DOL Employer Insurance Notification – $100 per day fine appears to be a myth!

UPDATE

How many people remember when the PPACA (Health Reform Law) was being debated in congress that the then speaker of the house said:

 “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Well, it appears that, long after the bill was passed and became law, we are still trying to figure out what is in it!

Today the Department of Labor (DOL) has announced that there will be no penalty of $100.00 per day for employers who fail to provide notification to its employees of health insurance options. The last week it was widely speculated, and accepted that employer’s who were not in compliance could be subject to that fine. The DOL’s website released the following information under a FAQ section on their website:

Q: Can an employer be fined for failing to provide employees with notice about the Affordable Care Act’s new Health Insurance Marketplace?

A: No. 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.

You can reach this FAQ by clicking HERE

ALERT!!  EMPLOYER’s DUTY TO PROVIDE EMPLOYEES WITH
NOTICE ON HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE BY 10-01-2013!

 

A little known requirement of the PPACA (health care reform law) is that it places a duty on Employers (with 1 (or more) employee & $500,000 (or more) in annual gross revenue) to provide every employee notice of the Health Insurance Coverage Options including Notice of the employees opportunity to find insurance in the state/federal marketplace(formerly Exchange).  The Dept of Labor issues a Guidance in May prior to the postponement of the employer mandate – but it is apparent they are not postponing this notice duty. 

 So, what happens if you fail to provide this notice?

The rule’s stated penalty is a continuing fine of $100.00 per day!

The Guidance provides a sample Word form to use for the notice.  We recommend using this form because if it is fully completed, you will be assured compliance with the requirement.   The Notice must be mailed to the employee for receipt not later than 10/1/2013 or electronically sent  if the email complies with DOL’s safe harbor for electronic disclosure. 

(Suggestion: If you choose the email option you should probably be sure to use a “READ Receipt” function). 

Links to the sample form and the safe harbor are included in the DOL Technical Release 2013-02 which can be found at:

                                http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/tr13-02.html

 

Also, this notice requirement includes an employer duty to provide any and all new hires the same notice at the time of hiring.

 

 

HIPAA Risk Analysis Tool

[wpcoproduct id=”2″]

Paying Your Marketers Properly – Revisiting the Rabbit Hole … Part 2: Health Care Laws – Anti-kickback: Employees

© 2013 Paul Hirsch

A brief note to the Readers: First, I would like to thank all of the people who have taken time to comment on this article series, and those who have taken time to email me expressing interest in this subject. I know it has been longer than I ever anticipated, but FINALLY I am posting the next part of this “series.” I appreciate everyone’s patience, we are a small office (3 people), and when we had 4 different cases in various phases of litigation simultaneous blog posting and website updates took a far backseat!

marketingPart 2: Health Care Laws – Anti-kickback: Employees

We (here at the firm) have almost always approached the issue of paying marketers form the standpoint of: “in most situations the best approach will be to treat them as an employee, rather than as an independent contractor.” Our original article articulated this in a very basic manner.

So why is this the best approach?

Please note that the term “best” is subjective, this might not be the best approach in certain instances, but we believe that more often than not it will be the simplest approach and minimize an employer’s exposure to liability.

Understanding the “why” necessarily requires looking into the history behind the federal Anti-kickback laws, the impact they had on the healthcare industry, and how the law (and accompanying regulations) adapted through the years.

document stack (small)

  •  The Back Story: Some readers might wonder why this is even a discussion. For those readers, and for those who have not thought about the Anti-kickback laws in some time, here is a greatly condensed explanation:

ALL healthcare providers who participate in the Medicare, Medicaid, or any other healthcare program that is funded by federal dollars are subject to the federal anti-kickback laws. In 1972 Congress responded to abusive practices by healthcare providers participating in the federal healthcare programs by enacting a law which is commonly known as the anti-kickback statute. Initially, this law simply prohibited soliciting or offering a “kick-back, bribe, or rebate.” Each violation of this law was punished as a misdemeanor, a relatively minor offense.

In 1977 Congress elevated the possible punishment for violations of the statute to a felony, and they expanded the scope of what actions were prohibited. Congress realized that the implications of continuing abusive practices of the publicly funded healthcare programs must be stopped in order to ensure effective delivery of healthcare to a growing population of participants. They expanded the reach of this statute by making its punishments apply to “any remuneration.”

In 1977 the statute essentially said the following:

ANYONE who:

◊   offers to pay, pays, receives, or asks for;
◊   ANY remuneration (including any kick-back, bribe or rebate)
◊   directly or indirectly; overtly or covertly; in cash or in any other form;
◊   in return / exchange for furnishing, purchasing, leasing, arranging for, or referral related to;
  ANY healthcare item or service which might be paid for partially or fully by the federal government
  … can be found guilty of a felony punishable by a fine of $25,000, 5 years in prison, or both for each violation.

Gavel 240 x 180

At this point, the anti-kickback statute substantially became what it is still today, and because it is SO broadly worded, it applies to an overwhelming variety of healthcare related transactions. Congress realized this when they implemented it in 1977. Congress sought to ensure that otherwise legitimate transactions would receive an ‘exception’ by  stating that this statue would not apply to a few specific transactions.

Even though this 1977 revision included specific protections for “any amount paid by an employer to an employee (who has a bona fide employment relationship with such employer) for employment in the provision of covered items or services.” This and a few other exceptions were included in the text of the statute to help ensure that the statue was only applicable against the abusive practices it was aimed at stopping.

Only 3 years passed before Congress recognized that their revised language was so broad that it was causing a large amount of uncertainty in the healthcare industry. Healthcare providers were unsure of what transactions or relationships were a violation of the statue. Congress responded by revising the statute in 1980, inserting a “mens rea” requirement (a requirement present in most criminal statutes which means only people who have the specified level of intent may be found guilty of violating the statue). The law now requires that violations be “knowing and willful” in order to be punishable.

Congress took the time to specify that it was “concerned that criminal penalties may be imposed under current law to an individual whose conduct, while improper, was inadvertent.” Also, the 1980 changes are “to assure that only persons who knowingly and willfully engage in the proscribed conduct are to be subject to criminal sanctions.”

Best Intentions Road 240 x 160As is often the case, Congress’s best intention-ed actions did not provide the desired results (we all know what road was paved by best intentions).
By 1987 the complaints of over breadth of the wording in the statute and rising concerns about fraud and abuse in the federal healthcare industry rose to the point that Congress had to act. Congress’ response was to issue a comprehensive set of amendments to the federal healthcare system and the anti-kickback statute.

