Author Archives: Matt Kinley

COVERED CALIFORNIA: WHAT’S A PROVIDER TO DO?

Several issues arise from the proposed agreements for providers from Qualified Health Plans (“QHP”) under Covered California. Some issues that physicians and other providers should be watching out for:

1. Payment Schemes. Initial contracts from the various QHP’s are offering low payment options, particularly the “80% of Medicare” option. Physicians should be wary of such agreements. Under QHP contacts with Covered California, the plans have agreed to work on value-based payments in the future, making future contracts even less attractive for providers.

2. Hospital Contracts. There still is no clarity on which hospitals will take part in Covered California and under what plans. Covered California has no listing of participating hospitals at this time. The prospect of narrow networks (fewer providers offered to consumers) makes it troublesome to predict the future on hospital participation.

3. Administrative Burdens. QHPs are imposing difficult and legally thorny administrative tasks on providers, particularly providing information about patients and payments.

4. Populations. Get information on the types of patients expected under contracts. The initial rounds of patients are predicted to be populations that are in fair to poor health. Since they are not used to traditional medical care, they are expected to have a large percentage of missed appointments and compliance issues.

5. Collections. What is the providers obligations to collect? Some Covered California plans leave high deductibles and copays for enrollees. Yet, the newest enrollees are not used to paying such amounts. Also, determine risk for patients who fail to pay premiums to Covered California QHPs. Providers may be on the hook.

With all the problems with exchange products, providers may want to sit out this first round

Several issues arise from the proposed agreements for providers from Qualified Health Plans (“QHP”) under Covered California. Some issues that physicians and other providers should be watching out for:

1. Payment Schemes. Initial contracts from the various QHP’s are offering low payment options, particularly the “80% of Medicare” option. Physicians should be wary of such agreements. Under QHP contacts with Covered California, the plans have agreed to work on value-based payments in the future, making future contracts even less attractive for providers.

2. Hospital Contracts. There still is no clarity on what hospitals will take part in Covered California and under what plans. Covered California has no listing of participating hospitals at this time. The prospect of narrow networks (fewer providers offered to consumers) makes it troublesome to predict the future on hospital participation.

3. Administrative Burdens. QHPs are imposing difficult and legally thorny administrative tasks on providers, particularly providing information about patients and payments.

4. Populations. Get information on the types of patients expected under contracts. The initial rounds of patients are predicted to be populations that are in fair to poor health. Since they are not used to traditional medical care, they are expected to have a large percentage of missed appointments and compliance issues.

5. Collections. What is the providers obligations to collect? Some Covered California plans leave high deductibles and copays for enrollees. Yet, the newest enrollees are not used to paying such amounts. Also, determine risk for patients who fail to pay premiums to Covered California QHPs. Providers may be on the hook.

With all the problems with exchange products, providers may want to sit out this first round of patients.

FORNIA: WHAT’S A PROVIDER TO DO?

Several issues arise from the proposed agreements for providers from Qualified Health Plans (“QHP”) under Covered California. Some issues that physicians and other providers should be watching out for:

1. Payment Schemes. Initial contracts from the various QHP’s are offering low payment options, particularly the “80% of Medicare” option. Physicians should be wary of such agreements. Under QHP contacts with Covered California, the plans have agreed to work on value-based payments in the future, making future contracts even less attractive for providers.

2. Hospital Contracts. There still is no clarity on what hospitals will take part in Covered California and under what plans. Covered California has no listing of participating hospitals at this time. The prospect of narrow networks (fewer providers offered to consumers) makes it troublesome to predict the future on hospital participation.

3. Administrative Burdens. QHPs are imposing difficult and legally thorny administrative tasks on providers, particularly providing information about patients and payments.

4. Populations. Get information on the types of patients expected under contracts. The initial rounds of patients are predicted to be populations that are in fair to poor health. Since they are not used to traditional medical care, they are expected to have a large percentage of missed appointments and compliance issues.

5. Collections. What is the providers obligations to collect? Some Covered California plans leave high deductibles and copays for enrollees. Yet, the newest enrollees are not used to paying such amounts. Also, determine risk for patients who fail to pay premiums to Covered California QHPs. Providers may be on the hook.

