health Care | | Page 2

Businesses Should Confirm Using Benefits, Meeting Mandates Of Special COVID-19 Tax Rules

June 26, 2020

Earlier this week, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) announced that employee benefit plan participants that already took a required minimum distribution (RMD) in 2020 from certain retirement accounts now has the opportunity through August 31, 2020 to roll those funds back into a retirement account following the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act RMD waiver for 2020. The announcement of this relief covers one of a long and growing list of special tax and other COVID-19 responsive special rules and requirements that may change requirements, provide special relief or both for businesses and individuals that every business leader and individual should carefully monitor and respond to appropriately.

Retirement Plan Rollover Relief

On July 23, 2020, the IRS announced its extension of the 60-day rollover period for any RMDs already taken this year to August 31, 2020 to give taxpayers time to take advantage of this opportunity in Notice 2020-51 (PDF). The Notice also answers questions regarding the waiver of RMDs for 2020 under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, known as the CARES Act.

The CARES Act enabled any taxpayer with an RMD due in 2020 from a defined-contribution retirement plan, including a 401(k) or 403(b) plan, or an IRA, to skip those RMDs this year. This includes anyone who turned age 70 1/2 in 2019 and would have had to take the first RMD by April 1, 2020. This waiver does not apply to defined-benefit plans.

In addition to the rollover opportunity, an IRA owner or beneficiary who has already received a distribution from an IRA of an amount that would have been an RMD in 2020 can repay the distribution to the IRA by August 31, 2020. The notice provides that this repayment is not subject to the one rollover per 12-month period limitation and the restriction on rollovers for inherited IRAs.

The notice provides two sample amendments that employers may adopt to give plan participants and beneficiaries whose RMDs are waived a choice as to whether or not to receive the waived RMD.

Other COVID-19 Tax Rules & Relief

The guidance and relief in Notice 2020-51 highlights only one of a long list of special COVID-19 associated tax rules and relief that could apply to a business, its employees or employee benefit plan participants or both including the following:

Along with these tax rules, businesses and their employees also may be impacted by a broad range of special federal and state labor and employment and other rules adopted in response to the continuing COVID-19 health care emergency and its fallout. Businesses and their leaders should carefully review and monitor these and other COVID-19 specific rules to ensure that their businesses don’t trigger unanticipated liability by failing to meet critical requirements or to ensure that they take full advantage of all available relief.

More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.

About the Author

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law By the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, and the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising, representing, defending and training health care providers, health plans and insurers, employers, community organizations and others about HIPAA and other privacy concerns and has published and spoken extensively on these concerns.

Her involvement with HIPAA and other privacy and data concerns has taken place as part of her more than 30 years involvement working with with public and private health industry, health insurance and other employers and organizations of all sizes, employee benefit plans, insurance and financial services, health industry and a broad range of public and private domestic and international business, community and government organizations and leaders on pandemic and other health and safety, workforce and performance preparedness, risks and change management, disaster preparedness and response and other operational and tactical concerns throughout her adult life. A former lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its pension project, Ms. Stamer also has worked internationally and domestically as an advisor to business, community and government leaders on crisis preparedness and response, privacy and data security, workforce, health care and other policy and enforcement, as well as regularly advises and defends organizations about the design, administration and defense of their organizations workforce, employee benefit and compensation, safety, discipline and other management practices and actions.

Ms. Stamer also serves in leadership of a broad range of professional and civic organizations and shares insights and thought leadership through her extensive publications and public speaking. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here. ©2020 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.

Comments Off on Businesses Should Confirm Using Benefits, Meeting Mandates Of Special COVID-19 Tax Rules | 401(k), Accommodation, ADA, adea, Association Health Plan, board of directors, Brokers, Child Safety, Civil Rights, Claims, Corporate Compliance, COVID, Data Breach, defined benefit plan, Defined Benefit Plans, defined contribution plan, Defined Contribution Plans, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Disability Leave, Disability Plans, Disaster, Discrimination, Disease Management, EBSA, Electronic Medical Record, Emergency, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, Employment Discrimination, family leave, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Government Contractors, government employer, government plan, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Leave, Managed Care, Management, OFCCP, OSHA, Privacy, Rehabilitation Act, retirement plan, Retirement Plans, Retirements, Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Insurance | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Ezekiel Elliott COVID-19 Diagnosis Disclosure Outrage Highlights Need To Handle COVID-19 & Other Medical Information With Care

June 16, 2020

While most COVID-19 test results won’t draw the widespread coverage and public interest that Elliott’s diagnosis did, businesses generally and health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses specifically need to recognize that coverage of the Elliott outrage will heighten awareness and therefore their need to properly handle and protect COVID-19 or other infectious disease and other testing, diagnosis, treatment and other medical and disability information collected or encountered in the course of their operation through the current COVID-19 health care emergency and otherwise in their own organizations.

ADA Responsibilities of Employers In Handling Medical Information

Protecting COVID-19 testing and other medical information isn’t just a concern for covered entities and their business associates, however. Businesses that are not covered entities also generally should use care in their collection, use, protection and disclosure of COVID-19 testing and other medical information to mitigate their potential liability under the disability discrimination requirements of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act and other laws. For instance, along with prohibiting employers covered by the ADA from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities and requiring those employers to provide reasonable accommodations to such employees, the ADA also regulates the ability of covered employers to perform or require medical testing and imposes specific medical confidentiality requirements on all covered employers. See e.g., What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws.

The ADA’s medical confidentiality requirements dictate that covered employers maintain medical information and records about employees and applicants in separate, confidential files. Covered employers are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of medical information and records and cannot disclose it without authorization from the subject employee except under the specific conditions allowed by the ADA.

EEOC guidance provided in its publication entitled Pandemic Preparedness in the Workplace and the Americans With Disabilities Act as updated as of March 19, 2020 emphasizes that covered employers remain accountable for complying with the requirements of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act during the current COVID-19 health care emergency and other pandemics.

While the EEOC Technical Assistance Questions and Answers in its publication What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws
Technical Assistance Questions and Answers as updated on June 11, 2020 recognizes temperature checks and certain other COVID-19 inquiries to screen for COVID-19 exposure or infection might be permitted under the safety exception to the ADA during the current COVID-19 health care emergency, that and other EEOC guidance makes clear that covered employers remain responsible for ensuring that the ADA medical confidentiality requirements are met with regarding to testing and related medical information. As a result, all ADA-covered employers generally and health care employers specifically are urged to use care both in the administration and collection of information regarding COVID-19 testing and diagnosis, and the protection of the confidentiality of COVID-19 and other medical information and records collected in the course of administering employment, safety, medical leave or other absence or other operations throughout the COVID-19 health care emergency.

Added HIPAA & Texas HIPAA Concerns For Health Plans & Other HIPAA Covered Entities

Assuming that the disclosure of Elliott’s information is traced to a testing provider, laboratory or other health care provider, health plan or insurer, health care clearing house subject to HIPAA (“covered entity”), a service provider acting as a business associate to a covered entity, or a member of their workforce, the unauthorized release of Elliott’s test results, that he underwent the testing, or other medical information, Elliott’s complaint about a possible HIPAA violation could be well-founded as both HIPAA and the somewhat broader provisions of the Texas Medical Privacy Act (“Tex-HIPAA”) (hereafter collectively the “HIPAA Laws”) both generally prohibit unauthorized disclosure of protected medical information such as his COVID-19 test or test results to the media.

The COVID-19 test results and of “individually identifiable personal health information” about Elliott and his encounter created, used, access or disclosed by the testing facility or other health care provider, a health plan, health care clearinghouse (“covered entity”) or a member of its workforce or a subcontractor acting as a business associated qualify as “protected health information subject to HIPAA’s privacy, security, breach and privacy rights protections of HIPAA and Tex-HIPAA.

The HIPAA and Tex-HIPAA prohibition against unauthorized disclosure of protected health information to the media stem from the HIPAA Laws’ broader requirement that covered entities and business associates affirmatively safeguard protected health information against unauthorized use, access or disclosure and sweeping prohibition against their disclosing or allowing the disclosure of protected health information without a HIPAA-compliant authorization except under the narrow and specifically delineated exceptions identified in the rule, none of which appear relevant to the media disclosure objected to by Elliott from the currently available public information.

Both HIPAA Laws expressly prohibit unauthorized disclosure of protected health information by covered entities or their business associates except under the specifically detailed conditions specified in one or more exceptions to this general rule. Assuming all relevant conditions to qualify for the exception are met, HIPAA does allow covered entities and business associates treatment, payment, operations, public health activities or another situation meeting all applicable requirements of an express exception to the HIPAA prohibition against disclosure.

The federal agency primarily responsible for the implementation and enforcement of HIPAA, the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) regulatory guidance and enforcement history clearly communicates OCR’s view that covered entities or business associates violate HIPAA by disclosing protected health information to the media or other third parties without first obtaining a HIPAA-compliant authorization from the subject of the information except under the specific circumstances described in an applicable Privacy Rule exception.

In its May 5, 2020 Guidance on Covered Health Care Providers and Restrictions on Media Access to Protected Health Information about Individuals in Their Facilities (“5/5 Guidance”), for instance, OCR specifically reminded HIPAA covered health care providers that the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not permit them to give media and film crews access to protected health information including access to facilities where patients’ protected health information will be accessible without the patients’ prior authorization. has made clear that testing facilities and other health care providers generally remain accountable for complying with the HIPAA Privacy Rule that prohibits unauthorized use, access or disclosure of test results and other protected health information except as specifically allowed in the applicable HIPAA Law.

The 5/5 Guidance specifically states, “The COVID-19 public health emergency does not alter the HIPAA Privacy Rule’s existing restrictions on disclosures of protected health information (PHI) to the media.’ Additionally, it states confirmed that even during the current COVID-19 public health emergency, covered health care providers remain required to obtain a valid HIPAA authorization from each patient whose PHI will be accessible to the media before the media is given access to that PHI. In this regard, the 5/5 Guidance states, As explained in prior guidance,1 HIPAA does not permit covered health care providers to give the media, including film crews, access to any areas of their facilities where patients’ PHI will be accessible in any form (e.g., written, electronic, oral, or other visual or audio form), without first obtaining a written HIPAA authorization from each patient whose PHI would be accessible to the media. 2 Additionally, covered health care providers may not require a patient to sign a HIPAA authorization as a condition of receiving treatment. The guidance clarifies that masking or obscuring patients’ faces or identifying information before broadcasting a recording of a patient is not sufficient, as a valid HIPAA authorization is still required before giving the media such access. Additionally, the guidance describes reasonable safeguards that should be used to protect the privacy of patients whenever the media is granted access to facilities.

OCR’s positions on disclosures to the media in the 5/5 Guidance reaffirm OCR’s longstanding interpretation and enforcement of HIPAA as prohibiting disclosures of PHI and media access to areas where patients or their protected health information might be visible or accessible is long standing.

In June, 2013, for instance, OCR sent a clear message to covered entities and business associates not to make unconsented disclosures of protected health information to or allow media access to areas where patients or their protected health information could be accessed or observed when it required Shasta Regional Medical Center (SRMC) to pay $275,000 to resolve OCR HIPAA charges stemming from SRMC’s unauthorized disclosure of protected health information to multiple media outlets as part of a public relations effort to mitigate damage from fraud and misconduct allegations made against it by the patient. See HIPAA Sanctions Triggered From Covered Entity Statements To Media, Workforce.

OCR subsequently reinforced its warning to covered entities and business associates about unauthorized disclosures of protected health information in a 2016 Frequently Asked Question (Media FAQ) that discussed covered entities HIPAA responsibilities when dealing with the media. The Media FAQ was issued in conjunction with OCR’s collection of its $2.2 million settlement with New York-Presbyterian Hospital and a series of other settlements totaling $999,000 from three other health care providers accused of violating HIPAA by allowing media personnel into treatment or other areas where patients or patient protected health information was accessible without first obtaining a HIPAA compliant written authorization from each patient or other subject present or whose protected health information otherwise would be accessible to the media. See $999K Price Hospitals Pay To Settle HIPAA Privacy Charges From Allowing ABC To Film Patients Without Authorization.

In the Media FAQ, OCR stated HIPAA required covered entities to obtain prior written authorization before disclosing protected health information to the media or allowing media to film or access exam rooms or other areas where patients or protected health information could be observed or accessed. The Media FAQ also stated that masking or blurring the identity of the patient or their specific information was not an adequate substitute for written authorization and that covered entities also were responsible for ensuring that reasonable safeguards were in place to protect against impermissible disclosures or to limit incidental disclosures of other PHI in areas where media is allowed access where prior authorization has not been obtained. While stressing the importance of compliance with these requirements, however, the Media FAQ clarified that the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not require health care providers to prevent members of the media from entering areas of their facilities that are otherwise generally accessible to the public like public waiting areas or areas where the public enters or exits the facility In addition, the Media FAQ states a health care provider or other Covered Entity also highlighted certain other limited circumstances where HIPAA might allow limited disclosure of protected health information to the media in accordance with specific provisions of the Privacy Rule about an incapacitated patient when in the patient’s best interest; or disclose a patient’s location in the facility and condition in general terms that do not communicate specific medical information about the individual to the media or any other person any person where the individual has not objected to his information being included in the facility directory and the media representative or other person asks for the individual by name.

In the intervening years, OCR periodically has issued additional reminders to covered entities about HIPAA’s general prohibition against unconsented disclosures to the media as well as sanctioned harshly various covered entities for violating these prohibitions. In 2017, OCR required the largest not-for-profit health system in Southeast Texas, Memorial Hermann Health System (MHHS), to pay OCR $2.4 million to settle charges it violated HIPAA by issuing a press release to the media that shared the name and other protected health information about a patient suspected of using a fraudulent insurance card to obtain care at a clinic without the patient’s prior HIPAA-compliant authorization. While OCR concluded a report made MHHS made to law enforcement about the patient was allowable under the Privacy Rule, OCR found MHHS violated the Privacy Rule by issuing the press release disclosing the patient’s name and other PHI without authorization from the patient and also by failing to timely document the sanctioning of its workforce members for impermissibly disclosing the patient’s information. See $2.4M HIPAA Settlement Warns Providers About Media Disclosures Of PHI.

While OCR has announced certain temporary enforcement relief from a narrow set of HIPAA requirements during the COVID-19 health care emergency as applied to certain qualifying testing facilities, telemedicine providers and other specific health care providers engaging in certain types of health care during the COVID-19 health care emergency, OCR consistently has made clear that its COVID-19 HIPAA relief is very limited in scope, applicability and duration and in no way waives the prohibition against unauthorized disclosure to the media or other third parties not generally permitted under HIPAA. See e.g., 5/5 Guidance; OCR Issues Guidance on How Health Care Providers Can Contact Former COVID-19 Patients About Blood and Plasma Donation Opportunities; OCR Announces Notification of Enforcement Discretion for Community-Based Testing Sites During the COVID-19 Nationwide Public Health Emergency; OCR Announces Notification of Enforcement Discretion to Allow Uses and Disclosures of Protected Health Information by Business Associates for Public Health and Health Oversight Activities During The COVID-19 Nationwide Public Health Emergency; OCR Issues Bulletin on Civil Rights Laws and HIPAA Flexibilities That Apply During the COVID-19 Emergency; OCR Issues Guidance to Help Ensure First Responders and Others Receive Protected Health Information about Individuals Exposed to COVID-19; OCR Issues Guidance on Telehealth Remote Communications Following Its Notification of Enforcement Discretion; OCR Announces Notification of Enforcement Discretion for Telehealth Remote Communications During the COVID-19 Nationwide Public Health Emergency. To the contrary, OCR’s announcement of the 5/5 guidance quotes OCR Director Roger Severino, as stating “Hospitals and health care providers must get authorization from patients before giving the media access to their medical information; obscuring faces after the fact just doesn’t cut it,” Severino added.

Minimize Exposures By Preventing Unauthorized Media & Other Disclosures

Even without Mr. Elliott’s outrage heightening awareness about HIPAA’s prohibitions against unauthorized disclosures of protected health information to the media, the recent warning about HIPAA’s restrictions on media disclosure and access to protected health information and patient treatment areas in OCR’s 5/5 Guidance alone should serve as a strong incentive for covered entities and business associate promptly to reverify that the adequacy of their current policies, practices and training to prevent inappropriate media disclosures of protected health information and otherwise defend their compliance with OCR’s interpretation of HIPAA’s requirements for dealing with the media. Predictable heightened patient and public awareness and expectations about these and other HIPAA responsibilities fueled by the widespread media coverage of Mr. Elliott’s COVID-19 test results and his outrage about the unauthorized disclosure of his test results makes it more important than ever that health care providers and other covered entities and business associates take steps to prepare to respond to foreseeable complaints and questions by other patients, their families and others.

As part of these efforts, most covered entities and business associates may want to consider, at minimum, reconfirming the adequacy and understanding of their current media and other disclosure policies and practices, as well as sending strategic communications to their business associates and members of their workforce reminding them of the covered entity’s policies regarding media access and disclosures.

As part of these activities, covered entities should consider conducting a well-documented assessment of their current policies, practices and workforce training on disclosure of information to the media and other parties generally, as well as policies on allowing media or other parties to enter, film, photograph or record within their facilities or otherwise disclosing or allowing media access to their facilities. Along with these efforts, most covered entities also may want to consider also reminding workforce members that their patient privacy responsibilities also requires that they not share or discuss patient protected health information, film, photograph, or otherwise record, patients or areas where patients or patient protected health information is or might be present without prior written consent of the patient and the consent of their organization.

Since covered entities and members of their workforce also are likely to be subject to other statutory, ethical, contractual or other privacy or confidentiality requirements beyond those imposed by the HIPAA Laws such as medical confidentiality duties applicable to physicians and other health care providers under medical ethics, professional licensure or other similar rules, contractual responsibilities, as well as common law or statutory privacy, theft of likeness or other statutory or common law tort claims and exposures. Covered entities and business associates generally should consider whether other steps are advisable to manage these exposures along with managing their HIPAA Law compliance.

Given the high incidence of COVID-19 exposure and infection within their workplace, covered entities, business associates and other employers should use care fulfill their HIPAA Law relevant employment law confidentiality responsibilities when dealing with testing or other medical information about employees. In this respect, along with any HIPAA Law obligations that a covered entity or business associate has in handling medical information about a patient who also is an employee or family member of an employee, covered entities also should use care to ensure that medical confidentiality requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and other applicable employment laws are met.

Since this analysis and review in most cases will result in the uncovering or discussion of potentially legally or politically sensitive information, Covered Entities should consider consulting with or engaging experienced legal counsel for assistance in structuring and executing these activities to maximize their ability to claim attorney-client privilege or other evidentiary protections against discovery or disclosure of certain aspects of these activities.

Finally, covered entities should keep in mind that HIPAA and other medical privacy compliance and risk management is an ongoing process requiring constant awareness and diligence. Consequently, covered entities and business associates also should use care both to monitor OCR and other regulatory and enforcement developments as well as exercise ongoing vigilance to monitor and maintain compliance within their organizations.

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here. ©2020 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.

Comments Off on Ezekiel Elliott COVID-19 Diagnosis Disclosure Outrage Highlights Need To Handle COVID-19 & Other Medical Information With Care | Accommodation, ADA, adea, Association Health Plan, board of directors, Brokers, Child Safety, Civil Rights, Claims, Corporate Compliance, COVID, Data Breach, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Disability Leave, Disability Plans, Disaster, Discrimination, Disease Management, EBSA, Electronic Medical Record, Emergency, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, Employment Discrimination, family leave, Fiduciary Responsibility, FMLA, Government Contractors, government employer, government plan, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Leave, Managed Care, Management, OFCCP, OSHA, Privacy, Rehabilitation Act | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Wish Tax Guidance Were Clearer? Tell IRS/Treasury Your Suggested Topics For 2020-2021 Treasury Priority Guidance Plan

June 11, 2020

Lack of clarity in current tax regulations or guidance creating headaches? The Department of the Treasury (“Treasury Department”) and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) are inviting businesses and individuals to submit recommendations about what issues the 2020-2021 Priority Guidance Plan should include. Businesses and individuals with ideas about tax guidance needed to solve vexing issues should consider submitting their proposed guidance to the the Treasury Department and IRS in response to this invitation.

The Treasury Department’s Office of Tax Policy and the Service uses the Priority Guidance Plan each year to identify and prioritize the tax issues that tax regulations, revenue rulings, revenue procedures, notices, and other published administrative guidance should address during the year.

The 2020-2021 Priority Guidance Plan will identify guidance projects that the Treasury Department and the Service intend to actively work on as priorities during the period from July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021.

In reviewing recommendations and selecting additional projects for inclusion on the 2020-2021 Priority Guidance Plan, the Treasury Department and the Service will consider the following:

Whether the recommended guidance resolves significant issues relevant to a broad class of taxpayers;
Whether the recommended guidance reduces controversy and lessens the burden on taxpayers or the Service;
Whether the recommended guidance relates to recently enacted legislation;
Whether the recommendation involves existing regulations or other guidance that is outdated, unnecessary, ineffective, insufficient, or unnecessarily burdensome and that should be modified, streamlined, expanded, replaced, or withdrawn;
Whether the recommended guidance would be in accordance with Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339), Executive Order 13777 (82 FR 12285), Executive Order 13789 (82 FR 19317), or other executive orders.
Whether the recommended guidance promotes sound tax administration;
Whether the Service can administer the recommended guidance on a uniform basis; and
Whether the recommended guidance can be drafted in a manner that will enable taxpayers to easily understand and apply the guidance.

While suggestions are submitted throughout the year, Notice 2020-47 encourages individuals or businesses desiring to propose issues or other content to be included in the 2020-2021 Priority Guidance to submit their recommendations for guidance by Wednesday, July 22, 2020, for possible inclusion on the original 2020-2021 Priority Guidance Plan. Taxpayers are not required to submit recommendations for guidance in any particular format. Taxpayers should, however, briefly describe the recommended guidance and explain the need for the guidance. In addition, taxpayers may include an analysis of how the issue should be resolved. For recommendations to modify, streamline, or withdraw existing regulations or other guidance, taxpayers should explain

how the changes would reduce taxpayer cost and/or burden or benefit tax administration.

Notice 20-47 also states that taxpayers suggesting more than one guidance project prioritize the projects by order of importance. If a large number of projects are being suggested, it would be helpful if the projects were grouped by subject matter and then in terms of high, medium, or low priority. Requests for guidance in the form of petitions for rulemaking will be considered with other recommendations for guidance in accordance with the considerations described in Notice 2020-47.

More Information

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 30+ years legal and operational management work, coaching, public policy and regulatory affairs leadership and advocacy, training and public speaking and publications. As a significant part of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively domestically and internationally on an demand, special project and ongoing basis with business, government and community organizations and their leaders, spoken and published extensively on human resources, employee benefits and other workforce and services, tax, health care and health benefits, insurance, workers’ compensation and occupational disease, business disaster and distress and many other management topics, As a key focus of this work, Ms. Stamer has worked with public and private employers of all sizes, employee benefit plans, insurance and financial services, health industry and a broad range of public and private domestic and international business, community and government organizations and leaders on pandemic and other health and safety, workforce and performance preparedness, risks and change management, disaster preparedness and response and other operational and tactical concerns throughout her adult life. A former lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its pension project, Ms. Stamer also has worked internationally as an advisor to business, community and government leaders on crisis preparedness and response, workforce, health care and other reform, as well as regularly advises and defends organizations about the design, administration and defense of their organizations workforce, employee benefit and compensation, safety, discipline and other management practices and actions.

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law By the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, and the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also serves in leadership of a broad range of professional and civic organizations and shares insights and thought leadership through her extensive publications and public speaking. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here. ©2020 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.

Comments Off on Wish Tax Guidance Were Clearer? Tell IRS/Treasury Your Suggested Topics For 2020-2021 Treasury Priority Guidance Plan | 401(k), 4980D, 4980H, 5000, 6039D, ACA, compliance, Corporate Compliance, defined benefit plan, defined contribution plan, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, Employment Tax, Executive Compensation, Form 5500, Health Benefits, health Care, Health Plans, Premium Subsidies, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employer Sponsors & Health Plans Face Rising Risk From Mental Health & Substance Abuse Coverage Violations

March 20, 2020

Employer and union-sponsored health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries and administrators should heed the reminder of the importance of ensuring their health plans properly comply in form and operation with the mental health and substance abuse parity mandes of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) in when the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) Employee Benefit Security Administration (“EBSA”) released its 2020 Report to Congress: Parity Partnerships: Working Together (the”2020 Report”) available for review here.

In addition to exposing the health plan administrators and othr fiduciaries to potential claims denial or fiduciary responsibility claims brought by participants or beneficiaries, the Department of Labor or both, administrative penalties by the EBSA, or both, the MHPAEA mental health and substance abuse parity rules are among 40 federal mandates that when violated can rigger the automatic $100 per violation per day employer excise tax penalty under Internal Revenue Code Section 6039D. As a consequence, violations of the MHPAEA are particularly risky and potentially expensive for private employers, their health plans and the plan administrators and fiduciaries that administer it.

To avoid violation of the MHPAEA, covered health plans generally must cover mental health and substance abuse care and treatment on the same terms in form and in operation as other similar benefits, as well as comply with special notice and claims administration requirements. Comparability of mental health and substance abuse coverage is determined in accordance with complicated federal regulations, Meeting these requirements in operations is often tricky, particularly when health plans attempt to apply tools to manage hospitalization or other treatments. For additional information about MHPAEA, C. Stamer, What Should I Know About the MHPAEA and 21st Century Cures Act (2018).

Along with the 2020 Report, Along with releasing the report, EBSA also is continuing its efforts to educate plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators about the importance of compliance with the federally imposed group health plan mental health and substance abuse coverage mandates of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (“MHPAEA”). Consequently, along with its release of the 2020 Report, EBSA reminded plans, employers and other interested parties of the following previously published EBSA guidance about the MHPAEA mandates:

FY 2019 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) Enforcement Fact Sheet, available at https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/EBSA/laws-and-regulations/laws/mental-health-parity/mhpaea-enforcement-2019.pdf
Appendix to FY 2019 MHPAEA Enforcement Fact Sheet, available at https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/EBSA/laws-and-regulations/laws/mental-health-parity/mhpaea-enforcement-2019-fact-sheet-appendix.pdf

MHPAEA Enforcement Authority

MHPAEA enforcement is split between the EBSA and the Department of Health & Human Services Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) depending on the nature and sponsorship of the health program.

Pursuant to its enforcement authority under Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), EBSA is responsible for enforcement of the MHPAEA with respect to approximately 2.4 million private employment-based group health plans. In contrast, CMSenforces MHPAEA and other applicable provisions of Title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) with respect to non-federal governmental group health plans, such as plans for employees of state and local governments. Sponsors of self-funded, nonfederal governmental plans may elect to exempt those plans from (opt out of) certain requirements of Title XXVII of the PHS Act, including MHPAEA. In addition, CMS enforces MHPAEA with respect to health insurance issuers selling products in the individual and fully insured group markets in states that elect not to enforce or fail to substantially enforce MHPAEA. Currently, CMS is responsible for enforcement of MHPAEA with regard to issuers in four states: Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming. In these states, CMS reviews health insurance policy forms of issuers in the individual and group markets for compliance with MHPAEA prior to the products being offered for sale. In addition, CMS has collaborative enforcement agreements with five states: Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Montana, and Wisconsin. These states perform state regulatory and oversight functions with respect to the federal requirements, including MHPAEA. However, if the state finds a potential violation and is unable to obtain compliance by an issuer, the state will refer the matter to CMS for possible enforcement action. CMS also performs market conduct examinations, where issuers are audited for compliance with applicable federal requirements, including MHPAEA, in states where CMS is responsible for enforcement and in states with a collaborative enforcement agreement when the state requests assistance.

EBSA FY 2019 Enforcement Against Private Employment Based Health Plans

The Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2019 Fact Sheet reports that in FY 2019, EBSA investigated and closed 186 health plan investigations in FY 2019 (and 3,758 health plan investigations since FY 2011). Of these:

71 investigations involved fully-insured plans, 91 investigations involved self-insured plans, and
24 investigations involved plans of both types (the plan or service provider offered both fully-insured and self-insured options).
183 of these closed investigations involved plans subject to MHPAEA, which were reviewed for MHPAEA compliance. Of these, 68 investigations involved fully-insured plans, 91 investigations involved self-insured plans, and 24 investigations involved plans of both types (the plan or service provider offered both fully-insured and self-insured options).
EBSA cited 12 MHPAEA violations in 9 of these investigations.
Of these 9 investigations, 1 investigation involved a fully-insured group health plan, 3 investigations involved self-funded group health plans, 2 investigations involved partially self-funded group health plans and 3 were service provider investigations.
EBSA benefits advisors answered 90 public inquiries, including 62 complaints, in FY 2019 related to MHPAEA (and answered 1,445 inquiries related to MHPAEA since FY 2011)

Concerning the focus of the EBSA investigated MHPAEA violations, EBSA reports the investigations focused on the following categories:

Annual dollar limits: dollar limitations on the total amount of specified benefits that may be paid in a 12-month period under a group health plan or health insurance coverage for any coverage unit (such as self-only or family coverage).
Aggregate lifetime dollar limits: dollar limitations on the total amount of specified benefits that may be paid under a group health plan or health insurance coverage for any coverage unit.
Benefits in all classifications: requirement that if a plan or issuer provides mental health or substance use disorder benefits in any classification described in the MHPAEA final regulation, mental health or substance use disorder benefits must be provided in every classification in which medical/surgical benefits are provided.
Financial requirements: deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, or out-of-pocket maximums.
Treatment limitations: includes limits on benefits based on the frequency of treatment, number of visits, days of coverage, days in a waiting period, or other similar limits on the scope or duration of treatment. Treatment limitations include both quantitative treatment limitations (QTLs), which are expressed numerically (such as 50 outpatient visits per year), and nonquantitative treatment limitations (NQTLs), which otherwise limit the scope or duration of benefits for treatment under a plan or coverage.
Cumulative financial requirements and QTLs: financial requirements and treatment limitations that determine whether or to what extent benefits are provided based on certain accumulated amounts including deductibles, out-of-pocket maximums and annual or lifetime day or visit limits.
Other ERISA violations (such as claims processing and disclosure violations) affecting mental health and substance use disorder benefits.

Along with the EBSA enforcement, private participants and beneficiaries of private employer sponsored health plans also can bring lawsuits to recover benefits and other relief for violatons of MHPAEA. Along with the actual damages, attorneys’ fees and other costs of enforcement, a successful MHPAEA enforcement also typically will reveal the sponsoring employer or union’s failure to make the required self-disclosure and excise tax payments mandated for violations under Internal Revenue Code Section 6039D, triggering added penalties beyond the initial penalties triggered by the uncorrected violation. Furthermore, delayed discovery of these violations also makes correction particularly costly for self-insured plans and their sponsors as deadlines for submitting expenses to qualify for stop loss reimbursement often will have passed by the time the liability comes to light. Accordingly, employer and other health plan sponsors, their fiduciaries and adminstrators generally will want to audit and monitor their health plan’s compliance with the MHPAEA throught the calendar year and as plan year or stop loss filing deadlines approach to mitigate these exposures.

More Information

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 30+ years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. As a significant part of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively domestically and internationally with business, government and community leaders to prepare for and deal with pandemic and other health and safety, financial, workforce and other organizational crisis, change and workforce, employee benefit, health care and other operations planning, preparedness and response for more than 30 years. As a part of this work, she regularly advises businesses and government leaders on an an demand and ongoing basis about preparation of workforce, health care and other business and government policies and practices to deal with management in a wide range of contexts ranging from day to day operations, through times of change and in response to operational, health care, natural disaster, economic and other crisis and change.

Author of “Privacy and the Pandemic Workshop” for the Association of State and Territorial Health Plans, “How to Conduct A Reduction In Force,” and a multitude of other highly regarded publications and presentations on workforce, compliance, health care and health benefits, pandemic and other health crisis, workers’ compensation and occupational disease, business disaster and distress and many other topics, Ms. Stamer has worked with employers, insurers, health industry organizations and providers and domestic and international community and government leaders on pandemic and other health and safety, workforce and performance preparedness, risks and change management, disaster preparedness and response and other operational and tactical concerns throughout her adult life. A former lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its pension privaitization project, Ms. Stamer also has worked internationally as an advisor to business, community and government leaders on crisis preparedness and response, workforce, health care and other reform, as well as regularly advises and defends organizations about the design, administration and defense of their organizations workforce, employee benefit and compensation, safety, discipline and other management practices and actions.

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law By the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, and the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Employer Sponsors & Health Plans Face Rising Risk From Mental Health & Substance Abuse Coverage Violations | Corporate Compliance, Employer, Employers, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health plan, Health Plans, HSA, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Restructuring | Tagged: crisis, Disaster, employer MHPAEA, Health Plan, Health Plans, metnal health, substance abuse | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Self Insured Plan & Contract Amendments Likely Required To Waive Deductibles, Expand Other Coronavirus Coverage

March 11, 2020

Following up on the White House’s announcement yesterday that by major health insurers, Medicare and Medicaid to cover medically necessary testing and expand coverage for treatment of 2019 Novel Coronavirus (“coronavirus), without applying deductibles or coinsurance and offer expanded telemedicine and other coverage for coronavirus care, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) today issued guidance giving health plans confirming health plans waiving deductibles won’t violate the Internal Revenue Code health savings account high deductible health plan rules. However many employer or other sponsors of self-insured health plans may need to amend their health plans and take other steps if they want their health plans to provide similar coverage. Meanwhile the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) released updated guidance to help businesses, schools, and other organizations to operate safely during the current outbreak.

