Author: Courtney Patterson

December 19, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
One of our doctors just received a letter that his Medicare billing privileges have been revoked.  What does this mean and is there anything that can be done about it?

ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY DAN MULHOLLAND:
Medicare billing privileges can be revoked for a variety of reasons listed in 42 CFR §424.535 but revocation of billing privileges is not the same thing as being excluded from Medicare. So, your hospital and the physician’s employer do not have to terminate any contracts they have with him.  However, it is always a good idea to double-check the OIG exclusion list just to make sure.  Moreover, revocation of Medicare billing privileges does not affect the physician’s ability to submit claims to non-Medicare payers using his NPI, and the physician can still provide locums coverage for other physicians as long as claims are not submitted under the name and NPI of the physician whose billing privileges were revoked.

Revocation of Medicare billing privileges usually is only in effect for a finite period of time, after which the physician can reapply for Medicare enrollment.  In addition, the physician can request that the Medicare Administrative Contractor (“MAC”) reconsider the revocation within 65 days of the date of the revocation and also ask for an extension of time to do so pursuant to 42 CFR §498.22.

Revocation of Medicare billing privileges is a serious matter and can cause a lot of disruption beyond just losing revenue.  But it is far less onerous than getting excluded from Medicare and there are opportunities to get reinstated.  Of course, like other situations dealing with the Government, don’t try this at home without close adult legal supervision.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Dan Mulholland at dmulholland@hortyspringer.com.

December 12, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
The MEC recently learned that a department chair placed a physician on a “period of FPPE to include proctoring until such time as the requirement for supervision is lifted.”  This has raised some red flags within the Medical Staff leadership.  We are a bit worried about the use of the word “supervision” here.  Also, another main concern is that we revised our peer review process several years ago and, while our policy allows department chairs to perform clinical case reviews, send letters of guidance, and conduct informal collegial conversations with practitioners, the policy pretty clearly states that if something more intensive/intrusive – like a formal, planned collegial intervention meeting or performance improvement plan – is envisioned, the matter should be referred to the multi-specialty peer review committee or MEC for management.

Should we “undo” the actions of the department chair and “redo” the peer review according to our policy?  Since it’s already in progress (the practitioner has already been notified of the requirement) should we just let it ride out? This feels like quite a mess.

ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY RACHEL REMALEY:
You know the saying, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”?  Well, right now you need a pound of cure.  It happens!  You are right to have some concerns about the process that has been followed thus far in reviewing this matter.  And the concerns you articulated in your question are astute.  The use of the word “supervision” probably is inappropriate and inapplicable here.  Most proctoring that is performed in the peer review world is observational only and does not involve true supervision by the proctor.  The role of the proctor is to observe and report back to the peer reviewers his/her opinions about the performance of the individual subject to review.  The proctor often consults with the practitioner collegially during that process, but the consultation does not generally rise to the level of supervision and the proctor generally does not have any authority to dictate how the practitioner provides the medical care in question.  Using the word “supervision” to describe the proctoring could give the wrong impression about these matters.  And just as importantly, it could set a negative tone, making this practitioner (and others, in the future) more defensive and less likely to be cooperative with the proctoring process.

It would also appear that the department chair overstepped his role in the process by implementing an activity (proctoring) that is generally reserved for performance improvement plans.  To the best of our knowledge, there are no legal or accreditation standards that dictate “who does what” in peer review.  But, your policy should serve as the guide for peer review activities within your hospital and medical staff.  And the way your policy has been drafted – to divvy up responsibility for certain interventions such that lower-level interventions are within the authority of individual leaders, but more intrusive interventions require committee action – are “best practice” within the industry.  Relying on multi-disciplinary committees to implement performance improvement plans provides a check and balance, helping to eliminate personal variation, as well as alleviate any concerns that competitive motives formed even part of the motivation for the action.

Now, for your real question:  Should you undo the action of the department chair?

In this case, that is probably the best course of action.  Of course, diplomacy is key.  As a first step, the MEC might simply ask a few individuals (the officers?  A Leadership Council?) to meet with the department chair and ask him to reconsider his decision.  Those leaders can also work with the department chair to notify the practitioner that the previous determination has been rescinded and, upon further consideration, it has been determined that the matter should be forwarded to the multi-specialty peer review committee for further consideration and determination of next steps.

With that done, you can then focus on the “ounce of prevention.”  Leadership roles turn over very frequently – and Medical Staff leaders are usually not provided any training in advance of their leadership terms.  Methodically providing an orientation letter to new leaders and regularly providing leadership education and training is a great way to help leaders navigate their many (and sometimes complex) roles.