These amendments added that violators of the anti-kickback statute could also be subject to exclusion from participation in the healthcare programs if they were convicted of a criminal offense in connection with healthcare items or services. Simultaneously, Congress allowed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to issue guidance and rules concerning healthcare transactions and relationships. This delegation of power is a notable point in the HHS’s history, because Congress instructed the HHS to issue “safe harbors” for certain transactions, financial relationships, and interactions. HHS was empowered to “promulgate regulations specifying payment practices that will not be subject to criminal prosecution” or otherwise be the “basis for exclusion from participation” in the federal healthcare programs.

The OIG chose to issue their guidance on the anti-kickback safe harbors through its OIG department. The OIG issued its first “Final Rule” listing certain safe harbors in 1991. Since then, these “safe harbors” have become some of the most essential guidelines for healthcare providers whenever financial transactions are concerned. Since their inception and presently these safe harbors can be found at § 1001.952 in the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.).

  • The Current Rule:Please follow the Arrows

Big or small, non-profit or for profit, privately owned or publicly traded, ALL healthcare providers who participate in Medicare, Medicaid, or any other federal healthcare program MUST abide by the safe harbors in order to successfully ensure compliance with the applicable laws and regulations.

Many states have implemented their own anti-kickback laws and almost all of them have modeled their state laws off of the federal statute. Some states not only model their prohibitions after the federal law, they even adopt the federal simply by mere reference to them.

The previous description and brief history of the anti-kickback statute provides a solid frame of reference to begin looking in detail at these safe harbors, including the “Employee” safe harbor, which is in essential parts as follows:

C.F.R. § 1001.952 (“Exceptions”): “The following payment practices shall not be treated as a criminal offense … and shall not serve as the basis for an exclusion

C.F.R. § 1001.952(i) (Employees): Prohibited “remuneration” does not include any amount paid by an employer to an employee, who has a bona fide employment relationship with the employer, for employment in the furnishing of any item or service for which payment may be made in whole or in part under Medicare, Medicaid or other Federal health care programs. For purposes of… this section, the term employee [shall be defined by the IRS’ definition].

  •  Employee vs. Independent Contractor ( a Marketer as an Employee – examined)

 Now, we can finally gain some ‘traction’ understanding why marketers should be paid as employees rather than as independent contractors, beginning with an analysis of the employee safe harbor.

At the outset, the safe harbor clearly protects payments from an employer to an employee… then it goes on to specify “for employment in the furnishing of any item or service for which payment may be made in whole or in part under Medicare, Medicaid or other Federal health care programs.” …

for employment in the furnishing of”: This language is simply unclear. What is employment “in the furnishing of…”?

    • INTERPRETATION A: What is the simple answer? What is most obvious?

Couldn’t this phrase “in the furnishing of…” simply apply to the actual delivery of healthcare? Wouldn’t it be a very simple and obvious explanation to say: “this safe harbor clearly protects payments made by a healthcare company to a therapist (or nurse, aide, etc.)? Yes, the safe harbor would clearly apply to this “furnishing of” healthcare items or services.

If you are a healthcare provider entity participating in Medicare/Medicaid your business is to provide healthcare items or services and obviously payments made to employees who actually provide the hands on care should be exempt from prosecution. We would generally say OF COURSE! This particular application is not a hotly contested issue, because the answer is quite obvious.

    • INTERPRETATION B:

What if we try to apply the logic from Interpretation A to a common marketer scenario? Now we are asking to apply that same wording, which so obviously applies to say… a nurse, to a person who is not licensed to provide medical services, and also whose services can NOT be paid in whole or in part by the federal healthcare program!

Now the issue can become so much more uncertain and less obvious. However, to many employers who are healthcare providers the answer should still be fairly evident…

If your business revolves around and essentially IS the provision of healthcare items or service (which may in part or in whole be paid by a federal healthcare program) how can you exist if you don’t have clients? Isn’t finding clients a necessary and integral part of furnishing those services? If clients, potential clients, or referral sources do not know that your business exists then how could you possibly ever furnish any item or services?

Of course, to a healthcare provider this seems axiomatic and the answer is obvious. Healthcare, like any other business must be marketed in order to furnish whatever items or services it offers! Therefore, employing a marketer to properly market your business is employment “in the furnishing of…”

  • OIG “GUIDANCE”… How does the OIG help “guide” the industry with regards to this issue? DO they support our general conclusions in Interpretation B?

OIG HHS badge The OIG has numerous ways of providing guidance: official ‘Advisory Opinions,’ comments posted in the Federal Register, special advisory bulletins, and their ‘Fraud and Abuse Alerts.’ All of these things are sources of explanation and guidance for healthcare providers about the safe harbors. They are extremely significant. Both state and federal courts frequently turn to these sources in order to apply or interpret what the various safe harbors mean.

Unfortunately, there is relatively little that is commonly known about specific guidance explaining how the employee safe harbor should be applied. In fact, the best piece of information is frequently overlooked. Some courts have picked up on it and seemingly understood its implications, others have chosen to bypass it for reasons unknown… what is it?

The proposed exception for employees permitted an employer to pay an employee in whatever manner he or she chose for having that employee assist in the solicitation of program business.…

To anyone looking at the anti-kickback employee safe harbor, as it might apply to paying marketers, this simple sentence should be a profound clarification!
Why?
Because, it justifies what should otherwise be obvious… that employing a marketer IS employment “in the furnishing of” applicable healthcare items or services! Thus, this is the most important sentence to explain why paying your marketer properly starts with paying them as an employee.

 NEXT TIME:

The explanation continues: Employee vs. Independent Contractor… Contd. (Independent Contractor as a Marketer – examined) & Employee vs. Independent Contractor… Contd. (“Bona Fide” – Who is an Employee?)

Photo Credits:

photo credit: <a href=”http://www.flickr.com/photos/bookgrl/2386584804/”>bookgrl</a> via <a href=”http://photopin.com”>photopin</a> <a href=”http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/”>cc</a
photo credit: <a href=”http://www.flickr.com/photos/fabliaux/383476178/”>bloomsberries</a> via <a href=”http://photopin.com”>photopin</a> <a href=”http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/”>cc</a>
photo credit: <a href=”http://www.flickr.com/photos/96dpi/3411475962/”>96dpi</a> via <a href=”http://photopin.com”>photopin</a> <a href=”http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/”>cc</a>

CRITICAL!!! HIPAA NEW RULE – DEADLINE Friday 01-25-2013!

Exclamation question mark

As a quick followup note to our earlier post about the new HIPAA final rule there is a significant, but easily overlooked, timeline for implementation of Business Associate Agreements (BAA’s)!

