022, the DOJ announced that Windham Eye Care Practice and its Owners Pay $192K for Employing “Excluded” Individual. Specifically, the federal and state governments entered into a civil settlement agreement “to resolve allegations that they improperly employed an individual who was excluded from all federal healthcare programs.” Windham Eye Group (WEG) employed Michael Vallone as its practice administrator from February 2010 through May 2021. Previously, Mr. Vallone was convicted of healthcare fraud in the District of New Jersey and was excluded from all federal healthcare programs under §1128 of the Social Security Act.

As noted by the DOJ, when HHS-OIG “excludes an individual or entity from federal health care programs, no program payments may be made for items or services furnished by that excluded individual or entity.” (emphasis added). The relevance to the WEG was that a portion of the reimbursements received from the federal healthcare programs were used to pay Mr. Vallone’s salary and benefits.

I have often reiterated the phrase, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” HHS-OIG issued an Updated Special Advisory Bulletin in May 2013, emphasizing that in order to avoid potential liability, health care providers and organizations providing services directly or indirectly should check the List of Excluded Individuals/Entities on the HHS-OIG website. It is imperative that entities receiving remuneration from Federal health care programs – whether directly or indirectly, have both background checks and exclusion checks as part of their policies and procedures.


15% Off Medical Practice Supplies


VIEW ALL



Manual Prescription Pad (Large - Yellow)


Manual Prescription Pad (Large - Pink)

Manual Prescription Pads (Bright Orange)

Manual Prescription Pads (Light Pink)

Manual Prescription Pads (Light Yellow)

Manual Prescription Pad (Large - Blue)

Manual Prescription Pad (Large - White)


VIEW ALL

Monday, June 7, 2021

EEOC releases updated COVID-19 guidance for employers

On May 28, 2021, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) updated its Technical Assistance Questions and Answers (hereinafter “EEOC Guidance”) in relation to COVID-19. There are a few notable items, some of which seemingly intersect with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).


First, the EEOC Guidance serves as a reminder that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) “applies to private employers with 15 or more employees. It also applies to state and local government employers, employment agencies, and labor unions. All nondiscrimination standards under Title I of the ADA also apply to federal agencies under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act.”

Second, it answers the question regarding how much information an employer may request from an employee who calls in sick in order to protect the rest of its workforce. The EEOC’s answer:
“[d]uring a pandemic, ADA-covered employers may ask such employees if they are experiencing symptoms of the pandemic virus. For COVID-19, these include symptoms such as fever, chills, cough, shortness of breath, or sore throat. Employers must maintain all information about employee illness as a confidential medical record in compliance with the ADA.” (emphasis added).

This is sage advice, regardless of the size of an organization—treat all sensitive medical information as if it were a patient’s protected health information. Even though HIPAA’s Privacy Rule does not apply to employment records, the Privacy Rule does apply to medical or health plan records if a workforce member is a patient of their provider-employer or a member of a health plan. In light of various state laws, as well as general privacy considerations, employers should always remember not to mention an individual employee by name, even if other workforce members need to be tested as a result of a potential exposure.

As far as COVID-19 vaccinations are concerned, as indicated in the EEOC Guidance, “federal EEOC laws do not prevent an employer from requiring all employees physically entering the workplace to be vaccinated for COVID-19, subject to the reasonable accommodation provisions of Title VII and the ADA and other EEO considerations.” This notion applies whether or not the employer administers the vaccine, or the employee gets the vaccine elsewhere. The critical considerations for employers are to require the vaccine of all employees in order to avoid a discrimination suit, have a process defined in a policy and procedure to address potential accommodations and expressly state that the accommodation may be granted so long as it “does not pose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business.” In sum, these items are particularly notable in a healthcare setting and providers are encouraged to consult outside counsel if a situation arises that cannot be reasonably accommodated.


15% Off Medical Practice Supplies


VIEW ALL



Manual Prescription Pad (Large - Yellow)


Manual Prescription Pad (Large - Pink)

Manual Prescription Pads (Bright Orange)

Manual Prescription Pads (Light Pink)

Manual Prescription Pads (Light Yellow)

Manual Prescription Pad (Large - Blue)

Manual Prescription Pad (Large - White)


VIEW ALL

Saturday, February 3, 2018

Federal judge in Texas rules EEOC guidance limiting use of criminal background checks unenforceable

Federal district judge Sam Cummings[official bio] on Thursday ruled [opinion; pdf] that an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guideline [text] limiting employers' use of criminal background checks in the hiring process is unenforceable.


Texas, the plaintiff, claimed that the guideline was issued without notice and comment, overstepped the EEOC's authority, and was an "unreasonable interpretation" of Title VII [text] of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC claimed that it had never enforced the guidelines against Texas, and that the guidelines were meant to address disparate impact of protected classes in hiring.


The court ruled that the guideline was a "substantive rule issued without notice and the opportunity for comment." Therefore, the guideline will not be enforceable in the state of Texas. The court did not rule on the rest of plaintiff's complaint.


Cummings also found that, "[a] categorical denial of employment opportunities to all job applicants convicted of a prior felony paints with too broad a brush and denies meaningful opportunities of employment to many who could benefit greatly from such employment." He said that there were instances where an employee's prior felony conviction would not affect public safety or the employee's ability to perform a job.



Business Card Holders

15% Off