Source: https://slphrbenefitsupdate.com/2019/12/
Timestamp: 2020-04-10 12:53:01
Document Index: 177757814

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1915', '§ 164', '§ 164', '§ 164', '§ 164', '§ 164', '§ 164', '§ 164', '§ 160', '§ 160', '§ 160', '§ 160', '§ 160', '§ 160', '§ 1320', '§ 164', '§ 164', '§ 164', '§ 164']

A civil health care fraud lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York today (December 17, 2019) against the nation’s largest long term care pharmacy provider, Omnicare, and its parent, CVS Healthcare Corporation may signal the advisability for insurers, fiduciaries, administrators and sponsors of insured and self-insured health and other benefit plans providing pharmacy benefits to tighten claims and audit past claims payments for prescription drug claims submitted by Omnicare and other CVS pharmacy providers as well as other pharmacy claims to the pharmacy possessed a valid, current prescription to dispense the drug.
Omnicare Complaint Highlights Potential Prescription Drug Fraud By Billing For Filling Expired Prescriptions
In its U.S. ex rel Bassan complaint in intervention (Omnicare and CVS) complaint DOJ joined by 29 states and the District of Colombia filed suit against Omnicare, and its parent company, CVS Healthcare Corporation for damages and civil penalties under the False Claims Act for fraudulently billing federal healthcare programs for hundreds of thousands of non-controlled prescription drugs that DOJ claims Omnicare illegally dispensed to elderly and disabled individuals in assisted living facilities, group homes, independent living communities, and other non-skilled residential long-term care facilities (“LTC facilities”) without a valid, current prescription.. The States of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District Of Columbia are joining the DOJ in the complaint as co-plaintiffs.
Omnicare is the country’s largest provider of pharmacy services to LTC facilities. It currently operates approximately 160 pharmacies in 47 states across the United States, which dispense tens of millions of prescription drugs to LTC facilities that serve elderly and disabled individuals. CVS acquired Omnicare in May 2015, and shortly thereafter assumed an active role in overseeing Omnicare’s operations, including pharmacy dispensing practices and systems.
The DOJ complaint in the Federal District Court in Manhattan, New York charges that Omnicare illegally dispensed and billed the federal government and patients for antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, and antidepressants Omnicare dispensed to elderly and disabled residents in LTC facilities without proper prescriptions. According to the DOJ complaint from 2010 until 2018, Omnicare and CVS allowed Omnicare pharmacies to dispense non-controlled prescription drugs to tens of thousands of elderly and disabled individuals living in LTC facilities based on prescriptions that had expired, were out of refills, or were otherwise invalid. Omnicare repeatedly disregarded prescription refill limitations and expiration dates that required doctor visits to reevaluate whether the drug should be renewed. Instead of requesting new prescriptions when old ones expired, Omnicare allowed prescriptions to “roll over.” At Omnicare, “rolling over” a prescription meant that when a prescription expired, Omnicare’s computer systems would assign the old prescription a new number and the pharmacy would continue to dispense the drug indefinitely without the need for a prescription renewal. Depending on the computer system used, DOJ claims Omnicare also sometimes assigned a fake number of authorized refills to a prescription – usually 99 allowable refills for Medicare patients – to allow for continuous refilling. DOJ claims that Omnicare pharmacies “rolled over” prescriptions for elderly and disabled individuals living in more than 3,000 residential long-term care facilities, including assisted living facilities operated by the largest long-term care providers in the country, such as Brookdale Senior Living, Atria Senior Living, Sunrise Senior Living Services, and Five Star Senior Living. DOJ charges that Omnicare used these practices to refill prescriptions for patients after the required prescription for refill expired for months, and sometimes years, after the prescriptions expired. The complaint alleged that Omnicare internally referred to these renumbered expired prescriptions as “rollover” prescriptions.
Many of the prescription drugs dispensed by Omnicare without valid prescriptions treat serious, chronic conditions, such as dementia, depression, and heart disease. They include antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, cardiovascular medications, anti-depressants, and other drugs that can have dangerous side effects and need to be closely monitored by doctors, particularly when taken in combination with other drugs by elderly patients.
DOJ says these Omnicare practices of illegally dispensing drugs to elderly and disabled individuals living in LTC facilities exposed these vulnerable individuals to a significant risk of harm. In contrast to traditional skilled nursing homes, where residents have access to 24-hour medical care supervised by doctors, assisted living and other non-skilled residential facilities offer more limited medical care, or none at all. In particular, these LTC facilities generally do not have doctors on staff to oversee and monitor residents’ drug therapy. By repeatedly dispensing potent drugs without current and valid prescriptions, Omnicare jeopardized the health and safety of tens of thousands of individuals who continued to take the same drugs for months, and sometimes years, without consulting their doctors to determine whether the medications were still clinically appropriate.
A large percentage of the long-term care residents served by Omnicare are beneficiaries of federal healthcare programs. The complaint charges that along with illegally filling the expired prescriptions, Omnicare knowingly transmitted false information to these federal healthcare programs that made it appear that drug dispensations were supported by current, valid prescriptions from physicians when in fact they were not. By dispensing drugs without valid prescriptions, Omnicare presented, or caused to be presented, hundreds of thousands of false claims to Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE that were ineligible for payment in violation of the False Claims Act. In fact, the complaint charges that Omnicare managers exerted pressure on overwhelmed pharmacy staff to fill prescriptions quickly so that Omnicare could submit claims and collect payments on these rollover claims.