If you implement (draft and signed between the parties) a Business Associate Agreement BEFORE FRIDAY JANUARY 25, 2013  you will have 1 Extra Year to fully comply with various portions of the new business associate rules!

The new rule places a deadline of SEPTEMBER 23 2013 for covered entities and Business Associates to be compliant with various portions of the new requirements!!!

HOWEVER, if covered entities implement a basic form of Business Associate Agreement (BAA) by or before JANUARY 25 2013, those “basic” agreements will be considered as a sufficient step towards compliance to extend the time when the full weight of the new rules will be in effect!!!

Instead of mandatory full compliance with all the new rule requirements BY 09-23-2013 — a full year “grace period” will granted, delaying such full compliance until September 23, 2014!!!

As long as those “basic” Agreements which were in place by or before 01-25-2013 the reprieve from full compliance with the new rules will stay in place AS LONG AS the BAA’s are not changed or renewed before the end of the extended “grace period.”

If you don’t have a “basic” HIPAA-compliant agreement in place with your Business Associate by 01-25-2013, the full weight of the new rules will be in effect, and force your compliance on 09-23-2013.

This extension IS CRITICAL – to many organizations who are short on staff, time and money – an extra year to put policies and procedures in place is INVALUABLE!!!

Because we truly care about our clients and the industry we are posting BOTH:
1 – The “basic” model of BAA posted by CMS/HHS several years ago;

AND

2– Our own BAA, which we have used for years – this form is comprehensive and generally applies between a Covered Entity and a Business Associate – but – if needed it could be easily modified to apply between BA’s and their Subcontractors (modifications are up to the end users!)

Exclamation     Because we have never posted one of our “forms” we feel that we must explain the following: This form is given free of charge and IN NO
WAY WHATSOEVER  implies or should be considered as legal advice – or the establishment of legal representation period – it
is subject to all limitations below!

Read Below Before Downloading!

No warranties of any form or sort – express or implied  – are given with this form – this means IN NO manner, variation, or theory is any sort of guarantee or warranty included with this form whatsoever!

By downloading either form mentioned here the person or entity downloading this form IS AGREEING ALL of the Following:

The form is in no way guaranteed for accuracy, content, suitability, or even usefulness –

YOU AGREE also that you are downloading it at your own risk, and the result will be as if you had picked this up off of a street corner where someone left it –

You Agree Pearson & Bernard PSC – nor any of its partners or associates are in any way responsible for your use of either document; that Pearson & Bernard PSC cannot and will not ever be responsible for how you use either document – and that neither is legal advice or in any way legal representation!

1.  To download a Microsoft Word Document version of CMS “example” click –> CMS SAMPLE Business Associate Contracts
(this was copied and pasted from CMS website into a blank word document)

2.  To download a Microsoft Word Document example version of “our” (this Firm’s) BAA click –> Blank Example BAA

 

NEW HIPAA / HITECH Rules for Business Associates and Subcontractors

HHS Building 320x213

On January 17, 2013 the Dept. of Health and Human services (HHS) released a new final rule which made significant changes in various parts of the HIPAA/HITECH rules. As most readers know the pressures of protecting patients’ “protected health information” (PHI) are continually escalating. In some respects the new rule relieves the Covered Entities from some of those pressure.

How? By expanding the rule to make Business Associates, and their “sub-contractors” directly liable for ensuring the proper measures of security are in place to protect PHI. Naturally, the 563 page final rule has numerous topics and issues for the entire industry. But, in the short-term we need to call attention to the fact that essentially Business Associates must get assurances from their subcontractors! What assurances? Basically, assurances that the subcontractors (those who have “access” to PHI held by the Business Associate) will comply with the regulations and rules surrounding the use/disclosure/transmittal of PHI.

How about an example to clarify this:

A law firm (lets call them Firm) is a business associate of a covered entity (lets call them Agency).

So Firm and Agency have a business associate agreement (BAA) in place, and they have had it in place for years, because both Firm and Agency are doing their best to be compliant.

Prior to this new final rule, Firm had a responsibility to Agency to safeguard Agency’s PHI through the various requirements of the BAA. There was no “rule” requiring Firm to set up subsequent BAA’s with its subcontractors.

Now the new final rule requires Firm to set up BAA’s with its subcontractors.

Which subcontractors does Firm need to do this with?

Simply put, anyone  the Firm has hired as subcontractor if that subcontractor has access to PHI kept by the Firm. The new rule has published various comments about how expansive this requirement is, but boiled down to the bare essence of the matter, if the subcontractor has access to PHI there needs to be a BAA in place between Firm and subcontractor.

A prime example would be the Firm’s IT contractor. If Firm has hired someone (not an “in-house” employee) to manage its server and the Firm’s server has PHI, then the IT contractor access to PHI (assuming Firm has stored some PHI from Agency on its server).

Hopefully that plain “bare-essentials” example helped clarify this issue.

Quite notably, a short part of the new rule echos what is written above, it states:

“The Department also believes that the privacy and security protections for an
individual’s personal health information and associated liability for noncompliance with
the Rules should not lapse beyond any particular business associate that is a
subcontractor. Thus, under the final rule, covered entities must ensure that they obtain
satisfactory assurances required by the Rules from their business associates, and business
associates must do the same with regard to subcontractors, and so on, no matter how far
“down the chain” the information flows.”

This new final rule will become effective on March 26, 2013. Covered entities and business associates must comply with the rules by September 23, 2013. We will continue to review and examine the 563-page final rule we will continue to post relevant updates accordingly.

For anyone interested the  pdf document of the new final rule can be accessed by clicking here.

CMS Announces New Application Fee for Providers 855A

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES – NEW Provider Enrollment Application Fee Amount for Calendar Year 2013CMS – Medicare, Medicaid, and Children’s Health Insurance Programs;

cms-logo-to-use-300x270CMS has announced a $532.00 calendar year (CY) 2013 application fee for institutional providers that are initially enrolling in the Medicare or Medicaid program or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP); revalidating their Medicare, Medicaid or CHIP enrollment; or adding a new Medicare practice location.

This fee is required with any enrollment application submitted on or after January 1, 2013 and on or before December 31, 2013.

This is a slight increase from the previous fee, but none-the-less providers should be aware of the fee increase. Fortunately, no advanced fee has been attached to “basic” changes of information submitted via an 855A.

Please remember CMS must be notified promptly (usually within 30 days) of almost ALL changes in the structure, administration, and “upper-level” personnel within any provider organization!