An orientation letter can be used to summarize duties and make leaders aware of the Bylaws and policies that apply to them (and should be consulted when performing duties).  It does not need to be a “manual.”  A few pages often does the trick.  For example, the department chair’s role in peer review (as outlined in the policy you describe in your scenario) could be summarized as follows:

As department chair, you are also an important part of implementing the Medical Staff’s professional practice evaluation/ clinical peer review process.  Cases may be referred to you for clinical review, with a request that you report your opinions (on the forms provided).  You may conduct clinical reviews yourself or, where you lack expertise, assign the review to another clinical specialty reviewer within your department (to be reported back to you by the deadline that you set).  If your review reveals new or lower-level concerns that might be best managed through brief, informal collegial counseling or guidance, you may address the matter directly with the practitioner (reporting that outcome to the PPE Professional so that it can be recorded in the hospital’s files and reported to the multi-specialty peer review committee for oversight purposes).  More significant concerns and/or more significant interventions are generally referred to the multi-specialty peer review committee for review and management.  For more details, please refer to the Medical Staff Professional Practice Evaluation Policy.  A copy can be obtained…[describe where/how to obtain the policy]…

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Rachel Remaley at RRemaley@hortyspringer.com.

December 5, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
It was mentioned that we can expedite the credentialing and privileging of telemedicine providers by using a process that would allow us to rely on the credentialing and privileging of telemedicine providers at another facility. Have you heard of this process?

ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY HALA MOUZAFFAR:
The process you’re describing is an option CMS has put in place to give healthcare facilities an expedited process to credential and privilege telemedicine providers. It allows your facility to rely on the credentialing and privileging of a provider at another site, also called the distant site, to credential and privilege them at your own facility. To use this process, first and foremost, you must ensure that the entity that is serving as the distant site is either a Medicare-participating hospital or a telemedicine entity that furnishes services in compliance with the Medicare Conditions of Participation.

From there, CMS requires that you have an agreement with the distant site, and then details what must be outlined in that agreement, including a list of the telemedicine provider’s privileges at the distant site, assurance that the telemedicine provider has privileges in the state where patients will be located, and mention that the distant site will receive performance review information of a provider’s privileges.

If this is a process your facility is interested in using, it is worth a deeper dive into those CMS requirements. But before you use this process, I highly recommend your facility have a discussion on whether this process is right for you. It is a big act of trust relying on another facility’s credentialing and privileging process as opposed to your own. You want to have a candid discussion on if this is something you will do for every telemedicine provider, if this is a process you will limit to only certain distant sites, etc.

Additionally, depending on your accrediting body (e.g., the Joint Commission, DNV, etc.), there may be some additional requirements that the distant site may have to meet to be eligible for this process, so don’t forget to check accreditation standards as well.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Hala Mouzaffar at hmouzaffar@hortyspringer.com.

November 21, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
During our Peer Review Clinic Seminar in Las Vegas last week, several attendees asked if they should request input from a physician as soon as a case “falls out,” or if they should wait until later in the process. So, what do we think?

ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY IAN DONALDSON:
We see different opinions on this when we work with Medical Staffs on new peer review policies. Some physician leaders want to obtain input as soon as a case is identified for review, believing it will expedite the review process (i.e., there won’t be a need for the reviewer to later pause the process to stop and obtain the physician’s input if they already have that information from the start).  Also, obtaining input right away can emphasize to Medical Staff members that the process is transparent and their input will always be considered.

However, we also hear the counterpoint that sending a request for input before the case is even sent for initial screening can cause undue stress if the case is ultimately closed with no issues.  In addition, the physician will have spent time preparing comments that weren’t needed.

Both of these arguments have validity, and there is probably not a right or wrong answer.  Some organizations we work with have incorporated a triage step in their review process, whereby cases are screened to help identify those where input would be helpful right off the bat (keeping the option to ask for input later on for all other cases).

Another option would be to get input from the physician right away if a case is identified due to a reported concern, referral from a sentinel event, referral from risk management, or some other source that makes it more likely that the individual or committee reviewing the case will want to hear from the physician under review.  But input might not be obtained right away for cases identified by a pre-determined trigger (because sometimes triggers can be more sensitive and identify cases that don’t raise a concern).

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Ian Donaldson at idonaldson@hortyspringer.com.

November 14, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
We have an applicant for appointment and privileges who disclosed that she recently enrolled in our state health program and that she had enrolled in a similar program in the state where she previously practiced.  The applicant also shared that she had completed inpatient treatment for substance use disorder earlier in the year.   We were not particularly concerned with this disclosure since the applicant is being monitored by our state program which is quite thorough.