Moreover, DOJ says that it possesses evidence that senior management at Omnicare and CVS knew of the practices. The DOJ complaint charges among other things that the Omnicare’s Compliance Department succinctly acknowledged the problem in an internal April 2015 email in which one Regional Compliance Officer stated: “An issue that I am running into more and more in multiple states concerns the ability of our systems to allow prescriptions to continue to roll after a year to a new prescription number without any documentation or pharmacist intervention.” A compliance officer then forwarded the email to the head of Omnicare’s Third Party Audit group, who responded that she had a “potential solution (programmed last year) but no one is rolling it out now.”
In today’s announcement of the lawsuit, Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As alleged, Omnicare put at risk the health of tens of thousands of elderly and disabled individuals living in assisted living and other residential long-term care facilities by dispensing drugs for months, and sometimes years, without obtaining current, valid prescriptions from doctors. A pharmacy’s fundamental obligation is to ensure that drugs are dispensed only under the supervision of treating doctors who monitor patients’ drug therapies. Omnicare blatantly ignored this obligation in favor of pushing drugs out the door as quickly as possible to make more money. This Office will continue to hold accountable those who put at risk people’s health and safety just to turn a profit.”
Meanwhile, HHS-OIG Special Agent in Charge Scott J. Lampert said: “Failing to consult doctors as to whether prescriptions should be refilled places patients’ health and medical care at serious risk. These automatic rollover refills could have significant consequences for vulnerable people in long term-care facilities. We will continue working with law enforcement partners to protect people depending on these taxpayer-funded government health programs.”
Charges Suggest Potential Advisability For Plan Audit of Prescription Drug Charges To Confirm Supported By Valid Prescription For Dispensed Drugs
The charges made in the complaint filed against Omnicare highlight an area of claims payment eligibility not regularly verified by many pharmacy benefit and other health claims administrators when administering pharmacy benefit claims- the existence of a current valid prescription to support the dispensation of the billed prescription medication. Except for pain management and certain other medications flagged by regulators or benefit systems as subject to heightened abuse risks, many plan administrators regularly take for granted existence of a current, valid script for many common, frequently issued and renewed, low cost prescriptions issued within frequency and other guidelines based upon the assumption that legal and ethical obligations of pharmacists and pharmacies under licensing, Drug Enforcement Agency and other rules generally provides adequate deterrence against abuses like those the DOJ accuses Omnicare of engaging in its complaint. However, growing corporate or other nonprofessional ownership or management of pharmacies and their management coupled with very limited, virtually all complaint driven oversight of federal and state regulatory and ethical agencies is diminishing the frequency and effectiveness of such oversight. As evidenced by the Omnicare complaint, scrupulous pharmacies may leverage opportunities allowed by this limited oversight to dispense and bill for commonly renewed prescription medication without proper orders in a manner that potentially places patients at risk at the expense of plans and their participants, beneficiaries, sponsors and insurers. Plans, insurers, fiduciaries, plan sponsors and administrators concerned about these risks may want to use the Omnicare lawsuit announcement as an opportunity to educate plan members and their caregivers about the importance of monitoring prescriptions, their refills and claims for abuse; audit and encourage plan members and their caregivers of members with claims paid with respect to Omnicare and other pharmacy claims’ and take other steps to assess the adequacy and tighten as appropriate their existing pharmacy benefit review procedures for verification of the existence of a current, valid prescription to mitigate these exposures. These exposures are further heightened by the widespread practice of outsourcing of pharmacy claims to prescription benefit management or other speciality pharmacy claims providers in many health plan designs including vendoirsand service providers owned or managed by parents or related companies of the pharmacy filling and billing for the scripts.
Health plan fiduciaries, administrators and sponsors that discover potential deficiencies in the validity of a prescription or other elements of a received or previously paid prescription benefit or other claim are cautioned to review and follow the applicable ERISA and for insured plans, state insurance, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) and contractual claims and appeals timelines and processes. Failure to follow these requirements can undermine the enforceability of plan remedies as well as expose the plan, its insurer or fiduciary to administrative penalties and other liabilities. Additionally, violations of the ACA mandated procedures also in the case of employment based plans also could expose the sponsoring employer or ubnion to liability for self reporting, self-assessment and payment of penalties under Internal Revenue Code Section 6039D. Where relevant regulatory or contractual time periods for denial have already expired either because the claim already was paid or the analysis otherwise was not timely completed in time to meet the deadline, plans may need to rely upon filing health care fraud or other avenues of relief in lieu of attempting to retroactively deny and recoup the questioned amounts in order to avoid violating the ACA and other rules. Plan fiduciaries and administrators also may need to consider the applicability of offering review by an independent medical review organization to fulfill ACA or other similar mandatesfor medical judgement based determinations.
Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 30 plus year career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As a part of this work, she has continuously and extensively worked with domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; consultants; investors; EMR, claims, payroll and other technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, self-insured health and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers and other payers, health industry advocacy and other service providers and groups and other health and managed care industry clients as well as federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies.
Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades-long leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health and other privacy and data security and other health industry legal, public policy and operational concerns. This involvement encompasses helping health care systems and organizations, group and individual health care providers, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients prevent, investigate, manage and resolve sexual assault, abuse, harassment and other organizational, provider and employee misconduct and other performance and behavior; manage Section 1557, Civil Rights Act and other discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; contracting and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other payers and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, ant kickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement; and other strategic and operational concerns.
Author of leading works on HIPAA and a multitude of other health care, health plan and other health industry matters, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.
©2019 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.