We regularly file 855A forms for providers and have a great working relationship with CMS contractors. If you think you might need to submit an 855A or if this little note makes you wonder if you should have, but didn’t, please contact us. We can almost always give you a quick answer regarding what you need to do regarding an 855A.

Paying Your Marketers Properly – Revisiting the Rabbit Hole

© 2012 Paul Hirsch

Update: 12-06-2012 – This Article Series is not forgotten, it is still “in-the-works!” In our desire to compile an authoritative basis for our opinion on this matter we are still reviewing a massive amount of documents, from Legislative History of Congress all the way to state court litigation documents which address this topic. We have read most of it and have “digested” what we have read. However the creation process is taking a backseat to ongoing litigation. We are simply waiting for things to slow down a bit before we delve into writing this article series – after all client needs come first!

Of course, if you have specific questions about a current situation or questions about what you want to do in terms of your marketing approaches, we are more than willing to advise you on a particular circumstance! If in doubt – ASK US!-

Paying Your Marketers Properly – Revisiting the Rabbit Hole

Introduction – Part 1 (of 5)

marketingAfter updating our website recently we have noticed that our article “Paying Your Marketers – Properly” and the issues covered within it have spurned many questions and comments both here on our site and from some of our clients. The health care industry is an ever-changing world, subject to ebb and flow of legislation, agency rules / regulations, court decisions and an ever-changing labor pool. Notably, Liz wrote this article almost ten years ago!

Many changes have occurred throughout the health care industry since the original article was written. Government agencies charged with oversight of the industry and its participants work differently then they did ten years ago. In fact, almost every facet of the industry has been affected by continual changes in the laws, rules, and regulations governing how agencies do business in this marketplace. It follows that the issue of paying marketers has changed also. Ultimately the crux of the original article remains in place, but none-the-less it deserves a fresh analysis.

One illustration of this change can be seen in the government’s focus (both on the state and federal levels) on strengthening and enforcing the prohibitions on fraud and abuse within the industry. The government’s new resolve in combating fraud and abuse has developed throughout many areas. One of the most visible examples of this new focus and resolve is the DOJ-HHS’s HEAT strike-teams, which actively combines and focuses the intelligence and resources of federal and state agencies towards the single inexorable goal of prosecuting businesses and people involved in Medicaid and Medicare fraud and abuse.

Moreover, beyond the health care industry itself, almost every industry (including health care) and every business, across the country, faces the perils and pitfalls of the changing environment of employer / employee relationships and employment laws. Federal and state agencies have promulgated new rules and regulations, and have adapted their methods and strategies in dealing with employment law. The “old-hat” areas of discrimination, retaliation, and harassment are as much of a concern as ever. However as technology advances and permeates the fabric of our society new questions are being raised such as: When can you run a criminal background check on a prospective employee? Can you ask a potential employee for their password to social media websites so you can better evaluate them? What are the limits you can place on employees’ use of social media both on the clock and off the clock (there is a surprising amount of controversy in this area particularly!)?

So how does all of this effect marketing strategies and payment structures for marketers in the health care industry?

In some ways many things are unchanged, but unfortunately that is not the whole story. Certain recent developments in the health care industry and employment law should give pause to health care providers when they decide to start or continue with marketing strategies and payment structures.

We have decided to start a multi-part series of articles which will shed new light on some old concepts, highlight certain techniques and approaches to structuring marketer training and payment, identify emerging issues and areas of concern, and suggest “functional adaptation methods” which can help health care businesses avoid potential pitfalls.

Please note: Many of the emerging issues about social media and employment law could be entire articles in and of themselves. So, this series will touch on some points of these emerging issues, but if there is interest in a more in-depth look we will consider putting together an article on these issues themselves.

Here are the planned segments:

Part 1: Introduction

Part 2: Health Care Laws (Anti-kickback and other federal rules & – Employee vs. Independent Contractor considerations)

Part 3: Employment Laws ( Fair Labor and Standards Act (FLSA) – wages paid and hours worked – payment structures – necessary documentation)

Part 4: Emerging Concerns

Part 5: “Functional Adaptation Methods” ®

(Please note regarding the phrase “functional adaptation methods:” some people might be looking for “best practices,” however we detest this catch phrase and purposefully choose to avoid it. As many successful business people can attest this phrase is one of the general corporate ear candy catch phrases which are in vogue. At the outset, this phrase in particular tends to over-simplify complex issues, because what might be best a best practice in one instance might not be what is best for every situation.)

What Can I Ask An Applicant?

© Elizabeth Zink-Pearson

applicantHiring employees is no longer a simple process of elimination or selection of the best applicant. In today’s legal climate, employers need to be equally concerned about what they ask applicants as well as what they fail to ask. The prudent employer should establish a well defined procedure for employee selection that includes steps for checking references and other qualifications and reflects the restrictions imposed by both state and federal law.

Hiring An Employee No Longer Means Fitting the Applicant into a Strictly Defined Position.

Employment applications and interviews are the primary methods of screening and eliminating unqualified or ill-suited persons from consideration for a position and as such can run afoul of the various state and federal anti-discrimination laws. Types of questions that have been found to unfairly discriminate include questions concerning arrests and conviction records. Additional problem areas for employment inquiries include age, sex or marital status, physical or emotional capacity, and even religious affiliation. With all these restrictions, how can an employer legally screen applicants for employment?

The anti-discrimination laws presume that all the answers to pre-employment questions will be used in making a hiring decision. In general, these law prohibit the use of job criteria or pre-employment questioning that disproportionally disqualify minorities, members of one sex, older persons, or disabled persons. Hiring employees no longer means fitting the employee into a strictly defined position. Rather employers must maintain a degree of flexibility in hiring, a willingness to accommodate individual applicants’ limitations, either real or “perceived” and either physical or emotional.

Hiring guidelines published by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the EEOC, suggests establishing a job description for each position that outlines the primary responsibilities for the job, technically referred to as the “essential functions.” Applicants should be reviewed for qualifications that meet these essential functions. Any job criteria that could screen an applicant from eligibility employees must be directly “job-related” or justified as a business-necessity. Examples of necessary job related criteria include the ability to type or use a computer for a secretary position or a truck driver’s ability to drive an eighteen-wheel vehicle for a prolonged period. Example of criteria necessary for businesses are such things as licensor requirements for nurses or state and/or federal law requirements for criminal record checks or drug testing for certain employees.

In both the application and interview process, questions should reflect only the established job requirements, such as the working hours, job criteria, or the identified essential functions. General questions concerning the applicant’s age, marital status, physical health, religion or ethnic background should be avoided unless the subject matter of the question can be established as a necessary qualification.