Coronavirus Testing & Other Health Coverage

Major health insurers agreed in a Whitehouse Coronavirus Taskforce meeting yesterday to cover medically necessary testing and extend coverage to medically necessary treatment. The agreement only technically binds Medicare, Medicaid and other government programs and private insurers participating in the meeting. It does not automatically extend coverage or waive deductibles for self-insured employer or union sponsored health plans which provide coverage for an estimated 61 percent of covered U.S. worker and their families. Self-insured plan sponsors wishing to provide similar coverage and waive deductibles generally will need to take specific action to amend their plans and related contractracts and communications.

Vice President Pence announced the agreement with insurers yesterday saying among other things:

I’m pleased to report, as you requested, Mr. President, that all the insurance companies here — either today or before today — have agreed to waive all copays on coronavirus testing and extend coverage for coronavirus treatment in all of their benefit plans.

And, at your direction, Medicare and Medicaid, last week, already made it clear to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries that coronavirus testing and treatment would be covered. These private insurance carriers have extended that as well.

They’ve also agreed to cover telemedicine so that anyone, particularly among the vulnerable senior population, would not feel it necessary to go to a hospital or go to their doctor. They’ll know that telemedicine is covered.

While the announcement indicates that insurers involved in the meeting plan to expand coverage and waive deductibles, self-insured employer and union sponsored plans aren’t technically covered by the agreement. While many employers sponsoring self-insured health plans will want their health plan to provide similar coverage as part of their risk management response to the coronavirus outbreak. Self-insured plan sponsors and fiduciaries should confirm appropriate plan language is adopted and that their stop loss insurance carriers are on board or other arrangements are made to plan for and cover costs, and that other plan vendors are on board to handle responsibilities. This is particularly critical as failing to make the necessary amendments could result in an absence of stoploss insurance to cover additional cost. And relatively small workforce is with few people seeking the care, this might not make a material difference in plan costs. If several workers seek treatment, however, the absence of stoploss insurance coverage for the claims could both impact coverage for those particular items if the deductible under the policy has been met as well as could affect whether those claims count overall aggregate coverage losses. The bottom line is, make sure that your documentation matches your Promise or your extension of coverage will likely be truly 100% self insured. Likewise employers and other plan sponsors in the plan administrators of these plans are reminded that the law generally requires that they provide written notice of the changes to plan members in a timely fashion. Having plan administration services and other vendors on board also is important to ensure that the claims are appropriately and timely processed to avoid violation of plan terms and other rules.

In the meantime, the widespread lack of understanding among plan members about the distinction between insured and self-insured plans coupled with the breadth of the unqualified announcement by the White House is likely to fuel confusion by covered individuals and their providers. Not only will covered persons and providers need to know whether the program is insured or self-insured, they also will need to confirm how each of these programs implements the expanded coverage.

IRS Guidance Clears Way For High Deductible Health Plans To Raise Deductibles

Employers and health plans wishing to waive deductibles for coronavirus testing will not have to worry that waiving the deductible will violate IRS high deductible health plan (“HDHP”) rules, however. Earlier today, the IRS provided relief allowing high deductible health plans to pay these expenses without disqualifying their programs for high deductible health plan treatment under the Code in Notice 2020-15. The Notice provides that, until further guidance is issued, a health plan that otherwise satisfies the requirements to be a HDHP under Code section 223(c)(2)(A) will not fail to be an HDHP under section 223(c)(2)(A) merely because the health plan provides health benefits associated with testing for and treatment of COVID-19 without a deductible, or with a deductible below the minimum deductible (self only or family) for an HDHP. Also due to this guidance, an individual covered by the HDHP will not be disqualified from being an eligible individual under section 223(c)(1) who may make tax-favored contributions to a health savings account (HSA).

Business & Other Disruptions Response

Government, healthcare and other leaders are urging businesses and individuals to limit contact and care to guard against the virus because of its strength and ability to spread quickly. The U.S.’s top infectious-disease specialist told lawmakers the pathogen “is 10 times more deadly than the seasonal flu.”

Accordingly, health and government officials are urging all segments of society to take precautions. CDC, for instance has published the resources to help businesses, schools and others keep their people and locations safe here.

Unfortunately the strategy for ending the pandemic brings its own draconian side effects. Along with dealing with the threat of the disease itself, the efforts to manage the disease outbreak, many businesses also are forced to deal with demand losses, supply and business interruptions, staffing shortages, unanticipated expenses and a wide range of other operational and financial disruptions that are side effects of the outbreak and its management.

The outbreak has and continues to prompt the cancellation of a plethora of business, trade, government, school, and sports and entertainment events. Notable for its involvement in heath care and related insurance matters, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”) is one of a growing number of event sponsors that are allowing workers to work from home, are cancelling or banning participation in live meetings and other events and/or are converting from live to virtual formats in response to the outbreak. Trade and business associations, entertainment and sports and otehr venures also are impacted. For instance, the NAIC announced its decision to move its meetings to a purely virtual format today. According to the announcement, the National Spring Meeting that had been scheduled to take place in Phoenix next week is cancelled. Instead, the NAIC announced the following tentative schedule:

The public portion of the NAIC’s special session on state responses to COVID-19 will be held on March 20, 2020, starting at 11 AM ET via virtual meeting.
Working groups, subgroups and other meetings will be held via conference calls March 16-31, 2020.
Task force meetings will be held via conference calls April 1-10, 2020.
Executive Committee and letter committees will be held via conference calls the week of April 13, 2020.
EX/Plenary will meet via public conference call on April 20, 2020.

A revised schedule with dates, times and call-in numbers will be available on Naic.org next week.

Concerning the reasons for its decision, the NAIC explained:

Recently, the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 has exceeded 100,000 worldwide, including over 1000 confirmed U.S. cases in 36 jurisdictions. Given rapidly changing information and out of an abundance of caution for the safety of our members, guests and staff, the NAIC officers, in consultation with NAIC members, have decided to hold the Spring National Meeting in a virtual-only format.

The NAIC is only one of a multitude of events cancelled or converted to a virtual format in the wake of fears of the coronavirus outbreak as US officials try to stem the spread of the virus. See e.g., Coronavirus updates in Texas: Community spread, school cancellations and more; Colleges and Universities Cancel Classes and Move Online Amid Coronavirus Fears; Coronavirus and sports: Seattle Mariners will move their home games, Golden State Warriors will play without fans and CBI is canceled.

Along with limiting contact, for instance, many businesses and organizations are “deep cleaning” their facilities to address potential virus contamination. Some biological experts point out however that this deep cleaning involves substantial expenditures which do little to guard against new exposures brought by others coming into a business, school or other workplace. Some biological contamination experts suggest that organizations should consider investing in resources specified ultraviolet lights or other tools that could help control exposures on a longer-term and more recurrent basis. Experts emphasize that remediation and prevention efforts need to recognize that exposures are likely to occur recurrently over a period of time across the life of this and future virus outbreaks.

The financial consequences of staffing or supply shortages, declines in product or services demands, event cancellations, cleaning and other costs and a host of other side effects present such a widespread risk to many businesses that many are facing layoffs or even bankruptcy or other restrucuring. While President Trump and other federal and state leaders are promising employment tax holidays and other relief to try to mitigate some of these financial effects, businesses impacted by these disruptions should begin assessing and planning to execute options to mitigate losses and manage these risks as soon as possible to maximize their potential ability to take advantage of options to restructure debt or contractual obligations, adjust workforce staffing, and make other adjustments successfully to weather the pandemic storm and fallout. When considering these options, businesses will want to understand the relative complete costs of reductions in hours, furloughs, contractual adjustments and other options to make and execute their choices as well as possible.

More Information

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 30+ years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. As a significant part of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively domestically and internationally with business, government and community leaders to prepare for and deal with pandemic and other health and safety, financial, workforce and other organizational crisis, change and workforce, employee benefit, health care and other operations planning, preparedness and response for more than 30 years. As a part of this work, she regularly advises businesses and government leaders on an an demand and ongoing basis about preparation of workforce, health care and other business and government policies and practices to deal with management in a wide range of contexts ranging from day to day operations, through times of change and in response to operational, health care, natural disaster, economic and other crisis and change.

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law By the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, and the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Self Insured Plan & Contract Amendments Likely Required To Waive Deductibles, Expand Other Coronavirus Coverage | Corporate Compliance, Employer, Employers, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health plan, Health Plans, HSA, Restructuring | Tagged: bankrutcy, Coronavirus, crisis, Disaster, Health Plans, Pandemic, reducton in force | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Plans, Providers & PBM Face Pressure To Prepare For Health Transparency As Trump Transparency Reforms March Foward

March 2, 2020

Today (March 2, 2020) is the deadline for employers and other health benefit program sponsors, insurers, plan administrators and fiduciaries, health care providers, PBMs and other interested persons to comment on proposed federal rule change that would require insured health plans to count drug rebates and price concessions retained by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) as administrative expenses for purposes of determining if the issuing insurer is required to rebate premiums under the medical loss ratio (MLR) rules of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). With the comment period on the package of health care transparency regulations published by the Trump Administration to implement the transparency reform it hopes will fuel better quality and cost effectiveness in the U.S. health care system, health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, insurers, heath care providers, PBMs, and other participants in the system need to start preparing to deal with their own responsibilities under the new rules, and to help plan members, patients and their caregivers, and other consumers to understand and use the new information the rules will make available.

2/06/20 Proposed Rule Pressures Insurers To Require PBMs To Disclose & Pass Through Manufacturer Rebates

Issued as part of the proposed “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2021; Notice Requirement for Non-Federal Governmental Plans Proposed Rule” (“2/6/20 Proposed Rule”) published by the Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”) on February 6. 2020, the as part of a series of Trump Administration health care reform initiatives seeking to use competition and transparency to improve health care quality, choice and affordability, in furtherance of the Trump Administration “health plan transparency” initiative HHS predicts this change included in the could generate $18.2 million more per year in the MLR rebate payments to consumers covered under insure health plans subject to the MLR and other insurance market reform provisions of the ACA. See also Remarks by President Trump on Honesty and Transparency in Healthcare Prices (November 15, 2019). For a more detailed summary of the 2/06/20 Proposed Rule, see here.Most health plans contract with PBMs to decide the prescription drug formularies, copays, and other coverage design for their health plans, to administer their pharmacy benefits and to negotiate discounts and rebates from drug manufacturers in exchange for placing their drugs on a health plan’s formulary. PBMs are supposed to work on behalf of health plans to secure drug rebates, refunds, discounts, coupons, and direct or indirect remuneration, among other discounts. Health plans compensate PBMs in a variety of ways, including:

Paying administrative fees;
Allowing a PBM to retain the difference between the amount a PBM charges the health plan for a drug and the amount a PBM pays the pharmacy (called “spread pricing”); or
Allowing a PBM to retain all or a portion of any negotiated discounts from manufacturers, including rebates.

Currently, insured plans covered by the MLR rule as well as the PBM arrangements of many self-insured, employer or union sponsored health plans, do not require PBMs to disclose, account for, or pass through to the health plan they are engaged by the prescription drug rebates and certain other amounts that PBMs receive and retain from prescription drug manufacturers that the PBM selects for inclusion on the health plan formulary.

The current federal ACA MLR rule requires insured health plans subject to the MLR rule to deduct from their prescription drug claims both rebates they receive from manufacturers and any payments the PBM retains from the spread, but does not address situations in which the PBM retains rebates or other price concessions negotiated on behalf of the plans. Consequently, the MLR reporting or calculation of insurers typically does not reflect any rebates PBMs retain that are not passed through to the insurer even though the PBM is supposed to be working on behalf of the health plan.

In recent years, these arrangements have come under widespread criticism as creating conflicts of interests that compromise the loyalty of the PBM to act in the best interest of its health plan clients and their plan members because when PBMs don’t report and pass through all pricing concessions negotiated by PBMs, health plans and health plan members don’t receive the benefit of those price discounts and the decisions that the PBM makes in choosing the highest quality and most cost effective medications for the formulary may lead the PBM to choose and price drugs on the plan formulary to maximize the PBM’s profits rather than the best interests of the plan and its members.

The 2/06/20 Proposed Rule would classify the portion of premium revenue that an insured health plan subject to the MLR rule expends on pharmacy costs as the actual reimbursement to pharmacies – minus any rebates or price concessions from manufacturers – no matter if the plan or its contracted PBM receives the price concession. Requiring health insurers covered by the MLR rule to include rebates retained by their PBMs an administrative expense would make it difficult for most health insurers to keep all administrative expenses within 15 or 20 percent the MLR rules. Since health insurers whose administrative expenses exceed the MLS ratio must rebate premiums under the ACA, HHS anticipates that finalizing the 2/06/20 Proposed Rule as proposed would prompt insured health plans covered by the MLR rule that use PBMs to administer pharmacy benefits to change the compensation provisions of their PBM contracts to eliminate or restructure those payments.

Since self-insured health plans generally are not subject to the ACA MLR rule, however, those plans generally need to pursue contracting or other strategies to address this concern. Increasingly, many self-insured health plan sponsors, fiduciaries and administrators already are changing their PBM contracting and selection strategies to require disclosure and pass through of rebate and other compensation received by PBMs from manufacturers such as including administrative-fee-only compensation and a guarantee of 100 percent pass-through of rebates and manufacturer-derived revenue from the PBM to the health plan in their PBM contracts.

With the official comment deadline set to expire on March 2, 2020, employer and other insured and self-insured health plan sponsors of health plans using PBMs, fiduciaries and advisors should turn their attention to evaluating the likely implications of the 02/06/20 Proposed Rule on their health plan arrangements as well as more generally evaluating their pharmacy benefit designs, PBM contracts and compensation arrangements, and associated arrangements and practices for potential conflicts of interest, hidden cost savings and other opportunities for improvement. As part of this efforts, employer sponsors, plan fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors of self-insured plans should keep in mind that the fiduciary responsibility rules of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act generally require plan fiduciaries to prudently evaluate compensation and other arrangements with plan vendors as well as to take action to identify and protect the plan against breaches of loyalty by plan vendors or fiduciaries from conflicts of interests or prohibited transactions. Plan administrators also should conduct due diligence to confirm that PBM and other vendors properly including all compensation for purposes of Form 5500 and other reporting. Along with assisting their health plan clients with these activities, brokers, consultants, TPAs, and other plan vendors also should evaluate the potential implications of the reforms in the 02/06/20 Proposed Rule as well as any relevant state law reforms on the advice and services they provide to their clients, as well as their potential responsibilities and exposures in light of the evolving state health and PBM transparency rules.

Other Health Plan Transparency Reforms

The 2/06/20 Proposed Rule is one in a series of federal health rule changes the Trump Administration is pursuing as part of its initiative seeking to use health care transparency to improve the price, quality and choice in the U.S. health care system. In addition to the changes proposed in the 2/06/20 Proposed Rule, in response to President Trump’s July 24, 2020 Executive Order on Improving Price and Quality Transparency in American Healthcare to Put Patients First, HHS on November 14, 2019 also undertook two other regulatory actions intended to increase price transparency to empower patients and increase competition among all hospitals, group health plans and health insurance issuers in the individual and group markets:

Issued a proposed Transparency in Coverage Proposed Rule (the “Proposed Coverage Transparency Rule”); and
The Calendar Year (CY) 2020 Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) & Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC) Price Transparency Requirements for Hospitals to Make Standard Charges Public Final Rule (“Hospital Transparency Rule”).

Both the final and proposed rules require that pricing information be made publicly available.

Proposed Coverage Transparency Rule

The Proposed Coverage Transparency Rule would require most employer-based group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual coverage to disclose price and cost-sharing information to participants, beneficiaries, and enrollees up front. With this information, patients will have accurate estimates of any out-of-pocket costs they must pay to meet their plan’s deductible, co-pay, or co-insurance requirements. This will make previously unavailable price information accessible to patients and other stakeholders in a standardized way, allowing for easy comparisons.

If finalized, the Proposed Transparency in Coverage Rule will require non-grandfathered health plans and health insurance issuers to make certain health care price information more accessible to consumers and other stakeholders by requiring each non-grandfathered group health plan[2] or health insurance issuer offering non-grandfathered health insurance coverage in the individual and group markets to make available:

To participants, beneficiaries and enrollees (or their authorized representative) personalized out-of-pocket cost information for all covered health care items and services through an internet-based self-service tool and in paper form upon request. For the first time, most consumers would be able to get estimates of their cost-sharing liability for health care for different providers, allowing them to both understand how costs for covered health care items and services are determined by their plan, and shop and compare costs for health care before receiving care; and
To the public, including stakeholders such as consumers, researchers, employers, and third-party developers the in-network negotiated rates with their network providers and historical payments of allowed amounts to out-of-network providers through standardized, regularly updated machine-readable files.

The Trump Administration believes these changes will provide opportunities for innovation to drive price comparison and consumerism in the health care market. In addition, the Transparency In Coverage Rule also proposes to allow issuers that empower and incentivize consumers through the introduction of plans that include provisions that encourage consumers to shop for services from lower-cost, higher-value providers, and that share the resulting savings with consumers, to take credit for such “shared savings” payments in their medical loss ratio (MLR) calculations. HHS says it made this proposal to ensure, should the proposal be finalized as proposed, that issuers would not be required to pay MLR rebates based on a plan design that would provide a benefit to consumers that is not currently captured in any existing MLR revenue or expense category. HHS believes this proposal would preserve the statutorily-required value that consumers receive for coverage under the MLR program, while encouraging issuers to offer new or different value-based plan designs that support competition and consumer engagement in health care. See also Transparency in Coverage Proposed Rule (CMS-9915-P) Fact Sheet. The official comment period on the Proposed Transparency in Coverage Rule has not expired. In January, HHS extended the comment period on the Transparency in Coverage Rule from January 14, 2020 to January 29, 2020.

Final Hospital Transparency Rule

Concurrent with its release of the Proposed Coverage Transparency Rule, HHS also finalized the Hospital Transparency Rule that will require hospitals to provide patients with clear, accessible information about their “standard charges” for the items and services they provide in two ways beginning in 2021:

Comprehensive Machine-Readable File: Hospitals will be required to make public all hospital standard charges (including the gross charges, payer-specific negotiated charges, the amount the hospital is willing to accept in cash from a patient, and the minimum and maximum negotiated charges) for all items and services on the Internet in a single data file that can be read by other computer systems. The file must include additional information such as common billing or accounting codes used by the hospital (such as Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes) and a description of the item or service to provide common elements for consumers to compare standard charges from hospital to hospital.
Display of Shoppable Services in a Consumer-Friendly Manner: Hospitals will be required to make public payer-specific negotiated charges, the amount the hospital is willing to accept in cash from a patient for an item or service, and the minimum and maximum negotiated charges for 300 common shoppable services in a manner that is consumer-friendly and update the information at least annually.

Shoppable services are services that can be scheduled by a healthcare consumer in advance such as x-rays, outpatient visits, imaging and laboratory tests or bundled services like a cesarean delivery, including pre- and post-delivery care.
The requirements for the consumer-friendly file are that the information must be made public in a prominent location online that is easily accessible, without barriers, and it must also be searchable. Item and service descriptions must be in ‘plain language’ and the shoppable service charges must be displayed and grouped with charges for any ancillary services the hospital customarily provides with the primary shoppable service.

In order to ensure that hospitals comply with the requirements, the Hospital Transparency Rule also provides CMS with new enforcement tools including monitoring, auditing, corrective action plans, and the ability to impose civil monetary penalties of $300 per day. In response to public comments, CMS is finalizing that the effective date of the final rule will be January 1, 2021 to ensure that hospitals have the time to be compliant with these policies. See also

Calendar Year (CY) 2020 Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) & Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC) Price Transparency Requirements for Hospitals to Make Standard Charges Public final rule (CMS-1717-F2) Fact Sheet.

Start Preparing For New Transparency Requirements, Effects & Opportunities

With the comment periods on the Proposed Transparency in Coverage Rule already past and the deadline for comment on the 2/6/20 Proposed Rule set to expire today, employer and other health benefit plan sponsors, insurers, fiduciaries, administrators, heath care providers, insurers, plan members and other stakeholders should turn their attention to evaluating the potential opportunities, burdens, and impacts of these transparency reforms.

More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the or other health or other employee benefits, human resources, or health care developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

The author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, will speak about these and other health care cost and transparency reforms as a panelist on the program on Impact of Governmental Policy on Pricing and Access to Prescription Medical Products in the US and International Marketplace scheduled to take place at the American Bar Association International Section Annual Meeting in New York City on April 23, 2020.

Author of numerous highly regarded works on PBM and other health plan contracting and design, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 30 plus year career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As a part of this work, she has continuously and extensively worked with domestic and international health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, and insurers; managed care and insurance organizations; hospitals, health care systems and other health care providers, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; consultants; investors; EMR, claims, payroll and other technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, self-insured health and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers and other payers, health industry advocacy and other service providers and groups and other health and managed care industry clients as well as federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies.

Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health and other privacy and data security and other health industry legal, public policy and operational concerns. This involvement encompasses helping health care systems and organizations, group and individual health care providers, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients prevent, investigate, manage and resolve sexual assault, abuse, harassment and other organizational, provider and employee misconduct and other performance and behavior; manage Section 1557, Civil Rights Act and other discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; contracting and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other payers and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, ant kickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement; and other strategic and operational concerns.

Author of publications on “Transparent PBM Contracting,” “ACOs, Direct Contracting: Legal & Practical Challenges For Employers, Providers & TPAs,” “The Medicare Advantage Contracting Manual,” “Third Party Administrator (TPA) Contracting Principles and Strategies and a multitude of other highly regarded publications and presentations, Stamer is widely recognized for her thought leadership on PBM and other managed care and health plan contracting and design, and a multitude of other health care, health plan and other health industry matters. In addition, Ms. Stamer contributes her time and leadership to numerous policy, professional, civil and other organizations including service as the, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Salary Threshold Increases Require Employer Review Of Salaried Worker FLSA Exemption Qualification

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at the particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law constantly and often rapidly evolves, subsequent developments that could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion are likely. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any fact or law specific nuance, change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

©2020 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on Health Plans, Providers & PBM Face Pressure To Prepare For Health Transparency As Trump Transparency Reforms March Foward | Corporate Compliance, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, Health Care Reform, health care transparency, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, Health IT, health plan, Health Plans, health reform, pbms, pharmacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Proposed HHS Rule Making PBM Expenses Part of MLS Administrative Expense, Other Changes To ACA Helath Plan Rules Comment Deadline 5 P.M. Today

March 2, 2020

Today (March 2, 2020) is the last day to submit comments on Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2021; Notice Requirement for Non-Federal Governmental Plans Proposed Rule” (“Proposed Rule”) published by HHS on February 6. 2020.

Among other things, the Proposed Rule, if adopted as proposed, would:

Repeal regulations relating to the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program;
Require health plans in state insurance markets to count drug rebates and price concessions retained by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) as administrative expenses. HHS predicts this change could generate $18.2 million more per year in medical loss ratio (MLR) rebate payments to consumers;.
Establish payment parameters and provisions related to the risk adjustment and risk adjustment data validation programs; cost-sharing parameters and cost-sharing reductions; and user fees for federally-facilitated Exchanges and State-based Exchanges on the Federal platform;
Modify requirements for “essential health benefits” to allow states greater flexibility and add an annual state reporting of state-required benefits that are in addition to essential health benefits (EHB) for which states are required to defray the costs;
Amend rules to give states with additional flexibility in the operation and establishment of Exchanges concerning cost-sharing for prescription drugs; excepted benefit health reimbursement arrangements offered by non-Federal governmental plan sponsors; the medical loss ratio program; Exchange eligibility and enrollment; exemptions from the requirement to maintain coverage; quality rating information display standards for Exchanges; and other related topics.

For a more detailed summary of the Proposed Rule, see here.

Employer and other health benefit plan sponsors, insurers, fiduciaries, administrators, heath care providers and other stakeholders desiring to comment on the Proposed Rule must submit their comments electronically no later than 5 p.m. Eastern today (March 2, 2020) by following the submit comments instructions here.

More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the this or other health or other employee benefits, human resources, or health care developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

Author of leading works on HIPAA and a multitude of other health care, health plan and other health industry matters, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Salary Threshold Increases Require Employer Review Of Salaried Worker FLSA Exemption Qualification

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law constantly and often rapidly evolves, subsequent developments that could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion are likely. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any fact or law specific nuance, change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on Proposed HHS Rule Making PBM Expenses Part of MLS Administrative Expense, Other Changes To ACA Helath Plan Rules Comment Deadline 5 P.M. Today | 21st Century Cures Act, Academic Medicine, Association Health Plan, Corporate Compliance, Data Breach, Data Security, health benefit, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, Health IT, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Protected Health Information | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Revise Health Plan HIPAA Records Access Rules & Procedures To Use Newly Flexibility On Charging, Responding To Third Party PHI Requests

January 28, 2020

Health plans and their health plan records providers and other business associates should review and update their existing policies and practices concerning providing and charging individuals for access to protected health information in response to modifications in the Department of Health & Human Service (“HHS”) Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) rules implementing the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) requirements regarding patient’s rights to access their protected health information (“PHI”) from health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses (“”Covered Entities”) and their business associates (“HIPAA entities”) to comply with a January 23, 2020 court order (the “Coix Order”) in Coix Health, LLC v. Azar, et al, No 18 –CV-0040 (D>D.C. January 23, 2020). Utilizing the flexibility resulting from the Coix Order could help reduce health plan costs of compliance with the HIPAA right of access rule by allowing the health plan and its records providers more freedom to determine the charges and format for delivering PHI in response to records requests received from other insurers, lawyers and other third parties.

Coix Order Invalidates Pieces of OCR HIPAA Rules On PHI Record Rules

The new flexibility is the result of the Coix Order entered by a Federal District Court in response to a lawsuit brought by Coix Health, LLC (“”Coix”). Coix brought the lawsuit challenging the “Patient Rate” restrictions on the amounts that HIPAA entities can charge for providing records containing PHI the “third party directive” requirements in the rules implementing HIPAA’s right of access requirements under 45 C.F.R. §164.524 as adopted by OCR as part of its final rule entitled “Modifications to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Enforcement Rules Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act; Other Modifications to the HIPAA Rules.” (The “2013 Omnibus Rule”) on January 25, 2013. In particular, the 2013 Omnibus Rule includes a “Patient Rate” rule that limits the charges that Covered Entities can make for delivering PHI requested by patients and third parties to prevent patient access to PHI from being thwarted by excessive fees. As part of the Patient Rate rule, OCR restricted what Covered Entities and their records providers can charge to provide copies of protected health information. The Patient Rate rule restricts charges that can be imposed to provide protected health information, restricts the methods for calculating these charges and limits the type and amount of labor costs that can be included when calculating the Patient Rate. The Patient Rate rule in the 201 Omnibus Rule also requires that Covered Entities and their records companies provide the requested PHI directly to the patient or to a third party designed by the patient and in the format requested by the patient regardless of the format in which the Covered Entity or its medical provider maintains the PHI within its record.

When originally implemented, the medical records industry generally understood that the Patient Rate limitations applied only to requests for PHI made by the patient for use by the patient. Before 2016, however, Covered Entities and their medical records providers generally understood that this Patient Rate rule did not apply to or limit fees that Covered Entities or their medical records providers could charge commercial entities or other third parties like insurance companies and law firms to fill requests for PHI. That understanding changed, in 2016, however, when HHS issued guidance that stated that the Patient Rate applies even to requests to deliver PHI to third parties.

A specialized medical-records provider that contracts with healthcare suppliers nationwide to maintain, retrieve, and produce individuals’ PHI, Cox handles tens of millions of requests for records containing PHI annually including demands by healthcare providers for treatment purposes, patients asking for their own PHI, and third parties, such as life insurance companies and law firms, seeking a patient’s PHI for commercial or legal reasons. According to Cox, OCR’s interpretation of the Patient Rate rule as applicable to third party requests as well as direct patient requests cost it and other medical records companies millions of dollars in revenue. Accordingly, Coix filed the Coix Health, LLC v. Azar, et al lawsuit challenging OCR’s 2016 application of the Patient Rate to third party requests as violating the procedural and substantive protections of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). In addition to this challenge to the scope of the Patient Rate, Coix also contested OCR pronouncements in the 2016 guidance document on (1) the types of labor costs that are recoverable under the Patient Rate; and (2) the three alternative methods identified for calculating the Patient Rate as violating the APA’s procedural and substantive provisions. Finally, Coix also challenged the requirement in the Patient Rate rule that records companies to send PHI to third parties regardless of the format in which the PHI is contained and in the format specified by the patient. According to Coix, Congress required only that certain types of electronic health records be delivered to third parties, not all records regardless of their format, as HHS’s regulations now command.

In its January 23, 2020 ruling on HHS’s motion to dismiss and the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the D.C. District Court agreed with OCR that OCR’s rule requiring the use of one of three methods for calculating the Patient Rate was unreviewable as a final agency action and dismissed Coix’ challenge to that requirement. Concerning Coax’s other challenges, the Court sided with Coix. It ruled that:

OCR’s 2013 rule compelling delivery of PHI to third parties regardless of the records’ format is arbitrary and capricious insofar as it goes beyond the statutory requirements set by Congress;
OCR’s broadening of the Patient 3 Rate in 2016 is a legislative rule that the agency failed to subject to notice and comment in violation of the APA; and
OCR’s 2016 explanation concerning what labor costs can be recovered under the Patient Rate is an interpretative rule that OCR was not required to subject to notice and comment.

Accordingly, District Court in the Coix Order declares unlawful and vacates (1) the 2016 Patient Rate expansion and (2) the 2013 mandate broadening PHI delivery to third parties regardless of format within the individual right of access” set forth in the provisions of 45 C.F.R. §164.524 of the 2013 Omnibus Rule insofar as it expands the HITECH Act’s third-party directive beyond requests for a copy of an electronic health record with respect to protected health information of an individual in an electronic format.” Additionally, the federal court ordered that the fee limitation set forth at 45 C.F.R. § 164.524(c)(4) only apply to an individual’s request for access to their own records, and does not apply to an individual’s request to transmit records to a third party.

As a result of the Coix Order, Covered Entities and their medical records providers still must calculate the Patient Rate in accordance with one of the three allowed methodologies when providing a patient with records containing PHI in response to a patient request. However, Covered Entities and their medical records provider now may exercise greater flexibility when determining the format and charges when responding to requests from third parties other than the patient for records containing PHI. Before doing so, however, most Covered Entities and business associates will want to update their HIPAA policies and procedures to reflect the new practices consistent with the new HIPAA and other relevant requirements. Updating the policies first is important because the 2013 Omnibus Rule states Covered Entities violate HIPAA by failing to follow their own HIPAA privacy and security policies when those practices are more restrictive than those mandated by OCR’s 2013 Omnibus Rule. Consequently however, Covered Entities and their medical records companies desiring to exercise this newly available flexibility should revise their existing policies and procedures to authorize their exercise of this new flexibility consistent with the Coix Order and associated OCR guidance.

OCR Plans To Comply With Coix Order In Applying Patient Record Rule

In an “Important Notice Regarding Individuals’ Right of Access to Health Records” released January 28, 2020, OCR announced that that it will comply with the Coix Order vacating the “third-party directive” within the individual right of access “insofar as it expands the HITECH Act’s third-party directive beyond requests for a copy of an electronic health record with respect to [protected health information] of an individual . . . in an electronic format.” Additionally, OCR stated that the fee limitation set forth at 45 C.F.R. § 164.524(c)(4) will apply only to an individual’s request for access to their own records, and not apply to an individual’s request to transmit records to a third party. However, OCR also added that the right of individuals to access their own records and the fee limitations that apply when exercising this right are undisturbed and remain in effect. OCR will continue to enforce the right of access provisions in 45 C.F.R. § 164.524 that are not restricted by the court order.

More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the Coix Order or other health or other employee benefits, human resources, or health care developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Salary Threshold Increases Require Employer Review Of Salaried Worker FLSA Exemption Qualification

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law constantly and often rapidly evolves, subsequent developments that could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion are likely. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any fact or law specific nuance, change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on Revise Health Plan HIPAA Records Access Rules & Procedures To Use Newly Flexibility On Charging, Responding To Third Party PHI Requests | 21st Century Cures Act, Academic Medicine, Association Health Plan, Corporate Compliance, Data Breach, Data Security, health benefit, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, Health IT, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Protected Health Information | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

2019 OCR Enforcement Shows Getting Defensibly HIPAA Compliant Necessary In 2020!

January 1, 2020

The $65,000 payment and corrective action plan commitments West Georgia Ambulance, Inc. (“West Georgia”) is making to settle Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) charges it recurrently violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) Security Rule and other 2019 HIPAA enforcement sends a clear warning to other HIPAA-covered health plans, health care providers, health care clearighouses and their business associates (“covered entities”) to maintain and be prepared to defend their own HIPAA compliance.

The Western Georgia Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan (“Resolution Agreement”) OCR announced on December 30, 2019 resolves charges resulting from an OCR investigation initiated in response to a HIPAA breach report the Georgia based ambulance company filed in 2013 in which the company, which provides emergency and non-emergency ambulance services in Carroll County, Georgia, disclosed the loss of an unencrypted laptop containing the protected health information (PHI) of 500 individuals. The breach occurred when an unencrypted laptop fell off the back bumper of an ambulance. The laptop was not recovered. West Georgia reported that exactly 500 individuals were affected by the breach.