Leave a Comment »	| Association Health Plan, Claims, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Employers, ERISA, fiduciary duty, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Care Fraud, health plan, Health Plans, insurance fraud, pbms, pharmacy, Prescription Drugs, tpa	| Tagged: Claims, CVS, ERISA, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Plan, Omnicare, pharmacy, pharmacy benefits	| Permalink
On December 10, 2019, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) notified the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy that it plans to convene a small business panel on a possible OSHA Tree Care Operations safety standard in early 2020. OSHA’s potential tree care standard could cover employees who perform tree care operations, such as pruning, maintaining, repairing, or removing trees, as well as establish safe work practices for such operations. Potentially regulated entities would include employers who engage in daily tree care operations, as well as companies, municipalities, and organizations that occasionally perform tree care and removal as part of their primary operations (e.g., residential and commercial construction and remodeling, landscaping, golf course maintenance, power and pipeline clearing, certain agricultural operations, etc.).
The Office of Advocacy is seeking small entity representatives from the potentially regulated sectors to assist the OSHA panel in its review of this possible regulation. Small entity representatives, or SERS, may include small businesses, small non-profits organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
Any small business employer who would be affected by this potential regulation, please contact Bruce Lundegren at (202) 205-6144 or Bruce.Lundegren@sba.gov.
Please see OSHA’s webpage for detailed information about this small business panel and rulemaking at https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/treecare/index.html.
Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 30 plus year career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As a part of this work, she has continuously and extensively worked with domestic and international employer and other management clients including hospitals, health care systems and other health care organizations, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; creditors, debtors, bankruptcy trustees and other change organizations; consultants; investors; payroll and other technology and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; self-insured health and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers and other insurance and risk management clients; as well as federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies.
Author of hundreds of highly regarded books, articles and other publications, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her scholarship, coaching, legislative and regulatory advocacy, leadership and mentorship on labor and employment, employee benefits, health and safety, education, performance management, privacy and data security, leadership and governance, and other management concerns within the American Bar Association (ABA), the International Information Security Association, the Southwest Benefits Association, and a variety of other international, national and local professional, business and civic organizations. Examples of these involvements include her service as the ABA Intellectual Property Law Section Law Practice Management Committee; the ABA International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee Vice Chair-Policy; a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former JCEB Council Representative and Marketing Chair; Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits and Other Compensation Group and Vice Chair of its Law Practice Management Committee; Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group; former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Southwest Benefits Association Board member; past Texas Association of Business State Board Member, BACPAC Committee Meeting, Regional and Dallas Chapter Chair; past Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits Committee Executive Committee; former SHRM Region IV Chair and National Consultants Forum Board Member; for WEB Network of Benefit Professionals National Board Member and Dallas Chapter Chair; former Dallas World Affairs Council Board Member; founding Board Member, past President and Patient Empowerment and Health Care Heroes founder for the Alliance for Health Care Excellence; former Gulf States TEGE Council Exempt Organizations Coordinator and Board member; past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.
Comments Off on OSHA Seeks Small Business Volunteers For Tree Care Safety Panel	| Corporate Compliance, Employer, Employers, Employment Policies, occupational safety, OSHA	| Tagged: landscaping, OSHA, Safety, trees	| Permalink
In Valley Hospital Medical Center, Inc. d/b/a Valley Hospital Medical Center, 368 NLRB No. 139 (2019), issued today, the National Labor Relations Board overruled 2015 changes governing dues checkoff obligations when a collective bargaining agreement ends implemented during the Obama Presidency when Obama appointees dominated the Board. Today’s decision overturns the pro-labor Lincoln Lutheran of Racine, 362 NLRB 1655 (2015) ruling issued by the Board when it was dominated by a Democrat majority appointed by President Barak Obama as part of his aggressively pro-union agenda.
The decision restores the previously long-standing precedent established and in place since the Board’s 1962 decision in Bethlehem Steel, 136 NLRB 1500 (1962). Under today’s decision, the Board Majority made up by Republican appointees Chairman John F. Ring and Members Marvin Kaplan and William Emanuel held that an employer’s statutory obligation to check off union dues ends upon expiration of the collective-bargaining agreement containing the checkoff provision. The majority found that dues checkoff provisions belong in the limited category of mandatory-bargaining subjects that are exclusively created by the contract and are enforceable through Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act only for the duration of the contractual obligation created by the parties. In the majority’s view, there is no independent statutory obligation to check off and remit employees’ union dues after the expiration of the collective-bargaining agreement even where the contract does not contain a union-security provision. Board Member Lauren McFerran dissented.
Today’s decision overturns a pro-labor ruling entered by the Obama-appointee dominated Board. which expanded the power of unions to compel workers to continue to pay union dues even after expiration of the collective bargaining agreement. It is one in a series of recent actions taken or proposed by the Board in recent months to restore the balance between management and labor upset during the Obama President when the Board was dominated by his nominees.
Leave a Comment »	| Corporate Compliance, Labor Management Relations, Labor Management Relations, Management, NLRA, Unfair Labor Practice, Union, Union, Union certification, Union elections	| Tagged: dues checkoff, Labor Law, Labor-Management, NLRA, NLRB	| Permalink
The $1.6 million civil monetary penalty (“CMP”) assessed against the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (“TX HHSC”) for violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) Privacy and Security Rules between 2013 and 2017 committed by a predecessor agency, the Department of Aging and Disability Services (“DADS”) illustrates the critical need for health plans and insurers and all other HIPAA covered entities and business associates to confirm the adequacy of their enterprise wide security assessment, oversight, and other HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance and risk management including documentation of the reassessment and updating of these materials and assessments in connection with any update or change in software, systems or other system and security relevant developments.
OCR imposed the CMPs against TX HHSC for violations of HIPAA OCR found DADS committed from 2015 to 2017, before it was reorganized into TX HHSC in September 2017. Like most other large HIPAA CMPs and settlements paid to avoid CMPs, a review of the TX HSSC CMP events makes clear that the large penalty resulted mostly because of inadequate assessment and oversight of security, rather than the actual breach itself that prompted the investigation leading to the CMP assessment. Beyond the substantial HIPAA CMPs assessed, health plans, insurers, their fiduciaries and administrative or other service providers serving as business associates need to keep in mind their likely exposure to liability and expenses from fiduciary responsibility breaches under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, state insurance and other data security and breach requireents, contracts and other pbligations.