However, we just learned that the applicant’s employment had been terminated, by her previous employer, for practicing in the clinic while impaired.  We are concerned because she misrepresented this information on her application form. What can we do?

ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY SUSAN LAPENTA:
Bylaws or credentials policies (the “Credentials Policy”) often allow a hospital to “not process an application” when there are misstatements or omissions.  Typically, the Credentials Policy requires, in situations like this one, that the applicant be notified, in writing, about the potential misstatement or omission, and be invited to explain.  Thereafter, the response will be reviewed, often by the Chair of the Credentials Committee and the Chief Medical Officer, and a determination will be made whether the application should be processed further.

Importantly, this process does not result in a “denial” of the application.  And, the Credentials Policy should make it clear that “No action taken pursuant to this Section will entitle the applicant or member to a hearing or appeal.”

This process should not be different even if an applicant is claiming a disability.  A physician’s substance use disorder may be a protected disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  And, the ADA may not allow inquiries related to a physician’s impairment prior to a determination that the physician is otherwise qualified to fulfill the essential functions of appointment and clinical privileges.  However, an impairment does not excuse a physician for misstating information on an application, including that the physician was terminated, or otherwise disciplined, for practicing while impaired.

Therefore, you are free to treat a misstatement, like the one you described, in a manner consistent with any other misstatement or omission.  That means, if you provide notice to the applicant of the misstatement or omission and allow the applicant to respond and, thereafter, determine that the misstatement or omission is substantial enough to support a legitimate concern about the applicant’s integrity, you may, consistent with the controlling documents, decide not to process the application further.

Ideally, your Credentials Policy should treat these decisions as administrative in nature.  This decision should not be considered an adverse professional review action.  The decision not to process the application, because of a misstatement or omission, should not trigger a right to a hearing.  Thus, these decisions are not reportable to the National Practitioner Data Bank and should not be reportable to the state board either.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Susan Lapenta at slapenta@hortyspringer.com.

November 7, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
We asked Grok AI “What do you know about HortySpringer?” Here is what it said.

ANSWER:
Based on the information available up to September 2024, Horty, Springer & Mattern, P.C. is a law firm based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, with a specialization in healthcare law. Here’s what can be inferred or is directly known about them:

  1. Specialization: The firm focuses exclusively on healthcare law, which means they deal with a wide array of legal issues related to healthcare providers, including hospitals, health systems, HMOs, managed care organizations, and other healthcare entities.  Their expertise covers areas like medical staff bylaws, physician contracts, healthcare compliance, and more.
  1. History: Founded in 1971, the firm has over 50 years of experience in the healthcare sector.  This longevity suggests a deep understanding of the evolving landscape of healthcare law.
  1. Clientele: They serve clients across all 50 states and the District of Columbia, indicating a national reach and reputation in healthcare legal services.  This includes consulting with physician leaders, health system executives, and boards, suggesting they’re involved in high-level strategic and governance issues within healthcare organizations.
  1. Innovative Practices: HortySpringer has been recognized for innovation, particularly in how they deliver legal services.  They’ve developed tools like HortySpringer LegalSifter Essentials Edition, which combines legal best practices with AI to help clients manage contract reviews more efficiently.  This indicates an approach towards modernizing legal services with technology.
  1. Education and Training: The firm offers training programs like HortySpringer Pathways, aimed at hospital and physician leaders to manage and oversee medical staff, which underscores their commitment to not just legal advice but also in enhancing the operational capabilities of healthcare professionals through legal education.
  1. Publications and Engagement: They engage actively with the healthcare community through newsletters like the Health Law Express, indicating a commitment to keeping their clients and the broader healthcare community updated on legal changes and best practices.
  1. Legal Expertise: Their involvement in cases and discussions around significant legal issues like the PSQIA (Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act) and the implications of Supreme Court decisions on healthcare indicates they’re not just practitioners but also contributors to the legal discourse in healthcare.
  1. Size and Structure: The firm has around 14 attorneys, all based in Pittsburgh, focusing solely on health care, which might suggest a boutique yet highly specialized approach to legal services.

In summary, Horty, Springer & Mattern, P.C. is recognized for its deep expertise in healthcare law, innovative service delivery, and a comprehensive approach that includes legal advice, education, and active engagement in healthcare policy and legal developments.  Their focus on healthcare governance, compliance, and operational support for healthcare entities makes them a notable entity in the legal landscape of healthcare in the U.S.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Nick Calabrese at ncalabrese@hortyspringer.com.