In the course of its investigation of the breach report, OCR’s investigation uncovered long-standing noncompliance with the HIPAA Rules, including failures to conduct a risk analysis, provide a security awareness and training program, and implement HIPAA Security Rule policies and procedures. Specifically, the Resolution Agreement states that West Georgia:

Did not conduct an accurate and thorough risk analysis of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all of its ePHI. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A);
Failed to have a HIPAA security training program, and failed to provide security training to its employees. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(5);
Failed to implement Security Rule policies or procedures. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.316; and
Despite OCR’s investigation and technical assistance, “did not take meaningful steps to address their systemic failures.”

To resolve its exposure to the substantially higher civil monetary penalties that OCR could impose for violations of this nature, West Georgia agreed to pay a $65,000 resolution payment to OCR and implement and comply with a corrective action plan that in addition to requiring West Georgia to correct the compliance deficiencies, also subjects West Georgia to two years of OCR monitoring and oversight.

The Resolution Agreement and corrective action plan carry a number of important messages for other health care providers and other Covered Entities. First, the OCR enforcement action against West Georgia coming at the end of yet another heavy HIPAA enforcement year by OCR reminds Covered Entities that OCR is serious about HIPAA enforcement on the heels of its 2018 HIPAA record setting collection of $28.7 million in civil monetary penalties and resolution payments including the single largest individual HIPAA settlement in history of $16 million with Anthem, Inc. See OCR Concludes 2018 with All-Time Record Year for HIPAA Enforcement. While not topping this record, OCR during 2019 now has collected civil monetary penalties and resolution payments totaling more than $15 million from HIPAA Covered Entities and their business associates including:

Second, the Resolution Agreement and various other smaller settlements during the year show HIPAA compliance and enforcement is a concern for smaller provideres and other covered entities, not juswt the huge ones. While the $65,000 settlement payment required by the Resolution Agreement is substantially smaller than the amounts of the civil monetary penalties and many of resolution payments OCR collected in its other 2019 enforcement actions, the West Georgia and other 2019 enforcement actions demonstrate the teeth behind the warning in the OCR Press Release announcing the West Georgia Resolution Agreement from OCR Director Roger Severino that“All providers, large and small, need to take their HIPAA obligations seriously.” With OCR promises to keep up its vigorous investigation and enforcement of the HIPAA requirements, every Covered Entity and business associate should take the necessary steps to verify and maintain their HIPAA compliance and to be prepared to defend their compliance under the Privacy, Security, Breach Notification and HIPAA access and other individual rights mandates of HIPAA.

Third, OCR’s statement in the Resolution Agreement about the failure by West Georgia to meaningfully act to correct compliance deficiencies and cooperate in other corrective action during the period following the breach report highlights the importance for covered entities involved in a breach or other dealings with OCR on a potential compliance concern to behave appropriately to express and exhibit the necessary concern OCR expects regarding the compliance issue to position themselves to request and receive the clemency OCR is empowered under HIPAA to extend when deciding the sanctions for any noncompliance.

Of course meeting the requirements of HIPAA is not the only concern that covered entities should consider as they review and tightened their HIPAA and other privacy and data security procedures. Health care providers and other covered entities also should keep in mind their other obligations to protect patient and other confidential information under other federal laws, the requirements of which also are ever-evolving. For instance, on January 1, 2020 Texas providers like other Texas businesses will become subject to a shortened deadline for providing notice of data breaches under a new law enacted by the Texas Legislature in its last session. Arrangements should be designed to fulfill all of these requirements as well as any ethical or contractual.

Covered entities also should keep in mind that violations of HIPAA can have implications well beyond HIPAA.ramifications beyond HIPAA itself. For instance, heath care providers can face disqualification from federal program participation, licensing and ethics discipline and other professional consequences. Health plans and their fiduciaries also may face Department of Labor and other fiduciary claims, while insurers can face licensing and other regulatory consequences. The Labor Department followed up on previous warnings that health plan fiduciaries duties include a fiduciary duty to protect health plan data by adding HIPAA compliance to certain health plan audits. Insurers, third of art administrators and others also can face duties and liabilities under state insurance and data privacy laws from regulator or private litigant actions.

For More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about this or other labor and employment developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer has extensive legal, operational, and public policy experience advising and representing health care, health care and other entities about HIPAA and other privacy, data security, confidentiality and other matters.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 30 plus year career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services, public and private primary, secondary, and other educational institutions, and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As a part of this work, she has recurrently worked extensively with public school districts and public and private primary and secondary schools, colleges and universities, academic medical, and other educational institutions, insured and self-insured health plans; domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; consultants; investors; EMR, claims, payroll and other technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, employers; and federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies on health care, education, and other data privacy, security, use, protection and disclosure; disability and other educational rights; workforce, and a host of other risk management and compliance concerns.

Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades-long leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health and other privacy and data security and other health industry legal, public policy and operational concerns. This involvement encompasses helping health care systems and organizations, group and individual health care providers, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients prevent, investigate, manage and resolve sexual assault, abuse, harassment and other organizational, provider and employee misconduct and other performance and behavior; manage Section 1557, Civil Rights Act and other discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; contracting and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other payers and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, ant kickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement; and other strategic and operational concerns.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

©2019 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on 2019 OCR Enforcement Shows Getting Defensibly HIPAA Compliant Necessary In 2020! | Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, Disease Management, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, EMR, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, Health IT, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Identity Theft, insurance fraud, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Internet, Managed Care, Mental Health Parity, Physician, Plan Admistrator, PPO, prescription drugs, Privacy, Professional Liability, Protected Health Information, Provider, provider contracting, Risk Management, Security, Technology, tpa | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$1.6M HIPAA Penalty Largely Caused By Inadequate Security Assessments & Oversight

December 16, 2019

The $1.6 million civil monetary penalty (“CMP”) assessed against the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (“TX HHSC”) for violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) Privacy and Security Rules between 2013 and 2017 committed by a predecessor agency, the Department of Aging and Disability Services (“DADS”) illustrates the critical need for health plans and insurers and all other HIPAA covered entities and business associates to confirm the adequacy of their enterprise wide security assessment, oversight, and other HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance and risk management including documentation of the reassessment and updating of these materials and assessments in connection with any update or change in software, systems or other system and security relevant developments.

OCR imposed the CMPs against TX HHSC for violations of HIPAA OCR found DADS committed from 2015 to 2017, before it was reorganized into TX HHSC in September 2017. Like most other large HIPAA CMPs and settlements paid to avoid CMPs, a review of the TX HSSC CMP events makes clear that the large penalty resulted mostly because of inadequate assessment and oversight of security, rather than the actual breach itself that prompted the investigation leading to the CMP assessment. Beyond the substantial HIPAA CMPs assessed, health plans, insurers, their fiduciaries and administrative or other service providers serving as business associates need to keep in mind their likely exposure to liability and expenses from fiduciary responsibility breaches under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, state insurance and other data security and breach requireents, contracts and other pbligations.

Before its merger into TX HHSC, DADS was the Texas agency primarily responsible for providing and administering the state’s long-term care services for aging and intellectually and physically disabled people. TX HHSC now administers and provides the services previously provided by DADS as part of its broader operation of state supported living centers; provision of mental health and substance use services; regulation of child care and nursing facilities; and administration of hundreds of other programs for people needing supplemental nutrition benefits, Medicaid and certain other assistance including those previously provided by DADS.

DADS Breaches & Violations

The $1.6 million CMPs assessment against TX HHSC resulted after OCR investigated a 2015 breach report made by DADS. On June 11, 2015, DADS submitted a Breach Notification Report (“Report”) notifying OCR that on April 21, 2015 names, addresses, social security numbers, treatment information and other electronic protected health information (“ePHI”) of 6,617 individuals was viewable over the internet when a software coding flaw allowed prohibited access to ePHI with access credentials when DADS moved an internal application from a private, secure server to a public server. OCR’s investigation determined that, in addition to that impermissible disclosure, DADS violated the HIPAA Security Rule by failing to conduct an enterprise-wide risk analysis and implement access and audit controls on Community Living Assistance and Support Services and Deaf Blind with Multiple Disabilities (“CLASS/DBMD”) program information systems and applications intended to collect and report information about “Utilization Management and Review” activities to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) for the CLASS/DBMD waiver programs.. The CMS waiver programs required DADS to collect and report to CMS applicant and enrollee community and institutional service choice, Level of Care, Plan of Care, waiver provider choice and other waiver program performance data for CLASS and DBMD as part of a required evidentiary report on all §1915(c) waiver programs. The CLASS/DBMD application glitch compromised the ePHI by allowing an undetermined number of unauthorized users to view the ePHI without verifying user credentials. TX HHSC learned of the breach from an unauthorized user who accessed ePHI in the application without being required to input user credentials. Because of inadequate audit controls, DADS was unable to determine how many unauthorized persons accessed individuals’ ePHI.

OCR initiated a compliance review of DADS on June 23, 2015 in response to the breach notification. As HIPAA Security Rule at 45 C.F.R. ·§ 164.312(a)(l) requires a covered entity to implement technical policies and procedures for electronic information systems that maintain ePHI to allow access only to those persons or software programs properly granted access rights under HIPAA Security Rule § 164.308(a)(4), OCR found that by placing the CLASS/DBMD application on their public server without requiring users to provide access credentials, TX HHSC violated HIPAA by failing to implement access controls on all of its systems and applications throughout its enterprise in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.312(a)(l).

The HIPAA Security Rule at 45 C.F.R. § 164.312(b) requires a covered entity to implement hardware, software, and/or procedural mechanisms that record and examine activity in information systems that contain or use ePHI. In the course of its investigation, OCR requested in its June 23, 2015 Data Request that DADS provide a copy of its current HIPAA administrative and technical policies and procedures. As DADS provided no evidence that the application was capable of auditing user access after it was moved to the unsecure public server as required by 45 C.F.R. § 164.312(b) with its response, OCR also concluded from its investigation that TX HHSC failed to implement audit controls to all of its systems and applications, like the application involved in the breach, as required by 45 C.F.R. § 164.312(b).

Beyond these violations, OCR also found that DADS also violated the HIPAA Security Rule by failing to conduct the required accurate and thorough enterprise wised risk analysis required by the HIPAA Security Rule. In this respect, the HIPAA Security Rule at 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A) requires a covered entity to conduct an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI it holds. In its August 31, 2015 response to OCR’s Data Request dated July 23, 2015, DADS acknowledged that, while it had performed ”risk assessment activities” on individual applications and servers, it never performed an “agency-wide” security risk analysis. On July 28, 2017, OCR received the documentation that DADS represented to be the documentation of its risk analysis. After reviewing this evidence, OCR additionally found DADS violated the HIPAA Security Rule by failing to conduct an enterprise-wide risk analysis and implement access and audit controls.

Calculation & Assessment CMPs Totaling $1.6 Million

On May 23, 2018, OCR issued a Letter of Opportunity and informed TX HHSC that OCR’s investigation indicated that TX HHSC failed to comply with the Privacy and Security Rules, which remained unresolved despite OCR’s attempts to do so. The letter stated that pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 160.312(a)(3), OCR was informing TX HHSC of the preliminary indications of non-compliance and providing TX HHSC with an opportunity to submit written evidence of mitigating factors under 45 C.F.R. § 160.408 or affirmative defenses under 45 C.F.R. § 160.410 for OCR’s consideration in making a CMP determination under 45 C.F.R. § 160.404. The letter identified each area of noncompliance. It also stated that TX HHSC also could submit written evidence to support a waiver of a CMP for the indicated areas of non-compliance.

Although the designated representative for TX HHSC as DADS successor received the Letter of Opportunity on May 24, 2018, . TX HHSC did not provide any written evidence of mitigating factors under 45 C.F.R. § 160.408 or affirmative defenses under 4S C.F.R. § 160.410 for OCR’s consideration in making the CMP determination or submit any written evidence to support a waiver of a CMP for the indicated areas of non-compliance. Accordingly, after securing the requisite approval from the Justice Department, OCR issued a Notice of Proposed Determination of Civil Monetary Penalties (“Proposed CMP”) on July 29, 2019.

As explained by the Proposed CMP, as amended by the HITECH Act, Section 13410, 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-5(a)(3), HIPAA authorizes OCR as the designated representative of the Secretary of HHS to impose CMPs against a covered entity for post-February 18, 2009 HIPAA Privacy or Security Rule violations. These current CMP provisions provide the following rules for the assessment of CMPs for such violations:

A minimum of$100 for each violation where the covered entity or business associate did not know and, by exercising reasonable diligence, would not have known that the covered entity or business associate violated such provision, except that the total amount imposed on the covered entity or business associate for all violations of an identical requirement or prohibition during a calendar year may not exceed $25,000.
A minimum of$1,000 for each violation due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect, except that the total amount imposed on the covered entity or business associate for all violations of an identical requirement or prohibition during a calendar year may not exceed $100,000. Reasonable cause means an act or omission in which a covered. entity or business associate knew, or by exercising reasonable diligence would have known, that the act or omission violated an administrative simplification provision, but in which the covered entity or business associate did not act with willful neglect.
A minimum of $10,000 for each violation due to willful neglect and corrected within 30 days, except that the total amount imposed on the covered entity or business associate for all violations of an identical requirement or prohibition during a calendar year may not exceed $250,000.
A minimum of$50,000 for each violation due to willful neglect and uncorrected within 30 days, except that the total amount imposed on the covered entity or business associate for all violations of an identical requirement or prohibition during a calendar year may not exceed $1,500,000.

By law, OCR adjusts the CMP ranges and calendar year cap for each penalty tier for inflation. The adjusted amounts are applicable only to CMPs whose violations occurred after November 2, 2015.

The Proposed CMP included notice of the CMPs OCR intended to impose CMPs totaling $1.6 million for the violations. Characterizing each of the violations as due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect, the Proposed CMP Notice made note that OCR was authorized by statute to assess penalties of up to $50,000 per day for each day of the identified violations due for reasonable cause, rather than willful neglect, but authorized OCR to adjust the penalties in light of aggravating and mitigating factors. The Proposed CMP stated that in arriving at the lesser daily penalty amount, OCR considered as mitigating factors that:

The violations did not result in any known physical, financial, or reputational harm to any individuals nor did it hinder any individual’s ability to obtain health care; and
TX HHSC immediately removed the application once it received a report that unauthorized users could access the ePHI of individual beneficiaries.

However, OCR also took note that it viewed DADS failure to act promptly to remediate the breach and to keep a commitment made to OCR in August, 2015 timely to conduct and complete the agency wide risk analysis by August 31, 2016 as an aggravating factor. Considering these factors, the Proposed CMP notified TX HHSC that OCR intended to assess a daily penalty amount of$1,000 per day ($1,141 after November 2, 2015) per violation capped at $100,000 per calendar year per violation. Applying these amounts, the CMP notified TX HHSC that OCR intended to impose CMPs totaling $1.6 million, as follows:

Impermissible disclosures in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.502(a), a $100,000 CMP
Inadequate access controls in violation of 45 C.F .R. § 164.312(a)(l), a $500,000 CMP
Inadequate audit controls in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.312(b), a $500,000 CMP
Failure to perform required enterprise wide risk analysis in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(l)(ii)(a), a $500,000.

After TX HHSC , as successor to DADS, did not file a request for hearing before an administrative law judge within the 90 days, OCR imposed the $1.6 million CMP in dated October 25, 2019 made public on November 7, 2019.

Lessons For Other Health Plans, Insurers & Other HIPAA Exposed Entities

The latest in a growing series of multimillion dollar CMPs and Resolution Payments assessed and collected by OCR, the TX HHSC CMP illustrates the critical necessity for all covered entities and business both to take appropriate, well-documented action to prevent, timely discover and redress, and report ePHI breaches and otherwise comply with the otherwise applicable requirements of the HIPAA Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Rules including the conduct and continuous maintenance of appropriate enterprise wide security assessments, audits, and oversight. With OCR promising to continue its enforcement, all covered entities and business associates should verify the existence and adequacy of their existing enterprise wide risk assessments and safeguards and procedures for monitoring, investigating potential security risks and other breaches and other HIPAA compliance oversight. Beyond these compliance efforts, the TX HHSC and other CMP actions also drive home the strong advisability for covered entities or business associates that experience a known or potential breach or other violation promptly to investigate and mitigate potential breaches and other violations.

Beyond the direct HIPAA exposure, health plans and their fiduciaries also need to keep in mind that these violations also can create fiduciary liability risks for ERISA fiduciaries, state insurance and identity theft exposures for brokers and other service providers, contractual exposures for vendors, and other risks. The Department of Labor recently has begun making inquiries about data security and privacy as part of its plan audits according to recent reports.

When managing HIPAA and other compliance and risks, health plans and other covered entities and business associates should seek assistance in conducting their assessments as well as responding to any preexisting and emergent breach or other compliance concerns within the scope of attorney-client privilege from qualified legal counsel with the necessary knowledge and experience of HIPAA and other federal and state laws, regulations and administrative and judicial decisions that define and shape their exposure. In the event of a breach or other compliance concern, timely guidance and representation by legal counsel with both experience of these requirements and with dealing with OCR and other agencies may help mitigate exposures by expediting timely and appropriate response.

For More Information

Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades-long leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health and other privacy and data security and other health industry legal, public policy and operational concerns. This involvement encompasses helping health care systems and organizations, group and individual health care providers, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients prevent, investigate, manage and resolve sexual assault, abuse, harassment and other organizational, provider and employee misconduct and other performance and behavior; manage Section 1557, Civil Rights Act and other discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; contracting and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other payers and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, antikickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement; and other strategic and operational concerns.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

Comments Off on $1.6M HIPAA Penalty Largely Caused By Inadequate Security Assessments & Oversight | Association Health Plan, Corporate Compliance, Data Breach, Data Security, health benefit, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, Health IT, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA, Protected Health Information | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

10 Former NFL Payers Charged With Defrauding NFL Retiree Health Fund

December 13, 2019

Ten former National Football League (NFL) players face prosecution for their alleged roles in a nationwide health care fraud scam that Justice Department prosecutors allegedly defrauded the Gene Upshaw NFL Player Health Reimbursement Account Plan (the “Plan)” by submitting more than $3.9 million in false and fraudulent claims between June 2017 and December 2018.

According to the charges brought in two separated indictments filed December 12, 2019 in the Eastern District of Kentucky, the charged players participated in a nationwide conspiracy that resulted in the submission of more than $3.9 million in false claims to the Plan, for which the Plan paid out over $3.4 million between June 2017 and December 2018. See Buckhalter and Rogers Indictment; McCune et al Indictment. The Plan established pursuant to the 2006 collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and payers provides a health care reimbursement account to reimburse up to a maximum of $350,000 per player of out-of-pocket medical care expenses a former player, his wife or dependents incurs not covered by insurance.

The indictments charge that the scheme to defraud involved the submission of false and fraudulent claims to the Plan for expensive medical equipment – typically between $40,000 and $50,000 for each claim never purchased or received. The expensive medical equipment described on the false and fraudulent claims included hyperbaric oxygen chambers, cryotherapy machines, ultrasound machines designed for use by a doctor’s office to conduct women’s health examinations and electromagnetic therapy devices designed for use on horses. The indictments reflect that no health care providers participated in the scheme. Rather the players submitted these allegedly false charges without any health care provider participation.

Charged in the two separated indictments include the following former NFL players including five former Washington Redskins. Those charged and the charges brought include the following:

Charges of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and health care fraud, nine counts of wire fraud and nine counts of health care fraud brought against former NFL linebacker Robert McCune, McCune’s career included stints with the Washington Redskins, Miami Dolphins, Baltimore Ravens and Cleveland Browns between 2005 and 2009;
Charges of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and health care fraud, two counts of wire fraud and two counts of health care fraud made against:

- Former Washington Redskins cornerback John Eubanks who was draft but only played as a practice squad player with the Washington Redskins in 2006-2017 season before going on to play in the Canadian Football League between 2009 and 20011;
- Tamarick Vanover, a former NFL wide receiver the Kanas City Chiefs, San Diego Chargers and Las Vegas Posse who was the Atlantic Coast Conference Rookie of the Year while playing for Florida State in 1992; and
- Carlos Rogers, a former NFL cornerback drafted by the Washington Redskins, who also played for the San Francisco 49ers and Oakland Raiders;
Charges of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and health care fraud, one count of wire fraud and one count of health care fraud against:
- Clinton Portis, a former NFL running back best known for his years as a starting running back for the Washington Redskins, for seven seasons, who also played with the Denver Broncos during his 10 year NFL career;
- Ceandris “C.C.” Brown, a former safety drafted by the Houston Texans in 2005 who after three seasons with Houston was signed by the New York Giants, Detroit Lions and Jacksonville Jaguars;;
- James Butler, a former NFL safety for the New York Giants from 2005-2008 Seasons and with the St. Louis Rams from 2009-2012; and
- Fredrick Bennett, a grid iron defensive back drafted by the Houston Texans in 2007 before being traded to the San Diego Chargers in 2010, the Cincinnati Bengals in 2010, and the Arizona Cardinals in 2011 before going on to play in the Canadian Football League from 2012 to 2016. Bennett is currently a NFL free agent; and
Charges of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and health care fraud against:
- Correll Buckhalter, a former NFL running back who played with the Philadelphia Eagles from 2001 to 2008 and the Denver Broncos from 2009 to 2010;
- Etric Pruitt, a former NFL special teams and safety who after having little playing time for most of his NFL career played a major role in Super Bowl XII while signed to the Seattle Seahawks. In addition to his Seahawks stink in 2005, Pruitt also was signed with the Atlanta Falcons and Detroit Lions during his NFL career.

In addition to the charges brought Thursday, the Justice Department also has filed notice that it intends to file criminal charges alleging conspiracy to commit health care fraud in the Eastern District of Kentucky against the following individuals:

Joseph “Joe” Horn, a former NFL wide receiver who played with the Kansas City Chiefs, New Orleans Saints, and Atlanta Falcons between 1996 and 2007. Horn made the Pro Bowl team four times and is a member of the New Orleans Saints Hall of Fame. In 2001, Horn made headlines when he and 11 other former NFL plays sued the NFL alleging it failed to properly diagnose and treat head injuries that led to changes in the NFL policies regarding diagnosis and treatment of players for potential brain injuries and the establishment of a traumatic brain injury fund; ;and
Donald “Reche” Caldwell a former NFL wide receiver who during his six seasons in the NFL played with the Sand Diego Chargers, New England Patriots, Washington Redskins and St. Louis Rams.

According to allegations in the indictments, McCune, Eubanks, Vanover, Buckhalter, Rogers and others recruited other players into the scheme by offering to submit or cause the submission of these false and fraudulent claims in exchange for kickbacks and bribes that ranged from a few thousand dollars to $10,000 or more per claim submitted. As part of the scheme, the defendants allegedly fabricated supporting documentation for the claims, including invoices, prescriptions and letters of medical necessity. After the claims were submitted, McCune and Buckhalter allegedly called the telephone number provided by the Plan and impersonated certain other players in order to check on the status of the false and fraudulent claims.

The indictments reflect the Justice Department’s continuing commitment to investigate and prosecute health care fraud, including fraudulent dealings by plan members and others.of private employeer or union sponsored health plans. If convicted, the defendants could face significant prison sentences and probation and fines.

The Justice Department press release concerning the indictments quotes U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky Robert M. Duncan Jr.,the Justice Department has “prioritized the investigation and prosecution of health care fraud in our office.” Meanwhile, FBI Special Agent in Charge of the Miami Field Office George L. Piro is quoted as stating that “This investigation serves as an illustration of the rampant and deliberate scams against health care plans occurring daily throughout the country…” in this case, these fraudsters pocketed money from the Gene Upshaw National Football League Health Reimbursement Account Plan that was intended for former NFL players who are ill or infirm. Over 20 FBI field offices participated in this investigation which demonstrates the level of commitment we have to rooting out this type of fraud.”

In addition to the additional costs that employers can incur to fund health plan liabilities, taking prudent steps to detect, prevent and redress fraudulent health plan claims is considered part of the fiduciary duies of heatlh plan fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Fiduciaries found to have failed to take such prudent actions risk personal liability fo rplan losses resulting from fraud committed against their health plans.

The NFL player indictments show taht prosecutions Alone or coupled with the hundreds of other fraud investigations and prosecuations that the Department of Justice and other federal and state agencies pursue each year, send a strong message that the Justice Department and other fedederal agencies stand ready to investigate nad prosecute health care fraud against private employer or union sponsored health plans, as well as fraud against Medicare, Mdicaid and other government programs.

More Information

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates and join discussions about these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group and registering for updates on our Solutions Law Press Website.

About the Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, as a primary focus of this work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with employer and union sponsored health and other employee benefit plans, insurers, third party administrators, plan fiduciaries and other health and other insured and self insured welfare plan, severance plans, defined contribution and other savings plans, defined benefit and other pension plans, incentive pay and deferred compensation programs and other employee benefit industry clients, employers and other plan sponsors, domestic and international health care providers, and as well as federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies.

Author of a multitude of highly regarded publications and programs on health and managed care fraud,and other health care, health plan and other health benefit, health care, employee benefits and other related matters, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on 10 Former NFL Payers Charged With Defrauding NFL Retiree Health Fund | Corporate Compliance, ERISA, fiduciary duty, Fiduciary Responsibility, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, Health Care Fraud, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, Health IT, health plan, Health Plans, health reform, insurance fraud | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

2018 US National Health Expenditures Grew Again

December 10, 2019

Total U.S. national healthcare spending in 2018 grew 4.6 percent according to a study conducted by the Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). CMS reports this growth rate was slower than the 5.4 percent overall economic growth as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Consequently, the share of the economy devoted to health spending decreased from 17.9 percent in 2017 to 17.7 percent in 2018.

Growth in overall healthcare spending has averaged 4.5 percent for 2016-2018, slower than the 5.5 percent average growth for 2014-2015, that was affected by expanded Medicaid and private insurance coverage and increased spending for prescription drugs, particularly for drugs used to treat hepatitis C.

The growth in total national healthcare expenditures was approximately 0.4 percentage point higher than the rate in 2017 and reached $3.6 trillion in 2018, or $11,172 per person.

According to the report, private health insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid experienced faster growth in 2018. The faster growth for these payers was influenced by the reinstatement of the health insurance tax which was applied to private health insurance, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid Managed care plans. The health insurance tax was a fee imposed on all health insurance providers beginning in 2014 as a part of the funding for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and was subsequently amended to institute a one-year moratorium on the fee for 2017.

Private health insurance spending(34 percent of total health care spending) increased 5.8 percent to $1.2 trillion in 2018, which was faster than the 4.9 percent growth in 2017. The acceleration was driven in part by an increase in the net cost of private health insurance, which was a result of the reinstatement of the health insurance tax in 2018 following a one-year moratorium in 2017.
Medicare spending (21 percent of total health care spending) grew 6.4 percent to $750.2 billion in 2018, which was faster than the 4.2 percent growth in 2017. The faster growth in Medicare spending in 2018 was influenced by faster growth in the net cost of insurance of Medicare private health plans (mostly Medicare Advantage plans) due to the reinstatement of the health insurance tax in 2018, faster growth in Medicare spending for medical goods and services, and an increase in government administration spending after a reduction in 2017.
Medicaid spending (16 percent of total health care spending) increased 3.0 percent to $597.4 billion in 2018. This was faster than the rate of growth in 2017 of 2.6 percent. The faster rate of growth in 2018 was driven by faster growth in the net cost of insurance for Medicaid managed care plans, also due in part to the reinstatement of the health insurance tax.
Out-of-pocket spending (10 percent of total health care spending) includes direct consumer payments such as copayments, deductibles, and spending not covered by insurance. Out-of-pocket spending grew 2.8 percent to $375.6 billion in 2018, which was faster than the 2.2 percent growth in 2017. Faster out-of-pocket spending growth for retail prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, and dental services more than offset a slowdown in out-of-pocket spending for hospital care.

Health care spending growth was mixed in 2018 for the three largest goods and service categories – hospital care, physician and clinical services, and retail prescription drugs.

Hospital spending (33 percent of total healthcare spending) increased at about the same rate in 2018 as in 2017, growing 4.5 percent and 4.7 percent, respectively, to reach $1.2 trillion in 2018. The steady growth in 2018 was driven by an acceleration in hospital price growth that was offset by slower growth in the use and intensity of hospital services.
Physician and clinical services spending (20 percent of total healthcare spending) increased 4.1 percent to reach $725.6 billion in 2018. This was slower than the rate of growth in 2017 of 4.7 percent. The deceleration in 2018 was driven by slower growth in the use and intensity of physician and clinical services, as physician and clinical price growth accelerated in 2018.
Retail prescription drug spending(9 percent of total healthcare spending) grew 2.5 percent in 2018 to $335.0 billion following slower growth of 1.4 percent in 2017. This faster rate of growth was driven by non-price factors, such as the use and mix of drugs consumed, which more than offset a decline of 1.0 percent in prices for retail prescription drugs.

Additional highlights from the report include:

Sponsors of Healthcare. In 2018, the federal government’s spending on health care increased 5.6 percent, accelerating from growth of 2.8 percent in 2017, and was driven by faster growth in the federally-funded portions of Medicare and Medicaid expenditures. Private businesses’ health care spending increased 6.2 percent in 2018 due primarily to faster growth in employer-sponsored private health insurance premiums. The federal government and households accounted for the largest shares of spending (28 percent each), followed by private businesses (20 percent), state and local governments (17 percent), and other private revenues (7 percent).

The National Health Expenditure estimates have been revised to reflect the most recent and up-to-date source data that is available (and may not have been available for last year’s vintage of the National Health Expenditure Accounts).

The 2018 National Health Expenditures data and supporting information will appear here.

For More Information

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates and join discussions about these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our LinkedIn Solutions Law Groups and registering for updates on our Solutions Law Press Website.

About the Author

As a primary focus of this work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; consultants; investors; technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers, health industry advocacy and other service providers and groups and other health industry clients as well as federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies.

Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer is noted for her decades-long leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health and other privacy and data security and other health industry legal, public policy and operational concerns. This involvement encompasses helping health care systems and organizations, group and individual health care providers, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients prevent, investigate, manage and resolve sexual assault, abuse, harassment and other organizational, provider and employee misconduct and other performance and behavior; manage Section 1557, Civil Rights Act and other discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; contracting and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other payers and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, antikickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement; and other strategic and operational concerns.

Author of leading works on HIPAA and a multitude of other health care, health plan and other health industry matters, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim, and have no responsibility for the suitability, completeness, accuracy or other content or to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on 2018 US National Health Expenditures Grew Again | ACA, Affordable Care Act, board of directors, Brokers, Claims, Claims Administration, compliance, drug pricing, EBSA, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Tax, Excise Taxes, fiduciary duty, Fringe Benefit, Fringe Benefits, government plan, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, Health Care Reform, health care transparency, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, health reform, Human Resources, Income Tax, insurers, Managed Care, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Patient Protection and Affordabel Care Act, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Payroll Tax, pbms, Physician, Premium Subsidies, prescription drugs, provider contracting, Tax, Tax Credit, third party administrators | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

ONC Patient Matching for Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Slides Available

December 7, 2019

Slides from the presentations made at Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) September 6, 2019 symposium on Patient Matching for Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) are now available on line. This one-day symposium brought together PDMP administrators, standards development groups, health IT developers, representatives from pharmacies, and a number of other stakeholders to discuss patient matching challenges and opportunities to support the interoperability of prescription data.Access that data here.

For More Information

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates and join discussions about these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our LinkedIn Solutions Law Groups and registering for updates on our Solutions Law Press Website.

About the Author

Author of leading works on HIPAA and a multitude of other health care, health plan and other health industry matters, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

IAbout Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim, and have no responsibility for the suitability, completeness, accuracy or other content or to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on ONC Patient Matching for Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Slides Available | Association Health Plan, Claims Administration, drug pricing, Employee Benefits, Employer, ERISA, Health Benefits, health Care, health care transparency, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, Health IT, health plan, Health Plans, health reform, Managed Care, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, pbms, Prescription Drugs, prescription drugs, provider contracting | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

SBA Hosts Employee Benefits Roundtable 11/21

November 18, 2019

The Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Advocacy Office will is host an Employee Benefits Roundtable on Thursday, Nov. 21 from 10:00 AM until 12:00 noon at the SBA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. with the following agenda:

Welcome and Introductions (10:00 am – 10:15 am)

Charles G. Jeane, Assistant Chief Counsel, SBA Office of Advocacy

Discussion of Small Business Use of Cafeteria Plans (10:15 am – 10:45 am)

Gary Kushner, President and CEO of Kushner & Company

Discussion of MEPs and Open MEPs (10:45 am – 11:15 am)

Sandra Turner, President of Retirement Plan Specialists, Inc.

Discussion of Adding Annuities as An Option for Plan Participants (11:15 am – 11:45 am)

Chantel Sheaks, Executive Director, Retirement Policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Open Discussion/Other Small Business Issues (11:45 am – 12:00 pm).

The purpose of these roundtable meetings is to exchange opinions, facts, and information and to obtain the attendees’ individual views and opinions regarding small business concerns. The meetings are not intended to communicate or achieve any consensus positions of the attendees.

