by Little West and Kaitlyn Luck
On April 5, 2021, the Governor of New Mexico signed Senate Bill 152 (SB152) into law. SB 152 amends the Continuing Care Act (Section 24-17-4 NMSA 1978, (the Act) to address issues that have arisen involving the solvency of Continuing Care Communities, with little or no equity to cover shortfalls, and the disproportionate impacts that occur from the need to relocate residents on very short notice. Continue reading
By Bradley Cave
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act created a bizarre contradiction for healthcare employers. While hospitals, clinics and other patient care providers worked under great strain to care for patients, with COVID-19 and other maladies, the Act would have permitted employees of healthcare providers to be absent from work, sometimes with pay, in some situations for up to 12 weeks. Saturday afternoon, the DOL issued new guidance to greatly expand the scope of employees that healthcare providers can exclude from the leave rights under FFCRA, sparing providers from crippling staff shortages during this pandemic.
FFCRA permitted employers to elect to exclude healthcare providers and emergency responders from the leave rights created by the act. However, the act did not define emergency responder, and borrowed the FMLA’s narrow definition of healthcare provider. As the act was written, healthcare employers could exclude only doctors, nurse practitioners and physicians’ assistants, along with a handful of other licensed professionals, from the leave rights under the act. Notably, RNs, LPNs and CNAs were not on the list of employees that could be excluded, nor were pharmacists, pharmacy techs, any type of therapists, or any of the support staff necessary to operate a hospital, nursing home or medical practice. Continue reading
By Karina Sargsian and Kim Stanger
The CARES Act adopts several measures to help stabilize the healthcare system, address health care issues directly and indirectly related to the current pandemic and ensure future preparedness. It also allocates $100 billion of direct funding to help hospitals keep their doors open. Many of the provisions are only tangentially related to the current pandemic, such as re-appropriations for a variety of health programs. Continue reading
By Brit (Brittany) Merrill, S. Jordan Walsh, and Bradley Cave
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) was signed into law on March 18, 2020 and becomes effective on April 2, 2020. As part of the FFCRA Congress enacted the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (“Expansion Act”) and the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (“Sick Leave Act”). Sections I and II below summarize how the Expansion Act and the Sick Leave Act will apply to employers generally. Please contact your Holland & Hart attorney for specific questions relating to your workforce. Continue reading
By Little V. West, Kaitlyn Luck, and Lisa Carlson
On November 15, 2019, CMS issued a final rule pursuant to President Trump’s June 24, 2019, Executive Order to ensure price transparency by healthcare facilities. This price transparency rule will go into effect January 1, 2021, and will require hospitals operating within the United States to establish, update, and publicize all standard charges for all items and services provided by the hospital. Hospitals will also be required to display, in a consumer-friendly manner, standard charges for at least 300 shoppable services provided by the hospital. The stated purpose of this rule is to “increase market competition, and ultimately drive down the cost of healthcare services, making them more affordable for all patients.”
by Kim Stanger
The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare has implemented new patient rights rules for hospitals effective July 1, 2019. (See IDAPA 16.03.14.220 to .350). The rules were advanced by patient advocacy groups and, to a large degree, incorporate standards that parallel—but do not exactly mirror—existing law and/or Medicare conditions of participation for hospitals. Because many of those regulatory conditions did not apply to critical access hospitals (“CAHs”), CAHs may need to implement new policies and procedures to satisfy the rules. All Idaho hospitals as well as providers rendering services in hospitals should check their existing policies and practices against the new rules, including the following:
Continue readingIn 2019, the Legislature enacted several bills affecting healthcare practitioners in New Mexico. Although some bills have a general applicability to health care providers, others address more specific medical practices. Following is a summary of several bills impacting health facilities and providers. Continue reading
by Kristy Kimball
In the last Utah legislative session, several bills were passed that affect the obligations of healthcare facilities and providers. Following is a summary of three important bills that went into effect on May 14, 2019, of which all health facilities and providers should be aware.
Mandatory Reporting of Drug Diversion to Law Enforcement
House Bill 251 requires mandatory reporting to law enforcement when one has knowledge of drug diversion. Specifically, Utah law now holds that an individual is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if they: (i) know that a Practitioner is diverting 500 or more morphine milligram equivalents to another person for an unlawful purpose; and (ii) fail to report to law enforcement. The bill defines “Practitioner” as an individual who is either (i) allowed to “administer, dispense, distribute, or prescribe a drug in the course of professional practice;” or (ii) who is employed by such an individual. The law broadly applies to those involved in providing medications to patients in any manner (e.g., nurses, physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and pharmacists) as well as those working for such individuals. Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-2204.
Continue readingby 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