<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
			<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='https://www.healthlawyersblog.com/rss.xsl' ?>
			<rss version='2.0' xmlns:content='http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/'
					xmlns:atom='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom'
					xmlns:dc='http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/'>
				<channel>
					<title>The New Health Care Law Reform Bill &amp; PPACA | Foster Swift</title>
					<link>https://www.healthlawyersblog.com/2015/</link>
					<atom:link href='https://www.healthlawyersblog.com/2015/?rss' rel='self' type='application/rss+xml' />
					<description><![CDATA[The latest updates to The New Health Care Law Reform Bill &amp; PPACA.]]></description>
					<lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2026 12:09:06 -0400</lastBuildDate>
					
				<item>
				<title>CMS Issues Final Home Health Payment Rules for 2016</title>
				<link>https://www.healthlawyersblog.com/Home-Health-Payment-Rules-2016</link>
<dc:creator>Julie LaVille Hamlet</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>Home-Health-Payment-Rules-2016</guid>

					<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2015 09:00:01 -0500</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p><img src="https://www.healthlawyersblog.com/assets/htmlimages/Calendar-and-clock.jpg" width="200" height="150" title="home health payment rules" alt="home health payment rules" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;" />On October 29, 2015, the Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services (CMS) issued the final home health prospective payment system (PPS) rule for calendar year (CY) 2016. CMS projects that the impact of the final rule will result in a 1.4 percent (or $260 million) reduction in Medicare payments to home health agencies (HHAs) from 2015 payment levels.&nbsp;</p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>Department of Justice Enters Into Record-Breaking Stark Law Settlement</title>
				<link>https://www.healthlawyersblog.com/Record-Breaking-Stark-Law-Settlement</link>
<dc:creator></dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>Record-Breaking-Stark-Law-Settlement</guid>

					<pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:00:02 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p><img src="https://www.healthlawyersblog.com/assets/htmlimages/referral.jpg" width="133" height="200" alt="" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;" />The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and a handful of states, recently reached a settlement agreement with Adventist Health System (Adventist), resolving Stark Law issues, as well as allegations in two separate <em>qui tam</em> actions that included false claims. Generally speaking, the Stark Law limits physician referrals of designated health services or &ldquo;DHS&rdquo; for Medicare and Medicaid patients in instances where the physician - or an immediate family member of the physician - has a financial relationship with the DHS entity.&nbsp;</p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>DOJ Memo: Corporate Investigations to Focus on Individual Accountability</title>
				<link>https://www.healthlawyersblog.com/Corporate-Investigations-Focus-Individual-Accountability</link>
<dc:creator>Julie LaVille Hamlet</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>Corporate-Investigations-Focus-Individual-Accountability</guid>

					<pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:00:03 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p><img src="https://www.healthlawyersblog.com/assets/htmlimages/Handcuffs-Stethoscope.jpg" width="215" height="142" title="corporate investigations" alt="corporate investigations" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;" />Recent guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Justice (&ldquo;DOJ&rdquo;) reveals the government&rsquo;s renewed focus on individual accountability during corporate investigations. On September 9, 2015, Deputy U.S. Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates issued a <strong><a href="http://src.bna.com/hg">memorandum</a></strong> to DOJ attorneys (the &ldquo;Yates Memo&rdquo;) that emphasizes the importance of seeking accountability from the individuals who are responsible for corporate wrongdoing.</p>
<p>The Yates Memo outlines six measures that should be taken by federal prosecutors during any investigation of corporate misconduct in order to hold accountable the individuals who are responsible for the conduct. A discussion of each measure appears below.</p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>CMS Issues Final Rules for Fiscal Year 2016 Provider Payments</title>
				<link>https://www.healthlawyersblog.com/CMS-Final-Rules-Provider-Payments</link>
<dc:creator>Julie LaVille Hamlet</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>CMS-Final-Rules-Provider-Payments</guid>