Roundtable meetings are open to all interested persons, except the press. Press are excluded in order to facilitate an open and frank discussion about small business-related issues.

About The Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation; Former Chair of the RPTE Employee Benefits and Compensation Committee, a current Co-Chair of the Committee, and the former Chair of its Welfare Benefit and its Defined Compensation Plan Committees and former RPTE Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council (JCEB) Representative, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” practicing attorney and management consultant, author, public policy advocate, author and lecturer repeatedly recognized for her 30 plus years’ of work and pragmatic thought leadership, publications and training on health, pension and other employee benefit, insurance, labor and employment, and health care fiduciary responsibility, payment, investment, contracting and other design, administration and compliance concerns as among the “Top Rated Labor & Employment Lawyers in Texas,” a “Legal Leader,” a “Top Woman Lawyer” and with other awards by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell®; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the field of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, in International Who’s Who of Professionals and with numerous other awards and distinctions.

Her experience encompasses leading and supporting the development and defense of innovative new policies, programs, practices and solutions; advising and representing clients on routine plan establishment, plan documentation and contract drafting and review, administration, change and other compliance and operations; crisis prevention and response, compliance and risk management audits and investigations, enforcement actions and other dealings with the US Congress, Departments of Labor, Treasury, Health & Human Services, Federal Trade Commission, Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission, Education and other federal agencies, state legislatures, attorneys general, insurance, labor, worker’s compensation, and other agencies and regulators, and various other foreign and domestic governmental bodies and agencies.

She also provides strategic and other supports clients in defending litigation as lead strategy counsel, special counsel and as an expert witness. Alongside her extensive legal and operational experience, Ms. Stamer also is recognized for her work as a public and regulatory policy advocate and community leader with a gift for finding pragmatic solutions and helping to forge the common ground necessary to build consensus. Best known for her domestic public policy and community leadership on health care and insurance reform, Ms. Stamer’s lifelong public policy and community service involvement includes service as a lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its pension privatization project, as well as extensive legislative and regulatory reform, advocacy and input workforce, worker classification, employee benefit, public health and healthcare, social security and other disability and aging in place, education, migration reforms domestically and internationally throughout her adult life.

In addition to her public and regulatory policy involvement, Ms. Stamer also contributes her service and leadership to a professional and civic organizations and efforts including her involvement as the Founder and Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE; Coalition on Patient Empowerment, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; Vice Chair, Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group; current Fiduciary Responsibility Committee Co-Chair and Membership Committee member of the ABA RPTE Section; former RPTE Employee Benefits and Other Compensation Group Chair, former Chair and Co-Chair of its Welfare Plans Committee, and Defined Contribution Plans Committee; former RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council; former RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Counsel; former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, former Board Member, Continuing Education Chair and Treasurer of the Southwest Benefits Association; Vice President of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; past Dallas World Affairs Council Board Member, and in leadership of many other professional, civic and community organizations.

Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular public speaker, symposia chair and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry, human resources, employment and other privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, the Society of Professional Benefits Administrators, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients, serves on the faculty and planning committee of many workshops, seminars, and symposia, and on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications.

Beyond these involvements, Ms. Stamer also is active in the leadership of a broad range of other public policy advocacy and other professional and civic organizations and involvements. Through these and other involvements, she helps develop and build solutions, build consensus, garner funding and other resources, manage compliance and other operations, and take other actions to identify promote tangible improvements in health care and other policy and operational areas.

Before founding her current law firm, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C., Ms. Stamer practiced law as a partner with several prominent national and international law firms for more than 10 years before founding Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. to practice her unique brand of “Solutions law™” and to devote more time to the pragmatic policy and system reform, community education and innovation, and other health system improvement efforts of her PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment initiative.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please provide your current contact information and preferences including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

©2019 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™. For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on SBA Hosts Employee Benefits Roundtable 11/21 | 401(k), 4980D, 4980H, 6039D, Brokers, Cafeteria Plans, compensation, defined benefit plan, Defined Benefit Plans, defined contribution plan, Defined Contribution Plans, directors, EBSA, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, ERISA, Fringe Benefit, Fringe Benefits, health Care, health care transparency, health insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, multiple employer plan (Meps), Retirement Plans, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

College Pays $54,000 To Settle DOJ ADA Lawsuit For Paramedic Program’s Termination of TA With MS

November 7, 2019

Lanier Technical College, a unit of the Technical College System of Georgia, will pay $53,000 in back pay and compensatory damages and revise its policies and procedures to settle a Justice Department lawsuit alleging the College violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by terminating along-time College employee based on her multiple sclerosis filed in the Northern District Of Georgia on November 4, 2019. In addition to this disability discrimination allegation, the Justice Department complaint also alleges the removed the employee from the teaching schedule for an entire school semester, thus reducing her hours and pay to zero, due to her multiple sclerosis after the employee took three days of sick leave one summer. The lawsuit and its settlement reminds academic health care and other public and private employers about the need to use appropriate care to avoid inappropriate discrimination against individuals with disabilities in employment and other operations.

The College had employed the terminated employee as a part-time emergency medical technician (EMT) lab assistant for over three years before the events prompting the lawsuit took place. The essential functions of her job involved assisting instructors in the classroom and in the lab, and perform “check offs” to authorize and certify that the students mastered particular technical competencies (e.g., properly taking blood pressure, starting a patient’s I.V., assessing a patient’s vital signs). In addition to her employment with the College, the former employee also worked as a paramedic for an unrelated employer. She continued to work as a full-time paramedic for nearly three years after the College terminated her employment as a part-time lab assistant.

Less than a year into her employment at the College, the former employee was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) in 2010. Shortly after her diagnosis the former employee notified among others, notified the Director of the Lanier Paramedicine Technology (PMT) Department, Sam Stone, of her condition and Mr. Stone subsequently discussed her MS and treatment with her over the course of her employment with the College. According to the Justice Department complaint, the former employee did not require any reasonable accommodations for her disability, remained qualified to perform the essential functions of the part-time lab assistant job, and did so successfully until College discharged her or otherwise altered her compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

In 2012, the former employee assisted with classes and labs taught by Instructor Andy Booth. Instructor Booth managed the work schedule for all the part-time EMT lab assistants who assisted with his classes, including that of the former employee. This included the ability to remove lab assistants from any shifts they requested. Director Stone then completed a final review of the semester and approved the schedule and any changes to it.

During the summer of 2012, the former employee had to miss her assigned workdays on two or three occasions due to her MS and its treatment. She also was on disability leave from her paramedic job for a period during that summer, returning to work full-time in early August. Following these absences, Instructor Booth on August 30, 2012 sent an email to lab assistants, including the former employee requesting that lab assistants sign up for open shifts on the work schedule, as he was “still short on help.” The schedule with available shifts was posted for September through December 2012. The former employee signed up for seven or eight four-hour shifts over the course of the fall semester that same day and emailed Instructor Booth the evening of August 30 to inform him of this. In her email, she indicated that she was no longer on disability leave from her other job.

Two weeks later, on September 12, 2012, the College removed the former employee from the work schedule for the entire fall semester schedule on the written instructions of Instructor Booth with the approval of Director Stone. Instructor Booth’s September 12 email instructions to his assistant provided a link to the online work schedule for the lab assistants and stated: “Any day you see [the former employee], just take her off.” Director Stone was copied on this email. That same day, Director Stone replied to Instructor Booth’s email, stating that he had reviewed all of the dates up to December and approved the schedule. The College knew that, by removing the former employee from the schedule, it was terminating her employment with Lanier.

When the former employee realized that someone removed her from the schedule for the entire semester, she contacted Instructor Booth. He told the former employee, by text message, that it was Director Stone’s decision and that Director Stone wanted to give the former employee “some time to heal.” Instructor Booth also stated that Director Stone seemed upset about the former employee missing a few days in the summer due to her MS. Instructor Booth then directed the former employee to speak to Director Stone. He did not offer to reinstate her for any of the days she signed up for or for any future dates.

Thereafter, on September 26, 2012, the former employee contacted Director Stone by email. After telling Director Stone i her email that Instructor Booth said Director Stone was managing the schedule and had wanted to give her “some time to heal,” she reassured him that she appreciated his concern but that she felt she was “OK.” When Director Stone responded on September 23, he confirmed the correctness of Director Stone’s email and also confirmed that he was concerned with the former employee’s health. He offered to discuss these concerns further with her in private. He did not offer to reinstate her for any of the days she signed up for or for any future dates.

Later that day, the former employee called Director Stone. On the call, Director Stone expressed concern about legal and liability issues and whether the former employee was fit to work because of her MS. He said that he, as the Department Director, had to be concerned about her health and medical issues, because a student could challenge a grade on the basis that her MS made her unfit to evaluate students. Director Stone also referenced a couple days that the former employee missed work due to her MS during the summer, and stated that she was less reliable than other lab assistants were at that point. He did not offer to reinstate her for any of the days she signed up for or for any future dates.

Approximately six months later, College removed the former employee from the payroll and changed her payroll status to “terminated.”

On September 26, 2012, the former employee filed a timely charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that College terminated her because of her disability in violation of the ADA. The Justice Department filed the lawsuit after the EEOC referred the former employee’s complaint to it.

Title I of the ADA prohibits covered entities including the College from discriminating against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.4.

The Justice Department complaint against the College charged that the College violated the ADA by discriminating against her on the basis of her disability by:

Removing her from the lab assistant work schedule for a semester and reducing her work hours and compensation to zero; and
Terminating her on the basis of her disability

As a consequence of these discriminatory actions, the complaint charged the former employee suffered lost earnings, benefits and job advancement opportunities, as well as substantial emotional distress, pain and suffering and other nonpecuniary losses. The complaint asked the District Court to redress these injuries by:

Declaring the College in violation of the Title I of the ADA and its accompanying regulation;
Enjoining the College and its agents, employees, successors, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in discriminatory employment policies and practices that violate Title I of the ADA;
Requiring the College to modify its policies, practices, and procedures as necessary to bring its employment practices into compliance with Title I of the ADA and its implementing regulation;
Ordering the College to train its supervisors and human resource staff regarding the requirements of Title I of the ADA; and
Awarding the former employee back pay with interest; the value of any lost benefits with interest; and compensatory damages, including damages for emotional distress, for injuries suffered as a result of Defendant’s failure to comply with the requirements of the ADA;

Under the settlement agreement announced November 7, 2019 by the Justice Department, the College must pay the former employee $53,000 in back pay and compensatory damages, revise its policies and training staff on the ADA to ensure compliance with the ADA, train staff on the ADA, and report to the Justice Department on implementation of the settlement agreement.

Reaching this settlement allowed the College to eliminate its exposure to potentially much greater liability. In addition to actual lost compensation and benefit damages, a loss at trial could have resulted in a jury award that also ordered the College to pay attorneys’ fees and other costs, interest and exemplary damages of up to $300,000.

For More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about employment discrimination or other labor and employment, compensation, benefits or other related management and compliance concerns or developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates and join discussions about these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update Compliance Update Group and registering for updates on our Solutions Law Press Website..

About the Author

Author of numerous highly regarding publications on disability and other discrimination and other employment, employee benefit, compensation, regulatory compliance and internal controls and other management concerns affecting health care, education, insurance, housing and other operations, Ms. Stamer’s clients include health care, insurance and financial services, educational and other employer and services organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; domestic and international public and private health care, education and other community service and care organizations; managed care organizations; insurers, third-party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; and other private and government organizations and their management leaders. In addition to her legal and management operations work. Ms. Stamer’s experience includes 30 plus years’ of legislative and regulatory policy advocacy and drafting, design, compliance and enforcement including testifying to the EBSA Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans in on the effectiveness of employee benefit plan disclosures during 2017 hearings on on reducing the burdens and increasing the effectiveness of ERISA mandated disclosures as well as advice, representation, advocacy and testimony to and before and other work with various foreign governments, Congress, state legislatures, and a multitude of federal, state and local agencies.

Throughout her 30 plus year career, Ms. Stamer has continuously worked with these and other management clients to design, implement, document, administer and defend hiring, performance management, compensation, promotion, demotion, discipline, reduction in force and other workforce, employee benefit, insurance and risk management, health and safety, and other programs, products and solutions, and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; manage labor-management relations, comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government, accreditation and quality organizations, regulatory and contractual audits, private litigation and other federal and state reviews, investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; prepare and present training and discipline; handle workforce and related change management associated with mergers, acquisitions, reductions in force, re-engineering, and other change management; and a host of other workforce related concerns. Ms. Stamer’s experience in these matters includes supporting these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis with crisis preparedness, intervention and response as well as consulting and representing clients on ongoing compliance and risk management; plan and program design; vendor and employee credentialing, selection, contracting, performance management and other dealings; strategic planning; policy, program, product and services development and innovation; mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcy and other crisis and change management; management, and other opportunities and challenges arising in the course of workforce and other operations management to improve performance while managing workforce, compensation and benefits and other legal and operational liability and performance.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel and Past Chair of both the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and it’s RPTE Employee Benefits and Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer also has leading edge experience in health benefit, health care, health, financial and other plan, program and process design, administration, documentation, contracting, risk management, compliance and related process and systems development, policy and operations; training; legislative and regulatory affairs, and other legal and operational concerns.

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas, Ms. Stamer has been extensively involved in U.S. federal, state and local health care and other legislative and regulatory reform impacting these concerns throughout her career. Her public policy and regulatory affairs experience encompasses advising and representing domestic and multinational private sector health, insurance, employee benefit, employer, staffing and other outsourced service providers, and other clients in dealings with Congress, state legislatures, and federal, state and local regulators and government entities, as well as providing advice and input to U.S. and foreign government leaders on these and other policy concerns.

Author of leading works on a multitude of labor and employment, compensation and benefits, internal controls and compliance, and risk management matters and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; an ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her work, services, experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here. We also invite you to join the discussion of these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our Health Plan Compliance Group or COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment Groupon LinkedIn or Project COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment Facebook Page.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission and its content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion.otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

©2019 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication or the topic of this article, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on College Pays $54,000 To Settle DOJ ADA Lawsuit For Paramedic Program’s Termination of TA With MS | Absenteeism, Academic Medicine, Accommodation, ADA, board of directors, compliance, Corporate Compliance, directors, Disability, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Disability Leave, Education, Educational Privacy, EEOC, EEOC, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreement, Employment Policies, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Tax, FICA, health benefit, health Care, health insurance, Income Tax, Labor Management Relations, Management, NLRA, Payroll Tax, Reporting & Disclosure, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Tax, Tax Fraud, Uncategorized, Unfair Labor Practice, Union, Union elections, Worker Classification | Tagged: ADA, Disability Discrimination, Education, Emergency Medicine, Employees, higher education, MS, news, Paramedic, school, Training | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New $2.15M OCR Penalty Shows Health Plans Risks Of HIPAA Violations

October 23, 2019

Health plans and insurers and their service providers should heed as a warning of the potential perils they could face for violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Security and Breach Notification Rules the just-announced $2.15 million plus civil monetary penalty that Jackson Health System (JHS) paid the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR).

While the HIPAA-covered entity that paid the $2,154,000 civil monetary penalty, JHS, is a Florida-based nonprofit academic medical system, rather than a health plan, the $1,500,000 HIPAA resolution payment OCR previously collected from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee (BCBST) in 2012 for its breaches of HIPAA make clear that health plans and insurers risk similar penalties for HIPAA violations. Consequently, health plans, health insurers and other health care providers and their business associates should construe the JHS civil monetary penalty as evidence of the need to re-verify and remain constantly vigilant about maintaining compliance with HIPAA’s privacy, security and breach notification rules currently and on an ongoing basis.

JHS HIPAA Breaches Found By OCR

The $2.1 million plus payment was required to satisfy a civil monetary penalty assessment OCR imposed in a Notice of Proposed Determination and Notice of Final Determination made public by OCR on October 23, 2019 in response to findings from a series of investigations of HIPAA breach and compliance concerns raised between 2013 and 2016 raised by various HIPAA-mandated breach reports and media reports that raised concerns about improper access disclosure and use of patient PHI between 2013 and 2016. When JHS did not challenge the findings or determination became final. OCR reports JHS has paid the specified $2.154,000 civil monetary penalty.

JHS operates six major hospitals, a network of urgent care centers, multiple primary care and specialty care centers, long-term care nursing facilities, and corrections health services clinics, provides health services to approximately 650,000 patients annually, and employs about 12,000 individuals.

On August 22, 2013, JHS submitted a breach report to OCR stating that its Health Information Management Department lost paper records containing the protected health information (PHI) of 756 patients in January 2013. JHS’s internal investigation determined that an additional three boxes of patient records also were lost in December 2012; however, JHS did not report the additional loss or the increased number of individuals affected to 1,436, until June 7, 2016.

In July 2015, OCR initiated an investigation following a media report that disclosed the PHI of a JHS patient. A reporter had shared a photograph of a JHS operating room screen containing the patient’s medical information on social media. JHS subsequently determined that two employees had accessed this patient’s electronic medical record without a job-related purpose.

On February 19, 2016, JHS submitted a breach report to OCR reporting that an employee had been selling patient PHI. The employee had accessed inappropriately over 24,000 patients’ records since 2011.

According to OCR Director Roger Severino, “OCR’s investigation revealed a HIPAA compliance program that had been in disarray for a number of years. …This hospital system’s compliance program failed to detect and stop an employee who stole and sold thousands of patient records; lost patient files without notifying OCR as required by law; and failed to properly secure PHI that was leaked to the media.”

These and other findings led to the OCR determination in the Notice of Proposed Determination and Notice of Final Determination that JHS failed to provide timely and accurate breach notification to the Secretary of HHS, conduct enterprise-wide risk analyses, manage identified risks to a reasonable and appropriate level, regularly review information system activity records, and restrict authorization of its workforce members’ access to patient ePHI to the minimum necessary to accomplish their job duties. OCR assessed the $2.1 million civil monetary penalty based on these determinations.

The JHS civil monetary penalty is The latest in a growing series of OCR enforcement and regulatory actions that drive home the perils HIPAA-covered health care providers, health plans and insurers, healthcare clearinghouses and business associates risk by failing to responsibly and effectively manage their HIPAA compliance including the one against mega-health plan and business associate, BCBST, that resulted in its payment of a $1,500,000 resolution payment. For details of the BCBS Resolution Agreement and Settlement payment, see here.

OCR enforcement data documents a steady rise in OCR investigation and enforcement activity. OCR set all-time records for HIPAA Enforcement in 2018. Heavy enforcement activity has continued in 2019. Before its October 23, 2019 announcement of the JHS civil monetary penalties, OCR already had announced:

A $10,000 resolution agreement with a dental practice for improperly disclosing patient PHI on social media at the beginning of October;
Its first HIPAA right of access resolution agreement against a health care provider for violating HIPAA’s right of access rules on September 9, 2019 as part of its recently announced HIPAA access rule enforcement initiative;
A $100,000 resolution payment from an Indiana Medical Records Service resulting from a breach of electronic protected health information at a business associate;
The collection of a $3 million resolution payment collected from a Tennessee diagnostic medical imaging services company to settle HIPAA civil monetary penalty exposures arising from a breach that exposed the protected health information of more than 300,000 patients; and
A multitude of other audits and enforcement activities resolved through corrective action without collection of any resolution payment or civil monetary penalties.

Given these and other previously announced enforcement initiatives and actions, all HIPAA covered entities and their business associates are urged to maintain hypervigilance about their own HIPAA compliance with long standing as well as emerging HIPAA requirements taking into account old, recent, and emerging guidance and enforcement activities of OCR. Of course health plans and other covered entities also need to additionally weigh their exposure under various other state and federal law likely to arise from such breaches and the investigation, mitigation and public and customer trust consequences that almost always accompany and frequently exceed the actual HIPAA liability imposed. Considered together, these and other consequences of HIPAA vioations or other sloppy dealings with protected health inforamtion or ther sensitive health care or financial information make a clear case for investing appropriately in HIPAA and related compliance.

For More Information

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates and join discussions about these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update Compliance Update Group and registering for updates on our Solutions Law Press Website.

About the Author

Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer’s clients include employers and other workforce management organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; domestic and international public and private health care, education and other community service and care organizations; managed care organizations; insurers, third-party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; and other private and government organizations and their management leaders. As part of this work, she has worked extensively on employee benefit communication and other employee benefit plan legislative and regulatory policy, design, compliance and enforcement including testifying to the EBSA Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans in on the effectiveness of employee benefit plan disclosures during 2017 hearings on on reducing the burdens and increasing the effectiveness of ERISA mandated disclosures.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here. We also invite you to join the discussion of these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our Health Plan Compliance Group or COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment Groupon LinkedIn or Project COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment Facebook Page.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission and its content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion.otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

1 Comment | Association Health Plan, Education, Educational Privacy, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, ERISA, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, Health IT, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA, Labor Management Relations, NLRA, Protected Health Information, Reporting & Disclosure, Retirement Plans, Uncategorized, Unfair Labor Practice, Union, Union certification, Union elections, Worker Classification | Tagged: Data Breach, Health Plan, HIPAA, Jackson Health System, Medical Privacy, OCR, Office of Civil Rights, PHI, Protected Health Information | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Plans Should Prepare For Plan Fallout Of HHS Rule Requiring Manufacturers Disclose Drug Prices

May 9, 2019

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019, Health and Human Services(“HHS”) Secretary Alex Azar announced the adoption of a Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Regulation to Require Drug Pricing Transparency Final Rule (the “Rule”) by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) requiring direct-to-consumer television advertisements for prescription pharmaceuticals covered by Medicare or Medicaid to include the list price – the Wholesale Acquisition Cost – if that price is equal to or greater than $35 for a month’s supply or the usual course of therapy.

Part of President Trump’s American Patients First blueprint, the 102 page Rule seeks to increase transparency for patients and bring down overall drug costs both for patients and for the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Effective 60 days after its official publication in the Federal Register on May 10, 2019, the Rule will require direct-to-consumer television advertisements for prescription drug and biological products covered by Medicare or Medicaid to include the list price – the Wholesale Acquisition Cost – if that price is equal to or greater than $35 for a month’s supply or the usual course of therapy, with the prices updated quarterly.

According to CMS, the 10 most commonly advertised drugs have list prices ranging from $488 to $16,938 per month or usual course of therapy. CMS believes patients should know what a drug costs as they discuss their options with their doctor.

While pharmaceutical drug manufactures generally must obtain approval from the FDA Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (ODPD) for advertising, OPDP does not review price information in prescription drug advertisements. Consequently, HHS says ODPD will not require a manufacturer that simply adds price information to a direct-to-consumer advertisement as required by § 403.1202 of the Rule unless the price information explicitly or implicitly incorporates safety or efficacy information about the drug, or makes express or implied claims about the safety or efficacy of the drug.

In addition to the Rule, HHS continues to review a number of other rules and proposals it hopes to further advance the American Patients First blueprint initiative to improve drug price transparency and inform consumer decision making by fixing opaque systems, changing incentives that drive costs or other undesirable behaviors by pharmaceutical companies, prescription benefit management (“PBM”) companies, health insurers and plans, providers and patients.

Health plan, their employer and other sponsors, insurers, PBM and other vendors and others should anticipate that the new Rule and other elements and initiatives of the Trump Administration American Patients First blueprint will impact plan design and administration both by directly impacting PBM and pharmaceutical costs, products, formularies and arrives and by fueling a host of new discussions by patients and their providers about pharmaceutical drug selection. In addition to impacting existing plan features and their administration, health plans, their fiduciaries, administrators and insurers should prepare for a predictable surge in scrutiny by plan

members about health plan prescription drug formularies that in many cases will fuel new appeals and challenges to the plan denials, formularies and other impacted features. Health plan fiduciaries, administrators, PBMs and other vendors, employer and other sponsors should anticipate and begin preparing both to handle these new health plan demands and ideally, to educate patients and their caregivers to use the new information to

make better health care choices.

If you have questions or would like more information about the new Rule or other developments impacting your health plan design or administration, please contact the author directly.

If you found this article of interest, Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to check out other Solutions Law Press, Inc. publications. We also invite you to share your own best practices ideas and resources and join the discussions about these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update Group or COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment Groupon LinkedIn or Project COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment Facebook Page.

About the Author

Throughout her 30 plus year career, Ms. Stamer has continuously worked with these and other management clients to design, implement, document, administer and defend hiring, performance management, compensation, promotion, demotion, discipline, reduction in force and other workforce, employee benefit, insurance and risk management, health and safety, and other programs, products and solutions, and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government, accreditation and quality organizations, regulatory and contractual audits, private litigation and other federal and state reviews, investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; prepare and present training and discipline; handle workforce and related change management associated with mergers, acquisitions, reductions in force, re-engineering, and other change management; and a host of other workforce related concerns. Ms. Stamer’s experience in these matters includes supporting these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis with crisis preparedness, intervention and response as well as consulting and representing clients on ongoing compliance and risk management; plan and program design; vendor and employee credentialing, selection, contracting, performance management and other dealings; strategic planning; policy, program, product and services development and innovation; mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcy and other crisis and change management; management, and other opportunities and challenges arising in the course of workforce and other operations management to improve performance while managing workforce, compensation and benefits and other legal and operational liability and performance.

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, heavily involved in health benefit, health care, health, financial and other information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations throughout her career, and scribe of the ABA JCEB annual Office of Civil Rights agency meeting, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive work and leadership on leading edge health care and benefit policy and operational issues. She regularly helps employer and other health benefit plan sponsors and vendors, health industry, insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health and insurance industry clients design, document and enforce plans, practices, policies, systems and solutions; manage regulatory, contractual and other legal and operational compliance; vendors and suppliers; deal with Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA, state insurance law and other private payer rules and requirements; contracting; licensing; terms of participation; medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, and other provider-payer relations; reporting and disclosure, government investigations and enforcement, privacy and data security; and other compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; HIPAA administrative simplification, meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, antikickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA, HEDIS and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; 1557 and other Civil Rights; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Health Plans Should Prepare For Plan Fallout Of HHS Rule Requiring Manufacturers Disclose Drug Prices

Congress Moves To Enact Federal Paid Leave Rules

$3 Million OCR Touchstone Settlement Warns Health Plans of Perils of HIPAA Violations

Employer Faces 5 Years Imprisonment For Not Paying Employment & Income Tax Withholding To IRS

Health Plans Must Share PHI To Apps When Members Request, Responsible For Security On Plan-Sponsored Apps

NLRA Not Violated By Employers Termination of Union Dues Withholding In Response To Wisconsin Right To Work Law

Tell Employees, Plan Members About April 27 National Prescription Drug Take Back Day

Proposed FLSA Joint Employer Rule Would Reduce Business’ Joint Employer Wage & Hour Liability

Proposed FLSA Base Pay Rule Clarifies Overtime Treatment Of Perks

Federal Veterans Hiring Benchmark Resets 3/31 To 5.9%; Prepare For Audits & Other Enforcement

Consider Employee Recess In Your Employee Wellness Programs

Use 3/26 Diabetes Alert Day Resources To Jumpstart Your Diabetes Management & Cost Containment Efforts

NLRB Responds To House Democrats About Private Contractor Participation In Joint Employment Rule Comment Processing

Employee Transportation Deduction Rules Changed

2019 Mileage Rates Adjusted; Employee Unreimbursed Mileage & Relocation Mileage Deductions Unavailable In 2018 and 2019

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here. We also invite you to join the discussion of these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our Health Plan Compliance Group or COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment Groupon LinkedIn or Project COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment Facebook Page.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on Health Plans Should Prepare For Plan Fallout Of HHS Rule Requiring Manufacturers Disclose Drug Prices | Claims, Claims Administration, compliance, Consumer Protection, Corporate Compliance, Drug & Alcohol, drug pricing, EBSA, Education, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health care transparency, health insurance, health plan, Health Plans, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, insurers, Leadership, Managed Care, Management, Medicare Part D, Patient Empowerment, pbms, Physician, PPO, Prescription Drugs, prescription drugs, Reporting & Disclosure, third party administrators | Tagged: blueprint, Health Care, Health Plans, pbm, Prescription Drugs, transparency | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$3 Million OCR Touchstone Settlement Warns Health Plans of Perils of HIPAA Violations

May 6, 2019

Health plans, their sponsoring employers and unions, insurers, fiduciaries, administrators, insurers and other service providers should learn from the $3 million lesson a Franklin, Tennessee-based diagnostic medical imaging services provider is learning about the heavy penalties a health plan, health care provider, health care clearinghouse or business associate (“Covered Entity”) risks if a post-data breach investigation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) shows the Covered Entity breached the privacy, data security, business associate agreement and breach notificataion rules of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security and Breach Notification Rules before or after the breach.

Under a new OCR Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan announced May 6, 2019, Touchstone Medical Imaging (“Touchstone”) must pay $3,000,000 to OCR and adopt a corrective action plan to settle OCR charges it violated HIPAA arising from an OCR investigation of Touchstone’s handling of a 2014 breach. Around May 9, 2014, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and OCR notified Touchstone that one of its FTP servers allowed uncontrolled access to PHI that allowed search engines to index the PHI of more than 300,000 of Touchstone’s patients, which remained visible on the Internet even after the server was taken offline. While Touchstone initially claimed that no patient PHI was exposed, in the course of OCR’s investigation, Touchstone subsequently admitted PHI of more than 300,000 patients was exposed including, names, birth dates, social security numbers, and addresses. As a result of its delayed acknowledgement of the occurrence of the breach on May 9, 2014, Touchstone did not provide notice of the breach until October, 2014, months after OCR and FBI notified it of the breach. See here.

OCR’s investigation found Touchstone breached HIPAA before and after the breach. OCR’s investigation found before the breach, Touchstone failed to conduct an accurate and thorough risk analysis of potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all of its electronic PHI (ePHI), and failed to have business associate agreements in place with its vendors, including their IT support vendor and a third-party data center provider as required by HIPAA. OCR also found Touchstone did not thoroughly investigate the security incident until several months after notice of the breach from both the FBI and OCR. Consequently, Touchstone’s notification to individuals affected by the breach also was untimely.

To resolve OCR charges arising from these events, Touchstone agreed to pay OCR $3,000,000. In addition to the monetary settlement, Touchstone will undertake a robust corrective action plan that includes the adoption of business associate agreements, completion of an enterprise-wide risk analysis, and comprehensive policies and procedures to comply with the HIPAA Rules.

The Resolution Agreement illustrates the expensive price Covered Entities risk from failing to conduct risk assessments, obtain business associate agreements and fulfill other HIPAA requirements before a breach, then failing to promptly investigate, provide notification and redress a breach when discovered. Covered Entities should learn from the painful lesson learned by Touchstone by reconfirming the adequacy of their current HIPAA compliance and using care to timely and adequately investigate and provide notification if and when a breach occurs.

About the Author

Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer’s clients include employers and other workforce management organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers and their management; public and private, domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, health care accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; managed care organizations, insurers, third party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations; group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; claims, billing and other health care and insurance technology and data service organizations; other health, employee benefit, insurance and financial services product and solutions consultants, developers and vendors; and other health, employee benefit, insurance, technology, government and other management clients.

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas, Ms. Stamer has been extensively involved in U.S. federal, state and local health care and other legislative and regulatory reform impacting these concerns throughout her career. Her public policy and regulatory affairs experience encompassess advising and representing domestic and multinational private sector health, insurance, employee benefit, employer, staffing and other outsourced service providers, and other clients in dealings with Congress, state legislatures, and federal, state and local regulators and government entities, as well as providing advice and input to U.S. and foreign government leaders on these and other policy concerns.

Beyond her public policy and regulatory affairs involvement, Ms. Stamer also has extensive experience helping these and other clients to design, implement, document, administer and defend workforce, employee benefit, insurance and risk management, health and safety, and other programs, products and solutions, and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government; accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Ms. Stamer’s experience in these matters includes supporting these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis with crisis preparedness, intervention and response as well as consulting and representing clients on ongoing compliance and risk management; plan and program design; vendor and employee credentialing, selection, contracting, performance management and other dealings; strategic planning; policy, program, product and services development and innovation; mergers, acquisitions, and change management; workforce and operations management, and other opportunities and challenges arising in the course of their operations.

Ms. Stamer has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending plan sponsors, administrators, insurance and managed care organizations, health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and employer and association group and other health benefit programs and coverages including but not limited to advising public and private payers about coverage and program design and documentation, advising and defending providers, payers and systems and billing services entities about systems and process design, audits, and other processes; provider credentialing, and contracting; providers and payer billing, reimbursement, claims audits, denials and appeals, coverage coordination, reporting, direct contracting, False Claims Act, Medicare & Medicaid, ERISA, state Prompt Pay, out-of-network and other nonpar insured, and other health care claims, prepayment, post-payment and other coverage, claims denials, appeals, billing and fraud investigations and actions and other reimbursement and payment related investigation, enforcement, litigation and actions. Scribe for the ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with HHS OCR, she also has worked extensively on health and health benefit coding, billing and claims, meaningful use and EMR, billing and reimbursement, quality measurement and reimbursement, HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical, workforce, consumer financial and other data confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security, data breach and mitigation, and other information privacy and data security concerns.