Before its merger into TX HHSC, DADS was the Texas agency primarily responsible for providing and administering the state’s long-term care services for aging and intellectually and physically disabled people. TX HHSC now administers and provides the services previously provided by DADS as part of its broader operation of state supported living centers; provision of mental health and substance use services; regulation of child care and nursing facilities; and administration of hundreds of other programs for people needing supplemental nutrition benefits, Medicaid and certain other assistance including those previously provided by DADS.
DADS Breaches & Violations
The $1.6 million CMPs assessment against TX HHSC resulted after OCR investigated a 2015 breach report made by DADS. On June 11, 2015, DADS submitted a Breach Notification Report (“Report”) notifying OCR that on April 21, 2015 names, addresses, social security numbers, treatment information and other electronic protected health information (“ePHI”) of 6,617 individuals was viewable over the internet when a software coding flaw allowed prohibited access to ePHI with access credentials when DADS moved an internal application from a private, secure server to a public server. OCR’s investigation determined that, in addition to that impermissible disclosure, DADS violated the HIPAA Security Rule by failing to conduct an enterprise-wide risk analysis and implement access and audit controls on Community Living Assistance and Support Services and Deaf Blind with Multiple Disabilities (“CLASS/DBMD”) program information systems and applications intended to collect and report information about “Utilization Management and Review” activities to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) for the CLASS/DBMD waiver programs.. The CMS waiver programs required DADS to collect and report to CMS applicant and enrollee community and institutional service choice, Level of Care, Plan of Care, waiver provider choice and other waiver program performance data for CLASS and DBMD as part of a required evidentiary report on all §1915(c) waiver programs. The CLASS/DBMD application glitch compromised the ePHI by allowing an undetermined number of unauthorized users to view the ePHI without verifying user credentials. TX HHSC learned of the breach from an unauthorized user who accessed ePHI in the application without being required to input user credentials. Because of inadequate audit controls, DADS was unable to determine how many unauthorized persons accessed individuals’ ePHI.
OCR initiated a compliance review of DADS on June 23, 2015 in response to the breach notification. As HIPAA Security Rule at 45 C.F.R. ·§ 164.312(a)(l) requires a covered entity to implement technical policies and procedures for electronic information systems that maintain ePHI to allow access only to those persons or software programs properly granted access rights under HIPAA Security Rule § 164.308(a)(4), OCR found that by placing the CLASS/DBMD application on their public server without requiring users to provide access credentials, TX HHSC violated HIPAA by failing to implement access controls on all of its systems and applications throughout its enterprise in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.312(a)(l).
The HIPAA Security Rule at 45 C.F.R. § 164.312(b) requires a covered entity to implement hardware, software, and/or procedural mechanisms that record and examine activity in information systems that contain or use ePHI. In the course of its investigation, OCR requested in its June 23, 2015 Data Request that DADS provide a copy of its current HIPAA administrative and technical policies and procedures. As DADS provided no evidence that the application was capable of auditing user access after it was moved to the unsecure public server as required by 45 C.F.R. § 164.312(b) with its response, OCR also concluded from its investigation that TX HHSC failed to implement audit controls to all of its systems and applications, like the application involved in the breach, as required by 45 C.F.R. § 164.312(b).
Beyond these violations, OCR also found that DADS also violated the HIPAA Security Rule by failing to conduct the required accurate and thorough enterprise wised risk analysis required by the HIPAA Security Rule. In this respect, the HIPAA Security Rule at 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A) requires a covered entity to conduct an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI it holds. In its August 31, 2015 response to OCR’s Data Request dated July 23, 2015, DADS acknowledged that, while it had performed ”risk assessment activities” on individual applications and servers, it never performed an “agency-wide” security risk analysis. On July 28, 2017, OCR received the documentation that DADS represented to be the documentation of its risk analysis. After reviewing this evidence, OCR additionally found DADS violated the HIPAA Security Rule by failing to conduct an enterprise-wide risk analysis and implement access and audit controls.
Calculation & Assessment CMPs Totaling $1.6 Million
On May 23, 2018, OCR issued a Letter of Opportunity and informed TX HHSC that OCR’s investigation indicated that TX HHSC failed to comply with the Privacy and Security Rules, which remained unresolved despite OCR’s attempts to do so. The letter stated that pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 160.312(a)(3), OCR was informing TX HHSC of the preliminary indications of non-compliance and providing TX HHSC with an opportunity to submit written evidence of mitigating factors under 45 C.F.R. § 160.408 or affirmative defenses under 45 C.F.R. § 160.410 for OCR’s consideration in making a CMP determination under 45 C.F.R. § 160.404. The letter identified each area of noncompliance. It also stated that TX HHSC also could submit written evidence to support a waiver of a CMP for the indicated areas of non-compliance.
Although the designated representative for TX HHSC as DADS successor received the Letter of Opportunity on May 24, 2018, . TX HHSC did not provide any written evidence of mitigating factors under 45 C.F.R. § 160.408 or affirmative defenses under 4S C.F.R. § 160.410 for OCR’s consideration in making the CMP determination or submit any written evidence to support a waiver of a CMP for the indicated areas of non-compliance. Accordingly, after securing the requisite approval from the Justice Department, OCR issued a Notice of Proposed Determination of Civil Monetary Penalties (“Proposed CMP”) on July 29, 2019.
