Showing 80 posts in Health Care Reform.
Update on the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Proposed Rules for Licensing Health Facilities and Agencies
Earlier this year, the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) issued proposed administrative rules relating to the licensing of health care facilities. Currently, there are separate sets of rules that apply to each type of health facility, such as hospitals, hospices, and nursing homes. Read More ›
In response to growing concerns about misuse and abuse of opioid medications, Michigan has enacted three statutes amending the Public Health Code. The new statutes impose specific requirements on physicians, dentists, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners (“prescribers”) who prescribe controlled substances and on pharmacists who fill those prescriptions. Read More ›
Earlier this year, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) revoked the tax exempt status of an unidentified hospital for failing to comply with the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Read More ›
Late in the afternoon on March 6, two committees of the U.S. House of Representatives introduced legislation that would replace and repeal significant portions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as the ACA or Obamacare. The new legislation, titled the American Health Care Act, addresses a number of key complaints that have been raised by employers since the ACA's implementation. Several provisions of the new legislation that are of particular interest to employers are described briefly below. Read More ›
The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services ("HHS") recently issued a final rule that implements the nondiscrimination provisions under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (the "Final Rule"). The Final Rule becomes effective July 18, 2016. Read More ›
On February 11, 2016, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) issued its long-awaited Final Rule on Reporting and Returning of Overpayments (the “Final Rule”). The Final Rule, which will become effective on March 14, 2016, implements section 1128J(d) of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). This Section of the ACA requires that Medicare providers report and return Medicare overpayments by the later of (A) the date that is 60 days after the date on which the overpayment was identified; or (B) the date any corresponding cost report is due, if applicable (the “60-day rule”). According to CMS, the purpose of the Final Rule is to provide “needed clarity and consistency in the reporting and returning of self-identified overpayments.”
CMS issued a Proposed Rule on Reporting and Returning of Overpayments (the “Proposed Rule”) on February 16, 2012. The Final Rule includes some important changes to the provisions of the Proposed Rule. A summary of the major provisions of the Final Rule appears below. Read More ›
In the last few days of 2015, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") published welcomed relief for employers who are struggling to understand their reporting obligations under the Affordable Care Act ("ACA"): extended deadlines. Read More ›
One of the primary ways that the Affordable Care Act seeks to reduce health care costs is through the formation of Accountable Care Organizations (ACO). ACOs are still a relatively new concept in the healthcare world, as they emerged in 2011 as a result of an initiative by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
ACOs are generally groups of doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers, who voluntarily join forces for the purpose of providing coordinated care to Medicare patients (see other Foster Swift articles on ACOs). ACOs were established as a means of coordinating care in order to ensure that patients, especially the chronically ill, receive effective care while avoiding unnecessary duplication of services and preventing medical errors. ACOs that achieve cost saving from providing timely and accurate care that meet quality benchmarks share in Medicare savings. In short, ACOs are intended to encourage quality of care, not quantity of care, and ACOs that deliver care more efficiently are eligible for bonuses. Read More ›
In a first-of-its-kind and closely followed case, a U.S. district court denied a New York health system's (Healthfirst’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.
The case, Kane ex rel. United States et al. v. Healthfirst et al., 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.
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. Read More ›
The US Supreme Court's Ruling on the Affordable Care Act will not Change Employers' Responsibilities
On June 25, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the "Act") in the case of King v Burwell. The issue that the Court addressed was whether tax credits were available to individuals who purchased health insurance coverage through a Health Insurance Exchange ("Exchange") that was established by the Federal government.
An Exchange serves as a marketplace where individuals can compare various health insurance plans and ultimately purchase health insurance coverage. The Act requires an Exchange to be established in each State. If a State fails to establish its own Exchange, the Federal government is required to step in and establish the Exchange for that State. The Court's decision had the potential to preclude tax credits for individuals purchasing insurance through the Federal Exchanges in 34 States, including Michigan.
This issue was of significant importance because of its implications for the Act's Employer Mandate, which generally requires large employers to offer health insurance coverage to their full-time employees. The tax credits provided under the Act serve as the lynchpin for liability under the Employer Mandate. Despite the fact that a large employer may fail to offer health insurance coverage to its full-time employees, it will not be penalized if those employees do not obtain coverage through the Exchange and receive a tax credit. Therefore, large employers located in States that have a Federal Exchange could arguably avoid penalties for their failure to offer coverage to their full-time employees; such employees would not receive a tax credit when purchasing health insurance coverage on the Exchange and would not trigger the penalty. Read More ›
- Digital Assets
- Employee Benefits
- Did you Know?
- News & Events
- Health Care Reform
- HITECH Act
- Long Term Care
- Affordable Care Act
- Electronic Health Records
- Labor Relations
- 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
- Accountable Care Organizations
- Health Insurance Exchange
- Fraud & Abuse