Author of leading works on a multitude of health care, health plan and other health industry matters, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting, former Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, past ABA JCEB Council Representative and CLE and Marketing Committee Chair, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer’s health industry clients include public health organizations; public and private hospitals, healthcare systems, clinics and other health care facilities; physicians, physician practices, medical staff, and other provider organizations; skilled nursing, long term care, assisted living, home health, ambulatory surgery, dialysis, telemedicine, DME, Pharma, clinics, and other health care providers; billing, management and other administrative services organizations; insured, self-insured, association and other health plans; PPOs, HMOs and other managed care organizations, insurance, claims administration, utilization management, and other health care payers; public and private peer review, quality assurance, accreditation and licensing; technology and other outsourcing; healthcare clearinghouse and other data; research; public and private social and community organizations; real estate, technology, clinical pathways, and other developers; investors, banks and financial institutions; audit, accounting, law firm; consulting; document management and recordkeeping, business associates, vendors, and service providers and other professional and other health industry organizations; academic medicine; trade associations; legislative and other law making bodies and others.

A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, privacy and data security, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; a ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on $3 Million OCR Touchstone Settlement Warns Health Plans of Perils of HIPAA Violations | Association Health Plan, board of directors, Cafeteria Plans, CHIP, church plan, Civil Monetary Penalties, Claims, compliance, Corporate Compliance, Cybercrime, Data Breach, Data Security, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, Health IT, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA, HR, HSA, Human Resources, Identity Theft, Insurance, insurers, Internal Investigations, Managed Care, Management, Medicare Part D, MEWA, multiple employer plan (Meps), Patient Empowerment, Prescription Drugs, preventive care, Risk Management, Uncategorized | Tagged: Health Plans, HIPAA, OCR, Privacy, Resolution agreement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Plans Must Share PHI To Apps When Members Request, Responsible For Security On Plan-Sponsored Apps

April 30, 2019

Health plans must deliver electronic protected health information (“ePHI”) to electronic applications or software (“apps”) used by plan members, and are responsible under the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) Privacy and Security Rules for the security of electronic protected health information (“ePHI”) on apps they sponsor or provide, according to new guidance from the Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”) Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”).

With health plans and their sponsors and insurers increasingly offering or promoting the use of apps to plan members members to access, maintain and use their health information, health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (“covered entities”) covered by HIPAA must understand and be prepared meet their HIPAA responsibilities to provide and protect ePHI to and on these apps, but may want to rethink sponsoring or providing a particular app for that purpose.

New HIPAA FAQ guidance (the “FAQs”) from OCR that addresses the implications of HIPAA on covered entities responsibility when asked to share or for ePHI shared or stored on apps or application programming interfaces (“APIs”) systems, covered entities have a legal obligation to disclose ePHI to an app when subjects of the ePHI or their personal representatives request such disclosures. However, the FAQs also state a covered entity or its business associates won’t be responsible for the security of the data shared to the app unless it sponsors or provides it.

pends upon whether the AP or API interface provider is a business associate of the covered entity versus just a third-party provider whose involvement and receipt of the PHI is requested and arranged by the subject of the PHI.

Covered Entities Obligated To Disclose ePHI to Apps Chosen By Individuals

The FAQs make crystal clear that covered entities do not have the option of refusing to share ePHI to an app when requested to do so by the subject of the ePHI or its personal representative. The FAQs states that covered entities cannot refuse to disclose ePHI to an app chosen by an individual because of concerns about how the app will use or disclose the ePHI it receives. In this regard, the FAQs state that the HIPAA Privacy Rule generally prohibits a covered entity from refusing to disclose ePHI to a third-party app designated by the individual if the ePHI is readily producible in the form and format used by the app. See 45 CFR 164.524(a)(1), (c)(2)(ii), (c)(3)(ii).According to the FAQ, the HIPAA Rules do not impose any restrictions on how an individual or the individual’s designee, such as an app, may use the health information that has been disclosed pursuant to the individual’s right of access. For instance, a covered entity is not permitted to deny an individual’s right of access to their ePHI where the individual directs the information to a third-party app because the app will share the individual’s ePHI for research or because the app does not encrypt the individual’s data when at rest.According to the FAQs, the liability a covered entity or business associate bears for sharing ePHI to an App under the HIPAA Privacy, Security, or Breach Notification Rules (HIPAA Rules) depends on the relationship between the covered entity and the app.

Breaches of Health Information Disclosed To An App

If an app that is neither a covered entity nor a business associate of the covered entity under HIPAA receives ePHI at the request of the subject or its personal representative, the FAQ states that the shared ePHI is no longer subject to the protections of the HIPAA Rules. Thus if the individual’s app – chosen by an individual to receive the individual’s requested ePHI – was not provided by or on behalf of the covered entity (and, thus, does not create, receive, transmit, or maintain ePHI on its behalf), the covered entity would not be liable under the HIPAA Rules for any subsequent use or disclosure of the requested ePHI received by the app. For example, the covered entity would have no HIPAA responsibilities or liability if such an app that the individual designated to receive their ePHI later experiences a breach. See also, See also OCR FAQ 2039, “What is the liability of a covered entity in responding to an individual’s access request to send the individual’s PHI to a third party.In contrast, however, the FAQ states that if the app was developed for, or provided by or on behalf of the covered entity – and, thus, creates, receives, maintains, or transmits ePHI on behalf of the covered entity – the covered entity could be liable under the HIPAA Rules for a subsequent impermissible disclosure because of the business associate relationship between the covered entity and the app developer. For example, if the individual selects an app that the covered health care provider uses to provide services to individuals involving ePHI, the FAQs state that the health care provider may be subject to liability under the HIPAA Rules if the app impermissibly discloses the ePHI received.

Transmission of ePHI to App Using Unsecured Method

The FAQs also address the potential exposures of covered entities and their business associates arising from the transmission of ePHI to an App using an unsecure method. According to the FAQs, the access rights HIPAA guarantees to individuals allows an individual to request that a covered entity to direct their ePHI to a third-party app in an unsecure manner or through an unsecure channel. See 45 CFR 164.524(a)(1), (c)(2)(ii), (c)(3)(ii). For instance, an individual may request that their unencrypted ePHI be transmitted to an app as a matter of convenience. The FAQ states that a covered entity that transmits ePHI through an unsecured means under such circumstances would not be responsible for unauthorized access to the individual’s ePHI while in transmission to the app. With respect to such apps, however, the FAQs also suggest that the covered entity may want to consider informing the individual of the potential risks involved the first time that the individual makes the request.

Post Transmission Exposure of Covered Entity’s EHR Systems Developer

The FAQ also discusses the potential exposure of a covered entity’s electronic health record (EHR) system developer under HIPAA after completing the transmission on behalf of a covered entity of ePHI to an app designated by the subject of the ePHI. According to the FAQs, the exposure of the HER system developer depends on the relationship, if any, between the covered entity, the EHR system developer, and the app chosen by the individual to receive the individual’s ePHI. A business associate relationship exists if an entity creates, receives, maintains, or transmits ePHI on behalf of a covered entity (directly or through another business associate) to carry out the covered functions of the covered entity. A business associate relationship exists between an EHR system developer and a covered entity. If the EHR system developer does not own the app, or if it owns the app but does not provide the app to, through, or on behalf of, the covered entity – e.g., if it creates the app and makes it available in an app store as part of a different line of business (and not as part of its business associate relationship with any covered entity) – the EHR system developer would not be liable under the HIPAA Rules for any subsequent use or disclosure of the requested ePHI received by the app.If the EHR system developer owns the app or has a business associate relationship with the app developer, and provides the app to, through or on behalf of, the covered entity (directly or through another business associate), however, the FAQs state the EHR system developer then potentially could face HIPAA liability (as a business associate of a HIPAA covered entity) for any impermissible uses and disclosures of the health information received by the app. For example, if an EHR system developer contracts with the app developer to create the app on behalf of a covered entity and the individual later identifies that app to receive ePHI, then the EHR system developer could be subject to HIPAA liability if the app impermissibly uses or discloses the ePHI received.

Covered Entity’s Duty To Enter Into Business Associate Agreement Depends Upon Relationship

Likewise, the FAQs also state that whether HIPAA requires a a covered entity or its EHR system developer to enter into a business associate agreement with an app designated by the individual in order to transmit ePHI to the app depends upon the relationship between the app developer and the covered entity and/or its EHR system developer. A business associate is a person or entity who creates, receives, maintains or transmits PHI on behalf of (or for the benefit of) a covered entity (directly or through another business associate) to carry out covered functions of the covered entity. An app’s facilitation of access to the individual’s ePHI at the individual’s request alone does not create a business associate relationship. Such facilitation may include API terms of use agreed to by the third-party app (i.e., interoperability arrangements).HIPAA does not require a covered entity or its business associate (e.g., EHR system developer) to enter into a business associate agreement with an app developer that does not create, receive, maintain, or transmit ePHI on behalf of or for the benefit of the covered entity (whether directly or through another business associate). However if the app was developed to create, receive, maintain, or transmit ePHI on behalf of the covered entity, or was provided by or on behalf of the covered entity (directly or through its EHR system developer as the covered entity’s business associate), then a business associate agreement would be required.

Health Plan & Other Covered Entity Take Aways

The new FAQ raises several action items for health plans, their sponsoring employers or unions, fiduciaries, administrators, brokers and insurers as well as other covered entities. Among other things, health plans and other covered entities must recognize and be prepared currently to provide PHI to subjects of that information on the apps of the requesting individual’s preference within the time frames dictated by HIPAA. Health plans and other covered entities need to recognize that the FAQs reflect this is a current, not future responsibility.

Second, health plans, health care providers and others that have or are considering providing apps or other tools to health plan members or patients for use in accessing or using PHI also generally need to recognize that the health plan or health care provider generally will bear responsibility under HIPAA for the adequacy of the security of the apps provided by or on behalf of the health plan or health care provider. Given the general responsibility to provide PHI to any apps designated by a subject of PHI, many health plans and health care providers may wish to reconsider whether providing or endorsing a particular app continues to make sense taking into account the HIPAA data privacy and security responsibilities and risks attendent to maintaining the security of PHI stored and accessed using those tools. Those electing to provide apps or other tools need to take steps to ensure the current and future adequacy of the data security of the app and its associated storage and other components including any future modifications to those tools.

Furthermore, health plans and other covered entities also should consider the advisability of revising existing notices and authorizations in response to the new FAQs. For instance, health plans, health care providers and others supplying PHI to an app designated by the requesting individual may want to consider revising forms to document the direction and consent of the requestor to the electronic delivery of the PHI to the designated app to better position themselves to claim the protection against liability for breaches on these subject designate apps described in the FAQs. Meanwhile, health plans or other covered entities providing apps also may wish to weigh options for supplementing disclosures to mitigate potential risks from use or failure to upgrade apps that might be viewed as covered entity provided or sponsored.

Certainly, before sponsoring or allowing a business associate to offer or provide an app or other similar solution, health care providers and other covered entities must ensure that the business associate agreement requirements of HIPAA are met from the app developer and others providing services or the app as business associates to the covered entity. Covered entities also should take steps to ensure that the interfaces between the apps and other systems are properly secured at the point of implementation and during any subsequent upgrades keeping in mind that OCR guidance expects covered entities to reconfirm security for any system, software or app upgrades. Meeting this expectation for apps within the possession of patients or plan members can present special challenges requiring careful planning.

Have questions about the new FAQs or other health care regulatory developments or their implications on your organization, contact the author. You also are invited to stay abreast of these and other health care developments by participating in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Linkedin HR & Benefits Update LinkedIn Group or COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment Group or Project COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment Facebook Page.

About the Author

Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer’s clients include employers and other workforce management organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers and their management; public and private, domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, health care accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; managed care organizations, insurers, third party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations; group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; claims, billing and other health care and insurance technology and data service organizations; other health, employee benefit, insurance and financial services product and solutions consultants, developers and vendors; and other health, employee benefit, insurance, technology, government and other management clients.

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas, Ms. Stamer has been extensively involved in U.S. federal, state and local health care and other legislative and regulatory reform impacting these concerns throughout her career. Her public policy and regulatory affairs experience encompassess advising and representing domestic and multinational private sector health, insurance, employee benefit, employer, staffing and other outsourced service providers, and other clients in dealings with Congress, state legislatures, and federal, state and local regulators and government entities, as well as providing advice and input to U.S. and foreign government leaders on these and other policy concerns.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on Health Plans Must Share PHI To Apps When Members Request, Responsible For Security On Plan-Sponsored Apps | Brokers, Cafeteria Plans, Civil Monetary Penalties, Civil Rights, Claims, COBRA, Consumer Protection, Corporate Compliance, Cybercrime, Data Breach, Data Security, Drug & Alcohol, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, ERISA, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, Health IT, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HR, Identity Theft, Insurance, Internal Investigations, Managed Care, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Privacy, Uncategorized | Tagged: APPs, Data Privacy, Data Security, Health Plan, HIPAA, Inc. publisher/author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer and Society of Professional Benefits Administrators Director of Public Relations & Legal Affairs Elizabeth Leight will lead a conference call discussi, Security | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Consider Employee Recess In Your Employee Wellness Programi

March 27, 2019

Adding employee recess to the workday schedule could be a cost effective wellness tool based on health research recently reported by the National Institutes on Health (“NIH”).

Sedentary work and lifestyles fuel many of the heath risks and costs targeted by employer and health benefit employee wellness programs.

With most American adults now spending an average of 11 to 12 hours a day sitting, sedentary work and life styles present leading disease and health cost drivers. Research showing long periods of sitting increase the risk of heart disease and death overall make finding ways to counteract the negative health effects of sedentary lifestyles a key objective of many wellness and public health initiatives. However questions exist about the effectiveness and return on investment of many of the wellness program strategies and tools in the marketplace in producing meaningful changes in employee health or health related behavior.

Findings of research recently announced by NIH suggests giving employees movement breaks for as little as 30 minutes a day could counteract the adverse health effects of their sedentary work. See Light activity may lower harmful effects of sitting.

According to NIH, a study of nearly 8000 people aged 45 or older found as little as 30 minutes of light activity per day may reduce the risk of death incurred by sitting. Replacing sitting with just a few minutes of movement at a time provided health benefits.

NIH reports researchers found that any amount of activity was better than sitting. People who swap 30 minutes of sitting for 30 minutes of light-intensity activity per day would have a 17% lower risk of death. Light-intensity activities include walking and doing chores that require moving around.

People who swap 30 minutes of sitting for 30 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day would have a 35% lower risk of death from any cause. These types of activities can include jogging, bicycling, and playing sports.

But people didn’t have to move for a full 30 minutes in a row to benefit. Even smaller intervals to break up periods of sitting—including from just 1 to 5 minutes of activity—reduced the risk of death.

NIH also reports positive effects of movement were seen regardless of age, race, weight, smoking and drinking patterns, or existing health problems.

Small amounts of movement mainly benefitted people who didn’t already have an active lifestyle. For people who had a low activity level overall, taking modest activity breaks made a big difference in the risk of death. For people who already had a high level of activity during the day, however, no additional benefit was seen from a little extra movement.

The findings of the health benefit of movement breaks is consistent with findings of a growing series of other recent health studies showing getting adults and children moving during the day even for short periods during the day can produce major heath benefits. See, e.g. Brief Activity Breaks May Benefit Children’s Health ; Physical Activity Program Helps Maintain Mobility; Moderate Exercise May Improve Memory in Older Adults. The message is clear: Even modest increases in activity can reduce risk for many serious conditions, including heart disease, diabetes, certain kinds of cancer, and some types of depression and cognitive disorders.

The research also shows that the health benefits can come from engaging in light or moderate movement activities as little as 30 minutes a day even if these activities are broken up and not participation in traditional exercise. Healthful physical activity includes exercise as well as many everyday activities, such as doing active chores around the house, yard work, or walking the dog.

Aerobic activities that make heart and blood vessels by healthier by causing individuals to breathe harder can include brisk walking, dancing, swimming, and playing basketball. Strengthening activities, like push-ups and lifting weights, help make your muscles and bones stronger and can also improve balance.

While the benefits of movement are clear, too many employees fail to do it. Although most people know that physical activity is a good thing, most adults nationwide don’t meet even the minimum recommended amounts of physical activity of at least 30 minutes of brisk walking or other moderate activity, 5 days a week.

NIH-funded research has found that environment—where people live, work, or go to school—can have a big impact on how much individuals move and even how much they weigh. These findings suggest employers and communities can do many things to encourage their people to fit movement into their sedentary lifestyles.

To create a work or other environment that encourages employees to get moving, NIH suggests looking for opportunities to change the environment so activity is an easier choice for workers to make.

Some suggestions include:

Structuring meetings, job duties and other activities to require or encourage sedentary workers to stand up, walk and move around periodically throughout the day;

Providing access to walking sidewalks, trails and other places workers can walk and encouraging workers to use them;

Encouraging workers to walk or take public transportation to lunch or other meetings when feasible rather than drive;

Encouraging people to walk and talk rather than sitting while holding discussions;

Encouraging workers to find waking buddies to walk to lunch or share other exercise breaks or activities with in and outside the workplace;
Encouraging management and employees to incorporate stretching or other movement breaks into meetings and other gatherings; and
Encouraging people to take the stairs and walk to meet fellow employees in person rather than communicating by phone or e-mail when practical.

While each workplace presents different opportunities and challenges, the message from the research is clear: Getting your people moving can produce meaningful health and health and disability cost savings. Maybe it’s time for your company to add short movement recesses to its employees’ day to capitalize on these benefits.

Want to learn, share or discuss other human resources, benefits and compensation, or health and wellness management developments and ideas? We invite you to share your own best practices ideas and resources and join the discussions about these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating in and contributing to the discussions in our Health Plan Compliance Group or COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment Groupon LinkedIn or Project COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment Facebook Page.

About the Author

Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, she is nationally recognized for her leading edge work, publications, advocacy and programs on making compliant wellness and disease management programs that work and other health and disability plans and management strategies and concerns.

Throughout her 30 plus year career, Ms. Stamer has continuously worked with these and other management clients to design, implement, document, administer and defend hiring, performance management, compensation, promotion, demotion, discipline, reduction in force and other workforce, employee benefit, insurance and risk management, health and safety, and other programs, products and solutions, and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government, accreditation and quality organizations, regulatory and contractual audits, private litigation and other federal and state reviews, investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; prepare and present training and discipline; handle workforce and related change management associated with mergers, acquisitions, reductions in force, re-engineering, and other change management; and a host of other workforce related concerns. Ms. Stamer’s experience in these matters includes supporting these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis with crisis preparedness, intervention and response as well as consulting and representing clients on ongoing compliance and risk management; plan and program design; vendor and employee credentialing, selection, contracting, performance management and other dealings; strategic planning; policy, program, product and services development and innovation; mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcy and other crisis and change management; management, and other opportunities and challenges arising in the course of workforce and other operations management to improve performance while managing workforce, compensation and benefits and other legal and operational liability and performance.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here. We also invite you to join the discussion of these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our Health Plan Compliance Group or COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment Groupon LinkedIn or Project COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment Facebook Page.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on Consider Employee Recess In Your Employee Wellness Programi | Absenteeism, Disability, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, health Care, health insurance, health plan, Health Plans, Patient Empowerment, Uncategorized, Wellness, Wellness Programs, Workforce | Tagged: Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, GINA, Health Plans, Human Resources, Recess, Risk Management, Wellness | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Use 3/26 Diabetes Alert Day Resources To Jumpstart Your Diabetes Management & Cost Containment Efforts

March 26, 2019

Employers, health plans and others concerned about managing the high medical, disability and other costs of Type 2 Diabetes should use today’s annual Diabetes Awareness Day observances and resources to beef up their efforts and tools.

With 1 in 3 adult Americans at risk for Type 2 diabetes, the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) and other public and private organizations partnering in The National Diabetes Prevention Program are urging all Americans, their health plans, state and local agencies and communities to protect themselves and join their fight to prevent or delay Type 2 diabetes.

Celebrated every year on the fourth Tuesday in March, Diabetes Alert Day promotes awareness of the prevalence and risks of undiagnosed or unmanaged Type 2 Diabetes to Americans, American taxpayers, health benefit programs and their communities.

More than 30 million people in the United States have diabetes and an additional 84 million adults—over a third—have prediabetes, and 90% of them don’t know they have it.
Diabetes is the 7th leading cause of death in the United States (and may be underreported).
Type 2 diabetes accounts for about 90% to 95% of all diagnosed cases of diabetes; type 1 diabetes accounts for about 5%.
In the last 20 years, the number of adults diagnosed with diabetes has more than tripled as the American population has aged and become more overweight or obese
Undiagnosed or unmanaged Type 2 diabetes threatens serious and disabling medical risks for afflicted individuals that also are financially costly for patients and their families, their health plans, taxpayers and communities.

Type 2 diabetes usually starts during adulthood; however, children, teens, and young adults increasingly also are developing it. Since Type 2 diabetes symptoms often develop over several years and can go on for a long time without being noticed it’s important individuals know the factors for Type 2 Diabetes and that people with these symptoms visit their doctor promptly.

Fortunately, Type 2 Diabetes and its costs often can be prevented or minimized through appropriate diagnosis and treatment. That’s why the CDC and its partners are urging all Americans, the employers, health plans, health care providers and communities to join the fight against Type 2 Diabetes.

To start with, the CDC and its partners ask every American to learn their risk for diabetes by taking the online Type 2 Diabetes Risk and promote use of CDC-recognized lifestyle change programs to individuals suffering or at risk for Type 2 diabetes.

The CDC and its partners also are asking American families, health care providers, employers and their health benefit programs, federal, local and state governments and communities to help identify and get people at risk or suffering from Type 2 diabetes involved in making appropriate lifestyle changes and other activities to help manage their Type 2 Diabetes and offers a multitude of free tools and resources to help promote Type 2 Diabetes Awareness and assist in its prevention and treatment.

Employers and their health plans and insurers should consider participating in Diabetes Alert Day and using some of the resources provided by CDC and other partners to beef up their Type 2 and other Diabetes prevention, screening and management efforts. Appropriate use of these resources could help mitigate exposure to the high medical, disability, productivity and other costs that employers and their health plans generally incur when employees or their family members suffer from undiagnosed or unmanaged diabetes. When utilizing these resources, however, employers and their health plan fiduciaries, insurers and administrators are reminded to use care to implement and administer these wellness and other programs in a manner that complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act, Internal Revenue Code and other federal and state requirements concerning the design and administration of wellness and disease management programs including recent updates in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulations and enforcement positions under the ADA.

Learn more about Type 2 Diabetes cost modeling, screening, prevention and other participant education resources in our companion article in the Project Cope: Coalition for Patient Empowerment Newsletter. We also invite you to share your own best practices ideas and resources and join the discussions about these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our Health Plan Compliance Group or COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment Groupon LinkedIn or Project COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment Facebook Page.

About the Author

Throughout her 30 plus year career, Ms. Stamer has continuously worked with these and other management clients to design, implement, document, administer and defend hiring, performance management, compensation, promotion, demotion, discipline, FMLA and other leave, reduction in force and other workforce, employee benefit, insurance and risk management, health and safety, and other programs, products and solutions, and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government, accreditation and quality organizations, regulatory and contractual audits, private litigation and other federal and state reviews, investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; prepare and present training and discipline; handle workforce and related change management associated with mergers, acquisitions, reductions in force, re-engineering, and other change management; and a host of other workforce related concerns. Ms. Stamer’s experience in these matters includes supporting these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis with crisis preparedness, intervention and response as well as consulting and representing clients on ongoing compliance and risk management; plan and program design; vendor and employee credentialing, selection, contracting, performance management and other dealings; strategic planning; policy, program, product and services development and innovation; mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcy and other crisis and change management; management, and other opportunities and challenges arising in the course of workforce and other operations management to improve performance while managing workforce, compensation and benefits and other legal and operational liability and performance.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on Use 3/26 Diabetes Alert Day Resources To Jumpstart Your Diabetes Management & Cost Containment Efforts | Disability, Disability, Disability Leave, Disability Plans, EBSA, employee, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, enforcement, family leave, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health plan, Health Plans, HR, Human Resources, Leave, Management, medical leave, Military Leave, preventive care, Wellness | Tagged: department of labor, Employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Health Insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, Military Leave, Wellness, Wellness Programs | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Record-Setting 2018 Enforcement Show Proactive Health Plan HIPAA Compliance & Risk Management Need

February 7, 2019

Health plans and their employer and other sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and other service providers, as well as health care providers, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (“Covered Entities”) should reconfirm the adequacy of their Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) compliance and risk management in light the U.S Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) February 7, 2019 announcement that its 2018 year-end $3 Million Resolution Agreement with California-based Cottage Health increased OCR’s already record-setting enforcement recoveries in 2018 to nearly $28.7 million in a year already distinguished by OCR’s collection of a record-setting $16 million resolution payment against health insurance giant Anthem. Along with acting to ensure their own organization’s ability to defend their HIPAA compliance, Covered Entities and their leaders also should take advantage of the opportunity to provide input to OCR on opportunities for simplifying and improving OCR’s HIPAA regulations and enforcement by submitting relevant comments by February 12, 2019 to a Request for Information published by OCR in December that invites suggestions for simplifying or making other improvements to OCR’s current HIPAA guidance as well as monitoring and responding to other new and proposed regulatory developments.

2018 Cottage Health Resolution Agreement

According to OCR’s February 7, 2019 announcement, Cottage Health agreed in OCR’s final settlement of 2017 to pay OCR $3 million and to adopt a substantial corrective action plan to settle charges of HIPAA violations resulting from OCR’s investigations into two HIPAA Breach notifications Cottage Health filed regarding breaches of unsecured electronic protected health information (ePHI) affecting over 62,500 individuals.

A December 2, 2013 breach notification that the removal of electronic security protections by a Cottage Health contractor rendered ePHI such as patient names, addresses, dates of birth, diagnoses/conditions, lab results and other treatment information of 33,349 individuals on a Cottage Health server accessible for download without a username or password from the internet to anyone outside Cottage Health. In an update to its original report filed on July 2, 2014, Cottage Health increased the number of individuals affected by this breach to 50,917. OCR’s investigation determined that security configuration settings of the Windows operating system permitted access to files containing ePHI without requiring a username and password. As a result, patient names, addresses, dates of birth, diagnoses, conditions, lab results and other treatment information were available to anyone with access to Cottage Health’s server.
A December 1, 2015, that the misconfiguration of a server following an IT response to a troubleshooting ticket, exposed unsecured ePHI including patient names, addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, diagnoses, conditions, and other treatment information of 11,608 individuals over the internet.

Based upon its investigation into the two breach reports, OCR concluded Cottage Health violated HIPAA by failing to conduct an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the ePHI; failed to implement security measures sufficient to reduce risks and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level; failed to perform periodic technical and non-technical evaluations in response to environmental or operational changes affecting the security of ePHI; and failed to obtain a written business associate agreement with a contractor that maintained ePHI on its behalf.

To resolve its exposure to potentially must greater civil monetary sanctions that OCR might seek for such potential violations under HIPAA’s civil monetary sanction rules, Cottage Health entered into December, 2018 Resolution Agreement to pay the $3 million settlement and undertake what OCR characterizes as “a robust corrective action plan to comply with the HIPAA Rules.” Among other things, the corrective action plan requires Cottage Health to:

Conduct an enterprise-wide risk analysis of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI held by Cottage Health (“Risk Analysis”) that OCR views as satisfactory to meet the requirements of 45 CFR 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A);
Develop and implement a risk management plan to address and mitigate any security risks and vulnerabilities identified in the Risk Analysis acceptable to OCR;
Implement a process for regularly evaluating environmental and operational changes that affect the security of Cottage Health’s ePHI;
Develop, maintain, and revise, as necessary, written policies and procedures to comply with the Federal standards that govern the privacy and security of individually identifiable health information under 45 C.F.R. Part 160 and Subparts A, C, and E of Part 164 (the “Privacy Rule” and “Security Rule”).
Distribute to and conduct training on the HIPAA policies and procedures from all existing and new members of the Cottage Health workforce with access to PHI. Additionally, Cottage Health require all workforce members that have access to PHI to certify their receipt of, understanding and commitment to comply with the HIPAA Policies before allowing access to PHI and must deny access to PHI to any workforce member that has not provided the required certification.
Submit to ongoing notification and reporting requirements to keep OCR informed about its compliance efforts.

2018 Record Setting HIPAA Enforcement Year

The final Resolution Agreement negotiated by OCR in 2018, the $3 million Cottage Health Resolution Agreement signed on December 11, 2018 added to an already record-setting year of HIPAA enforcement recoveries by OCR. In addition to recovering the single largest individual HIPAA settlement in history of $16 million with Anthem, Inc. OCR’s recovery of the following HIPAA settlements and fines totaling nearly $28.7 million surpassed its previous 2016 record of $23.5 million by 22 percent.

Date	Name	Amount
Jan. 2018	Filefax, Inc (settlement)	$ 100,000
Jan. 2018	Fresenius Medical Care North America (settlement)	$ 3,500,000
June 2018	MD Anderson (judgment)	$ 4,348,000
Aug. 2018	Boston Medical Center (settlement)	$ 100,000
Sep. 2018	Brigham and Women’s Hospital (settlement)	$ 384,000
Sep. 2018	Massachusetts General Hospital (settlement)	$ 515,000
Sep. 2018	Advanced Care Hospitalists (settlement)	$ 500,000
Oct. 2018	Allergy Associates of Hartford (settlement)	$ 125,000
Oct. 2018	Anthem, Inc (settlement)	$ 16,000,000
Nov. 2018	Pagosa Springs (settlement)	$ 111,400
Dec. 2018	Cottage Health (settlement)	$ 3,000,000
Total (settlements and judgment)		$ 28,683,400

Aside from the previously discussed Cottage Health Resolution Agreement OCR announced on February 7, 2019, these OCR 2018 enforcement recoveries included:

FileFax Resolution Agreement. In January 2018, OCR settled for $100,000 with Filefax, Inc., a medical records maintenance, storage, and delivery services provider. OCR’s investigation found that Filefax impermissibly disclosed protected health information (PHI) by leaving the PHI in an unlocked truck in the Filefax parking lot, or by granting permission to an unauthorized person to remove the PHI from Filefax, and leaving the PHI unsecured outside the Filefax facility.
Fresenius Medical Care North America Resolution Agreement. In January 2018, OCR also settled for $3.5 million with Fresenius Medical Care North America (FMCNA), a provider of products and services for people with chronic kidney failure. FMCNA filed five breach reports for separate incidents occurring between February 23, 2012 and July 18, 2012, implicating the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of five FMCNA owned covered entities. OCR’s investigation revealed that FMCNA failed to conduct an accurate and thorough risk analysis of potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all of its ePHI. Additional potential violations included failure to implement policies and procedures and failure to implement a mechanism to encrypt and decrypt ePHI, when it was reasonable and appropriate to do so under the circumstances.
MD Anderson ALJ Ruling. In June 2018, an HHS Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of OCR and required The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (MD Anderson), a Texas cancer center, to pay $4.3 million in civil money penalties for HIPAA violations. OCR investigated MD Anderson following three separate data breach reports in 2012 and 2013 involving the theft of an unencrypted laptop from the residence of an MD Anderson employee and the loss of two unencrypted universal serial bus (USB) thumb drives containing the unencrypted ePHI of over 33,500 individuals. OCR’s investigation found that MD Anderson had written encryption policies going back to 2006 and that MD Anderson’s own risk analyses had found that the lack of device-level encryption posed a high risk to the security of ePHI. Despite the encryption policies and high risk findings, MD Anderson did not begin to adopt an enterprise-wide solution to encrypt ePHI until 2011, and even then it failed to encrypt its inventory of electronic devices containing ePHI between March 24, 2011 and January 25, 2013. This matter is under appeal with the HHS Departmental Appeals Board.
MMC/BWH/MGH Resolution Agreements. In September 2018, OCR announced that it has reached separate settlements totaling $999,000, with Boston Medical Center (BMC), Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) for compromising the privacy of patients’ PHI by inviting film crews on premises to film an ABC television network documentary series, without first obtaining authorization from patients.
ACH Resolution Agreement. In September 2018, OCR also settled with Advanced Care Hospitalists (ACH), a contractor physician group, for $500,000. ACH filed a breach report confirming that ACH patient information was viewable on a medical billing services’ website. OCR’s investigation revealed that ACH never had a business associate agreement with the individual providing medical billing services to ACH, and failed to adopt any policy requiring business associate agreements until April 2014. Although ACH had been in operation since 2005, it had not conducted a risk analysis or implemented security measures or any other written HIPAA policies or procedures before 2014.
Allergy Associates Resolution Agreement. In October 2018, OCR settled with Allergy Associates, a health care practice that specializes in treating individuals with allergies, for $125,000. In February 2015, a patient of Allergy Associates contacted a local television station to speak about a dispute that had occurred between the patient and an Allergy Associates’ doctor. OCR’s investigation found that the reporter subsequently contacted the doctor for comment and the doctor impermissibly disclosed the patient’s PHI to the reporter.
Anthem Resolution Agreement. In October 2018, Anthem, Inc. also paid $16 million to OCR and agreed to take substantial corrective action to settle potential violations of the HIPAA Rules after a series of cyberattacks led to the largest U.S. health data breach in history. Anthem filed a breach report after discovering cyber-attackers had gained access to their IT system via an undetected continuous and targeted cyberattack for the apparent purpose of extracting data, otherwise known as an advanced persistent threat attack. After filing their breach report, Anthem discovered cyber-attackers had infiltrated their system through spear phishing emails sent to an Anthem subsidiary after at least one employee responded to the malicious email and opened the door to further attacks. OCR’s investigation revealed that between December 2, 2014 and January 27, 2015, the cyber-attackers stole the ePHI of almost 79 million individuals, including names, social security numbers, medical identification numbers, addresses, dates of birth, email addresses, and employment information.
Pegosa Springs Medical Center. In November 2018, Pagosa Springs Medical Center (PSMC), a critical access hospital, paid $111,400 to OCR to resolve potential violations concerning a former PSMC employee that continued to have remote access to PSMC’s web-based scheduling calendar, which contained patients’ ePHI, after separation of employment. OCR’s investigation revealed that PSMC impermissibly disclosed the ePHI of 557 individuals to its former employee and to the web-based scheduling calendar vendor without a business associate agreement in place.