With all the problems with exchange products, providers may want to sit out this first round of patients.

New Ability to Prescribe

This is third in a series of new 2024 laws affecting healthcare in California. 
SB 670: Physicians and Surgeons: Drug Prescribing Privileges

This new law wades into the increasing regulation over physicians for prescriptions, especially pain killers. The Medical Board of California has increased investigations in this area. One hurdle to such investigations has been getting access to patient records without the consent of the patient or the patient’s family.

SB 670 permits the Medical Board to inspect and copy a deceased patient’s medical records without authorization or court order solely for the purpose of determining whether death was in violation of MPA. The Medical Board must declare in writing that it has been unsuccessful in locating or contacting the deceased patient’s representative after reasonable efforts.

The legislation met with quite a few reservations and is watered down from the original version. The Medical Board still may not see the records when the representative refuses to allow access. It also has a provision that refusal of a physician to participate in a Medical Board interview can be deemed “unprofessional conduct.”

HEALTHCARE LAW UPDATE, 2014: PHARMACISTS SEE MORE CLOUT

This is second in a series of new 2024 laws affecting healthcare in California. 

SB 493: New Authority to Pharmacists

One of the key goals of the Accountable Care Act was to to increase utilization of professionals other than doctors.  One way to do that is to expand the authority of pharmacists to perform certain tests and to administer drugs.

This new law gives pharmacists new clout as “health care providers” who can now administer drugs by injection, provide training on drug therapy and disease management and prevention, furnish contraceptives, nicotine replacement products, medications recommended for travel outside the US, order certain tests, and initiate, adjust or discontinue drug therapy (but may not interfere with “as written”).

Devolving  physician authority to other professionals, including nurse practitioners, physician assistants and pharmacists, is an experiment with some risk.  It is clear that these professionals will be able to fill some gaps left by overly busy physicians.  However, there is likely to be less quality and the overall effectiveness of healthcare may follow.  The provision regarding the administration of international travel drugs will likely the pocket books of those physicians who derive economic benefit from this part of their practice.

 

NEW CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE LAWS: GAY AND LESBIAN DISCRIMINATION FOR FERTILITY TREATMENT

This is the first in a series of posts about new laws for 2014 affecting healthcare.

AB 460: Non-Discrimination for Homosexuals and Lesbians

Summary

This law requires coverage under the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act and a under a policy of health insurance that provides for coverage for the treatment of infertility.   If such coverage is offered and purchased, it must be provided without discrimination on the basis of age, ancestry, color, disability, domestic partner status, gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex or sexual orientation.

AB 460 extended the idea of “non-discrimination” in this context to homosexuals and lesbians regarding fertility. If a health insurance plan is purchased that contains coverage for infertility, then the plan must not discriminate.  This statute is meant to help all people access to treatment of infertility.

Insurance plans are not required to carry such coverage.  There will be a violation of the statute only if the plan does offer such coverage and they attempt discrimination in the utilization of the coverage.

The law makes homosexuals and lesbians eligible for insurance coverage for “treatment of infertility, except in vitro fertilization, under those terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the group subscriber or the group policyholder and the plan or the insurer.”

An interesting issue arises when the definition of infertility is considered. Under the new law, homosexuals and lesbians will be classified as “infertile” if they are unable “to conceive a pregnancy or to carry a pregnancy to a live birth after a year or more of regular sexual relations without contraception.” Since most sexual relations in a homosexual and lesbian relationship do not result in pregnancy, the law effectively defines all homosexuals and lesbians as “infertile.” Surely this is an unintended result and new legislation will need to be considered in the near future.

EMPLOYERS AND THE OCTOBER 1, 2013 NOTICE DEADLINE FOR THE ACA

TOMORROW IS THE DAY THAT THE EXCHANGE OPENS UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT – WHAT YOU NEED TO DO NOW!

SMALL BUSINESSES: NOTICE NOT REQUIRED!

By: Pamela Tahim, Esq.  and Matt Kinley, Esq.

