Monthly Archives: April 2017

April 28, 2017

CardioNet Settlement Shows Need for Healthcare Providers to Secure Mobile Devices

By Kim Stanger

In the first Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) settlement involving a wireless health services provider, CardioNet on April 24 agreed to pay $2.5 million for allegedly losing a laptop containing individual health information.

The size of this and other recent settlements demonstrates the increasingly active stance being taken by the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) on the need for organizations to implement strong, HIPAA-compliant security policies – including those involving mobile devices used for work. The settlement was based on the impermissible disclosure of unsecured electronic protected health information (“ePHI”). Continue reading →

April 25, 2017

HIPAA: Should You Ask Patients for Consent to Disclose Information?

by Kim Stanger

Healthcare providers often limit unnecessarily their ability to use or disclose protected health information without the patient’s consent, thereby increasing their potential liability for unauthorized disclosures. For example, providers often:

  • Tell the patient that the provider will only disclose the patient’s information to those persons identified by the patient, thereby precluding disclosures to others who are not identified.
  • Ask the patient to list those to whom the provider may disclose information, thereby expressly or impliedly suggesting that they will not disclose information to others.
  • Ask that the patient authorize disclosures to payers and/or other providers, thereby expressly or impliedly agreeing that they will not disclose information to payers or providers if not authorized by the patient.

They do so under the mistaken belief that HIPAA requires such. In reality, such practices may actually increase potential HIPAA liability. Continue reading →

April 17, 2017

Group Compensation Arrangements: Stark Requirements

by Kim Stanger

Physician practices must ensure that their group compensation structures comply with the federal Ethics in Patient Referrals Act (“Stark”) if they intend to bill Medicare or Medicaid for services rendered or referred by the group physicians. Under Stark, if a physician1 (or a member of the physician’s family) has a financial relationship with an entity, the physician may not refer patients to the entity for certain designated health services (“DHS”)2 payable by Medicare and Medicaid unless the financial relationship is structured to fit within a regulatory safe harbor. (42 CFR § 411.353). Stark applies to DHS referrals within the group, so the physician’s compensation arrangement must be structured to comply with Stark; otherwise, the group may not bill Medicare and Medicaid for DHS that were referred improperly, and, if they were improperly billed, the entity must repay amounts improperly received. Failure to report and repay within 60 days may result in additional civil penalties of $15,000 per claim as well as False Claims Act liability. Repayments may easily run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. Given the potential liability, it is critical that physician group compensation arrangements be structured to fit within one of the following regulatory safe harbors if they intend to participate in Medicare or Medicaid. Continue reading →

April 10, 2017

Withdrawing Care for Developmentally Disabled Persons: New Idaho Standards

by Kim Stanger

Recent amendments will allow guardians and those treating developmentally disabled persons greater discretion in withholding or withdrawing artificial life-sustaining treatment, thereby avoiding situations in which developmentally disabled persons were forced to suffer painful, extended procedures which may be considered inhumane.

The Former Standard. Under Idaho law, the guardian or personal representative of an incompetent person may generally authorize the medically appropriate withdrawal of treatment for the patient. (I.C. §§ 39-4504(1) and 39-4514(3)). In the case of developmentally disabled persons, however, the former law prohibited guardians and physicians of developmentally disabled persons from withholding or withdrawing artificial life-sustaining treatment unless the treating physician and one other physician certified that the person had a terminal condition such that the application of artificial life-sustaining treatment would only serve to prolong death for a period of hours, days or weeks, and that death was imminent regardless of the life-sustaining procedures. (I.C. § 66-405(7)-(8)). Unfortunately, this standard looked only at the length of the patient’s life without considering the pain that the patient may be forced to endure in the meantime. Because of advances in medicine, healthcare providers are often able to keep persons alive for months or years, but at a terrible cost in suffering to the patient and their loved ones. Application of the former standard sometimes resulted in heartbreaking situations in which developmentally disabled persons—often with little or no cognition—were relegated to an existence that offered nothing more than perpetual pain or discomfort instead of allowing the medically appropriate withdrawal treatment. By so doing, the standard deprived developmentally disabled persons of rights that were offered to others. Continue reading →