As explained by the Proposed CMP, as amended by the HITECH Act, Section 13410, 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-5(a)(3), HIPAA authorizes OCR as the designated representative of the Secretary of HHS to impose CMPs against a covered entity for post-February 18, 2009 HIPAA Privacy or Security Rule violations. These current CMP provisions provide the following rules for the assessment of CMPs for such violations:
A minimum of$100 for each violation where the covered entity or business associate did not know and, by exercising reasonable diligence, would not have known that the covered entity or business associate violated such provision, except that the total amount imposed on the covered entity or business associate for all violations of an identical requirement or prohibition during a calendar year may not exceed $25,000.
A minimum of$1,000 for each violation due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect, except that the total amount imposed on the covered entity or business associate for all violations of an identical requirement or prohibition during a calendar year may not exceed $100,000. Reasonable cause means an act or omission in which a covered. entity or business associate knew, or by exercising reasonable diligence would have known, that the act or omission violated an administrative simplification provision, but in which the covered entity or business associate did not act with willful neglect.
A minimum of $10,000 for each violation due to willful neglect and corrected within 30 days, except that the total amount imposed on the covered entity or business associate for all violations of an identical requirement or prohibition during a calendar year may not exceed $250,000.
A minimum of$50,000 for each violation due to willful neglect and uncorrected within 30 days, except that the total amount imposed on the covered entity or business associate for all violations of an identical requirement or prohibition during a calendar year may not exceed $1,500,000.
By law, OCR adjusts the CMP ranges and calendar year cap for each penalty tier for inflation. The adjusted amounts are applicable only to CMPs whose violations occurred after November 2, 2015.
The Proposed CMP included notice of the CMPs OCR intended to impose CMPs totaling $1.6 million for the violations. Characterizing each of the violations as due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect, the Proposed CMP Notice made note that OCR was authorized by statute to assess penalties of up to $50,000 per day for each day of the identified violations due for reasonable cause, rather than willful neglect, but authorized OCR to adjust the penalties in light of aggravating and mitigating factors. The Proposed CMP stated that in arriving at the lesser daily penalty amount, OCR considered as mitigating factors that:
The violations did not result in any known physical, financial, or reputational harm to any individuals nor did it hinder any individual’s ability to obtain health care; and
TX HHSC immediately removed the application once it received a report that unauthorized users could access the ePHI of individual beneficiaries.
However, OCR also took note that it viewed DADS failure to act promptly to remediate the breach and to keep a commitment made to OCR in August, 2015 timely to conduct and complete the agency wide risk analysis by August 31, 2016 as an aggravating factor. Considering these factors, the Proposed CMP notified TX HHSC that OCR intended to assess a daily penalty amount of$1,000 per day ($1,141 after November 2, 2015) per violation capped at $100,000 per calendar year per violation. Applying these amounts, the CMP notified TX HHSC that OCR intended to impose CMPs totaling $1.6 million, as follows:
Impermissible disclosures in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.502(a), a $100,000 CMP
Inadequate access controls in violation of 45 C.F .R. § 164.312(a)(l), a $500,000 CMP
Inadequate audit controls in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.312(b), a $500,000 CMP
Failure to perform required enterprise wide risk analysis in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(l)(ii)(a), a $500,000.
After TX HHSC , as successor to DADS, did not file a request for hearing before an administrative law judge within the 90 days, OCR imposed the $1.6 million CMP in dated October 25, 2019 made public on November 7, 2019.
Lessons For Other Health Plans, Insurers & Other HIPAA Exposed Entities
The latest in a growing series of multimillion dollar CMPs and Resolution Payments assessed and collected by OCR, the TX HHSC CMP illustrates the critical necessity for all covered entities and business both to take appropriate, well-documented action to prevent, timely discover and redress, and report ePHI breaches and otherwise comply with the otherwise applicable requirements of the HIPAA Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Rules including the conduct and continuous maintenance of appropriate enterprise wide security assessments, audits, and oversight. With OCR promising to continue its enforcement, all covered entities and business associates should verify the existence and adequacy of their existing enterprise wide risk assessments and safeguards and procedures for monitoring, investigating potential security risks and other breaches and other HIPAA compliance oversight. Beyond these compliance efforts, the TX HHSC and other CMP actions also drive home the strong advisability for covered entities or business associates that experience a known or potential breach or other violation promptly to investigate and mitigate potential breaches and other violations.
Beyond the direct HIPAA exposure, health plans and their fiduciaries also need to keep in mind that these violations also can create fiduciary liability risks for ERISA fiduciaries, state insurance and identity theft exposures for brokers and other service providers, contractual exposures for vendors, and other risks. The Department of Labor recently has begun making inquiries about data security and privacy as part of its plan audits according to recent reports.
When managing HIPAA and other compliance and risks, health plans and other covered entities and business associates should seek assistance in conducting their assessments as well as responding to any preexisting and emergent breach or other compliance concerns within the scope of attorney-client privilege from qualified legal counsel with the necessary knowledge and experience of HIPAA and other federal and state laws, regulations and administrative and judicial decisions that define and shape their exposure. In the event of a breach or other compliance concern, timely guidance and representation by legal counsel with both experience of these requirements and with dealing with OCR and other agencies may help mitigate exposures by expediting timely and appropriate response.
Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy About the Author
Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation GroupMs. Stamer’s work throughout her 30 plus year career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As a part of this work, she has continuously and extensively worked with domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; consultants; investors; EMR, claims, payroll and other technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, self-insured health and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers and other payers, health industry advocacy and other service providers and groups and other health and managed care industry clients as well as federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies.
Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades-long leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health and other privacy and data security and other health industry legal, public policy and operational concerns. This involvement encompasses helping health care systems and organizations, group and individual health care providers, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients prevent, investigate, manage and resolve sexual assault, abuse, harassment and other organizational, provider and employee misconduct and other performance and behavior; manage Section 1557, Civil Rights Act and other discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; contracting and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other payers and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, antikickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement; and other strategic and operational concerns.
Leave a Comment »	| Association Health Plan, Corporate Compliance, Data Breach, Data Security, health benefit, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, Health IT, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA, Protected Health Information	| Permalink
Ten former National Football League (NFL) players face prosecution for their alleged roles in a nationwide health care fraud scam that Justice Department prosecutors allegedly defrauded the Gene Upshaw NFL Player Health Reimbursement Account Plan (the “Plan)” by submitting more than $3.9 million in false and fraudulent claims between June 2017 and December 2018.
According to the charges brought in two separated indictments filed December 12, 2019 in the Eastern District of Kentucky, the charged players participated in a nationwide conspiracy that resulted in the submission of more than $3.9 million in false claims to the Plan, for which the Plan paid out over $3.4 million between June 2017 and December 2018. See Buckhalter and Rogers Indictment; McCune et al Indictment. The Plan established pursuant to the 2006 collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and payers provides a health care reimbursement account to reimburse up to a maximum of $350,000 per player of out-of-pocket medical care expenses a former player, his wife or dependents incurs not covered by insurance.
The indictments charge that the scheme to defraud involved the submission of false and fraudulent claims to the Plan for expensive medical equipment – typically between $40,000 and $50,000 for each claim never purchased or received. The expensive medical equipment described on the false and fraudulent claims included hyperbaric oxygen chambers, cryotherapy machines, ultrasound machines designed for use by a doctor’s office to conduct women’s health examinations and electromagnetic therapy devices designed for use on horses. The indictments reflect that no health care providers participated in the scheme. Rather the players submitted these allegedly false charges without any health care provider participation.
Charged in the two separated indictments include the following former NFL players including five former Washington Redskins. Those charged and the charges brought include the following:
Charges of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and health care fraud, nine counts of wire fraud and nine counts of health care fraud brought against former NFL linebacker Robert McCune, McCune’s career included stints with the Washington Redskins, Miami Dolphins, Baltimore Ravens and Cleveland Browns between 2005 and 2009;
Charges of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and health care fraud, two counts of wire fraud and two counts of health care fraud made against:
Former Washington Redskins cornerback John Eubanks who was draft but only played as a practice squad player with the Washington Redskins in 2006-2017 season before going on to play in the Canadian Football League between 2009 and 20011;
Tamarick Vanover, a former NFL wide receiver the Kanas City Chiefs, San Diego Chargers and Las Vegas Posse who was the Atlantic Coast Conference Rookie of the Year while playing for Florida State in 1992; and
Carlos Rogers, a former NFL cornerback drafted by the Washington Redskins, who also played for the San Francisco 49ers and Oakland Raiders;
Charges of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and health care fraud, one count of wire fraud and one count of health care fraud against:
Clinton Portis, a former NFL running back best known for his years as a starting running back for the Washington Redskins, for seven seasons, who also played with the Denver Broncos during his 10 year NFL career;
Ceandris “C.C.” Brown, a former safety drafted by the Houston Texans in 2005 who after three seasons with Houston was signed by the New York Giants, Detroit Lions and Jacksonville Jaguars;;
James Butler, a former NFL safety for the New York Giants from 2005-2008 Seasons and with the St. Louis Rams from 2009-2012; and
Fredrick Bennett, a grid iron defensive back drafted by the Houston Texans in 2007 before being traded to the San Diego Chargers in 2010, the Cincinnati Bengals in 2010, and the Arizona Cardinals in 2011 before going on to play in the Canadian Football League from 2012 to 2016. Bennett is currently a NFL free agent; and
Charges of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and health care fraud against:
Correll Buckhalter, a former NFL running back who played with the Philadelphia Eagles from 2001 to 2008 and the Denver Broncos from 2009 to 2010;
Etric Pruitt, a former NFL special teams and safety who after having little playing time for most of his NFL career played a major role in Super Bowl XII while signed to the Seattle Seahawks. In addition to his Seahawks stink in 2005, Pruitt also was signed with the Atlanta Falcons and Detroit Lions during his NFL career.
In addition to the charges brought Thursday, the Justice Department also has filed notice that it intends to file criminal charges alleging conspiracy to commit health care fraud in the Eastern District of Kentucky against the following individuals:
Joseph “Joe” Horn, a former NFL wide receiver who played with the Kansas City Chiefs, New Orleans Saints, and Atlanta Falcons between 1996 and 2007. Horn made the Pro Bowl team four times and is a member of the New Orleans Saints Hall of Fame. In 2001, Horn made headlines when he and 11 other former NFL plays sued the NFL alleging it failed to properly diagnose and treat head injuries that led to changes in the NFL policies regarding diagnosis and treatment of players for potential brain injuries and the establishment of a traumatic brain injury fund; ;and
Donald “Reche” Caldwell a former NFL wide receiver who during his six seasons in the NFL played with the Sand Diego Chargers, New England Patriots, Washington Redskins and St. Louis Rams.
According to allegations in the indictments, McCune, Eubanks, Vanover, Buckhalter, Rogers and others recruited other players into the scheme by offering to submit or cause the submission of these false and fraudulent claims in exchange for kickbacks and bribes that ranged from a few thousand dollars to $10,000 or more per claim submitted. As part of the scheme, the defendants allegedly fabricated supporting documentation for the claims, including invoices, prescriptions and letters of medical necessity. After the claims were submitted, McCune and Buckhalter allegedly called the telephone number provided by the Plan and impersonated certain other players in order to check on the status of the false and fraudulent claims.