On October 1, 2013, the new Health Insurance Exchanges under the Affordable Care Act will be open for enrollment.  Many businesses are still worried and have concerns about what this means for them.  There are two immediate steps that a business should take: 1) Provide notice to its employees by tomorrow of the Exchange; and 2) Contact your insurance broker. Your broker should be able to guide you through the issues posed by the Affordable Care Act.

Employer Exchange Notice Due to Employees by October 1, 2013

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) § 18B requires that employers subject to the FLSA provide a notice to employees by October 1, 2013 and new hires thereafter. Most firms under $500,000 in annual dollars received from “sales made or business done” are exempt from the FLSA and thus exempt from the notice requirement other than those specifically included regardless of annual income, which are hospitals; institutions primarily engaged in the care of the sick, aged, mentally ill, or disabled who reside on the premises; schools for children who are mentally or physically disabled or gifted; preschools, elementary and secondary schools, and institutions of higher education; and federal, state, and local government agencies.

 The model DOL Exchange Notice for employers with a health plan is located at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/FLSAwithplans.pdf.

 For employers with no health plan, the model notice is at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/FLSAwithoutplans.pdf. Part B on the notice for employers with health plans is optional and complicated and many employers with health plans will not use it, preferring instead to customize the information on the Part B notice for employers with no health plans.

 If your company is covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, it should provide a written notice to its employees about the Health Insurance Marketplace by October 1, 2013, but there is no fine or penalty under the law for failing to provide the notice. The notice should inform employees:

  1.   About the Health Insurance Marketplace;
  2.   That, depending on their income and what coverage may be offered  by the employer, they may be able to get lower cost private insurance in the Marketplace; and
  3. That if they buy insurance through the Marketplace, they may lose the employer contribution (if any) to their health benefits

For more information, feel free to contact us at 877.923.0971.

Healthcare Real Estate Trends

Developments
both inside and outside the healthcare industry are shaping the future of
medical real estate and several trends are emerging. We continue to see a
flight to quality within the medical office market as practices seek to upgrade
facilities and increase efficiency. The healthcare industry is working to meet
the demand of a rapidly changing environment and companies are getting creative
and more resourceful.

Healthcare
practitioners readily anticipate the significant increase in demand for medical
services expected over the next decade. Shifting demographics and new heath
care legislation are expected to expand the patient base. As a result, job
creation in the healthcare field is  expected
to mirror the increased demand. In response to the anticipated industry growth,
the Urban Land Institute estimates the demand for medical office buildings
(MOBs) will increase 19 percent by 2019. The recent spike in demand for quality
medical space is indicative of that trend.

Consolidation

While health
care real estate is subject to the broad economic factors that affect the
commercial real estate market as a whole, it also feels the effects of ever
increasing levels of regulatory compliance. The Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act (PPACA)  requires hospitals and
practitioners to invest significantly in the implementation of many new systems
and procedures. The cost associated with the move to electronic medical records
(EMR) alone has led many physicians to seek the security of larger hospital
systems that are able to help absorb the cost and coordinate the transition.

Consolidation
of health care providers is arguably the most influential trend in the medical
real estate market. Fueled by the low cost of capital, larger healthcare systems
are being created via mergers, acquisitions and strategic partnerships. Competition
for market share along with the increase in the number of insured individuals
should keep demand for medical office property on a steady rise for the next
several years.

Repurposing and New Opportunities

As demand
for medical real estate grows, many of the larger providers will find space is
limited. In infill markets such as Orange County, we expect to see a shift
toward repurposing of existing buildings, including office, industrial and
large retail. Repurposing allows health care systems to speed time to market at
a lower cost than building a new facility.

In a related
theme, non-medical real estate properties have seen an influx of medical
activity over the last few years. Individual physicians as well as
hospital-affiliated practices have discovered the benefits of well-situated
retail centers. These smaller spaces provide a cost effective option for health
care users looking to take advantage of the visibility, lower lease rates and
high parking ratios generally associated with retail product. Retail locations
offer patients convenient access, build brand awareness and also help drive
more patients to larger operations. Established practices have also found relief
from the higher cost of medical real estate by leasing in strategically located
office product.

