Monthly Archives: April 2015

Senate Approves Medicare “Doc Fix” Legislation

Posted by J. Nicole Martin on April 15, 2015
CMS, Medicare / No Comments

We wrote in late March about the U.S. House of Representatives passing SGR legislation intended to be a permanent cure to Medicare’s “doc fix” legislation. Yesterday evening, the Senate finally passed the SGR legislation to avoid a rate cut. Congress anticipates President Obama will sign the SGR legislation into law fairly quickly. Among other measures, the SGR legislation will amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, pertaining to Medicare, to:

  • “remove sustainable growth rate (SGR) methodology from the determination of annual conversion factors in the formula for payment for physicians’ services; and
  • revise the update in rates for 2015 and subsequent years.”

Notably, the SGR legislation extends the two-midnight Medicare rule through FY2015. The two-midnight Medicare rule only provides coverage for hospital stays when a beneficiary remains in a hospital over two midnights because the beneficiary requires care over this minimum period of time. Medicare generally denies coverage for care provided during shorter length hospital stays. The SGR legislation also extends the CHIP program through FY2017.

For further information contact Cozen O’Connor’s health care team.

 

 

J. Nicole Martin

J. Nicole Martin

J. Nicole Martin is an associate and practices in the Health Care Practice Group. Nicole assists accountable care organizations, health care systems, long term care providers, behavioral and mental health providers, medical device manufacturers, physician practices and pharmacies with their compliance, regulatory and transactional needs. Nicole’s practice includes providing clients with counsel regarding HIPAA/HITECH and state privacy and security laws, data breaches, business associate and covered entity obligations, licensure laws, Medicare, Medicaid and third-party payer matters, medical staff issues, and fraud and abuse laws. Nicole also represents clients undergoing changes of ownership and changes of control, and assists them with the transactional, regulatory and compliance requirements necessary to finalize the transactions.

More Posts - Website

Tags: , , , , , , ,

CMS Issues Proposed Rule That Would Extend Provisions of Mental Health Parity

Posted by Gregory M. Fliszar on April 15, 2015
Addiction, CHIP, CMS, MCOs, MCOs, Medicaid, Medicare, Mental Health, PAHPs, PIHPs / No Comments

On April 6, 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) released a proposed rule that would extend provisions of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (the “Mental Health Parity Act”) to Medicaid managed care organizations (“MCOs”) and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (“CHIP”). The Mental Health Parity Act requires health plans that provide mental health and substance abuse disorder benefits to ensure that any financial requirements (e.g., co-pays, deductibles) and treatment limitations (e.g., limitations on visits) applicable to those benefits are no more restrictive than the requirements or limitations applied to medical/surgical benefits. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on April 10, 2015 at 80 Federal Register 19418. (Proposed rule). Comments to the proposed rule are due on June 9, 2015.

The proposed rule was drafted to ensure that all Medicaid beneficiaries who receive benefits through MCOs or under alternative benefit plans would have access to mental health and substance use disorders benefits regardless of whether they received those benefits through an MCO or another system. In addition, the proposed rule would also apply to CHIP, whether the care is provided through an MCO or a fee-for-service program.

Presently, a number of states that provide medical benefits through Medicaid MCOs carve out mental health and substance abuse services through other arrangements, which can include prepaid inpatient health plans (“PIHPs”), prepaid ambulatory health plans (“PAHPs”), or even fee-for-service. Under the proposed rule, states would continue to have flexibility in selecting different delivery systems to provide services to Medicaid beneficiaries, but would have to ensure that enrollees of a Medicaid MCOs receive the benefit of mental health and substance abuse parity when provided through these alternative models. States, for example, would be required under the proposed rule to include contract provisions requiring compliance with the Mental Health Parity Act in all applicable contracts with Medicaid MCOs and entities providing services through alternative arrangements such as PIHPs and PAHPs. Further, states would have to provide CMS with evidence of compliance with the Mental Health Parity Act in their provision of mental health and substance services to Medicaid beneficiaries.

In addition, the proposed rule would require Medicaid, MCOs, PIHPs, PAHPs and other alternative benefit plans to make their medical necessity criteria for mental health and substance abuse disorder benefits available to any enrollee or contracted provider upon request. Such Medicaid plans must also make available to enrollees the reason for any denial of reimbursement for services related to mental health and substance use disorder benefits.
For further information contact the author Gregory M. Fliszar (Philadelphia, PA) or other members of Cozen O’Connor’s healthcare team.

Gregory M. Fliszar

Gregory M. Fliszar

Greg Fliszar is member in the firm’s Health Law Group. Greg’s practice focuses on health law litigation and regulatory and compliance matters, as well as compliance with the Medicare Secondary Payer Act and HIPAA. Greg is also a licensed doctoral level clinical psychologist and was a clinical instructor of psychiatry at the MCP-Hahnemann School of Medicine.