Specific questions concerning an applicant’s ability to do a particular function should be posed only after an initial offer of employment is made, and, then the employer must be prepared to accommodate any disability, religious need, or other limitation. The overriding duty to accommodate such limitations is lifted only if the employer can prove that the accommodation would cause the company “undue hardship.”

Employers Need to Prepare Hiring Procedures & Policies Well in Advance of Placing a Want-Ad.

On the other side of the picture, employers should ask and verify several items in the application process. Many states require criminal record verification of employees. Although the process may be costly and impose additional paperwork, employers who have people in positions of confidence, or going into clients’ homes, or employees who must be bonded likely need to obtain this information. The business necessity in such cases is demonstrated by the criminal case example of the home health aide. Any request for criminal convictions information should be accompanied by a statement that a record will no necessarily bar employment and that factors such as the seriousness and nature of the crime, along with the time of the offense will be considered and evaluated.

Also, there are several screening procedures that employers can and should conduct. First, employers should conduct reference checks and ask applicants for an explanation of any “unemployed” time. Second, applications and any subsequent employment questionnaires should establish an enforceable policy that any false information is not only grounds for disqualification for a position, but, also cause for discharge if discovered after a hiring. Also, employers can require verification of basic information, perhaps with a drivers license or professional license or certification, or a follow-up telephone call. Finally, companies should establish a procedure checking list to assure that each of these procedures are followed, and, include this information in the applicant’s file.

In the end, to avoid legal liabilities in the screening and hiring of employees, it has become very important for employers to prepare hiring procedures and policies well in advance of placing the want-ad. It is certainly more costly in time, and in money, to face a lawsuit down the road either from some disgruntled applicant who did not get hired, or from a client injured in some way by the one who did.

Paying Your Marketers – Properly

© 2003 Elizabeth Zink-Pearson

marketingSince the advent of PPS in late 2001, home health agencies have moved to openly marketing their businesses to referral sources and to the public. No longer are marketing activities taboo and necessarily buried in the duties of patient coordinators or educators. As the marketing practices become more popular and likely more necessary, salesmen unfamiliar with health care are being attracted and or recruited into the health arena. These square peg employees from the unregulated business environment require education on the rules and requirements that govern health care providers.

The change from cost reimbursement to the PPS episode payment did not change the restrictions that exist on marketing health care services. As home health owners know, many marketing tricks used in the outside business world can land a health care provider in jail. In addition, the employment law requirements for minimum wage and overtime set specific rules for outside salespeople, which must be completely satisfied. Violations of any of these laws can be very costly. This article will address both the health law and employment law issues that must be addressed in your marketing pay practices.

The Problem with Paying for Referrals

Salespeople and marketers in non-healthcare business fields traditionally receive their wages in the form of a commission or draw against commissions. In other words, they are paid on the basis of the sales they produce. In the health care business, sales are generated through referrals from other health care providers or direct solicitation of patients. In either case, there exists a strict prohibition against any payment, solicitation of payment, or receipt of payment for a referral of Medicare or Medicaid business.

The Medicare and Medicaid Anti-Kickback Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1320A-7b(b), specifically prohibits “whoever (from) knowingly and willingly soliciting or receiving any remuneration…if one purpose” of the payment is “to induce a referral of business reimbursed under the Medicare and Medicaid programs.” This law therefore impacts how you pay your marketers for the referrals generated and also raises concerns about any traditional business perks your marketers may choose to offer referral sources. Similarly, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) included a prohibition against the use of gifts and other benefits to directly solicit patients for services. Both of these laws include criminal penalties in the form of jail sentences, huge penalties or fines, and mandatory exclusion from government program participation.

Clearly, the payment of a commission or even a sizeable bonus to your marketers has the express and exclusive purpose of inducing a referral of home health business, much of which is reimbursed by the Medicare program. As such, commission payments to your marketers violates the plain words of the Anti-Kickback Act. In addition, in the business world, salesmen often market to their prospective clients over lunches, golf games, or other perks. These are traditional business practices that in the health care field are prohibited “in kind” payments with at least one (1) purpose to induce referrals.

Several criminal prosecutions have arisen under the Anti-Kickback Act and the courts in those cases have found the law to be both constitutional and literal – that any payment, direct or indirect, in cash or in kind – is a violation if one purpose, and just one purpose, of the payment is to induce a referral of Medicare or Medicaid business. Soon after the law took effect, the OIG noted the concerns of health care providers that “many relatively innocuous or even beneficial commercial arrangements were technically covered by the statute” and were, therefore, subject to criminal prosecutions. Because of the overreaching breadth of the law, the government published rules for a few exceptions to the prohibited payment, which are intended to protect what are considered legitimate business relationships.

One of the recognized exceptions, or “safe harbors,” extends to employees. As stated in the rule, a payment to a “bona fide” employee will not be considered illegal remuneration for a referral as outlawed under the Anti-Kickback Act. 42 C.F.R. §1001.952(i). A “bona fide” employee is one for whom employment withholding and employment taxes are paid, technically an employee as defined under 26 U.S.C. §3121(d) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code. He or she does not have to be a full-time employee, but cannot be a 1099-type independent contractor. To simplify the definition, the employee must be what is called a W-2 employee. He or she must be subject to hiring and firing, supervision and other disciplinary action.

In the comments to the proposed Safe Harbor Employee rule, the OIG noted that the employer may pay the employee in any manner to “assist in the solicitation of Medicare or State health care program business.” The manner of payment may include a payment based on “the amount of business generated” as long as “these salespersons employees” are subject to “appropriate supervision. Thus, under the Employee Safe Harbor, home health agencies may pay their employee marketers on a commission, or draw against commission basis, or include wages based on productivity. Payment of this type does cross the line on the literal language of the Anti-Kickback law, but it falls squarely into the Safe Harbor and is therefore protected.

Although commission payments are protected, employers should be concerned about, and, alerted to their marketer’s sales practices on a day-to-day basis. At the time of hiring, each employee should be instructed on the prohibitions of the Anti-Kickback Act, and required to review and sign a code of conduct agreeing to not offer kickbacks or other indirect payments or benefits to referral sources. At a minimum, this requirement establishes a pattern of supervision that should be supplemented with regular performance reviews and ongoing supervision of activities. Although it is unlikely that the OIG would prosecute for a single lunch or box of donuts, the literal language of the Anti-kickback Act prohibits such conduct.

Finally, it is important to note that agencies should always scrutinize and identify any and all marketing costs, including the wages paid to marketers, to assure that no such costs are claimed on the annual cost report. Marketing costs are still unallowable on the cost report, and any claim for such costs could be construed to be a false claim.