October 31, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
We are working on rewriting our Medical Staff governance documents and noticed that the discussion draft of the Medical Staff Bylaws prepared by HSM attorneys includes the details on histories and physicals.  Why are the specifics of histories and physicals included in the Bylaws instead of the Medical Staff Rules and Regulations?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY CHARLES CHULACK:
This is a question and answer (but mostly the answer) that has perplexed us for quite some time so we understand any confusion.  The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) Conditions of Participation (“CoPs”), which are the federal regulations with which hospitals must comply to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, require the Medical Staff Bylaws to include certain details on histories and physicals, including those related to timing, practitioner eligibility for completion, use of histories and physicals performed before admission or registration, and options for using an “assessment” for outpatient surgical or procedural services.  See 42 C.F.R. § 482.22(c)(5).  Accreditation entities have followed suit and also require this information related to histories and physicals to be in the Bylaws.  See, e.g., The Joint Commission, Standards & EPs, MS.01.01.01, EP 16 (“The medical staff bylaws include…[t]he requirements for completing and documenting medical histories and physical examinations.”).

In the past, we assumed that CMS was using “Bylaws” in the CoPs generally to encompass any of the Medical Staff governance documents, including the Rules and Regulations.  Thus, if a hospital was using a separate document approach (i.e., Bylaws, Credentials Policy, Organization Manual, Rules and Regulations, etc.), histories and physicals could be addressed in the Rules and Regulations.  This makes sense because the Rules and Regulations, traditionally, cover the rules for clinical services and the provision of care, such as those related to admissions, orders, consultations, surgical services, and anesthesia.  The rules for histories and physicals would be a logical fit for the Rules and Regulations.  However, we received feedback from CMS that the details on histories and physicals specified in the CoPs must be included in the Bylaws document itself.

Some medical staffs with which we have worked include only what is required by CMS in the Bylaws and then include additional details on histories and physicals (e.g., the details of the examination and documentation of the examination) in the Rules and Regulations.  This is perfectly acceptable but results in fragmentation and documents that are difficult to reference for purposes of discovering all the requirements for histories and physicals.  It may be easier to simply include all the specifics on the topic in the Medical Staff Bylaws with a cross-reference in the Rules and Regulations to the appropriate section, article, or appendix of the Bylaws.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Charlie Chulack at cchulack@hortyspringer.com.

October 24, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
After attending HortySpringer’s Peer Review Clinic in Amelia Island earlier this year, we decided to ramp up a multi-specialty peer review committee to provide oversight over what has traditionally been a department-based process at our hospital.  We are struggling with what kind of information that new committee should share with our MEC.  Any tips or suggestions?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY IAN DONALDSON:
First off, thanks for attending the PRC! We are glad to hear our recommendations were helpful!

As it relates to your question, we recommend that your MEC not be given detailed, practitioner-specific information about individual cases that the multi-specialty peer review committee is reviewing.  There are several reasons for this recommendation:

  • If a peer review matter cannot be successfully resolved by the peer review committee, the matter may end up on the MEC’s agenda. If the MEC has been receiving detailed, practitioner-specific reports throughout the review process leading up to that referral, the physician under review may allege that the MEC has already “pre-judged” the matter and were biased by all the sound bites it received from the peer review committee.
  • The MEC is the only Medical Staff body that can recommend or take disciplinary action with respect to a physician, so to promote positive engagement with the peer review process, we like to keep the MEC out of day-to-day “routine” peer review matters. We have found this can help change the perception of peer review from one that has traditionally been viewed as punitive to one that is educational and constructive.
  • Providing practitioner-specific details to the 20 or 30 people who are in the room at your MEC meetings can undermine the principle that the peer review process is confidential.

All of the above has led us to believe that the MEC can satisfy its legal responsibilities to oversee the peer review process by reviewing aggregate, anonymized reports regarding the activities of the peer review committee, without having to give practitioner-specific details.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Ian Donaldson at idonaldson@hortyspringer.com.

October 10, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
We are amending our medical staff governance documents and considering giving Advanced Practice Professionals (“APPs”) a larger role in medical staff affairs.  Do you have any recommendations based on your experience working with other hospitals?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY CHARLES CHULACK:
With the ever-increasing role that APPs, such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners, play in the delivery of health care in hospitals, we are seeing many hospitals across the country wrestle with this question.  Unfortunately, there is not a “one-size-fits-all” answer and the appropriate solution needs to take into consideration federal and state regulations and the culture of your medical staff and hospital, among other things.