The indictments reflect the Justice Department’s continuing commitment to investigate and prosecute health care fraud, including fraudulent dealings by plan members and others.of private employeer or union sponsored health plans. If convicted, the defendants could face significant prison sentences and probation and fines.
The Justice Department press release concerning the indictments quotes U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky Robert M. Duncan Jr.,the Justice Department has “prioritized the investigation and prosecution of health care fraud in our office.” Meanwhile, FBI Special Agent in Charge of the Miami Field Office George L. Piro is quoted as stating that “This investigation serves as an illustration of the rampant and deliberate scams against health care plans occurring daily throughout the country…” in this case, these fraudsters pocketed money from the Gene Upshaw National Football League Health Reimbursement Account Plan that was intended for former NFL players who are ill or infirm. Over 20 FBI field offices participated in this investigation which demonstrates the level of commitment we have to rooting out this type of fraud.”
In addition to the additional costs that employers can incur to fund health plan liabilities, taking prudent steps to detect, prevent and redress fraudulent health plan claims is considered part of the fiduciary duies of heatlh plan fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Fiduciaries found to have failed to take such prudent actions risk personal liability fo rplan losses resulting from fraud committed against their health plans.
The NFL player indictments show taht prosecutions Alone or coupled with the hundreds of other fraud investigations and prosecuations that the Department of Justice and other federal and state agencies pursue each year, send a strong message that the Justice Department and other fedederal agencies stand ready to investigate nad prosecute health care fraud against private employer or union sponsored health plans, as well as fraud against Medicare, Mdicaid and other government programs.
Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates and join discussions about these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group and registering for updates on our Solutions Law Press Website.
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, as a primary focus of this work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with employer and union sponsored health and other employee benefit plans, insurers, third party administrators, plan fiduciaries and other health and other insured and self insured welfare plan, severance plans, defined contribution and other savings plans, defined benefit and other pension plans, incentive pay and deferred compensation programs and other employee benefit industry clients, employers and other plan sponsors, domestic and international health care providers, and as well as federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies.
Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and its Welfare Benefits, Fiduciary Responsibiity and other Commitees, Ms. Stamer is noted for her decades-long leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health,care, managed care and insurance, employee benefits, human resources and other workforce and related compliance and internal controls, policy and regulatory affairs, design and operations, and defense including 30 plus years experience working with clients on ERISA, insurance, STARK, antikickback, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Insurane, Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement; and other strategic and operational concerns.
Author of a multitude of highly regarded publications and programs on health and managed care fraud,and other health care, health plan and other health benefit, health care, employee benefits and other related matters, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.
©2019 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly
Leave a Comment »	| Corporate Compliance, ERISA, fiduciary duty, Fiduciary Responsibility, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, Health Care Fraud, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, Health IT, health plan, Health Plans, health reform, insurance fraud	| Permalink
The National Labor Relations Board today (December 12, 2019) ordered an administrative law judge to approve settlements resolving complaints against McDonald’s USA LLC, McDonald’s Restaurants of Illinois, Inc. and 29 franchisees that alleged in a series of complaints that McDonald’s Restaurants of Illinois and the franchisees as joint employers. While the order resolves complaints prosecuted over the past three years against the franchisees which also sought to impose joint and several liability against McDonald’s USA LLC and McDonald’s Restaurants of Illinois, Inc. as joint employers, it highlights the continuing joint employer liability risks that franchisors, general contractors and others with significant involvement in other businesses’ operations to potential joint and several liability for NLRA violations by other businesses.
The order available here resolves a series of complaints filed by the unions that alleged that McDonald’s entities and the franchisees as joint employers:
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by threatening food service employees, promising benefits to them, interrogating them, and surveilling their protected activity
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the NLRA by unlawfully discharging 3 employees and suspending, reducing work hours of, or sending home early 17 others, all in retaliation for their union and other protected concerted activity;
Without charging that McDonald’s USA or McDonald’s Restaurants of Illinois with independently violating NLRA, claimed they should be held jointly and severally liable for alleged violations by the franchisees because they allegedly “possessed and/or exercised” sufficient control over the labor relations policies of the franchisees that to constitute joint employers
After nearly three years of proceedings, the NLRB General Counsel and McDonald’s USA, LLC presented a series of informal settlement agreements resolving all the alleged unfair labor practices that among other things would require the 10 franchisees alleged in the consolidated complaints to have committed violations resulting in back pay liability to contribute to a Settlement Fund totaling $250,000 to benefit potential victims of discrimination or retaliation for concerted activity entitled to a monetary remedy as a result of a breach of a settlement agreement. The proposed settlement would hold McDonald’s of Illinois, Inc. liable along with the franchisees. Notably, however, the proposed settlements would not impose joint and several liability on McDonald’s USA, LLC as a joint employer, to contribute to the Settlement Funds, but does impose obligations on McDonald’s USA, LLC to support the remedies agreed to by McDonald’s Restaurants of Illinois and the franchisees in a series of specific ways. Specifically, the settlements would obligate McDonald USA, LLC to collect the funds ordered to fund the Settlement Fund from the Franchisees and deposit them with the NLRB as well as to issue a Special Notice if a Franchisee, within 9 months of approval of its settlement agreement, breaches its settlement agreement obligations by discharging, reducing hours or suspending a worker or engaging in other prohibited conduct like that alleged in the complaint. In the case of such a violation, a worker discriminated against in violation of the settlement could seek reinstatement or make a claim for payment from the Settlement Fund. Additionally, the settlement agreements also would obligate McDonald’s USA, LLC to send a special notice in the event that a franchisee violates the settlement agreements by repeating one of the practices alleged in the charge that would state that, by the conduct described in the Special Notice, the defaulting Franchisee has violated the NLRA and is not in compliance with a settlement agreement. The Special Notice additionally states that McDonald’s “disavows” the conduct “[s]olely in its role as a party to the [s]ettlement [a]greement,” and that its issuance of the Special Notice does not constitute an admission of joint-employer status.