These 2018 Resolution Agreements reaffirm the growing risks that Covered Entities and their business associates run by failing to take adequate steps to prevent and respond to breaches of ePHI and otherwise to maintain their compliance with HIPAA. Covered entities and business associates and their leaders should recognize and respond to these growing risks by reevaluating and strengthening their HIPAA compliance and risk management efforts to minimize the likelihood of violations and enhance their ability to mitigate potential liability that can result from breaches of HIPAA by responding efficiently and effectively.

Other Regulatory & Enforcement Developments

In addition to reaffirming their ongoing compliance with the longstanding requirements of HIPAA and other related federal and state laws, Covered Entities also should use care to carefully monitor and respond to new regulatory and other developments that might create new responsibilities or new opportunities to simplify their HIPAA compliance. In this respect, Covered Entities should take note of the 2018 and ongoing efforts by OCR to develop and publish new rules and other guidance intended to help health care providers and other Covered Entities, patients and caregivers and others understand their rights and responsibilities when dealing with protected health information in relation to patients afflicted with substance abuse and mental illness. Undertaken as part of the Trump Administration’s broader effort to combat opiate and other substance abuse within the United States, OCR in October published a package of guidance on How HIPAA Allows Doctors To Respond To The Opioid Crisis. Covered Entities and others concerned with the management of patients afflicted with substance abuse and mental illness should evaluate this guidance to understand and tailor their practices to respond to OCR’s perspectives of how HIPAA impacts the use, access and disclosure of protected health information as part of these efforts.

Covered Entities and others concerned about HIPAA compliance and interpretation also should carefully monitor and provide appropriate and timely input on developing HIPAA guidance that could impact their operations. In this regard, Covered Entities with ideas about opportunities for improving existing HIPAA guidance are encouraged to submit comments to OCR by February 12, 2019 in response to its Request for Information on improving care coordination and reducing the regulatory burdens of the HIPAA Rules published on December 12, 2018. In that RFI, OCR invites input from the public on how the HIPAA Privacy Rule, could be modified to:

Encourage information-sharing for treatment and care coordination;
Facilitate parental involvement in care;
Address the opioid crisis and serious mental illness;
Account for disclosures of PHI for treatment, payment, and health care operations as required by the HITECH Act;
Change the current requirement for certain providers to make a good faith effort to obtain an acknowledgment of receipt of the Notice of Privacy Practices; and/or
Otherwise simplify or improve the existing HIPAA rules.

As a part of these efforts, Covered Entities and other concerned parties also should anticipate that OCR will be focusing heavily in the upcoming year on the potential HIPAA privacy and security implications of efforts by its sister agency, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (“ONC”), to promote greater interoperability of electronic medical records discussed in ONC’s recent 2018 Report to Congress: Annual Update on the Adoption of a Nationwide System for the Electronic Use and Exchange of Health Information (“Report”).

Under the 21st Century Cures Act, Congress gave ONC authority to enhance innovation, scientific discovery, and expand the access and use of health information through provisions related to:

The development and use of upgraded health IT capabilities;
Transparent expectations for data sharing, including through open application programming interfaces (APIs); and
Improvement of the health IT end-user experience, including by reducing administrative burden.

These priorities seek to increase nationwide interoperability of health information and reduce clinician burden. The Report says increases in the adoption of health IT means most Americans receiving health care services now have their health data recorded electronically. However, this information is not always accessible across systems and by all end users—such as patients, health care providers, and payers—in the market in productive ways. While the Report states ONC intends to move forward to promote efforts to help ensure that electronic health information can be shared safely and securely where appropriate to improve the health and care of all Americans, these activities inherently will raise many HIPAA concerns and challenges. Covered Entities and others concerned with these activities will want to carefully monitor the concurrent activities of OCR and ONC as these efforts progress, both to help tailor their planning and compliance efforts to respond to the anticipated demand for greater interoperability as required by ONC and to help shape these rules by providing timely input as appropriate in response to these developments.

About the Author

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer has been continuously involved the design, regulation, administration and defense of managed care and other health and employee benefit, health care, human resources and other staffing and workforce arrangements, contracts, systems, and processes. As a continuous component of this work, Ms. Stamer has worked closely with these and other clients on the design, development, administration, defense, and breach and data recovery of health care, workforce, insurance and financial services, trade secret and other information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations throughout her career.

Scribe of the ABA JCEB annual Office of Civil Rights agency meeting, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive work and leadership on leading edge health care and benefit policy and operational issues.

Ms. Stamer’s clients include employers and other workforce management organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers and their management; public and private, domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long-term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, health care accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; managed care organizations, insurers, third-party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations; group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; claims, billing and other health care and insurance technology and data service organizations; other health, employee benefit, insurance and financial services product and solutions consultants, developers and vendors; and other health, employee benefit, insurance, technology, government and other management clients.

Ms. Stamer also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending plan sponsors, administrators, insurance and managed care organizations, health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and employer and association group and other health benefit programs and coverages including but not limited to advising public and private payers about coverage and program design and documentation, advising and defending providers, payers and systems and billing services entities about systems and process design, audits, and other processes; provider credentialing, and contracting; providers and payer billing, reimbursement, claims audits, denials and appeals, coverage coordination, reporting, direct contracting, False Claims Act, Medicare & Medicaid, ERISA, state Prompt Pay, out-of-network and other nonpar insured, and other health care claims, prepayment, post-payment and other coverage, claims denials, appeals, billing and fraud investigations and actions and other reimbursement and payment related investigation, enforcement, litigation and actions. Scribe for the ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with HHS OCR, she also has worked extensively on health and health benefit coding, billing and claims, meaningful use and EMR, billing and reimbursement, quality measurement and reimbursement, HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical, workforce, consumer financial and other data confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security, data breach and mitigation, and other information privacy and data security concerns.

Author of leading works on a multitude of health care, health plan and other health industry matters, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting, former Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, past ABA JCEB Council Representative and CLE and Marketing Committee Chair, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer’s health industry clients include public health organizations; public and private hospitals, healthcare systems, clinics and other health care facilities; physicians, physician practices, medical staff, and other provider organizations; skilled nursing, long-term care, assisted living, home health, ambulatory surgery, dialysis, telemedicine, DME, Pharma, clinics, and other health care providers; billing, management and other administrative services organizations; insured, self-insured, association and other health plans; PPOs, HMOs and other managed care organizations, insurance, claims administration, utilization management, and other health care payers; public and private peer review, quality assurance, accreditation and licensing; technology and other outsourcing; healthcare clearinghouse and other data; research; public and private social and community organizations; real estate, technology, clinical pathways, and other developers; investors, banks and financial institutions; audit, accounting, law firm; consulting; document management and recordkeeping, business associates, vendors, and service providers and other professional and other health industry organizations; academic medicine; trade associations; legislative and other law making bodies and others.

A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about contracting, credentialing and quality assurance, compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, privacy and data security, and other risk management and operational matters. Author of works on Payer and Provider Contracting and many other managed care concerns, Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; an ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

©2019. Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on Record-Setting 2018 Enforcement Show Proactive Health Plan HIPAA Compliance & Risk Management Need | 21st Century Cures Act, Cafeteria Plans, Civil Monetary Penalties, Civil Rights, Cybercrime, Data Breach, Data Security, Discrimination, Electronic Medical Record, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, fiduciary duty, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, Health IT, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA, HR, Human Resources, Identity Theft, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Managed Care, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Patient Empowerment, Uncategorized | Tagged: Data Breach, Data Security, Employer, Health Plan, HIPAA, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

ONC New Emphasis On Health IT Interoperability Promises New Demands & Opportunities

January 8, 2019

Interoperability will be a key priority for the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (“ONC”) going forward.

That’s the message in the just released 2018 Report to Congress: Annual Update on the Adoption of a Nationwide System for the Electronic Use and Exchange of Health Information (“Report”).

The planned shift to demand greater interoperability promises to create new demands for employer-sponsored health plans, health insurers and others involved in the healthcare delivery and payment processes. Health plans and their insurers and sponsors should begin preparing for these new demands, as well as to leverage the new opportunities and manage the new risks they will create.

The Report describes barriers, actions taken, and recommendations as well as ONC’s path forward to implement the 21st Century Cures Act.

Under the 21st Century Cures Act, Congress gave HHS authority to enhance innovation, scientific discovery, and expand the access and use of health information through provisions related to:

The development and use of upgraded health IT capabilities;
Transparent expectations for data sharing, including through open application programming interfaces (APIs); and
Improvement of the health IT end user experience, including by reducing administrative burden.

These priorities seek to increase nationwide interoperability of health information and reduce clinician burden..

Current Status

The Report says increases in the adoption of health IT means most Americans receiving health care services now have their health data recorded electronically. However, this information is not always accessible across systems and by all end users—such as patients, health care providers, and payers—in the market in productive ways. For example:

Despite the individual right to access health information about themselves established by the HIPAA Privacy Rule, patients often lack access to their own health information, which hinders their ability to manage their health and shop for medical care at lower prices;

Health care providers often lack access to patient data at the point of care, particularly when multiple health care providers maintain different pieces of data, own different systems, or use health IT solutions purchased from different developers; and

Payers often lack access to clinical data on groups of covered individuals to assess the value of services provided to their customers.

The Report says these limitations create several problems, including:

Patients should be able to easily and securely access their medical data through their smartphones. Currently, patients electronically access their health information through patient portals that prevent them from easily pulling from multiple sources or health care providers. Patient access to their electronic health information also requires repeated use of logins and manual data updates.

For health care providers and payers, interoperable access and exchange of health records is focused on accessing one record at a time.
Payers cannot effectively represent their members if they lack computational visibility into which health care providers offer the highest quality care at the lowest cost. Without the capability to access multiple records across a population of patients, health care providers and payers will not benefit from the value of using modern computing solutions—such as machine learning and artificial intelligence—to inform care decisions and identify trends.
Payers and employer group health plans which purchase health care have little information on health outcomes. Often, health care providers and payers negotiate contracts based on the health care provider’s reputation rather than on the quality of care that health care provider offers to patients. Health care providers should instead compete based on the entire scope of the quality and value of care they provide, not on how exclusively they can craft their networks. Outcome data will allow payers to apply machine learning and artificial intelligence to have better insight into the value of the care they purchase.

Current Barriers

According to the Report, HHS heard from stakeholders over the past year that barriers to interoperable access to health information remain, including technical, financial, trust, and business practice barriers. These barriers impede the movement of health information to where it is needed across the care continuum. In addition, burden arising from quality reporting, documentation, administrative, and billing requirements that prescribe how health IT systems are designed also hamper the innovative usability of health IT.

Current and Upcoming Actions

The Report states HHS has many efforts to help ensure that electronic health information can be shared safely and securely where appropriate to improve the health and care of all Americans.

ONC also reports Federal agencies, states, and industry have taken steps to address technical, trust, and financial challenges to interoperable health information access, exchange, and use for patients, health care providers, and payers (including insurers). HHS aims to build on these successes through the ONC Health IT Certification Program, HHS rulemaking, health IT innovation projects, and health IT coordination.

In accordance with the Cures Act, HHS is actively leading and coordinating a number of key programs and projects. These include continued work to deter and penalize poor business practices and that HHS conducted multiple outreach efforts to engage the clinical community and health IT stakeholders to better understand these barriers, challenges, and health care provider burden.

Recommendations

The Report makes the following overarching recommendations for future actions HHS plans to support through its policies and that the health IT community as a whole can take to accelerate progress:

Focus on improving interoperability and upgrading technical capabilities of health IT, so patients can securely access, aggregate, and move their health information using their smartphones (or other devices) and health care providers can easily send, receive, and analyze patient data.

Increase transparency in data sharing practices and strengthen technical capabilities of health IT so payers can access population-level clinical data to promote economic transparency and operational efficiency to lower the cost of care and administrative costs.

Prioritize improving health IT and reducing documentation burden, time inefficiencies, and hassle for health care providers, so they can focus on their patients rather than their computers.

The Report also says interoperable access underpins HHS’s efforts to pursue a health care system where data are available when and where needed.

ONC intends to particularly focus on promoting open APIs. Open APIs are technology that allow one software program to access the services provided by another software program and can improve access and exchange of health information. ONC says APIs can:

Support patients’ ability to have more access to information electronically through, for example, smartphones and mobile applications. HHS applauds the emergence of patient-facing applications that allow patients to access, aggregate, and act on their health information; and

Allow payers to receive necessary and appropriate information on a group of members without having to access one record at a time.
Increase institutional accountability, support value- based care models, and lead to competitive medical care pricing that benefits patients.

The Report claims patients, health care providers, and payers with appropriate access to health information can use modern computing solutions to generate value from the data. Improved interoperability can strengthen market competition, result in greater quality, safety, and value for the healthcare system, and enable patients, health care providers, and payers to experience the benefits of health IT.

Prepare For Enhanced Operability Requirements

ONC’s plan to achieve greater interoperability presents new business and compliance planning opportunities and challenges for health care providers, health insurers and other payers, health data and information technology (IT) providers and others. Among other things, participants in the healthcare system and their suppliers will need to prepare to comply with new expectations and mandates for interoperability. Meeting these demands will require financial expenditures as well as present technological challenges.The increased availability and access to electronica medical records and information resulting from these changes also a can be expected to drive new challenges and demands. Among other things, businesses relying on control of health information or records to influence or control patience, reimbursement, or other business value need to reevaluate and adjust their business models accordingly.

Improve accessibility and interoperability also is likely to create new expectations and demands by patients, payers, other providers and perhaps most significantly for providers and payers, regulators. Participants in the system will need to understand these applications and prepare to both defend their business performance as well as their compliance taking into account these new demands.

Amid all of this, of course, providers, pears, and their business associates can anticipate continued if not enhanced demands for enhanced data security and privacy protections and accompanying enforcement of these standards.

As ONC move forward on its plans to enhance interoperability, all concerned stakeholders will want to monitor developments and provide thoughtful and timely input. The time to get started is now. ONC and it’s sister agency, the Office of Civil Rights currently are inviting public comments about how to achieve these and other health IT and privacy improvements. Those interested in providing input should make sure their comments are submitted by the applicable deadlines next month.

ONC and it’s sister agency, the Office of Civil Rights currently are inviting public comments about how to achieve these and other health IT and privacy improvements. Read the full Report here and share your input by the specified deadlines.

About the Author

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer has been continuously involved the design, regulation, administration and defense of managed care and other health and employee benefit, health care, human resources and other staffing and workforce arrangements, contracts, systems, and processes. As a continuous component of this work, Ms. Stamer has worked closely with these and other clients on the design, development, administration, defense, and breach and data recovery of health care, workforce, insurance and financial services, trade secret and other information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations throughout her career.

Author of leading works on a multitude of health care, health plan and other health industry matters, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting, former Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, past ABA JCEB Council Representative and CLE and Marketing Committee Chair, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer’s health industry clients include public health organizations; public and private hospitals, healthcare systems, clinics and other health care facilities; physicians, physician practices, medical staff, and other provider organizations; skilled nursing, long-term care, assisted living, home health, ambulatory surgery, dialysis, telemedicine, DME, Pharma, clinics, and other health care providers; billing, management and other administrative services organizations; insured, self-insured, association and other health plans; PPOs, HMOs and other managed care organizations, insurance, claims administration, utilization management, and other health care payers; public and private peer review, quality assurance, accreditation and licensing; technology and other outsourcing; healthcare clearinghouse and other data; research; public and private social and community organizations; real estate, technology, clinical pathways, and other developers; investors, banks and financial institutions; audit, accounting, law firm; consulting; document management and recordkeeping, business associates, vendors, and service providers and other professional and other health industry organizations; academic medicine; trade associations; legislative and other law making bodies and others.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; an ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on ONC New Emphasis On Health IT Interoperability Promises New Demands & Opportunities | 21st Century Cures Act, Association Health Plan, Civil Monetary Penalties, Civil Rights, Claims Administration, compliance, Consumer Protection, Corporate Compliance, Cybercrime, Data Breach, Data Security, Electronic Medical Record, Employers, EMR, ERISA, fiduciary duty, Fiduciary Responsibility, FINRA, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, Health IT, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Human Resources, Identity Theft, insurers, Managed Care, ONC, Patient Empowerment, PPO, Privacy, Protected Health Information, Provider, provider contracting, Technology, third party administrators, Trade secret, Uncategorized | Tagged: Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Enron, Health Care, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plans, HIPAA, Insurance, medical records, ONC, Physicians | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Court Ruling Obamacare Unconstitutional Leaves Obamacare Future Uncertain As Annual Enrollment Period Ends

December 15, 2018

A ruling by a Federal District judge on Friday (December 14, 2018) ruled unconstitutional the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) touches off a new wave of uncertainty about the future of the massive healthcare reform law commonly known as Obamacare just as the enrollment period for 2019 health coverage ended. While Federal District Judge Reed O’Connor finds in his ruling released on Friday that amendments passed by Congress last December robbed the ACA of its original constitutionality, only time will tell if the ruling actually will end the ACA reforms or the effect of such ruling on the hotly debated ACA reforms and other statutory and regulatory reforms Congress and the Trump Administration subsequently prospectively or retrospectively. Consequently, health plans, their employer and other sponsors, insurers, administrators, and fiduciaries; health care providers, consumers and others will need to watch developments closely.

Justice O’Connor’s decision was released one day before the last day of the enrollment period for Americans to elect whether and what coverage, if any, to enroll in through the Obamacare exchanges for calendar 2019.

In Texas v. US, Texas Governor Greg Abbott and other Republican governors challenged the constitutionality of the ACA following passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA). The plaintiffS argued the TCJA rendered the ACA unconstitutional because it repealed the individual mandate of the ACA upon which the Supreme Court previously found the ACA constitutional.

In the 2012 decision in Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Businesses v. Sebelius (NFIB), 567 U.S. 519, 530–38 (2012) written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not rely upon the Commerce Clause for Constitutional authority to enact the ACA. However, the Supreme Court nevertheless found the Individual Mandate provisions of the ACA preserved the constitutionality of the ACA as a constitutional exercise of Congress’ Taxing Power.

In Texas v. US, the plaintiff governors argue that the repeal of the Individual Mandate as part of Congress’ passage of the TCJA last December robbed the ACA of its constitutionality. They say it is no longer fairly readable as an exercise of Congress’s Tax Power and continues to be unsustainable under the Interstate Commerce Clause. They further urge that if they are correct, the balance of the ACA is untenable as inseverable from the Invalid Mandate. Judge O’Connor agreed with the plaintiff’s in his ruling on Friday. Now it remains to be seen if his ruling will face and withstand the appeal and if so, what effect it will have on Obamacare overall and other subsequent statutory and regulatory reforms.

While only time will tell whether the decision stands and its effect, the path to clarity promises to be filled with more drama and uncertainty. Former US Attorney General Jeff Sessions previously had stated that the Justice Department under his leadership would not expend resources to defend the ACA. It remains to be seen how the Justice Department will not respond in light of his recent resignation. Even if the Justice Department does not step up to defend Obamacare, it is likely that states like California that have intervened in support of the ACA in the litigation will attempt to appeal the action. Assuming that an appeal proceeds, a Court of Appeals would hear the appeal before an almost certain appeal by the losing side in that appeal to the United States Supreme Court, where President Trump’s new appointee would hear the action. Along with the possibility that these Courts will uphold the trial court’s ruling, either of these appeals courts could overrule the trial court in whole or in part. Thus, subsequent appeals decisions could:

Reverse Judge O’Connor’s ruling entirely, leaving The ACA intact in its current form; or
Uphold part but not all of the decision, leaving some parts in place but not others.

pending further decisions, it remains unclear if subsidies, prohibitions against preexisting conditions, guaranteed issue, cost regulations, benefit and coverage mandates and other insurance reforms, health care billing and other reforms will survive.

Meanwhile, regardless of the outcome of the appeals, the decision and its fallout almost certainly will touch off more debate in Congress. With health care reform already a hot topic, more Congressional battles were inevitable. However the decision adds a new and significant wrinkle to the politics of the health reform fight.

In January November’s election will cause the leadership of the House of Representatives is set to transfer from Republicans to Democrats while leaving control over the Senate in the hands of Republications. With leadership of the two legislative bodies split, Democrats are unlikely to be able to use their new control of the House to enact legislation that would overrule outright an adverse decision by the courts. Consequently, Democrats will have an uphill battle if the court decision stands unless and until they can regain Senate control. Instead they are likely to be related to the role occupied by the House the past 4 years in which bills to enact the Democrat vision will pass the House only to die a quick death in the Republican controlled Senate or face veto by the Republican President.

On the other hand, Republicans also could not overcome a decision unfavorable to their agenda for the opposite reason: Despite control of the majority in the Senate and having a Republican President opposed to the ACA, Republicans can’t enact legislation without winning a majority of votes in the House.

On the other hand, either party can and almost certainly will use its veto power over the other party’s agenda. The fight likely will spill over into budget, immigration, workforce and other jet legislation that otherwise might and should enjoy bipartisan support in Congress.

As the litigation proceeds, concerned parties will want to keep a close eye of the Courts, the regulation and enforcement actions of the Trump Administration and the Congress.

Meanwhile, it is important to keep in mind that implementation of Judge O’Connor’s decision is stayed pending appeal.

About the Author

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer is nationally recognized as a thoughtleader in health benefits and health care matters domestically and internationally. She has been continuously involved the design, regulation, administration and defense of managed care and other health and employee benefit, health care, human resources and other staffing and workforce arrangements, contracts, systems, and processes. As a continuous component of this work, Ms. Stamer has worked closely with these and other clients on the design, development, administration, defense, and breach and data recovery of health care, workforce, insurance and financial services, trade secret and other information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations throughout her career.

Author of leading works on a multitude of health care, health plan and other health industry matters, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting, former Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, past ABA JCEB Council Representative and CLE and Marketing Committee Chair, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer’s health industry clients include public health organizations; public and private hospitals, healthcare systems, clinics and other health care facilities; physicians, physician practices, medical staff, and other provider organizations; skilled nursing, long-term care, assisted living, home health, ambulatory surgery, dialysis, telemedicine, DME, Pharma, clinics, and other health care providers; billing, management and other administrative services organizations; insured, self-insured, association and other health plans; PPOs, HMOs and other managed care organizations, insurance, claims administration, utilization management, and other health care payers; public and private peer review, quality assurance, accreditation and licensing; technology and other outsourcing; healthcare clearinghouse and other data; research; public and private social and community organizations; real estate, technology, clinical pathways, and other developers; investors, banks and financial institutions; audit, accounting, law firm; consulting; document management and recordkeeping, business associates, vendors, and service providers and other professional and other health industry organizations; academic medicine; trade associations; legislative and other law making bodies and others.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; an ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

©2018 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on Court Ruling Obamacare Unconstitutional Leaves Obamacare Future Uncertain As Annual Enrollment Period Ends | 4980D, 4980H, 5000, 6039D, ACA, Affordable Care Act, Association Health Plan, Claims, Claims Administration, compensation, compliance, Consumer Protection, Corporate Compliance, EBSA, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, EMR, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Form 5500, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, Health Care Reform, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, health reform, HIPAA, HR, HSA, Human Resources, Insurance, insurers, Managed Care, Managment, Medicare Part D, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, MEWA, Obamacare, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Patient Protection and Affordabel Care Act, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Physician, Plan Admistrator, PPO, Premium Subsidies, Prescription Drugs, preventive care, Protected Health Information, Provider, provider contracting, Reporting & Disclosure, Risk Management, SBC, Tax, Tax Credit, Tax Qualification, TCJA Tax Reform, third party administrators, Uncategorized, Wellness Programs, Worker Classification, Workers' Compensation, Workforce, zane benefits | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DOJ Atrium Antitrust Litigation & Proposed Settlement Signal Potential Antitrust Risks For Health Plans, Providers Involved In Managed Care Contracts Restricting Steering, Other Competition

November 18, 2018

Self-insured employer and union sponsored health plans, health insurers and other health care payers, health care providers, managed care and practice management service providers and others structuring or working with preferred provider or other managed health care contracts should weigh the potential implications on their health plan provider agreements and managed care practices of the antitrust lawsuit jointly brought by the U.S. Department of Justice and the North Carolina Attorney General against North Carolina’s largest healthcare system, The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority d/b/a Atrium Health (“Atrium”) which challenges steering restrictions and other contractual protections of Atrium against competition from other contracted health care providers.

Court documents filed by the Justice Department with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on November 15, 2018, seek Court approval of a Joint Stipulation and Final Judgment (“Consent Decree”), which if approved by the Court, will resolve a civil antitrust lawsuit challenging Atrium’s practice of requiring and enforcing “steering restrictions” in its managed care provider agreements with commercial insurers, self-insured employer and union health plans and other private payer that prohibit the payers from steering patients to, or sharing information about other potentially more cost-effective competitor hospitals, physicians or other health care providers filed by the Justice Department in June, 2016. While the emphasis by the Justice Department of the market dominance of Atrium in the factual allegations contained in its complaint raise questions about whether the Justice Department would undertake similar litigation against less market dominant providers, the charges made by the Justice Department in its complaint and the agreement by Atrium to cease the challenged conduct nevertheless raise a substantial basis for concern by other health care providers and payers about their own potential antitrust risks from negotiating to include, including or enforcing a wide range of provider steering and other contractual provisions commonly included in many preferred provider contracts between health plans, insurers and their managed care organizations and the health care providers that contract to be participating providers for their health plan narrow network or other managed care provider panels.

It should be noted that steering, and commitments to steer and not to steer patients to various providers are a longstanding and key component of the structure of most preferred provider contracts used in the managed care industry. Steering refers to practices payers historically use to offer or encourage patients and other health care consumers to access care from health care providers that the payer perceives as a more cost effective provider. Historically, insurers promised to steer patients to health care providers contracting to become “preferred providers” to health plan members in return for health care provider’s agreement to provide care a preferred rates or in accordance with other health plan rules. With most health care providers now participating in provider networks, however, payers increasingly want to steer members to lower cost providers within the provider network to maximize savings and place pressure on higher cost participating providers to reduce rates. If the higher cost providers have most favored nation or other contractual safeguards like those in Atrium’s provider contracts, however, contractual barriers obstruct these efforts by payers. The insurers in Atrium used antitrust complaints filed with the Justice Department to attack these contractual barriers.

Formerly known as Carolinas HealthCare System, the dominant health care provider in the Charlotte, North Carolina area, and one of the largest not-for-profit healthcare systems in the United States, Atrium provides healthcare services throughout the Carolinas, including in hospitals, freestanding emergency departments, urgent care centers, physician practices, outpatient surgery centers, imaging centers, nursing homes, and laboratories. Atrium’s flagship facility is Carolinas Medical Center, the largest hospital in North Carolina. Atrium also operates eight other general acute-care hospitals in the Charlotte area and owns, manages, or has strategic affiliations with more than 40 hospitals in the Carolinas.

The Justice Department complaint filed on June 9, 2016 charges that Atrium violated federal antitrust law by using its dominant market power to force commercial payers to agree to include various steering and transparency restrictions in their managed care contracts with Atrium in a manner that illegally restricts competition in violation of federal antitrust laws. The challenged provisions include a series of promises historically included in many provider agreements such as provisions requiring that the private payer:

To steer plan members to participating providers;

Not to steer plan members away from participating providers;
To include Atrium providers in any new networks or preferential treatment afforded to any other contracting provider in new or all plans, products, networks and preferred provider classifications; and
Not to exclude from and/or to provide the provider with the right to receive any new preferences or rewards for being a preferred provider.

Although provider contracts historically have included many of these same provisions, the Justice Department in its lawsuit against Atrium charged that Atrium illegally used its dominant market position to negotiate managed care contracts paying higher reimbursement rates than other less dominant contracted providers received and used the challenged contract provisions to insulate itself against competition from other network providers offer care at more cost effective rates. The Justice Department contends the challenged provisions allow Atrium to continue to charge higher prices free from effective competition from other health care providers by prohibiting the private payers from steering patients to other health care providers and guaranteeing Atrium the most preferential treatment available even if its rates are not competitive with those of other providers enjoying the same status. In its Atrium complaint, the Justice Department asserts that Atrium’s steering restrictions harm payers and consumers in violation of federal antitrust laws by obstructing the ability of insurers to design health benefit plans that give patients financial incentives to choose more cost-effective hospitals and physicians. The Justice Department contends these actions by Atrium force health insurers not to encourage consumers to choose other healthcare providers that offer better overall value and from providing consumers and employers with information regarding the cost and quality of alternative health benefit plan.

More than two years after the Justice Department commenced the lawsuit, court documents filed with the Court by the Justice Department on November 15, 2018 reflect the parties now have agreed to settle the lawsuit. The Justice Department filed an unopposed motion that asks to enter a Consent Decree implementing the terms of a settlement which would preclude Atrium from seeking to negotiate or enforce a wide range of steering and transparency restrictions in existing or future preferred provider agreements. While Atrium would not pay any damages under the proposed Consent Degree, the proposed Consent Decree would:

Prohibit Atrium from seeking to negotiate, include or enforce steering or transparency restrictions in its provider agreements with private payers or otherwise seeking contract terms or taking actions that would prohibit, prevent, or penalize payers for steering or sharing information to promote transparency in the future in any Narrow Network Benefit Plan, Tiered Network Benefit Plan, or any Benefit Plan with Reference-Based Pricing or a Center of Excellence as a component in the Charlotte area; and
Void or restrict Atrium from enforcing certain specific existing steering and transparency restrictions in Atrium’s existing preferred provider agreements with various commercial insurers identified in exhibits to the Consent Decree except with respect to certain “carve out networks.”

If approved in its current form, the Consent Decree will both void a host of existing contractual safeguards currently included in Atrium’s existing provider contracts and affirmatively prohibit Atrium from seeking seek or enforce other safeguards insulating it from competition from other lower cost health care providers by defining “penalties” broadly to include any contract term or action with the likely effect of significantly restraining steering through steered plans or transparency under the facts and circumstances considering the contract provision or action; its economic impact; and the extent to which the contract provision or action has potential or actual procompetitive effects in the Charlotte Area.

Special rules applicable to Department of Justice antitrust settlements under the Tunney Act require the Justice Department to publish the proposed settlement to be implemented by the Consent Decree and the Department’s competitive impact statement in the Federal Register and allow a public comment period of 60 days before the court can approve the Consent Decree. Any person may submit written comments concerning the proposed settlement during a 60-day comment period to Peter J. Mucchetti, Chief, Healthcare and Consumer Products Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Suite 4100, Washington, D.C. 20530. After the comment period closes, the Court will consider the motion taking into account the comments and other factors it determines appropriate. Barring unforeseen circumstances, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina likely will approve the proposed consent decree upon finding that it serves the public interest.

Because the contractual provisions challenged as anti-competitive in the Atrium litigation are of a nature widely used within the managed care industry, health care providers, health insurers, self-insured employer and union health plans and their sponsors and others involved in the managed care industry should weigh the potential implications of the Atrium litigation and its anticipated resolution on their own provider contracting strategies and practices as well as those of their competitors.

Contractual provisions like those challenged in the Atrium litigation are widely used throughout the managed care industry. Steerage of patients to the participating provider and associated competitive protections historically has been the primary inducements and considerations that providers receive in return for agreeing to accept payer rates and other rules for a health care provider to qualify for inclusion on the payer’s provider panel. Consequently, provider contracts between payers and participating providers commonly include steering, transparency or other restrictions similar in function if not form to those contested in the Atrium litigation. Moreover, promises regarding steering are not limited to provider agreements between payers and providers. Insurers, preferred provider organizations and other managed care organization typically require employer, union or other health plan sponsors of health plans with preferred provider or other managed care features contractually to commit to design their health plans to incorporate features that steer plan members to use preferred providers and prohibit plan members from taking advantage of potentially lower cash or other rates that a participating provider might offer to patients choosing to circumvent the provider network to access care. Since the Atrium litigation raises questions about potential challenges to the enforceability and legality of similar steering and contractual provisions insulating contracted providers from competition health care providers and payers with or negotiating preferred provider contracts that contain anti-steering or other contractual provisions like those challenged in the Atrium litigation and the self-insured group health plans that contract to access provider networks using these contracts should weigh carefully the potential risks of participating in contractors or seeking to negotiate or enforce these provisions taking into account their own specific facts and circumstances and the current guidance within qualified legal counsel within the scope of attorney-client privilege.

While some might be tempted to assume from Atrium’s market dominance that the Atrium challenge and litigation challenges apply only to provider agreements involving providers with substantial market dominance in their region, this is not necessarily the case. Broader existing antitrust precedent concerning restraints on competition arguably provide some grounds for concern that the Justice Department or private litigants might seek to leverage the antitrust challenges raised in the Atrium litigation to challenge Atrium-like steering restrictions, most favored nation status and other similar clauses in preferred provider and other managed care agreements involving health care providers or others with a much smaller market share. Likewise, it remains whether evidence showing the insurer, rather than the provider, originally proposed the questioned provision could impact the risk or render the contracts more defensible.