Let’s start with the regulations.  The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Conditions of Participation (“CoPs”) defer to state law when it comes to appointing APPs to the medical staff:  “The medical staff must be composed of doctors of medicine or osteopathy.  In accordance with State law, including scope-of-practice laws, the medical staff may also include…non-physician practitioners who are determined to be eligible for appointment by the governing body.”  42 C.F.R. §482.22(a) (emphasis added).  However, you want to be sure to check your state’s laws and regulations to determine if those sources are more restrictive.  By way of example, Pennsylvania limits medical staff membership to physicians and dentists.  28 Pa. Code § 107.2.  Even though Pennsylvania has a “structured exception” allowing hospitals to admit podiatrists to the medical staff, there is no corresponding exception for APPs.  Compare Pennsylvania’s restrictive approach with the approach taken by Colorado, which allows both physicians and non-physician practitioners to be on the medical staff.

Even in the states that permit APPs to be on the medical staff, we are seeing a variety of approaches.  Some hospitals make APPs eligible for medical staff membership, including appointment to the Active Staff.  That being said, these hospitals impose appropriate limitations on their prerogatives when compared to physician members of the Active Staff such as not being able to serve as the President of the Medical Staff (the Interpretive Guidelines to the CoPs say that the President of the Medical Staff “must be a doctor of medicine or osteopathy, or, if permitted by state law where the hospital is located, a doctor of dental surgery, dental medicine, or podiatric medicine”).  While we don’t see this approach taken frequently, it is more common with Critical Access Hospitals or smaller hospitals where the majority of clinical services are provided by APPs.

A more common approach is gradual integration of APPs into medical staff functions.  For example, the medical staff may begin by creating an APP Credentials Committee which reviews applications of APPs and reports to the regular Credentials Committee, or appoint APPs to the Credentials Committee to tap into their expertise when it comes to state scope of practice laws for APPs, how they practice, and what they are permitted to do in similarly-situated hospitals.  Some hospitals are also appointing an APP to the Medical Executive Committee and Multi-Specialty Peer Review Committee.  It varies with respect to whether they are given voting rights since we have seen some physician members of the medical staff express discomfort with an APP, who may have a supervising agreement while practicing in the hospital, evaluating the care they provide as a part of one of these committees.

In conclusion, APPs are increasing in number and have a growing role in providing clinical services in hospitals.  If your medical staff has not yet addressed this issue, the odds are that it will need to in the future.  Nevertheless, these are interesting and exciting issues whose solutions can result in a more vibrant and robust medical staff and hospital.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Charles Chulack at CChulack@hortyspringer.com.

October 3, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
We have a patient scheduled for surgery who is deaf and we want to make sure that we are providing reasonable accommodations in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. With that said, do we have to hire an in-person sign language interpreter, or can we rely upon video remote interpreting services to communicate with the patient?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY MARY PATERNI:
It’s great that you’re planning ahead to ensure that you can communicate effectively with your patient, especially in situations like these where communication is critical to quality care.  Under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), hospitals and other places of public accommodation are required to provide “auxiliary aids and services” to individuals with disabilities to ensure effective communication.  “Auxiliary aids and services” include qualified interpreters who are either on site or available through video remote interpreting (“VRI”) services.

If your hospital is considering VRI services in lieu of in-person interpreters, please note that, in accordance with the ADA, these services must provide:

  • real time, full motion video and audio over a dedicated, high-speed, wide-bandwidth video connection or wireless connection that delivers high-quality video images that do not produce lags, choppy, blurry, or grainy images, or irregular pauses in communication;
  • a sharply delineated image that is large enough to display the interpreter’s face, arms, hands, and fingers, and the participating individual’s face, arms, hands, and fingers, regardless of his or her body position;
  • a clear, audible transmission of voices; and
  • adequate training to users of the technology and other involved individuals so that they may quickly and efficiently set up and operate the VRI. 28 CFR § 36.303.

The type of auxiliary aid or service will vary depending on the complexity of the communication involved and the context in which the communication is taking place.  While the ADA encourages consulting with the individual to determine the type of aid needed, it is the ultimate decision of the hospital or public accommodation so long as the chosen method of communication results in effective communication.  Therefore, as long as the VRI services provided meet the requirements listed above, and it is determined that VRI is an appropriate method of communication under the circumstances, then it is likely sufficient for a hospital to offer a patient such services as a reasonable accommodation rather than provide and pay for an in-person interpreter.

If you have a quick question about this, or any other hospital-related ADA issue, e‑mail Mary Paterni at mpaterni@hortyspringer.com.