					<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2015 09:00:04 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p><img src="https://www.healthlawyersblog.com/assets/htmlimages/Money2.jpg" width="175" height="115" title="CMS Issues Final Rules for Fiscal Year 2016 Provider Payments" alt="CMS Issues Final Rules for Fiscal Year 2016 Provider Payments" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;" />On July 31, 2015, the Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services (&ldquo;CMS&rdquo;) issued final Medicare payment rules for federal fiscal year 2016 (the &ldquo;Rules&rdquo;). The Rules affect hospitals, hospices, psychiatric facilities, and rehabilitation facilities.&nbsp;</p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>HHS Issues HIPAA “Basics” Fact Sheet</title>
				<link>https://www.healthlawyersblog.com/HHS-Issues-HIPAA-Basics</link>
<dc:creator>Julie LaVille Hamlet</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>HHS-Issues-HIPAA-Basics</guid>

					<pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2015 09:00:05 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: left;"><img src="https://www.healthlawyersblog.com/assets/htmlimages/HIPAA.jpg" width="177" height="250" title="hipaa basics fact sheet" alt="hipaa basics fact sheet" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;" />The Department of Health and Human Services (&ldquo;HHS&rdquo;) recently released a HIPAA overview called &ldquo;HIPAA Basics for Providers: Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification Rules&rdquo; (the &ldquo;Overview&rdquo;). The Overview is intended to provide HIPAA Covered Entities such as physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers with a basic overview of HIPAA&rsquo;s rules and responsibilities. The fact sheet also provides an overview to Business Associates (such as law firms and accounting firms who receive protected health information ("PHI") from Covered Entities).</p>
<p>The Overview explains that the HIPAA Privacy Rule protects individually identifiable PHI, which includes information such as an individual&rsquo;s past, present, or future physical or mental health condition.</p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>Health Insurance Rate Increases Approved for 2016</title>
				<link>https://www.healthlawyersblog.com/Health-Insurance-Rate-Increases-2016</link>
<dc:creator>Julie LaVille Hamlet</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>Health-Insurance-Rate-Increases-2016</guid>

					<pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:00:06 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p><img src="https://www.healthlawyersblog.com/assets/htmlimages/Health-Insurance-low-res.jpg" width="150" height="148" title="health insurance rate increases" alt="health insurance rate increases" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;" />On Tuesday, August 18, the Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services (&ldquo;DIFS&rdquo;) announced that it has approved health insurance rate increases that average 6.5 percent for the individual market and 1 percent for the small group market.&nbsp;</p>  <p>Each year, DIFS is responsible for reviewing rate changes proposed by health insurers to determine whether such changes comply with state and federal laws. As part of its review this year, DIFS considered public comments that were submitted after the requested rate changes were posted. DIFS approved all rate changes as requested after determining that such changes were actuarially supported.</p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>Government Intervenes in Affordable Care Act 60 day Rule Violation
Allegation</title>
				<link>https://www.healthlawyersblog.com/Affordable-Care-Act-60-day-Rule</link>
<dc:creator>Mindi M. Johnson</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>Affordable-Care-Act-60-day-Rule</guid>

					<pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:00:07 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p><img src="https://www.healthlawyersblog.com/assets/htmlimages/Affordable%20Care%20Act.jpg" width="133" height="200" title="Government Intervenes in Affordable Care Act 60 day Rule Violation Allegation" alt="Government Intervenes in Affordable Care Act 60 day Rule Violation Allegation" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;" />In a first-of-its-kind and closely followed case, a U.S. district court denied a New York health system's (Healthfirst&rsquo;s) motion to dismiss the U.S. government's and State of New York's complaints in intervention under the federal False Claims Act (FCA) and New York state counterpart. This case represents the first time that the government has intervened in an FCA case based upon an allegation that a party violated the "60 day rule." The 60 day rule came into existence with the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 and subjects parties to FCA liability for failing to report and refund an overpayment within 60 days of identification, even if the defendant received the payment through no fault of its own.</p>  <p>The case, <em>Kane ex rel. United States et al. v. Healthfirst et al.</em>, involves three hospitals that were part of the Healthfirst health system network and provided care to patients that were part of Healthfirst's Medicaid managed care plan. Healthfirst received payments from the New York State Department of Health (DOH) in return for services provided to Medicaid eligible enrollees.</p>  <p>The government's allegations stem from overpayments to Healthfirst as a result of a software glitch. Healthfirst was first questioned about the possible overpayments by the New York State Comptroller's office in 2010. The health system tasked Kane, an employee and the eventual whistleblower in the case, to look into the payments. Five months later Kane emailed Healthfirst management a spreadsheet listing over 900 claims totaling more than $1 million that contained an erroneous billing code that may have led to the overpayments.</p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>DOJ and State of Michigan Bring Antitrust Lawsuit Against Four Michigan
Hospitals Three Settle Charges Immediately and One Vows to Fight</title>
				<link>https://www.healthlawyersblog.com/Antitrust-Lawsuit-Michigan-Hospitals</link>
<dc:creator></dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>Antitrust-Lawsuit-Michigan-Hospitals</guid>