Trends going
forward will vary by region and state. In Orange County, we expect to see lease
rates stabilize and recover as vacancy continues to decline. Landlords are
already cutting back on tenant improvements allowances and rent abatement, both
of which are precursors to rising lease rates. 
Physicians find themselves struggling to make tough decisions. Many want
to remain flexible in their leases while they navigate a changing environment,
but the chance to lock in a low lease rate with an attractive tenant
improvement package offered on longer leases is just as tempting.

The changing leasing environment presents a new
set of challenges to physicians and real estate brokers alike. It is prudent to
have all lease documents reviewed by an attorney familiar with healthcare to
ensure compliance with state and federal laws anti-kickback statutes. For more
information please see here.

Submitted by Stacey Hall on behalf of Lee & Associates Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. as a guest post.

Prescribing Medication or Drug Dealing? Better Know the Difference.

California physicians need to understand the ramifications
of prescribing medication to patients who may not need them.  This is true
even if the physician is openly and publicly conducting medical examinations of
the patient, and thereby giving the impression that the physician has nothing
to hide and is prescribing the medication to patients with legitimate
needs. 

A Southern California physician, named Alvin Ming-Czech Yee,
recently agreed to plead guilty to charges of illegally prescribing drugs to
patients with whom he frequently conducted nightly meetings in Starbucks
stores.  In fact, Dr. Yee met with almost a dozen people almost every
evening between 7 and 11 pm in Starbucks stores throughout Orange County. 
During the meetings, Dr. Yee would perform short examinations, even checking
the pulse and blood pressure of patients.  One patient—an undercover DEA
agent—quoted Dr. Yee as saying: "Bet you never had your blood pressure
taken in a Starbucks before." 

Federal officials began to suspect wrongdoing when one of
Dr. Yee's patients, a 21-year-old woman, died of a drug overdose after he
prescribed drugs for her.  Further investigation revealed other suspicious
facts: approximately one-third of Dr. Yee's patients were 25 or younger; Dr.
Yee was charging patients $600 per meeting; Dr. Yee was prescribing highly
abused drugs such as OxyContin, Vicodin, Xanax, and Adderall; Dr. Yee's name
was associated with several other overdose deaths under investigation; and investigators
seized large quantities of commonly abused drugs from drug dealers in Seattle,
Phoenix, and Detroit whose prescriptions were linked to Dr. Yee. 

These facts, coupled with the unusual setting of his nightly
visits, led federal prosecutors to conclude that Dr. Yee was illegally selling
prescriptions to patients with no legitimate need for them.  The
government's medical expert, who reviewed Dr. Yee's practice of performing
cursory examinations in Starbucks stores, called it, "a front for drug dealing." 
Dr. Yee will likely spend the next 8 to 10 years in prison for his
actions.  Given the strict consequences, physicians need to be sure they
are prescribing medication to patient's who really need them and avoid
scenarios that might be perceived as “a front for drug dealing.”

By Pamela Tahim

Will Your Business Pay a Penalty for Failing to Provide Healthcare Coverage?

The Affordable Care Act does not require businesses to provide health benefits to their workers, but larger employers face penalties starting in 2014 if they don't make affordable coverage available. This simple flowchart illustrates how those employer responsibilities work.

The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation provides this simple chart to figure out if you will pay a penalty for not providing healthcare coverage, or not providing the right healthcare coverage, for your employees. Generally, if you have fewer than 50 employees, you are generally exempt.

Selling Your Practice

Physicians often ask about how to prepare their practice to
make it attractive for potential purchasers.  Given the current
environment in California, where hospitals are utilizing foundations to
“purchase” practices and other payers are looking for primary care
physicians.  This article from American Medical News gives excellent
pointers for building your practice.

Physician Guidelines for Employment in Large Institutions

In this press release, the American Medical Association (AMA) adopts guidelines for
physicians considering employment with large institutions. AMA Guidelines are available here.

In addition to
the ethical issues described, California has strict legal requirements for
physicians considering a job and leaving their private practices such as:

1.
Informing clients of the move

2.  How to
handle medical records

3. How to
handle accounts receivable

4  What
insurance to carry

5.  Control
in your new job over hours, appropriate care, medical records and billing.

Any physician
considering such an employment contract should get legal advice to discover
legal land mines and potential violations of law.

Submitted by Matthew L. Kinley