Practical Problems with Commission Payments

There are, though, some practical problems that arise with commission payments, unrelated to fraud and abuse that must be considered and addressed before an agency enters into this type of compensation plan. First, in the realm of the PPS system, shear volume of referrals is not necessarily a good thing. Rather, it is the quality of the referral that is important. Paying a commission on an episode, which runs in the red financially, has no business advantage. Thus, any commission payment should be tied to the profitability of the actual home health episode. Creating the commission scheme therefore requires some time and considerable thought.

Although commission payments are protected, employers should be concerned about, and, alerted to their marketer’s sales practices on a day-to-day basis. At the time of hiring, each employee should be instructed on the prohibitions of the Anti-Kickback Act, and required to review and sign a code of conduct agreeing to not offer kickbacks or other indirect payments or benefits to referral sources. At a minimum, this requirement establishes a pattern of supervision that should be supplemented with regular performance reviews and ongoing supervision of activities. Although it is unlikely that the OIG would prosecute for a single lunch or box of donuts, the literal language of the Anti-kickback Act prohibits such conduct.

Finally, it is important to note that agencies should always scrutinize and identify any and all marketing costs, including the wages paid to marketers, to assure that no such costs are claimed on the annual cost report. Marketing costs are still unallowable on the cost report, and any claim for such costs could be construed to be a false claim.

As an example, the commissions could be paid quarterly or every 62 days at the close of an episode depending on the speed of your billing procedures. At this point, there should be a realm of assurance as to the value of the episode. Tracking the referral to the marketer could be managed through some internal coding process or other recordkeeping system which identifies the marketer. Another possible commission payment basis is a pure productivity bonus that scales the business generated again on a quarterly or other time period basis to the overall productivity of the agency. This type of commission compensation encourages quality referrals which overall benefits the agency most.

Under the PPS payment model and with the aggressive claims review posture of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, it is necessary to create a commission payment plan that does more than generate just referrals, but also works to enhance real profit. Such a plan should take some time and consideration in implementation. In addition, use of a commission structure must be tempered with appropriate supervision and fraud and abuse controls to assure that inexperienced marketers perform in accordance with fraud and abuse laws and your agency’s ethical standards.

The Risk of Overtime Pay Liability

The other major hurdle in structuring a marketing payment plan is consideration of the requirements for minimum wage and overtime liability. For several years the home health and other health care industries have been prime targets on the Department of Labor hit lists for overtime violations. As the home health industry moves into the business world of marketing, agencies must review any payment plan to assure compliance with the overtime pay requirements.

Traditionally, home health marketers have been nurses or other professionals who were paid a salary and wore several hats. Most of these employees could qualify for an exemption from overtime pay under the professional or management exemptions due to their status and job duties. In the current time, with the use of actual business “marketers” rather than professionals, other exemptions must be considered to avoid payment of overtime.

As a brief review, employers must pay overtime to employees for all hours worked in a workweek in excess of forty (40) hours, unless the employee is a properly classified exempt employee. Overtime pay is to be calculated and one and one half times the employees’ regular rate of pay. Hours worked include all time an employee is suffered or permitted to work, including paper work and travel time other than to and from the worksite. The use of an “approved only” overtime policy is pointless and without effect if the employee’s job duties requires him or her to work in excess of forty (40) hours a workweek. A commission-payment system encourages marketers to be out in the field, pounding on doors many hours a day. Thus, there exists a risk of overtime pay unless the marketer is properly assigned and classified into an exempt job duty status.

The Fair Labor Standards Act, which imposes the overtime pay duty, includes an exemption for “outside sales employees.” As long as a home health marketer’s job is dedicated to “making sales, or to “obtaining orders or contracts for services,” and is performed “customarily” away from the agency’s office(s), the marketer can be considered an outside salesperson and exempt from overtime pay. As noted, the job duties must be dedicated to sales, with no more than twenty percent (20%) non-sales duties in any one (1) workweek. The non-sales work does NOT include clerical or other work that would be considered “incidental to or in conjunction with the employee’s own outside sales or solicitations.” Such incidental “sales” work would include telephone follow-up or paperwork associated with the actual sales duties.

Use of the Outside Salesperson exemption is foreign to home health agencies, but should be considered to avoid overtime pay exposure. It is important for any exemption to use the actual wording of the exemption s it is the employer’s duty always to prove that the employee is properly exempt from overtime. Therefore, a marketer’s job description and actual duties should replicate the exemption language and note that the employee will be considered an exempt outside sales employee. This helps to avoid any misunderstanding or disgruntled complaints from an employee after-the-fact.

Unlike other exemptions, an outside salesperson is not required to be paid in accordance with the salary or fee requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Thus, a commission payment plan is permissible, if administratively functional for an agency. There is a basement level of wages that must be paid to qualify for the exemption. Of course, salary or fee payments are not otherwise precluded for outside salespersons and can still be used along with a performance bonus as long as the employee performs the outlined job duties for the exemption. Under the current rule, the minimum wage amount for the exemption is set at $155 a week, but the regulations for all exemptions are proposed to be changed.1

A Recommended Marketer’s Compensation Plan

With years of negative rhetoric about fraud in the home health industry and the overall climate against “inducement” of referrals, any compensation plan that is designed to induce referrals may still raise the hair on some agency owner’s head. Although a commission or other traditional “sales” compensation model is clearly protected for “bona fide” employees under the employee safe harbor, there are significant practical business problems in implementation. An alternative model is to pay a base salary that allows employees some wage security along with performance and productivity bonuses that are tied to their actual sales and the profitability of the company. Any salary model must comply with the salary rules and Marketers should be identified as outside sales people to assure the exemption for overtime pay. Yet it is possible to provide the sales incentive through a well-designed bonus program tied to growth and profitable referrals.

As a final note, it is necessary to train marketers intensely both on their specific duties and the PPS payment system so that they understand the profit potential of referrals. Moreover, each and every marketing employee should be educated on Anti-Kickback prohibition and other fraud and abuse laws to assure compliant conduct. Remember it is your job to supervise and oversee their activities. Your marketers will be your public face and must present themselves as knowledgeable of your business and, even more importantly, of your ethical standards for your business.

1. The proposed changes are extensive and as now written will reduce the overtime exposure greatly. The most important change to note is that LPN’s may be properly exempted as a learned professional employee. However, there is considerable debate and opposition to the proposals that make any substantive discussion too prospective. Agencies should stay alert during the upcoming year and consult legal counsel as legislation and regulations proceed.