					<pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2015 09:00:08 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p><img src="https://www.healthlawyersblog.com/assets/htmlimages/Hospital%20sign.jpg" width="133" height="200" title="DOJ and State of Michigan Bring Antitrust Lawsuit Against Four Michigan Hospitals Three Settle Charges Immediately and One Vows to Fight" alt="DOJ and State of Michigan Bring Antitrust Lawsuit Against Four Michigan Hospitals Three Settle Charges Immediately and One Vows to Fight" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;" />The U.S. Department of Justice (&ldquo;DOJ&rdquo;), together with the Michigan Attorney General (&ldquo;AG&rdquo;), recently filed a lawsuit alleging that four hospital systems located in Southern Michigan violated antitrust laws by agreeing not to compete with one another.</p>  <p>The civil lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and alleged that the four hospitals agreed not to market or advertise themselves in each others&rsquo; territories, which constitutes &ldquo;unreasonable restraints of trade that are per se illegal&rdquo; under the Sherman Act and the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act.</p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>Virginia Man Wins $500,000 After Recording Surgical Team’s Insulting
Comments</title>
				<link>https://www.healthlawyersblog.com/Man-Wins-Case-Records-Comments-During-Colonoscopy</link>
<dc:creator>Julie LaVille Hamlet</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>Man-Wins-Case-Records-Comments-During-Colonoscopy</guid>

					<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2015 09:00:09 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p><img src="https://www.healthlawyersblog.com/assets/htmlimages/health%20care%20insurance.jpg" width="200" height="132" title="healthcare lawsuit" alt="healthcare lawsuit" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;" />Talk about adding insult to injury. A Virginia man woke up after his colonoscopy to learn that the surgical team had mocked, belittled and insulted him throughout the procedure.</p>  <p>Fearful that he would not remember the doctor&rsquo;s post-op instructions, the man pressed record on his smartphone before receiving anesthesia. Upon listening to the recording after the procedure, he realized that the members of the surgical team began their rant as soon as he drifted off to sleep.</p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>Michigan Doctor Sentenced to 45 Years for Cancer Fraud Scheme</title>
				<link>https://www.healthlawyersblog.com/Michigan-Doctor-Cancer-Fraud-Scheme</link>
<dc:creator>Katila L. Howard (Summer Associate)</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>Michigan-Doctor-Cancer-Fraud-Scheme</guid>

					<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2015 09:00:10 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p><img src="https://www.healthlawyersblog.com/assets/htmlimages/Handcuffs-Stethoscope.jpg" width="225" height="149" alt="" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;" />Dr. Farid Fata was sentenced to 45 years in a federal prison by U.S. District Judge Paul Borman. The sentence was greater than the 25 years that the defense advocated for, but well under the 175-year maximum requested by the prosecution. Dr. Fata, who had built an empire of upscale cancer clinics, intentionally misdiagnosed patients and illegally billed Medicare for the treatment. He grossly over-treated, under-treated, and misdiagnosed hundreds of patients by telling them they had cancer when they did not, giving too much or improper treatment to others who did have cancer, and continuing to give chemotherapy to terminal patients who no longer needed it.&nbsp;</p>]]></description>
</item>

			</channel></rss>