After the administrative law judge refused to approve the proposed settlement agreements despite the recommendation from the NLRB General Counsel , the NLRB reviewed the administrative law judge’s decision on special appeal.
In overturning and ordering the administrative law judge to approve the settlements, NLRB members Marvin E. Kaplan and William J. Emanuel formed the majority that ruled that applying the “reasonableness” factors set forth in Independent Stave, 287 NLRB 740 (1987), the settlement agreements are reasonable, that they provide a full remedy to all affected employees, and that accepting the settlement agreements would serve the policies underlying the NLRA as well as the NRLB’s longstanding policy of encouraging the amicable resolution of disputes. Member Lauren McFerran dissented in this finding.
While the NLRB order to approve the settlement will resolve the pending actions against the McDonald’s entities and its franchisees, the three year prosecution reminds franchisors and other entities of the continuing readiness of the NLRB and union organizers to pursue joint employer prosecution and joint and several liability against franchisors and other entities that it perceives to possess influence or control over the conduct of separately established businesses found to engage in unfair labor practices or other labor law violations. When evaluating these risks, businesses and their leaders should keep in mind that the test for joint employment under the NLRA as well as the Fair Labor Standards Act, makes it much easier to find joint employment than in tax or certain other areas of employment law. Consequently, employers dealing with union organizing or other concerted action and those doing business with them should ensure they have a clear understanding of these rules and take steps to manage their risk to avoid incurring liability for actions of a franchisee or other entity with whom it does business. Businesses and their leaders also should take note that the NLRB under the Trump Administration recently has adopted new rules intended to role back much more aggressive interpretations of the NLRA’s joint employment rule applied by the democrat appointed majority of the NLRB during the Obama Administration. As the McDonald’s prosecutions resolved by today’s order predated this policy change, it remains to be seen how the new rules will effect joint employer prosecutions going forward. Businesses facing organizing, collective bargaining or other union activity potentially covered by the NLRA should proceed with caution to mitigate their potential exposure to charges.
We hope this update is helpful. If you have questions or need more information about this or other labor and employment developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail Or via telephone at invite or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.
Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates and join discussions about these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update Compliance Update Group and registering for updates on our Solutions Law Press Website
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here. We also invite you to join the discussion of these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our groups on LinkedIn accessible here.
Leave a Comment »	| Corporate Compliance, Employer, Employers, Joint Employer, Labor Management Relations, Labor Management Relations, NLRA, Unfair Labor Practice, Union, Union, Union certification, Worker Classification	| Permalink
Total U.S. national healthcare spending in 2018 grew 4.6 percent according to a study conducted by the Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). CMS reports this growth rate was slower than the 5.4 percent overall economic growth as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Consequently, the share of the economy devoted to health spending decreased from 17.9 percent in 2017 to 17.7 percent in 2018.
Growth in overall healthcare spending has averaged 4.5 percent for 2016-2018, slower than the 5.5 percent average growth for 2014-2015, that was affected by expanded Medicaid and private insurance coverage and increased spending for prescription drugs, particularly for drugs used to treat hepatitis C.
The growth in total national healthcare expenditures was approximately 0.4 percentage point higher than the rate in 2017 and reached $3.6 trillion in 2018, or $11,172 per person.
Private health insurance spending(34 percent of total health care spending) increased 5.8 percent to $1.2 trillion in 2018, which was faster than the 4.9 percent growth in 2017. The acceleration was driven in part by an increase in the net cost of private health insurance, which was a result of the reinstatement of the health insurance tax in 2018 following a one-year moratorium in 2017.
Retail prescription drug spending(9 percent of total healthcare spending) grew 2.5 percent in 2018 to $335.0 billion following slower growth of 1.4 percent in 2017. This faster rate of growth was driven by non-price factors, such as the use and mix of drugs consumed, which more than offset a decline of 1.0 percent in prices for retail prescription drugs.
The 2018 National Health Expenditures data and supporting information will appear here.
Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates and join discussions about these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our LinkedIn Solutions Law Groups and registering for updates on our Solutions Law Press Website.
As a primary focus of this work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; consultants; investors; technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers, health industry advocacy and other service providers and groups and other health industry clients as well as federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies.
Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer is noted for her decades-long leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health and other privacy and data security and other health industry legal, public policy and operational concerns. This involvement encompasses helping health care systems and organizations, group and individual health care providers, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients prevent, investigate, manage and resolve sexual assault, abuse, harassment and other organizational, provider and employee misconduct and other performance and behavior; manage Section 1557, Civil Rights Act and other discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; contracting and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other payers and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, antikickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement; and other strategic and operational concerns.
Author of leading works on HIPAA and a multitude of other health care, health plan and other health industry matters, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here
NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim, and have no responsibility for the suitability, completeness, accuracy or other content or to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.
Comments Off on 2018 US National Health Expenditures Grew Again	| ACA, Affordable Care Act, board of directors, Brokers, Claims, Claims Administration, compliance, drug pricing, EBSA, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Tax, Excise Taxes, fiduciary duty, Fringe Benefit, Fringe Benefits, government plan, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, Health Care Reform, health care transparency, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, health reform, Human Resources, Income Tax, insurers, Managed Care, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Patient Protection and Affordabel Care Act, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, pbms, Physician, Premium Subsidies, prescription drugs, provider contracting, Tax, Tax Credit, third party administrators	| Permalink
You are currently browsing the blog archives for December, 2019.