Dealing With Investigations

© Lucian Bernard

spyglass on mapHome care is once again the target of government efforts to reduce health care expenditures. The array of programs being used to financially and operationally confront agencies is extensive and daunting: focused medical reviews, compliance reviews, recoupments, denials, offsets, payment suspensions, ORT, program exclusion, civil monetary penalties, Wedge audits and criminal prosecutions, to name just a few. What can an agency do before, during and after an investigation?

WHAT TO DO PRIOR TO AN INVESTIGATION

Agencies must be prepared for unannounced investigations and audits at any time. The consequences of these investigations can be extreme, both financially and criminally. There are steps an agency can take now to minimize the potential damage of being the target in a government investigation:

Prepare for possible delays in payment or suspension of payment – review your lines of credit or other sources of cash flow to be sure they are adequate if you are caught up in the storm.

Begin to review your system of internal audit of claims to determine that there is adequate documentation of compliance with medical necessity and homebound criteria.

Maintain a separate file for your communications with legal counsel, since those documents can be protected from seizure by government agents under attorney-client privilege.

Contact your health law and criminal law attorneys now to ensure their availability to represent you when needed.

Only the reckless, daring or naive will not have a Fraud and Abuse Compliance Plan in place. A comprehensive plan may include all of the above.

WHAT TO DO DURING AN INVESTIGATION

If you are notified by a surveyor or a fiscal intermediary that your agency is being subjected to an audit, do not expected to be treated fairly, or with meaningful due process:

Make certain that you have copies of all documents that you provide to the surveyor so that you can conduct your own detailed audit of that case file;

Be certain that the intermediary has all of your documentation before the government renders an initial decision; and,

Contact legal counsel at the outset to achieve the greatest protection of attorney-client privilege and perhaps extend that protection to the activities of your accountant, consultant, etc.

If, however, government agents present subpoenas or search warrants, time is of the essence and you should remember to do the following:

Find out who is the agent in charge and ask to see the document. A subpoena requires the production of material, but the officer(s) presenting the documents may not search the premises and seize the material. A search warrant allows agents access to the premises and the authority to seize material described in the warrant, or accompanying affidavit.

Immediately contact your attorney and advise him or her of the situation. At this point, the call is probably being monitored and there are guards at all of the entrances to your agency. Ask the agent in charge to seal the area and delay the search until your attorney arrives. Have trusted supervisors or managers accompany agents to the areas covered by the search warrant to observe, not to interfere.

Advise your employees that they are under no obligation to answer any questions by the agents – Do not tell them that they cannot speak to agents, because that could be construed as obstruction of justice. It is the employee’s choice to answer questions or remain silent. Usually, government agents will not tell your employees that. Then send all non-essential personnel home and otherwise close the agency until the search is completed.

WHAT TO DO IN THE AFTERMATH

An agency must be very careful about agreeing to a settlement with the government without first reviewing all of the legal ramifications with its legal counsel.

Accepting an extrapolated damages claim by the government based on an audit, for example, can have many unforseen consequences. An agency that accepts a monetary settlement of an audit could still be subjected to any of the following:

Mandatory or permissive exclusion from the program;
Criminal prosecution;

Inclusion in the national database authorized by the Portability Act as an “abuser” (the so-called scarlet letter provision); and/or, Imposition of civil monetary penalties.

Remember, too, that positions your agency accepts as part of any settlement with the government can have collateral consequences under other federal laws, such as the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the False Claims Act (FCA), etc.

The government has maintained its position that Medicare/Medicaid fraud is public enemy #3, just behind drugs and violent crime, and is directing much of its efforts at home care.

504 Rehabilitation Act Grievance Policy

© Elizabeth Zink-Pearson

disability workplaceThe Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was the predecessor of the American Disabilities Act of 1990 and imposed a duty upon federal contractors, or entities that participate in federally funded programs to accommodate persons with “handicaps.” In addition, Section 504 of the law prohibits a business which participates in a program that receive federal financial assistance from discrimination which affects the receipt of the federal benefit and in employment of individuals. Thus this law applies to home health agencies which participate in Medicare or Medicaid who, as outlined in the law, employ more then fifteen (15) persons.
The regulations adopted to implement section 504 provides that “no qualified Handicapped individual shall on the basis of handicap be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity which receive or benefits from federal financial assistance.” The law and regulations do not require an affirmative action policy. Yet, the regulations outline specific discriminatory actions which are prohibited including denial of a benefit or service, providing a less effective benefit of service or a different benefit or service either directly or through a contract, license or other arrangement if such acts are done on the basis of a person’s handicap. As previously stated, the prohibition extends to access to services or facilities as well as to employment opportunities.
Similar to the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act generally requires program participant to reasonably accommodate a qualified person with a handicap in the employment setting. Such a duty is not stated for accessibility to services. Instead, the regulations simply prohibit using the handicap as the basis of denial, restriction or limitation on services.
The regulations require that a covered entity appoint a specific person to coordinate is compliance. In addition, the covered entity must institute a grievance policy applicable complaints about possible discriminatory acts. The grievance policy should address employment grievance and patient grievance and include the following:

1. Adopt a written grievance procedure to be incorporated in clinical and employment policies. The grievance policy should be included in patient admission packets.

2. The grievance procedures should outline that complaints be in writing and addressed to a management level person and/or the identified Grievance Coordinator.

3. Establish specific time frames for filing the compliant and the investigation of the changes.

4. Outline the time frame and chain of command for decision_making on the complaint including identifying the person or the job title of the person who will oversee the investigation of the complaint.

5. Provide for a grievance hearing_ a meeting of the aggrieved party and the decision makers including the Chief Executive Officer of the company as a final step in the procedure.

Agencies also must maintain a log of grievances from patients or employee that fall under section 504, by disabled person who are either patient, applicants for employment, etc. In addition, agencies must post a notice of compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act which includes the name of the Grievance Coordinator. Agencies who advertise, either for employees or for educational purposes, should also include reference to being non_discriminatory on the basis of race, sex, disability, religion, or ethnic background.

In light of the recent cases, home health agencies should make sure they are in compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and address the issues in admission policies. A grievance procedure should be adopted and incorporated in agency admission and compliance policies. Decisions on admission or discharge should be characterized as related to the agency’s ability to provide or reasonable expectation to be able to provide the care for patients, which may include whether or not the agency can afford to pay its employees to provide services.

Recordkeeping Requirements Under The Fair Labor Standards Act (29 C.F.R. PART 516)

© 2002 Lucian J. Bernard, Esq.