Despite these and other questions about the extent to which the challenges raised to the Atrium contracts will be asserted, much less successfully litigated with respect to provider protections contained in other preferred provider agreements, those negotiating or involved in preferred provider agreements containing similar provisions should consider and monitor the potential risks and weigh their options for mitigating these risks. Among other things, it is important to keep in mind that antitrust violations carry potential civil and in some cases, even criminal violations, for participating or conspiring to participate in prohibited anticompetitive arrangements. Thus both payers and providers participating or contemplating participating in contracts or negotiation to interject the challenged provisions into their own provider agreements should weigh their actions carefully. Moreover, even when only civilly prosecuted, potential civil damages and defense costs often are substantial. Accordingly, while the Justice Department prosecution of Atrium was civil, rather than criminal in nature and the agreed upon Judgement presented to the Court to end the litigation does not require Atrium to pay any monetary damages, future plaintiffs should not assume that they would similarly avoid such damages in the event their own practices are successfully challenged. Consequently, health care providers, as well as health insurers, employer and union health plans and other private sector payers, and others participating in the negotiation or administration of, or competing in market regions with preferred provider agreements containing steering restrictions or other contractual provisions similar in form or function to those challenged in the Atrium litigation should seek specific legal advice about the potential implications of antitrust challenges raised in the Atrium Judgement on their practices and market situation and options for mitigating those risks.

About the Author

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer has been continuously involved the design, regulation, administration and defense of managed care and other health care and health benefit arrangements, contracts, systems, and processes throughout her career. In addition to her extensive provider and payer contracting work, Ms. Stamer also is recognized for her knowledge, experience and leadership on health benefit, health care, health, financial and other information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations throughout her career, and scribe of the ABA JCEB annual Office of Civil Rights agency meeting, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive work and leadership on leading edge health care and benefit policy and operational issues. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer’s clients include employers and other workforce management organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers and their management; public and private, domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, health care accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; managed care organizations, insurers, third party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations; group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; claims, billing and other health care and insurance technology and data service organizations; other health, employee benefit, insurance and financial services product and solutions consultants, developers and vendors; and other health, employee benefit, insurance, technology, government and other management clients.

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas, Ms. Stamer has been extensively involved in U.S. federal, state and local health care and other legislative and regulatory reform impacting these concerns throughout her career. Her public policy and regulatory affairs experience encompassess advising and representing domestic and multinational private sector health, insurance, employee benefit, employer, staffing and other outsourced service providers, and other clients in dealings with Congress, state legislatures, and federal, state and local regulators and government entities, as well as providing advice and input to U.S. and foreign government leaders on these and other policy concerns.

As a key part of this work, Ms. Stamer throughout her career regularly has worked with health care providers and payers, employer and other health benefit plan sponsors and vendors, health industry, insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health and insurance industry clients design, document and enforce managed care and other contracts, benefit plans and insurance arrangements, practices, policies, systems and solutions; manage regulatory, contractual and other legal and operational compliance; vendors, supplier, and patient and member relations and requirements; deal with Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA, state insurance law and other private payer rules and requirements; contracting; licensing; terms of participation; medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, and other provider-payer relations; reporting and disclosure, government investigations and enforcement, privacy and data security; and other compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; HIPAA administrative simplification, meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, antikickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA, HEDIS and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; 1557 and other Civil Rights; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on DOJ Atrium Antitrust Litigation & Proposed Settlement Signal Potential Antitrust Risks For Health Plans, Providers Involved In Managed Care Contracts Restricting Steering, Other Competition | Antitrust, health Care, Health Plans, Managed Care, PPO, provider contracting, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Flurry of Reform Activity Sign Employers, Health Plans Should Prepare To Respond To Last Minute Health Reforms This Fall

July 14, 2018

A flurry of activity in the House Ways & Means Committee and other Congressional committees over the past few weeks signals the advisability of keeping a close eye on health care and health benefit reform proposals this Summer in anticipation of both the Fall health benefit enrollment and renewal season and the mid-term November Congressional elections.

Coupled with the Trump Administration’s recent rollout of its long promised association health plan, short-term coverage and other regulatory reforms and promises of more changes to come, the ongoing attention paid by the Administration and Congress to health insurance and health care reform raises a strong possibility that employer, association, and other health plan sponsors, fiduciaries and their vendors that they and their plan members should be on watch for late-breaking developments that may require or warrant last minute changes to health benefit plan designs, communications, contracts or other key decisions.

With President Trump continuing to push for a wide range of health care reforms and health care and health benefit issues recognized as key voter concerns for the upcoming mid-term elections in November, the continued emphasis of the Republican-led Congress and federal regulators talking about their health care reform legislative agenda is not surprising. What may be more surprising to many is the intensity of the ongoing efforts in Congress to try to pass reform over the summer when many members of the House and Senate face tightly contested races in November.

Certainly continued Congressional commitment to pursue reform is evident from the House Ways & Means Committee’s health care heavy agenda of hearings and votes that this week alone resulted in its voting in favor of 11 health care reform bills promising new flexibility for employers about how to design their health plans and American families more health care choices and choice about how to pay for it and what coverage to buy popular with many providers, patients and employer and other health plan sponsors. While it remains to be seen if the House and Senate can agree on any or all of these proposal, the bi-partisan sponsorship of many of these proposals and the intensity of the focus of the Committee and others in Congress reflects a strong interest in health care reform by both parties leading up to November that could impact health benefit and other health care choices for providers, employers and American families in the Fall annual enrollment season.

The legislation passed by the Ways & Means Committee this weeks include bills that would:

Provide relief for employers relief from the Obamacare’s employer mandate and delay for an additional year the effective date of the widely disliked “Cadillac Tax;”
Overrule the “Use it Or Lose It” requirement in current Internal Revenue Regulations for healthcare flexible spending arrangement plans (HFSAs) that currently forces employers sponsoring HFSAs to draft their plans to require employees to forfeit unused salary reduction contributions in their HFSA accounts at the end of the year;
Offer individuals and families eligible for Obamacare created health premium subsidies more choice about where to obtain that coverage using their subsidies; and
Expand expand the availability and usability of HSAs in a multitude of ways.

Furthermore, a review of the Committee’s schedule makes clear that it isn’t finished with health care reform. After holding hearings on health savings account reforms and passing a flurry of health care reform bills intended to give employers relief from two key Obamacare mandates, to allow Obamacare subsidy-eligible Americans the choice to use the subsidies to purchase health care coverage not offered by the Obamacare exchanges, and a host of bills that would expand availability and usability of health savings account (HSA) and health care flexible spending account (HFSA) programs this week, the House Ways and Means Committee will turn its attention to health care fraud oversight and reform next week by holding hearings Tuesday on those health concerns. Health care providers, employer and other health plan sponsors, individual Americans and their families, and others interested in health benefit and health care reform will want to keep a close eye on these and other developments as Congress continues to debate health care reform in the runup to the upcoming 2018 health benefit plan renewal and annual enrollment season and November’s mid-term elections.

Committee Approved 11 Health Care Reform Bills This Week

As a part of its health reform efforts this week, the Committee voted to advance 11 health care reform bills offering new flexibility for employers about how to design their health plans and American families more health care choices and choice about how to pay for it and what coverage to buy popular with many providers, patients and employer and other health plan sponsors.

Among the approved legislation is a bill that would provide key relief for employers from certain key Obamacare mandates that have been widely unpopular with employers. H.R. 4616, the “Employer Relief Act of 2018,” sponsored by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA), which would give employers sponsoring health plans for their employees retroactive relief from Obamacare’s onerous employer mandate and delay for an additional year the effective date of another Obamacare requirement that when effective, will forces employers to pay the 40 percent tax on amounts paid for employer sponsored health care coverage that exceeds cost limits specified in the Obamacare legislation commonly known as the “Cadillac Tax.” Relief from the Cadillac Tax is widely perceived as benefiting bother employers and their employees, as its provisions penalize employers for spending more for employee health coverage than limits specified in the Obamacare law. These provisions also are particularly viewed by many as unfair because rising health plan costs since Obamacare’s passage make it likely that many employers will incur the tax penalty simply by sponsoring relatively basic health plans meeting the Obamacare mandates.

In addition to H.R. 4616, the Committee also voted to approve H.R. 6313, the “Responsible Additions and Increases to Sustain Employee Health Benefits Act of 2018,” sponsored by Rep. Steve Stivers (R-OH), which would overrule the “Use it Or Lose It” requirement in current Internal Revenue Regulations for HFSAs. Currently, this rule forces employers sponsoring HFSAs to draft their plans to require employees to forfeit unused salary reduction contributions in their HFSA accounts at the end of the year. The bill would allow employers to eliminate this forfeiture requirement so that employees could carry over any remaining unused balances in their HFSAs at the end of the year to use in a later year.

The Committee also voted to advance legislation to offer individuals and families eligible for Obamacare created health premium subsidies more choice about where to obtain that coverage. H.R. 6311, the “Increasing Access to Lower Premium Plans Act of 2018,” sponsored by Chairman Peter Roskam (R-IL) and Rep. Michael C. Burgess, M.D. (R-TX), would provide individuals receiving subsidies to help purchase health care coverage through the Obamacare-created health insurance exchange the option to use their premium tax credit to purchase health care coverage from qualified plans offered outside of the exchanges. Currently, subsidies may only be used to purchase coverage from health plans offered through the exchange, which often are much more costly and offer substantially fewer coverage options and less provider choice. In addition, the bill would expand access to the lowest-premium plans available for all individuals purchasing coverage in the individual market and allows the premium tax credit to be used to offset the cost of such plans.

Along with these reforms, the Committee also voted to pass a host of bills that would expand the availability and usability of HSAs including:

H.R. 6301, the “Promoting High-Value Health Care Through Flexibility for High Deductible Health Plans Act of 2018,” co-sponsored by Health Subcommittee Chairman Peter Roskam (R-IL) and Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA), which seeks to expand access and enhance the utility of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) by offering patients greater flexibility in designing their plan design while still being able to maintain their eligibility for HSA contributions.
H.R. 6305, the “Bipartisan HSA Improvement Act of 2018,” sponsored by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) and Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), which also would expand HSA access and utility by allowing spouses to also make contributions to HSAs is their spouse has an FSA and lets employers offer certain services to employees through on-site or retail clinics.
H.R. 6317, the “Primary Care Enhancement Act of 2018,” co-sponsored by Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN) and Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), which seeks to protect HSA-eligible individuals who participate in a direct primary care (DPC) arrangement from losing their HSA-eligibility merely because of their participation in a DPC. In addition, it allows DPC provider fees to be covered with HSAs.
H.R. 6312, the “Personal Health Investment Today (PHIT) Act,” sponsored by Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO) and Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI), which seeks to fight obesity and promote wellness by allowing taxpayers to use tax-preferred accounts to pay costs of gym membership or exercise classes, children’s school sports programs and certain other wellness programs and activities.
H.R. 6309, the “Allowing Working Seniors to Keep Their Health Savings Accounts Act of 2018,” sponsored by Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN), which would expand HSA eligibility to include Medicare eligible seniors who are still in the workforce.
H.R.6199, the “Restoring Access to Medication Act of 2018,” sponsored by Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) and Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY), which would reverse Obamacare’s prohibition on using tax-favored health accounts to purchase over-the-counter medical products and would add feminine products to the list of qualified medical expenses for the purposes of these tax-favored health accounts.
H.R. 6306, the “Improve the Rules with Respect to Health Savings Accounts,” sponsored by Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN), which would increase the contribution limits for HSAs and further enhances flexibility in plans by allowing both spouses to contribute to make catch-up contributions to the same account and creating a new grace period for medical expenses incurred before the HSA was established.
H.R. 6314, the “Health Savings Act of 2018,” sponsored by Rep. Burgess (R-TX) and Rep. Roskam (R-IL), would expand eligibility and access to HSAs by allowing plans categorized as “catastrophic” and “bronze” in the exchanges to qualify for HSA contributions.

Committee Considers Health Care Fraud Next Week

The Committee next week will turn its attention to health care fraud by holding two hearings on Tuesday.

Tuesday morning, the Ways and Means Committee Oversight Subcommittee plans to hold a Hearing on Combating Fraud in Medicare: A Strategy for Success beginning at 10:00 AM Eastern Time; and
Tuesday afternoon, the Ways and Means Committee Subcommittee plans to hold a Hearing on Modernizing Stark Law to Ensure the Successful Transition from Volume to Value in the Medicare Program beginning at 2:00 PM.

Both hearings are scheduled to take place in Room 1100 Longworth and their proceedings will be live streamed on YouTube.

The Committee’s health care reform focus this week and next are reflective of the continued emphasis of members of Congress in both parties on health care reform legislation as they prepare for the impending mid-term elections in November. As a part of these efforts, the House and Senate already over the past several months have held a wide range of hearings in various committees and key votes on a multitude of reform proposals. Numerous other hearings and votes are planned over the next several months as Congressional leaders from both parties work to advance their health care agendas in anticipation of the upcoming elections.

Key health care and health benefit reform proposals that the Republican Majority has designated for priority consideration include:

Prescription drug costs by checking perceived negative effects of health industry and health plan consolidations involving large health insurers, pharmacy benefit management companies (PBMs), pharmacy companies and other health industry and health insurance organizations on health care costs and patient, plan sponsor and plan sponsor choice and health care quality;
Oversight and reform of existing STARK, anti-kickback and other federal health care rules and exemptions relied upon by PBMs and other health industry organizations;
Efforts to understand and address health care treatment, health care and coverage costs and related social concerns associated with mental health and opioid and other substance abuse conditions and their treatment;
Efforts promote health benefit and health care choice, affordability and coverage; improve patient and employer choice; promote broader health care access and quality; reduce counterproductive regulation; and other health insurance and care improvements through expanded availability of health savings accounts, direct primary care and other consumer directed health care options, association health plan and other program options, streamlining quality reporting and regulation, billing and coding, physician and other health care provider electronic billing and recordkeeping, and other provider, payer, employer, individual and other health insurance mandates and other federal health care and health plan rules; and
More.

Evolving Legislative & Regulatory Warrant Vigilance & Change Readiness

While the recurrent stalling of past reform efforts over the past few years calls into question whether any or all of these proposals can make it through the highly politicized and divided Congress, bi-partisian sponsorship of most of the bills reported out this week at least raises the possibility that some of these proposals enjoy sufficient bi-partisan support to potentially pass before the elections. With both parties viewing health care reform as a key issue in the upcoming elections, voter feedback on these proposals could play a big role in determining the prospects for passage this Summer.

Along with the ongoing Congressional reform efforts, the Trump Administration also continues to move forward on a series of regulatory reforms that also could impact health care and health benefit decisions and responsibilities later this year. Beyond the Administration’s implementation of its long promised and recently finalized and released association health plan, short term coverage and other health benefit rules, the Administration’s continued consideration of changes to essential health benefits and other Obamacare regulations, ongoing mental health, substance abuse, and prescription drug reform projects, and other proposed regulatory and enforcement changes are likely to require health plans, their sponsors, insurers, administrators, members and even providers to adapt to changes in federal health plan rules between now and year end.

Amid this shifting legal landscape, employer and other health plan sponsors, their insurers, vendors, providers and participants will want to remain vigilant and work to preserve the flexibility to respond to new rules or guidance likely to rollout over the next several months.

Staying on top of proposed reforms as the Summer progresses is important:

To provide timely input to Congress on proposed reforms of particular benefit or concern;
To help plan for and deal with rules changes that could impact their options and choices during the upcoming health plan renewal and enrollment season this Fall and going forward; and
To be prepared to make informed choices when voting in the upcoming mid-term Congressional elections in November.

Keeping informed about potential changes is only part of the challenge, however. Employer and other health plan sponsors, fiduciaries and service providers also generally should seek to negotiate vendor contracts that allow them the greatest possible flexibility to respond to changing rules, opportunities and requirements with minimum penalties and disruption when designing, negotiating and implementing vendor contracts, plan designs and plan enrollment and other processes and communications.

About the Author

Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer’s clients include employers and other workforce management organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers and their management; public and private, domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, health care accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; managed care organizations, insurers, third party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations; group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; claims, billing and other health care and insurance technology and data service organizations; other health, employee benefit, insurance and financial services product and solutions consultants, developers and vendors; and other health, employee benefit, insurance, technology, government and other management clients.

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas, Ms. Stamer has been extensively involved in U.S. federal, state and local health care and other legislative and regulatory reform impacting these concerns throughout her career. Her public policy and regulatory affairs experience encompassess advising and representing domestic and multinational private sector health, insurance, employee benefit, employer, staffing and other outsourced service providers, and other clients in dealings with Congress, state legislatures, and federal, state and local regulators and government entities, as well as providing advice and input to U.S. and foreign government leaders on these and other policy concerns.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on Flurry of Reform Activity Sign Employers, Health Plans Should Prepare To Respond To Last Minute Health Reforms This Fall | 105(h), 4980D, 4980H, 6039D, ACA, Affordable Care Act, Appeals, Association Health Plan, board of directors, Brokers, Cafeteria Plans, Claims, Claims Administration, COBRA, compensation, compliance, Contraception, Corporate Compliance, Electronic Medical Record, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Tax, EMR, ERISA, Excise Tax, Excise Taxes, Fiduciary Responsibility, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, health reform, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Revenue Code, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, MEWA, Obamacare, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Pay, Payroll Tax, Plan Admistrator, Prescription Drugs, preventive care, Professional Liability, Risk Management, Technology, Uncategorized, Union, Wellness, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

July 5, 2018

Construction industry and other employers of employees working in summer heat impacted environments need to take appropriate steps to prevent heat related injuries and illnesses

Every year, dozensof workers die and thousands more become ill while working in extreme heat or humid conditions. More than 40 percent of heat-related worker deaths occur in the construction industry, but workers in every field are susceptible.

Working in extreme heat without appropriate precautions creates heightened risk of a range of heat illnesses. These risks can affect anyone, regardless of age or physical condition.

Employer Responsibility to Protect Workers

Protecting workers from extreme heat generally is part of the responsibility of an employer to provide a safe workplace under the Occupational Health & Safety Act (OSHA) and state occupational health and safety statutes.

Aside from the worker’s compensation, medical and disability costs and workplace disruptions that heat related illness can create, heat related injuries or illnesses to workers also create risks of civil penalties and other liabilities under OSHA.

To minimize risks of heat related OSHA violations and other exposures, an employer of workers exposed to high temperatures should establish and document their training and administration of a complete heat illness prevention program that meets or exceeds applicable OSHA standards.

Resources

OSHA’s Occupational Exposure to Heat page explains what employers can do to keep workers safe and what workers need to know – including factors for heat illness, adapting to working in indoor and outdoor heat, protecting workers, recognizing symptoms, and first aid training. The page also includes resources for specific industries and OSHA workplace standards.

Employers can help promote compliance and reduce heat related injury risks by training and requiring workers and their management to use three common sense elements for preventing heat related injuries and deaths to workers – Water. Rest. Shade.

OSHA guidance urges employers to prevent heat-related injuries by taking the following steps:

Provide workers with water, rest and shade.
Allow new or returning workers to gradually increase workloads and take more frequent breaks as they acclimatize, or build a tolerance for working in the heat.
Plan for emergencies and train workers on prevention.
Monitor workers for signs of illness.
Take prompt action to provide appropriate intervention and medical care in response to signs of potential heat related health issues.

To ensure that they can prove these expectations are met, Most employers will want to adopt specific policies require in well-documented compliance with these requirements.

About The Author

If you need more information about or help with these or other workplace concerns, the author of this article may be able to help.

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation; Former Chair of the RPTE Employee Benefits and Compensation Committee, a current Co-Chair of the Committee, and the former Chair of its Welfare Benefit and its Defined Compensation Plan Committees and former RPTE Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council (JCEB) Representative, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” practicing management attorney, consultant, coach, author, public policy advocate, author and lecturer repeatedly recognized for her 30 plus years’ of work and pragmatic thought leadership, publications and training on labor and employment, compensation, health, pension and other employee benefit, insurance, and health care fiduciary responsibility, payment, investment, contracting and other design, administration and compliance concerns as among the “Top Rated Labor & Employment Lawyers in Texas,” a “Legal Leader,” a “Top Woman Lawyer” and with other awards by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell®; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the field of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, in International Who’s Who of Professionals and with numerous other awards and distinctions.

Highly valued for her ability to meld her extensive legal and industry knowledge and experience with her talents as an insightful innovator and pragmatic problem solver, Ms. Stamer advises, represents and defends employer, union, multi-employer, association and other employee benefit plan sponsors, insurers and managed care organizations, fiduciaries, plan administrators, technology and other service providers, government and community leaders and others about health and other employee benefit and insurance program and policy design and innovation, funding, documentation, administration, communication, data security and use, contracting, plan, public and regulatory reforms and enforcement, and other risk management, compliance and operations matters. Her experience encompasses leading and supporting the development and defense of innovative new policies, programs, practices and solutions; advising and representing clients on routine plan establishment, plan documentation and contract drafting and review, administration, change and other compliance and operations; crisis prevention and response, compliance and risk management audits and investigations, enforcement actions and other dealings with the US Congress, Departments of Labor, Treasury, Health & Human Services, Federal Trade Commission, Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission, Education and other federal agencies, state legislatures, attorneys general, insurance, labor, worker’s compensation, and other agencies and regulators, and various other foreign and domestic governmental bodies and agencies. She also provides strategic and other supports clients in defending litigation as lead strategy counsel, special counsel and as an expert witness. Alongside her extensive legal and operational experience, Ms. Stamer also is recognized for her work as a public and regulatory policy advocate and community leader with a gift for finding pragmatic solutions and helping to forge the common ground necessary to build consensus. Best known for her domestic public policy and community leadership on health care and insurance reform, Ms. Stamer’s lifelong public policy and community service involvement includes service as a lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its pension privatization project, as well as extensive legislative and regulatory reform, advocacy and input workforce, worker classification, employee benefit, public health and healthcare, social security and other disability and aging in place, education, migration reforms domestically and internationally throughout her adult life. In addition to her public and regulatory policy involvement, Ms. Stamer also contributes her service and leadership to a professional and civic organizations and efforts including her involvement as the Founder and Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE; Coalition on Patient Empowerment, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; Vice Chair, Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group; current Fiduciary Responsibility Committee Co-Chair and Membership Committee member of the ABA RPTE Section; former RPTE Employee Benefits and Other Compensation Group Chair, former Chair and Co-Chair of its Welfare Plans Committee, and Defined Contribution Plans Committee; former RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council; former RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Counsel; former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, former Board Member, Continuing Education Chair and Treasurer of the Southwest Benefits Association; Vice President of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; past Dallas World Affairs Council Board Member, and in leadership of many other professional, civic and community organizations. Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposia chair and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry, human resources, employment and other privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, the Society of Professional Benefits Administrators, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients, serves on the faculty and planning committee of many workshops, seminars, and symposia, and on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

▪DOL Spending Reports Required As Taxpayer Tool Need Improvement

▪Check & Protect Health & Other Electronic Systems & Data Against New Security Threat

▪April 1 New Deadline To Update Benefit Plan Disability Determination Claims & Appeals Procesures; Hear More on 1/26

▪Arizona Proposal To Ban Sexual Harassment Confidentiality Agreements Sign Of Growing Employer Risks

▪$23M Penalty Small Part of 21st Century’s Data Breach Fallout; Offers Data Breach Lessons For Other Businesses

▪Take Care of Your Good People

▪Read Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Conference Report For Tax Reform From Source

▪Check How IRS 2018 Retirement & Saving Plan Limits and Amounts Cost Of Living Adjustments Impact Your HR & Retirement Plan Administration & Planning

▪IRS Prepares To Nail Employers Under Obamacare Mandate While Giving Some Individual Mandate Relief

▪Hiring & Retaining Workers Growing Business Challenge

Comments Off on | Absenteeism, ADA, board of directors, Claims, compensation, compliance, Construction, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Disability Plans, Disaster, Disease Management, Emergency, employee, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, enforcement, Government Contractors, health Care, health insurance, health plan, Health Plans, HR, Human Resources, Labor Management Relations, Management, mine safety, mining, occupational safety, OSHA, Retaliation, Risk Management, Schools, Uncategorized, Wellness, Wellness Programs, Worker, Workers' Compensation | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

2018 Family HSA Deductible Contribution Limit Restored To $6,900

May 11, 2018

The 2018 maximum deductible Health Savings Account (HSA) contribution for individuals with family coverage under a high deductible health plan (HDHP) is $6,900, rather than the lower $$6850 limitation that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Department of Treasury originally identified as the 2018 maximum deduction amount last March.

The mid-year change in the 2018 annual limit that Internal Revenue Code § 223(b)(2)(B) sets for the maximum deductible HSA contribution for individuals with family coverage under a HDHP announced in Revenue Procedure 2018-27 on April 26 corrects a mistake in the amount of the 2018 annual limit amount that the Treasury Department and the IRS previously announced in Rev. Proc. 2018-18 on March 2, 2018. Revenue Procedure does not change any other annual limitation or any other requirement under section 223 for calendar year 2018.

Before Revenue Procedure 2018-27, the annual limitation on deductions under section 223(b)(2)(B) for an individual with family coverage under an HDHP at $6,850 for 2018 – a $50 reduction in the amount of the 2018 limit amount set in Revenue Procedure 2018-18, which reduced the originally announced 2018 limit amount of $6,900 that the Treasury Department and IRS previously had announced in May 4, 2017 in Revenue Procedure 2017-37. After publishing the original $6,900 limit in Revenue Procedure 2017-37, Congress changed the rules on inflation adjustments as part of “An Act to Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Titles II and V of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2018” (the Act), Pub. L. 115–97, 131 Stat. 2504, enacted December 22, 2017. Consequently, on March 2, 2018, the Treasury Department and the IRS released Rev. Proc. 2018-18, announcing the reduction of the 2018 limit to $6,850 to reflect the statutory amendments to the inflation adjustments under the Act. However, IRS and Treasury say that the recently announced change in the 2018 annual limitation resulted after stakeholders informed the Treasury Department and the IRS that implementing the $50 reduction to the limitation on deductions for individuals with family coverage would impose numerous unanticipated administrative and financial burdens. Specifically, stakeholders informed the Treasury Department and the IRS that the costs of modifying the various systems to reflect the reduced maximum, as well as the costs associated with distributing a $50 excess contribution (and earnings), would be significantly greater than any tax benefit associated with an unreduced HSA contribution (and in some instances may exceed $50). Some stakeholders also pointed to section 223(g)(1), which requires annual inflation adjustments for HSAs to be published by June 1 of the preceding calendar year, as another indication that a current year change would be unduly burdensome.

In response to these concerns, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that it is in the best interest of sound and efficient tax administration to allow taxpayers to treat the $6,900 annual limitation originally published in Rev. Proc. 2017-37 as the 2018 inflation adjusted limitation on HSA contributions for eligible individuals with family coverage under an HDHP. Accordingly, $6,900 now is the annual limitation on deductions under section 223(b)(2)(B) for an individual with family coverage under an HDHP for calendar year 2018.

Before this announced change, some individuals may have received distributions of HSA contribution amounts that were treated as in excess of the annual contribution limit amount before publication of Revenue Procedure 2018-27. Revenue Procedure 2018-27 outlines two alternatives for dealing with these distributions.

Under the first alternative, an individual who receives a distribution from an HSA of an excess contribution (with earnings) based on the $6,850 deduction limit published in Rev. Proc. 2018-18 may repay the distribution to the HSA and treat the distribution as the result of a mistake of fact due to reasonable cause under Q&A-37 of Notice 2004-50. The portion of a distribution (including earnings) that an individual repays to an HSA by April 15, 2019, is not included in the individual’s gross income under section 223(f)(2) or subject to the 20 percent additional tax under section 223(f)(4). The repayment is not subject to the excise tax on excess contributions under section 4973(a)(5). Also, mistaken distributions that are repaid to an HSA are not required to be reported on Form 1099-SA or Form 8889 and are not required to be reported as additional HSA contributions. However, in accordance with Q&A-76 of Notice 2004-50, a trustee or custodian is not required to allow individuals to repay mistaken distributions.

Alternatively, Revenue Procedure 2018-27 states that an individual who receives a distribution from an HSA of an excess contribution (with earnings) based on the $6,850 deduction limit published in Rev. Proc. 2018-18 and does not repay the distribution to the HSA may treat the distribution in accordance with section 223(f)(3), which describes the treatment of excess contributions returned before the due date of return. Thus, the excess contribution generally would not be included in gross income under section 223(f)(2) or subject to the 20 percent additional tax under section 223(f)(4), provided the distribution is received on or before the last day prescribed by law (including extensions of time) for filing the individual’s 2018 tax return. However, Revenue Procedure 2018-27 adds that the tax treatment under this alternative does not apply to distributions from an HSA that are attributable to employer contributions (pursuant to a cafeteria plan election or otherwise) if the employer does not include any portion of the contributions in the employee’s wages because the employer treats $6,900 as the annual limitation on deductions under section 223(b)(2)(B). In that case, unless the distribution from the HSA is used to pay qualified medical expenses, the distribution is includible in the employee’s gross income under section 223(f)(2) and subject to the 20 percent additional tax under section 223(f)(4).

About The Author

Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management and other performance and operations management and compliance. Her day-to-day work encompasses both labor and employment issues, as well as independent contractor, outsourcing, employee leasing, management services and other nontraditional service relationships. She supports her clients both on a real-time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with all aspects for workforce and human resources management, including, recruitment, hiring, firing, compensation and benefits, promotion, discipline, compliance, trade secret and confidentiality, noncompetition, privacy and data security, safety, daily performance and operations management, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy.

The author of the “Texas Payday Act,” and numerous other highly regarded publications on wage and hour and other human resources, employee benefits and compensation publications, Ms. Stamer is well-known for her 30 years of extensive wage and hour, compensation and other management advice and representation of restaurant and other hospitality, health, insurance, financial services, technology, energy, manufacturing, retail, governmental and other domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service as a management consultant, business coach and consultant and policy strategist as well through her leadership participation in professional and civic organizations such her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association; Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Gulf Coast TEGE Council Exempt Organization Coordinator; a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; former board member and Vice President of the Managed Care Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; a member and policy adviser to the National Physicians’ Council for Healthcare Policy; current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section; ABA Real Property Probate and Trust (RPTE) Section former Employee Benefits Group Chair, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, and Defined Contribution Committee Co-Chair, past Welfare Benefit Committee Chair and current Employee Benefits Group Fiduciary Responsibility Committee Co-Chair, Substantive and Group Committee member, Membership Committee member and RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council; past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a former member of the Board of Directors, Treasurer, Member and Continuing Education Chair of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author, highly popular lecturer, and serial symposia chair, who publishes and speaks extensively on human resources, labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation, occupational safety and health, and other leadership, performance, regulatory and operational risk management, public policy and community service concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on 2018 Family HSA Deductible Contribution Limit Restored To $6,900 | 105(h), 401(k), 4980D, 4980H, 6039D, ACA, Cafeteria Plans, compensation, compliance, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, employee, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, Employment Tax, Excise Tax, Excise Taxes, Executive Compensation, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health plan, Health Plans, HR, HSA, Human Resources, Income Tax, Internal Revenue Code, Labor Management Relations, Management, Pay, Payroll Tax, Tax, Tax Qualification, Uncategorized | Tagged: High Deductible Health PLan, HSA | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR HIPAA Resolution Agreement Against Bankrupt Business Associate Signals Growing Exposures, Need for Tighter HIPAA Compliance By Health Plans & Business Associates

February 15, 2018

Health plans and insurers, their service providers that act as business associates within the meaning of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) and employer and other health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, and other management leaders should heed the warnings contained in the new Resolution Agreement (FileFax Resolution Agreement) with former HIPAA business associate FileFax, Inc. announced by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) about their own need to ensure that they and their business associates comply with HIPAA’s business associate and other Privacy, Security, Breach Notification rules as well as the advisability of tightening up their risk management and oversight of business associates that handle protected health information (PHI).

Significant for business associates as what appears to be the first announced resolution agreement with a business associate directly charged by OCR with violating HIPAA and the second resolution agreement pursued and reached with a HIPAA-regulated entity in bankruptcy, the FileFax, Inc. Resolution Agreement OCR announced February 13, 2018 also contains critical lessons for Covered Entities about their dealings with their own business associates when read in conjunction with the April, 2017 resolution agreement the Center for Children’s Digestive Health (CCDH) agreed to resolve OCR charges CCDC, as a Covered Entity, violated HIPAA by allowing FileFax, Inc. to act as its business associate without adequately complying with HIPAA’s business associate requirements.

With widespread media coverage over large scale breaches of health care and other sensitive information placing further pressure upon OCR and other governmental agencies to act to protect Americans’ privacy and data fueling even greater demands for OCR and other agencies to take meaningful action to enforce HIPAA and other privacy and data security requirements, health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their business associates can expect OCR and other agencies to continue to turn up the heat on investigation and enforcement of HIPAA compliance.

In the face of these developments, Covered Entities, their business associates and those responsible for their leadership and operations need to recognize and take the necessary steps both effectively to manage their own HIPAA compliance and risk management as well as to anticipate and make provision to deal with the likelihood that they may face HIPAA responsibilities, exposures and other fallout from their own or another business partner’s breach of PHI or other sensitive data or other HIPAA violations, bankruptcy or other business distress, or other compliance or business event.