More Posts - Website

Tags: , ,

“It’s Not Easy to Unscramble the Eggs” … Despite the FTC’s Win at the U.S. Supreme Court, the Phoebe Putney Hospital Merger Remains Intact

Posted by Ryan Blaney on April 03, 2015
Antitrust, CON Laws, Federal Trade Commission, Hospital, Merger / No Comments

EggsNearly four years after the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) first challenged the combination of the only two hospitals in Albany, Georgia, the FTC, Phoebe Putney Health Systems, Inc. (“Phoebe Putney”), Hospital Authority of Albany – Dougherty County (“Hospital Authority”) and HCA, Inc. (“HCA”) agreed to enter into a Consent Agreement. The FTC’s vote finalizing the Consent Agreement was 3-0-2, with Commissioners Joshua D. Wright and Terrell McSweeny not participating.  The Phoebe Putney litigation illustrates the challenges that the FTC and entities attempting to consummate a deal face in the merger process.  In Phoebe Putney, the FTC lost in two federal lower courts, won at the U.S. Supreme Court but ultimately was unable to unscramble a hospital merger that was found to be (1) anti-competitive and (2) a monopoly for inpatient general acute-care.

In addition to the Consent Agreement, a Statement was issued by Chairwoman Ramirez on March 31, 2015 summarizing the extensive procedural history of the litigation, the reasons the FTC challenged the merger, why the FTC did not require a divestiture and an explanation of the obligations that Phoebe Putney must meet under the Consent Agreement.  The March 31st Statement may provide insights into the FTC’s strategies when challenging future hospital mergers.  As explained below in the practice pointers, we anticipate the FTC citing Phoebe Putney in support of their preliminary injunctions and also citing to state certificate of need [CON] laws as evidence of barriers to entry for hospital competitors.

By way of background, since 1890 federal laws have supported national policies in favor of competition.  In Parker v. Brown, a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court decision, the state action doctrine provided that state governments have immunity from federal antitrust laws when they authorize economic activity that normally would be anticompetitive and illegal.  In 1941, Albany, Georgia and surrounding Dougherty County set up the Hospital Authority.  The Hospital Authority acquired an existing hospital, Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital.  Two miles away Palmyra Medical Center was operated separately by HCA, Inc., one of the largest health care providers in the United States.  Palmyra and Phoebe Putney merged with the Hospital Authority as the buyer of Palmyra with the funds coming from Phoebe Putney.  Palmyra hospital was leased to Putney for $1 a year.  The Hospital Authority approved the merger in December 2010 but was not involved in the merger talks or management of the hospital.

The FTC and the State of Georgia filed a preliminary injunction in federal court to block the transaction but the federal district judge held that the state action doctrine applied and refused to stop the merger.  The FTC appealed to the 11th Circuit, which also found that the merger was insulated from antitrust inquiry under state action immunity concluding that harm to competition was the “foreseeable result” of the legislature’s establishment of the Hospital Authority.

The 11th Circuit decision dissolved the injunction pending appeal and on December 15, 2011 the merger was finalized.  The FTC appealed the 11th Circuit’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The two issues were: (1) whether the legislature had expressed its intentions clearly enough in allowing hospital proxies to operate in anti-competitive ways, and (2) whether the local hospital arrangement did not have immunity because the hospital authority had not played a large enough role in the merger.

The Supreme Court unanimously answered the first question, ruling that the state legislature had “not clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed a policy to allow hospital authorities to make acquisitions that substantially lessen competition.”  Following the Supreme Court decision, the FTC proceeded with the administrative litigation and proposed a 2013 consent agreement.  However, the 2013 consent agreement was withdrawn after a newly formed health care entity, North Albany Medical Center LLC, expressed interest in Palmyra hospital and sought clarification on Georgia’s CON laws.

In October 2014, the Georgia Department of Community Health (“DCH”) Hearing Officer issued a written finding that the CON laws would preclude Phoebe North from purchasing Palmyra since the Albany region was deemed “over-bedded.”  Given the DCH’s decision, the FTC determined that divestiture of Palmyra – Phoebe Putney was impossible.

The March 31st Settlement is very similar to the one proposed in 2013.  The Settlement requires:

  • Phoebe Putney and the Hospital Authority to notify the FTC in advance of acquiring any part of a hospital or a controlling interest in other health care providers in Albany for the next 10 years.
  • Phoebe Putney and the Hospital Authority cannot object to regulatory applications made by potential new hospital providers in the same region for 5 years.
  • Phoebe Putney and the Hospital Authority stipulate that the transaction was anti-competitive.

Practice Points:

  • The FTC’s March 31st Statement by Chairwoman Ramirez emphasizes the importance of the FTC and private plaintiffs in obtaining preliminary injunctive relief prior to a transaction closing. The health care industry should anticipate the FTC citing the Phoebe Putney case as supporting authority for why there will be irremediable harm if a hospital transaction closes before all appeals are exhausted.
  • We also anticipate that the FTC will use the Phoebe Putney case in support of arguments that state CON laws are additional barriers for entry of potential competitors and should be significant factor when analyzing proposed mergers.

For further information contact the author Ryan P. Blaney (Washington, DC) or other members of Cozen O’Connor’s healthcare antitrust team, R. Christopher Raphaely (Philadelphia, PA), Melissa H. Maxman (Washington, DC) and Jonathan Grossman (Washington, DC).

Ryan Blaney

Ryan Blaney

Ryan Blaney joined Cozen O'Connor as a member of the firm's Health Law group. Ryan practices in the firm's Washington, D.C., office. He focuses his practice on representing clients in the health care and life sciences industries in a wide range of matters, including health care fraud and abuse, civil and criminal government investigations, qui tam and whistle-blower disputes under the False Claims Act and other federal and state laws and regulations, HIPAA privacy and data security, compliance and transactional services, and antitrust matters.

More Posts - Website

Tags: , , ,