INTRODUCTION

RecordkeepingThe Fair Labor Standards Act, (FLSA), is a federal statute which requires an employer to compensate its non_exempt employees at a stated minimum wage and overtime pay at a rate of not less than one and one half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty in any one workweek. The FLSA is a remedial statute, which reflects Congressional intent to provide broad federal employment protection to workers. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Department of Labor have both targeted health care employers for enforcement actions. The consequences of non_compliance can be financially devastating.

The FLSA contains many other legally enforceable obligations for employers as well. This is the first in a series of articles about the requirements of the FLSA and will concern the record keeping requirements incumbent upon all employers. Future articles will deal with subjects such as exemptions from overtime requirements, the fee basis of payment, damages for non_compliance, joint employment and the distinctions between an employee and an independent contractor, with particular emphasis on those requirements as they affect health care providers.

RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS

Under the FLSA, all covered employers are required to keep certain records on each non_exempt employee. There is no specified format for this data, but the employer is required to maintain the following information:

1. Employee’s full name and social security number
2. Address
3. Date of birth, if under 19
4. Sex and occupation
5. Time of day and day of week on which the employee’s work week begins
6. Hourly rate of pay
7. Hours worked each work day and total hours worked each work week
8. Total daily or weekly straight time earnings, exclusive of overtime
9. Total premium pay for overtime hours
10. Total additions to or deductions from wages paid each pay period
11. Total wages paid each pay period.
12. Date of payment and the pay period covered by each payment.

For exempt employees, the employer is required to keep all of the above, except for numbers 6_10, in such a manner that the employee’s entire remuneration, including fringe benefits and prerequisites, can be readily calculated. Under these provisions of the FLSA, each employer is required to display an official poster in the workplace which outlines the provisions of the Act. Note that an employer is required to keep a record of all hours worked by an exempt employee compensated by fee (#7).

An employer’s records under the FLSA must be kept in a place where they can be produced within 72 hours of a request by the Secretary of Labor, or the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division. All of the required records are subject to inspection by the Administrator. If an employer, or group of employers, due to peculiar conditions under which they must operate, wish to modify one or more of these record keeping requirements, the employer(s) may submit a written petition to the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, requesting such a waiver.

Payroll records, collective bargaining agreements, plans, trusts, employment contracts and the employer’s sales and purchasing records must be kept for three years. Supplementary records, such as time cards, wage rate tables, orders, shipping and billing records must be preserved two years under the FLSA. An employee does not have the right to sue his or her employer for the employer’s failure to abide by the FLSA’s record keeping requirements. Only the Department of Labor can maintain such an action.

There are several exceptions to the record keeping requirements. Those of particular interest to health care providers include employees of hospitals and residential care facilities. Those institutions can invoke the so_called “8/80 Rule.” It does not apply to home health agencies. It is designed for employees of residential care facilities who are primarily engaged in the care of the sick, the aged, or mentally ill and whose patients reside on the premises. It permits the employer to establish a fourteen day work/reporting period, instead of the usual seven day work period required under the Act.

Consequently, the seven day record keeping requirements listed above are expanded to fourteen days in the case of residential care facilities who use the 8/80 rule. In addition, the FLSA requires that any institution using this exception to the record keeping requirements must have a written agreement which summarizes its terms and indicates how long it remains in effect.

Another exception to the general record keeping requirements is known as a “Belo contract.” A Belo contract, is designed for an employer whose employees work irregular hours and permits the employer to pay a fixed salary for a guaranteed number of hours, up to sixty, based upon an hourly rate. Employees are paid the guaranteed weekly wage regardless of the number of hours they actually work. Overtime would only be calculated during those work weeks when an employee worked in excess of sixty hours in a week. This exception requires that the wage must be set pursuant to a written employment contract.

The most common example would be a collective bargaining agreement between an employer and its unionized employees. Strict requirements that the employer keep accurate records of all hours worked are enforced because the employer must be able to demonstrate to the Department of Labor that there are fluctuations both above and below the guaranteed number of hours. Otherwise, the plan will be invalidated.

Avoiding Patient Abandonment Claims

© Elizabeth Zink-Pearson

patientRecent case law raise significant concerns about Healthcare Agency’s liability for abandoning patients who are discharged from services or have services reduced. Discharging patients is always an undesirable decision for HHAs, but agencies may discharge and avoid legal liability for abandonment if certain steps are followed.

To understand the legal concept of “patient abandonment” it must be distinguished from discharge. Abandonment, as applied in the health care setting, is a unilateral termination of services when there is a continuing need for health care services and a lack of reasonable notice to the patient. Thus there are three elements to a claim for abandonment.

  1. The termination is not subject to mutual agreement i.e. is a unilateral decision by the health care provider;
  2. The discharge occurs without reasonable notice to the patient- sufficient to allow the patient to obtain another care giver;
  3. The patient must continue to need health care services provided by the health care entity.

In the Home care setting then, the a patient abandonment claim is viable where there is not sufficient notice to the patient. Courts generally use the concept of “reasonable” notice which implies that there has been sufficient time for patient to obtain another health care provider or find alternative means of obtaining the needed care.
To facilitate “reasonable notice,” agencies should follow the following steps:

  1. Determine the patient’s need for services- as to frequency, duration, and availability of alternative care givers. If there exists an ongoing plan of care services likely should not be terminated until a normal endpoint, such as the next decertification date.
  2. Similarly, if the patient is under a plan of care, then the HHA should advise the patient physician of the intent to discharge.
  3. Provide the patient advance written notice of the intent to discharge him or her including the exact date services will end, and explanation of the reasons for the decision to discharge, and suggested alternative care givers. Notice should be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested to properly document the patient’s receipt. A copy of the notice should also be transmitted to the physician.

The procedures for patient discharge, as outline above, should be included in agencies’ clinical policies. The unilateral decision to discharge must be made in accordance with the above procedures and in light of each patients’ ongoing need. Thus the length of the notice to the patient which is “reasonable” likely will depend on the particular situation, i.e. the availability of other providers and the patient’s need for services.

In addition if the decision to discharge is based on financial hardship due to reimbursement limitations, an H.A. must be prepared to show that it can not longer reasonably expect to be able to meet the needs of the patient- i.e. can no longer pay staff to provide the care. Discharge notices should always include information on the 504 Rehabilitation Grievance Policy (See: “504 Rehabilitation Act Grievance Policy.” by Elizabeth Zink-Pearson, on this website). In the end, in these difficult situations, it is advisable to discuss the situation with your health care counsel to obtain advise on the particular issues pertaining to the proposed discharge.

Information that is provided here is NOT LEGAL ADVICE !

This website is an Advertisement.

Copyrighted Materials

All original information is the Intellectual Property of the Author.

Original works and materials may not be reproduced in any manner without prior approval.