HIPAA Privacy, Security & Breach Notification Rule Responsibilities & Risks

The Privacy Rule requires that health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their vendors that qualify as “business associates” under HIPAA comply with detailed requirements concerning the protection, use, access, destruction and disclosure of protected health information. As part of these requirements, Covered Entities and their business associates must adopt, administer and enforce detailed policies and practices, assess, monitor and maintain the security of electronic protected health information (ePHI) and other protected health information, provide notices of privacy practices and breaches of “unsecured” ePHI, afford individuals that are the subject of protected health information certain rights and comply with other requirements as specified by the Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Rules. In addition, Covered Entities and business associates also must enter into a written and signed business associate agreement that contains the elements specified in Privacy Rule § 164.504(e) before the business associate creates, uses, accesses or discloses PHI of the Covered Entity. Furthermore, the Privacy Rule includes extensive documentation and keeping requirements require that Covered Entities and BAs maintain copies of these BAAs for a minimum of six years and to provide that documentation to OCR upon demand.

Violations of the Privacy Rule can carry stiff civil monetary penalties or even criminal penalties. Pursuant to amendments to HIPAA enacted as part of the HITECH Act, civil penalties typically do not apply to violations punished under the criminal penalty rules of HIPAA set forth in Social Security Act , 42 U.S.C § 1320d-6 (Section 1177).

Resolution Agreements the just announced FileFax Resolution Agreement allow Covered Entities and business associates to resolve potentially substantially larger civil monetary penalty liabilities that OCR can impose under the civil enforcement provisions of HIPAA for HIPAA violations through a negotiated settlement process. As amended by the HITECH Act, the civil enforcement provisions of HIPAA empower OCR to impose Civil Monetary Penalties on both Covered Entities and BAs for violations of any of the requirements of the Privacy or Security Rules. The penalty ranges for civil violations depends upon the circumstances associated with the violations and are subject to upward adjustment for inflation. As most recently adjusted here effective September 6, 2016, the following currently are the progressively increasing Civil Monetary Penalty tiers:

A minimum penalty of $100 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations which the CE or BA “did not know, and by exercising reasonable diligence would not have known” about using “the business care and prudence expected from a person seeking to satisfy a legal requirement under similar circumstances;”
A minimum penalty of $1,000 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations for “reasonable cause” which do not rise to the level of “willful neglect” where “reasonable cause” means the “circumstances that would make it unreasonable for the Covered Entity, despite the exercise of ordinary business care and prudence, to comply with the violated Privacy Rule requirement;”
A minimum penalty of $10,000 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations attributed to “willful neglect,” defined as “the conscious, intentional failure or reckless indifference to the obligation to comply” with the requirement or prohibition; and
A minimum penalty of $50,000 and a maximum penalty of $1.5 million per violation, for violations attributed to “willful neglect” not remedied within 30 days of the date that the Covered Entity or BA knew or should have known of the violation.

For continuing violations such as failing to implement a required BAA, OCR can treat each day of noncompliance as a separate violation. However, sanctions under each of these tiers generally are subject to a maximum penalty of $1,500,000 for violations of identical requirements or prohibitions during a calendar year. For violations such as the failure to implement and maintain a required BAA where more than one Covered Entity bears responsibility for the violation, OCR an impose Civil Monetary Penalties against each culpable party. OCR considers a variety of mitigating and aggravating facts and circumstances when arriving at the amount of the penalty within each of these applicable tiers to impose.

In addition to these potential civil liability exposures, Covered Entities, their business associates and other individuals or organizations that wrongfully use, access or disclose electronic or other protected health information also can face civil liability under various circumstances. The criminal enforcement provisions of HIPAA authorize the Justice Department to prosecute a person who knowingly in violation of the Privacy Rule (1) uses or causes to be used a unique health identifier; (2) obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an individual; or (3) discloses individually identifiable health information to another person, punishable by the following criminal sanctions and penalties:

A fine of up to $50,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both;
If the offense is committed under false pretenses, a fine of up to $100,000, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both; and
If the offense is committed with intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm, a fine of up to $250,000, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

Because HIPAA Privacy Rule criminal violations are Class A Misdemeanors or felonies, Covered Entities and business associates should include HIPAA compliance in their Federal Sentencing Guideline Compliance Programs and practices and need to be concerned both about criminal exposure for their own direct violations, as well as imputed organizational liability for violations committed by their employees or agents under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, particularly where their failure to implement or administer these required compliance policies and practices or failure to properly investigate or redress potential violations enables, perpetuates or covers up the criminal breach.

FileFax, Inc. Breach & Resolution Agreement

While Congress amended the Civil Monetary Penalty provisions of HIPAA enforced by OCR to make many of the requirements and Civil Monetary Penalty sanctions of HIPAA directly enforceable by OCR against business associates as part of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the FileFax Resolution Agreement appears to be the first HIPAA resolution agreement with a business associate announced by OCR.

Indeed, OCR’s enforcement action that resulted in the FileFax Resolution Agreement would never have occurred had FileFax, Inc. not become involved in handling medical records containing PHI in the capacity of a business associate for Covered Entities.

Before filing for bankruptcy in 2016, FileFax, Inc. advertised it provided HIPAA-compliant storage, maintenance, and delivery of medical records for HIPAA Covered Entities including Illinois based health care provider CCDC, which entered into a resolution agreement with OCR in April, 2017 to resolve OCR charges that it violated HIPAA by allowing FileFax, Inc. to handle PHI without fulfilling HIPAA’s business associate agreement requirements.

Like the CCDC Resolution Agreement, the FileFax, Inc. Resolution Agreement resulted from an investigation of FileFax, Inc. that OCR began in response to a February 10, 2015 anonymous complaint filed with OCR about FileFax, Inc. about deficiencies in its delivery of these HIPAA services in its capacity as a business associate to Covered Entities. The complaint to OCR alleged that FileFax, Inc. violated these requirements because an individual transported medical records obtained from FileFax, Inc. to a shredding and recycling facility to sell on February 6 and 9, 2015.

OCR’s investigation of the complaint against FileFax, Inc. confirmed that an individual had left medical records of approximately 2,150 patients at the shredding and recycling facility, and that these medical records contained patients’ PHI. OCR’s investigation additionally found that between January 28, 2015, and February 14, 2015, FileFax, Inc. impermissibly disclosed the PHI of 2,150 individuals by leaving the PHI in an unlocked truck in the FileFax, Inc. parking lot, or by granting permission to an unauthorized person to remove the PHI from FileFax, Inc. and leaving the PHI unsecured outside the FileFax, Inc. facility.

After OCR commenced its investigation of the complaint, FileFax, Inc. was placed into bankruptcy and a receiver was appointed to liquidate FileFax, Inc.’s assets for distribution to creditors and others in 2016. Despite the bankruptcy, OCR continued to pursue enforcement against FileFax, Inc. for the HIPAA violations it found through its investigation. On February 13, 2018, OCR announced that that the receiver on behalf of FileFax, Inc. had agreed in the FileFax Resolution Agreement to pay a $100,000 monetary settlement out of the bankruptcy estate and to arrange to properly store and dispose of remaining medical records found at FileFax, Inc.’s facility in compliance with HIPAA to resolve OCR’s HIPAA charges against FileFax, Inc.

OCR Previously Sanctioned Covered Entity For Involvement With FileFax, Inc.

Beyond affirming the exposure business associates to OCR civil monetary penalties or other enforcement for violating HIPAA, the FileFax Resolution Agreement in conjunction with OCR’s previously announced April 20, 2017 resolution agreement (CCDC Resolution Agreement) with CCDC also demonstrates the need for Covered Entities to recognize that their organizations are likely to face HIPAA investigations or enforcement from HIPAA violations by or OCR audits or investigations of the conduct of their business associates.

In fact, this is exactly what happened to CCDC. A small, Illinois based Covered Entity, CCDC used FileFax, Inc. to store and dispose of medical records. As a consequence of the FileFax, Inc. investigation, OCR conducted a compliance review of CCDC. OCR reports that its compliance review revealed that while CCDC had disclosed to and allowed FileFax, Inc. to store records containing PHI for CCDC since in 2003, neither party could produce a signed business associate agreement (BAA) prior to October 12, 2015. As a consequence, OCR charged CCDC with violating HIPAA by disclosing PHI to FileFax, Inc. in violation of HIPAA’s business associate requirements.

To resolve its exposure to potentially much greater civil monetary penalties associated with this charge, CCDC agreed under the CCDC Resolution Agreement to pay OCR a $31,000 resolution payment and take a variety of corrective actions. Beyond requiring CCDC to implement and maintain written business associate agreements before allowing business associates to possess or access PHI, the corrective action plan imposed as part of the CCDC Resolution Agreement also expressly requires CCDC to promptly investigate information of a possible violation of its HIPAA policies and procedures by a “workforce member,” which the Privacy Rule defines to include a business associate, and if the investigation reveals a violation, to report the violation and corrective action taken to OCR.

OCR Enforces HIPAA Against Covered Entities & Business Associates In Bankruptcy

OCR’s announcement of the FileFax Resolution Agreement also is significant in its reaffirmation of OCR to its commitment to HIPAA enforcement, even if the HIPAA-violating Covered Entity or business associate goes bankruptcy.

OCR’s enforcement action against FileFax, Inc. despite its bankruptcy and its successful negotiation of the FileFax Resolution Agreement within the bankruptcy should alert Covered Entities and business associates that OCR does not consider the bankruptcy of a Covered Entity or business associate as an obstacle to OCR enforcement against Covered Entities or business associates that violate HIPAA. The seriousness of OCR’s commitment to enforcement, even in the face of bankruptcy is driven home by its announcement of the FileFax Resolution Agreement on the heels of its December, 2017 announcement of its first OCR HIPAA resolution agreement secured with the formal approval of a bankruptcy court, a resolution agreement (21CO Resolution Agreement) against bankrupt health care provider, 21CO.

Secured with bankruptcy court approval, the 21CO Resolution Agreement resolved potentially much larger civil monetary penalties that the Fort Myers, Florida based provider of cancer care services and radiation oncology could have faced for alleged HIPAA breaches OCR charged it committed in connection with its failure to adequately act to prevent and respond to hacking and misappropriation of records containing sensitive electronic protected health information (ePHI) of up to 2,213597 individuals.

The OCR charges against 21CO arose from an OCR investigation commenced after the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) notified 21CO on November 13, 2015 and a second time on December 13, 2015 than unauthorized third party illegally obtained 21CO sensitive patient information and produced 21CO patient files purchased by a FBI informant. As part of its internal investigation, 21CO hired a third party forensic auditing firm in November 2015. 21CO determined that the attacker may have accessed 21CO’s network SQL database as early as October 3, 2015, through Remote Desktop Protocol from an Exchange Server within 21CO’s network. 21CO determined that it is possible that 2,213,597 individuals may have been affected by the impermissible access to their names, social security numbers, physicians’ names, diagnoses, treatment and insurance information.

Although it knew of the breaches in November and December, 2015, 21CO waited more than three months after the FBI notified it of the breaches before it sent HIPAA or other breach notifications about the data breach to patients or notified investors in March, 2016. Its March 4, 2016 Securities and Exchange Commission 8-K on Data Security Incident (Breach 8-K) states 21CO delayed notification at the request of the FBI to avoid interfering in the criminal investigation of the breach.

When announcing the breach, 21CO provided all individuals affected by the breach with a free one-year subscription to the Experian ProtectMyID fraud protection service. At that time, 21CO said it had no evidence that any patient information actually had been misused. However some victims of the breach subsequently have claimed being victimized by a variety of scams since the breach in news reports and lawsuits about the breach.

At the time of the breach and its March 4, 2016 announcement of the breach, 21CO already was working to resolve other compliance issues. On December 16, 2015, 21CO announced that a 21CO subsidiary had agreed to pay $19.75 million to the United States and $528,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs and comply with a corporate integrity agreement related to a qui tam action in which it was accused of making false claims to Medicare and other federal health programs. See 21CO 8-K Re: Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement (December 22, 2015). Among other things, the corporate integrity agreement required by that settlement required 21CO to appoint a compliance officer and take other steps to maintain compliance with federal health care laws. In addition, five days after releasing the March 4, 2017 Breach 8-K, 21CO notified investors that its subsidiary, 21st Century Oncology, Inc. (“21C”), had agreed to pay $37.4 million to settle health care fraud law charges relating to billing and other protocols of certain staff in the utilization of state-of-the-art radiation dose calculation system used by radiation oncologists called GAMMA. See 21CO 8-K Re: GAMMA Settlement March 9, 2016 ; See also United States Settles False Claims Act Allegations Against 21st Century Oncology for $34.7 Million.

Based on OCR’s subsequent investigation into these breaches, OCR found:

21CO impermissibly disclosed certain PHI of 2,213,597 of its patients in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.502(a);
21CO failed to conduct an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the electronic protected health information (ePHI) held by 21CO in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A);
21CO failed to implement certain security measures sufficient to reduce risks and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level to comply with 45 C.F.R. § 164.306(A) in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(B);
21CO failed to implement procedures to regularly review records of information system activity, such as audit logs, access reports, and security incident tracking reports as required by 45 C.F.R. §164.308(a)(1)(ii)(D);
21CO disclosed protected health information to a third party vendors, acting as its business associates, without obtaining satisfactory assurances in the form of a written business associate agreement in violation of HIPAA’s business associate rule requirements under 45 C.F.R. §§ 164.502(e) and 164.308(b)(3).

In return for OCR’s agreement not to further pursue charges or penalties relating to the breach investigation, the Resolution Agreement entered into with the approval of the Bankruptcy Court requires that 21CO pay OCR a $2.3 million Resolution Amount and implement to OCR’s satisfaction a corrective action plan that among other things requires that 21CO complete a detailed series of corrective actions to the satisfaction of OCR.

In addition to the OCR investigation that lead to the 21CO Resolution Agreement announced by OCR on December 28, 2017, 21CO experienced other fallout following its March 4, 2016 public disclosure of the breach. Not surprisingly, the breach notification led to a multitude of class-action civil lawsuits by breach victims and shareholders. See, e.g., 16 Data Breach Class Action Lawsuits Filed Against 21st Century Oncology Consolidated; 21st Century Oncology data breach prompts multiple lawsuits. Reports of spoofing and other misleading contacts made to 21CO patients following the breach prompted the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to issue a specific notice alerting victims about potential false breach notifications and other misleading contacts. See April 4, 2016 FTC Announcement Re: 21st Century Oncology breach exposes patients’ info.

These and other developments also had significant consequences on 21CO’s financial status and leadership. By March 31, 2015, 21CO notified the SEC and investors that it needed added time to complete its financial statements. Subsequent SEC filings document its restatement of financial statements, the departure of board members and other leaders, default on credit terms, and ultimately its filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on May 25, 2017.

Because 21CO sought bankruptcy court protection from the fallout of its HIPAA breaches and other compliance and business issues, the 21CO Resolution Agreement required bankruptcy court approval. Funds for payment of the required $2.3 million resolution payment and other charges associated with the investigation apparently are being provided in part from breach liability insurance coverage provided under a policy issued by Beazley Insurance, as the Bankruptcy Court order directs Beazley Breach Response Policy No. W140E2150301 to make immediate payment to the OCR of the resolution amount and the payment of fees incurred by 21CO in connection with regulatory defense issues.

HIPAA & Data Breach Enforcement A Growing Health Plan Risk

Health plans and other Covered Entities, plan sponsors and plan fiduciaries, their business associates and other consultants and service providers and members of their workforce need to recognize that the FileFax, CCDC, 21CO and other resolution agreements are part of a growing trend, rather than isolated incidents of enforcement and that their exposure to investigation and enforcement is likely to continue to rise in the face of growing public and Congressional concern about privacy and data security.

While civil monetary penalty enforcement remains much more common than criminal prosecution, Covered Entities, their business associates and members of their workforce must understand that HIPAA enforcement and resulting liability is growing and that this trend is likely to continue if not increase.

While Department of Justice federal criminal prosecutions and convictions under HIPAA remain relatively rare, they occur and are growing. See e.g., Former Hospital Employee Sentenced for HIPAA Violations (Texas man sentenced to 18 months in federal prison for obtaining protected health information with the intent to use it for personal gain); Three Life Sentences Imposed On Man Following Convictions For Drug Trafficking, Kidnapping, Using Firearms and HIPAA Violations (drug king pin gets multiple 10 year consecutive prison terms for unauthorized access to private health information in violation of HIPAA; his health care worker friend sentenced for accessing electronic medical files and reporting information to him); Former Therapist Charged In HIPAA Case; Hefty Prison Sentence in ID Theft Case (former assisted living facility worker gets 37 months in prison after pleading guilty to wrongful disclosure of HIPAA protected information and other charges); Hefty Prison Sentence in ID Theft Case (former medical supply company owner sentenced to 12 years for HIPAA violations and fraud). While the harshest sentences tend to be associated with health care fraud or other criminal conduct, lighter criminal sentences are imposed against defendants in other cases as well. See e.g., Sentencing In S.C. Medicaid Breach Case (former South Carolina state employee sentenced to three years’ probation, plus community service, for sending personal information about more than 228,000 Medicaid recipients to his personal e-mail account.); HIPAA Violation Leads To Prison Term (former UCLA Healthcare System surgeon gets four months in prison after admitting he illegally read private electronic medical records of celebrities and others.)

While criminal enforcement of HIPAA remains relatively rare and OCR to date only actually has assessed HIPAA civil monetary penalties against certain Covered Entities for violating HIPAA in a couple isolated instances, the growing list of multi-million dollar resolution payments against Covered Entities and with the FileFax Resolution Agreement announcement, now also business associates for violating HIPAA make clear that HIPAA enforcement is both meaningful and growing. See e.g., Learn From Children’s New $3.2M+ HIPAA CMP For “Knowing” Violation of HIPAA Security Rules ($3.2 million Children’s Medical Center HIPAA Civil Monetary Penalty); 1st HIPAA Privacy Civil Penalty of $4.3 Million Signals CMS Serious About HIPAA Enforcement; $400K HIPAA Settlement Shows Need To Conduct Timely & Appropriate Risk Assessments; $5.5M Memorial HIPAA Resolution Agreement Shows Need To Audit. For more examples, also see here.

The experiences of FileFax, Inc., CCDC, 21CO and these other OCR HIPAA Resolution Agreements provide strong evidence that that health plans and other Covered Entities and their business associates can anticipate that OCR will continue to zealously investigate HIPAA breaches and other HIPAA violations. Aside from OCR’s recurrent affirmations of its commitment to HIPAA enforcement, Covered Entities, their business associates and their leaders must recognize that public and Congressional privacy and data security concerns fueled by the ever growing stream of massive data breaches at Alteryx, eBay, Paypal owner TIO Networks, Uber, Equifax and a long list of other previously trusted prominent businesses are creating additional pressure upon OCR and other agencies to pursue even stronger and more aggressive HIPAA oversight and enforcement. Amid this growing concern, OCR, the FTC and other federal and state agencies with regulatory or enforcement authority over HIPAA or other data security and privacy concerns face increasing scrutiny and pressure to take meaningful action to regulate and enforce HIPAA and other laws intended to protect sensitive data even as private litigants enjoy increasing success in obtaining civil judgments from damages resulting from breaches of their PHI or other sensitive personal information using an expanding arsenal of legal theories of recovery. In the face of these growing concerns about privacy and data security, OCR can be expected to continue, if not increase its HIPAA compliance enforcement and oversight by OCR.

Furthermore, the experiences of FileFax, Inc., 21CO, CCDC and other Covered Entities and business associates that already have become the subject of OCR investigation or enforcement also reflect that HIPAA resolution payments or penalties paid to OCR and other costs and expenses associated with the defense and resolution of OCR’s investigations and enforcement actions typically only a portion of the financial and other business consequences that Covered Entities or business associates might expect to incur as a consequence of a breach of PHI or other substantial HIPAA violation or charge.

Beyond their potential HIPAA enforcement exposures following a HIPAA covered data breach or other violation, health care or other Covered Entities and members of their workforce experiencing breaches of ePHI or other PHI often also face FTC or other government investigations and enforcement relating their data breaches under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) and other federal or state identity theft, data privacy and security, electronic crimes and other laws. They or members of their workforce may face licensing board, credentialing, accreditation, contractual or other investigations or sanctions. Victims, business partners, investors and others often bring civil litigation to address losses or other injures associated with the breach or other misconduct. In addition, losses and disruptions in patients, plan member, vendor, investor, employee, management and other business relationships, and other business disruptions also are common.

Where the breach of other HIPAA violation involves a health plan, health plans, their fiduciaries and sponsors also need to give due consideration to the implications and exposures that might arise under the fiduciary responsibility rules of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Beyond the direct exposure of their health plan to HIPAA and other compliance liabilities, health plan fiduciaries generally will want to consider whether their fiduciary responsibility under ERISA requires that prudent or other steps be taken to safeguard health plan information and maintain and administer their health plan in accordance with HIPAA and other laws. As a consequence, fiduciaries generally will want to ensure that they take and document prudent steps to evaluate, monitor and address HIPAA and other privacy and data security safeguards to minimize not only the liability exposures of their health plans, but also to help mitigate their own potential personal liability exposures that could arise or be asserted in response to a HIPAA breach or other HIPAA violation involving their health plans.

In the face of these growing risks and liabilities, Covered Entities and their business leaders face a strong imperative to clean up and maintain their HIPAA compliance and other data security to minimize their exposure to similar consequences. In addition to reaffirming the need for Covered Entities and their business associates to take the necessary steps to maintain and effectively demonstrate the adequacy of their own HIPAA compliance, the CCDC and FileFax Resolution Agreements alert Covered Entities and business associates of the advisability of greater oversight and risk management of their dealings and relationships with the other Covered Entities and business associates with access to or involvement with their PHI or other critical functions.

In light of these rises, leaders, investors, insurers, lenders and others involved with Covered Entities and their business associates should take steps to verify that the Covered Entities and their business associates not only maintain compliance with HIPAA and its business associate and other privacy, data security and breach notification and response requirements, but also maintain appropriate practices, insurance and other safeguards to prevent, respond to and mitigate exposures in the event of a breach of protected health information or other sensitive data. The bankruptcies and other financial and business fallout of HIPAA or other data breaches experienced by FileFax, Inc. 21CO and other HIPAA-covered and non-HIPAA regulated entities also makes clear that Covered Entities and business associates should anticipate that their own fallout from a breach or other HIPAA event and resulting responsibilities and consequences could be impacted by their own or a business associate’s financial distress or bankruptcy. Beyond the risk that their own or another entity’s breach, compliance issues, or other financial or business issues could trigger breach investigation, notice or other responsibilities for their own organizations, Covered Entities, business associates and their leaders also should evaluate and revise their HIPAA risk assessments and security plans to address foreseeable threats to the availability, access, retention and security of PHI and associated records and systems.

The Bankruptcy Court’s order to 21CO’s cyber liability insurer to pay the resolution payment required under the 21CO Resolution Agreement and other costs of investigation and defense also strongly suggests that the purchase of insurance and other arrangements for funding costs of defense or settlement should be included in these evaluations.

As part of these efforts, Covered Entities and their business associates should ensure that they have conducted, and maintain and are ready to produce appropriate policies and procedures backed up by a well-documented, up-to-date industry wide risk assessment of their organization’s susceptibility to breaches or other misuse of electronic or other protected health information. The starting point of these efforts should be to adopt and enforce updated written policies, procedures, technical and physical safeguards, processes and training to prevent the improper use, access, destruction or disclosure of patient PHI. Processes also should create, retain and be designed to cost effectively track, capture, and retain both all protected health information, its use, access, protection, destruction and disclosure, and the requisite supportive documentation supporting the appropriateness of those action to position the organization cost-effectively and quickly to fulfill required accounting, reporting and other needs in the event of a data breach, audit, participant inquiry or other event.

As part of this process, Covered Entities and business associates should maintain strong and ongoing processes for assessing and monitoring the adequacy of their policies and practices. In addition to ensuring that their organization has a comprehensive risk management and compliance assessment, Covered Entities and business associates need to conduct documented periodic audits and spot HIPAA audits and assessments. In doing so, they must use care to look outside the four corners of their Privacy Policies and core operating systems to ensure that their policies, practices, oversight and training address all protected health information within their operations on an entity wide basis. This entity-wide assessment should include communications and requests for information normally addressed to the Privacy Officer as well as requests and communications that could arise in the course of media or other public relations, practice transition, workforce communication and other operations not typically under the direct oversight and management of the Privacy Officer.

In connection with these efforts, the enforcement actions make clear that Covered Entities and business associates should adopt, implement and monitor PHI privacy, and security on an entity wide basis. These efforts should include general policies, practices and procedures as well as specifically tailored policies, processes and training to protect PHI and preserve HIPAA compliance throughout their organization. Testing and analysis should be conducted on a regular basis. Documented reassessments and testing should be performed in response to software, hardware or other changes or events that could impact security or other operations. Beyond security, attention also should cover business or system interruption including losses that might occur from the bankruptcy, termination of business or other disruptions of business associates or other parties. Attention should be paid both to protecting access and use of PHI and ePHI in the course of business as well as the transmission, transport, storage and destruction of records or systems containing such information.

Careful attention should be devoted to ensuring that business associate agreements as well and other processes provide for HIPAA compliance with respect to all PHI created, used, accessed or disclosed to business associates or others not part of their direct workforce or operating outside the core boundaries of their facilities.

Covered entities and their business associates also must recognize and design their compliance efforts and documentation recognizing that HIPAA compliance is a living process, which require both constant diligence about changes in systems or other events that may require reevaluation or adjustments, whether from changes in software, systems or processes or external threats.

Because the cost of responding to and investigating breaches or other compliance concern can be quite burdensome, Covered Entities and their business associates also generally will want to pursue options to plan for and minimize potential expenses in the design and administration of their programs as well as to minimize and cover the potentially extraordinary costs of breach or other compliance investigation and results that commonly arise following a breach or other compliance event. As a part of this planning, Covered Entities and their business associates also generally will want to add consideration of changes to federal tax rules on the deductibility of compliance penalty and other related compliance expenditures.

While the Internal Revenue Code traditionally has prohibited businesses and individuals from deducting penalties, fines and other expenditures arising from violations of federal or state laws under Section 162(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, Section 13306 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Creation Act creates a new exception for amounts (other than amounts paid or incurred any amount paid or incurred as reimbursement to the government or entity for the costs of any investigation or litigation) that a taxpayer establishes meet the following requirements:

Constitute restitution (including remediation of property) for damage or harm which was or may be caused by the violation of any law or the potential violation of any law, or
Are paid to come into compliance with any law which was violated or otherwise involved in the investigation or inquiry into a violation or potential violation of any law;
Are identified as restitution or as an amount paid to come into compliance with such law, as the case may be, in the court order or settlement agreement, and
In the case of any amount of restitution for failure to pay any tax imposed under this title in the same manner as if such amount were such tax, would have been allowed as a deduction under this chapter if it had been timely paid.

Because the true effect of these modifications will be impacted by implementing regulations and a number of other special conditions and rules may impact the deductibility of these payments and the reporting obligations attached to their payment, Covered Entities will want to consult with legal counsel about these rules and monitor their implementation to understand their potential implications on compliance expenditures and penalties.

About The Author

Repeatedly recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation and board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney, management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for health and managed care, employee benefits, insurance and financial services, data and technology and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. Nationally recognized for her work, experience, leadership and publications on HIPAA and other medical privacy and data use and security, FACTA, GLB, trade secrets and other privacy and data security concerns, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with clients and the government on cybersecurity, technology and processes and other issues involved in the use and management of medical, insurance and other financial, workforce, trade secrets and other sensitive data and information throughout her career. Scribe or co-scribe of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR since 2011 and author of a multitude of highly regarded publications on HIPAA and other health care, insurance, financial and other privacy and data security, Ms. Stamer is widely known for her extensive and leading edge experience, advising, representing, training and coaching health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses, business associates, their information technology and other solutions providers and vendors, and others on HIPAA and other privacy, data security and cybersecurity design, documentation, administration, audit and oversight, business associate and other data and technology contracting, breach investigation and response, and other related concerns including extensive involvement representing clients in dealings with OCR and other Health & Human Services, Federal Trade Commission, Department of Labor, Department of Treasury, state health, insurance and attorneys’ general, Congress and state legislators and other federal officials.

Ms. Stamer also has an extensive contributes her leadership and insights with other professionals, industry leaders and lawmakers. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance often appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, SHRM, HIMMS, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others. You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see here, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (214) 452-8297.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on OCR HIPAA Resolution Agreement Against Bankrupt Business Associate Signals Growing Exposures, Need for Tighter HIPAA Compliance By Health Plans & Business Associates | Association Health Plan, board of directors, Brokers, church plan, Civil Monetary Penalties, Civil Rights, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Cybercrime, Data Breach, Data Security, EBSA, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, ERISA, FACTA, Fair Credit Reporting Act, fiduciary duty, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HR, Human Resources, Identity Theft, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Technology, third party administrators, Trade secret, Uncategorized | Tagged: Health Plans, HIPAA, Technology | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$3.5M HIPAA Settlement Highlights Need To Prioritize Health Plan HIPAA Compliance in 2018

February 2, 2018

The $3.5 million payment that Fresenius Medical Care North America (FMCNA) is paying to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to settle potential liability for potentially much higher Civil Monetary Penalties (CMPs) to OCR for Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules violation charges under a voluntary resolution agreement illustrates the need for group health plans and their employer and other sponsors, fiduciaries, and vendors to make HIPAA compliance a key priority for 2018.

Widespread publicity and fallout from data breaches involving Equifax, Blue Cross, the Internal Revenue Service and many other giant organizations have ramped up public awareness and government concern about health care and other data security. The resulting pressure is adding additional fuel to the already substantial concern of OCR and other agencies about compliance with HIPAA and other data security and breach laws. Like the $2.3 million HIPAA resolution agreement OCR announced with now bankrupt radiation oncology and cancer care provider 21st Century Oncology, Inc. (21CO) earlier this year, see, e.g., $23M Penalty Small Part of 21st Century’s Data Breach Fallout; Offers Data Breach Lessons For Other Businesses, the growing list of OCR resolution agreements and other enforcement actions against FMCNA, 21CO and other covered entities and other legal and market fallout that covered entities and other organizations experience following the announcement of breaches or other security deficiencies make the case for why HIPAA-covered health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (covered entities) must prioritize HIPAA compliance and other medical and other data security protection, privacy and risk management a top priority in 2018.

When weighing the importance of HIPAA compliance and risk management for their health plans, health plans, their employer or other sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators and their business associates should resist the temptation to underestimate the exposure because providers, rather than health plans, have been the most common target of the majority of the announced OCR enforcement actions resulting in substantial civil monetary penalties or resolution payments.

Rather, they should take note of resolution agreements and other enforcement actions against health plans such as the $2.2 million settlement payment APFRE Life Insurance Company of Puerto Rico (MAPFRE) paid under a 2017 resolution agreement to resolve HIPAA violation charges OCR brought based on its investigation of a September 29, 2011 breach report MCPFRE made to OCR. The breach report indicated that a USB data storage device (described as a “pen drive”) containing ePHI was stolen from its IT department, where the device was left without safeguards overnight. According to the report, the USB data storage device included complete names, dates of birth and Social Security numbers. The report noted that the breach affected 2,209 individuals. MAPFRE informed OCR that it was able to identify the breached ePHI by reconstituting the data on the computer on which the USB data storage device was attached. OCR’s investigation revealed MAPFRE’s noncompliance with the HIPAA Rules, specifically a failure to conduct its risk analysis and implement risk management plans, contrary to its prior representations, and a failure to deploy encryption or an equivalent alternative measure on its laptops and removable storage media until September 1, 2014. MAPFRE also failed to implement or delayed implementing other corrective measures it informed OCR it would undertake.

HIPAA Privacy, Security & Breach Notification Rule Responsibilities & Risks

The Privacy Rule requires that health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses (covered entities) and their vendors that qualify as “business associates” under HIPAA comply with detailed requirements concerning the protection, use, access, destruction and disclosure of protected health information. As part of these requirements, covered entities and their business associates must adopt, administer and enforce detailed policies and practices, assess, monitor and maintain the security of electronic protected health information (ePHI) and other protected health information, provide notices of privacy practices and breaches of “unsecured” ePHI, afford individuals that are the subject of protected health information certain rights and comply with other requirements as specified by the Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Rules. In addition, covered entities and business associates also must enter into a written and signed business associate agreement that contains the elements specified in Privacy Rule § 164.504(e) before the business associate creates, uses, accesses or discloses PHI of the covered entity. Furthermore, the Privacy Rule includes extensive documentation and keeping requirements require that covered entities and BAs maintain copies of these BAAs for a minimum of six years and to provide that documentation to OCR upon demand.

Resolution Agreements like the $3.2 million FMCNA resolution agreement allow covered entities and business associates to resolve potentially substantially larger civil monetary penalty liabilities that OCR can impose under the civil enforcement provisions of HIPAA. As amended by the HITECH Act, the civil enforcement provisions of HIPAA empower OCR to impose Civil Monetary Penalties on both covered entities and BAs for violations of any of the requirements of the Privacy or Security Rules. The penalty ranges for civil violations depends upon the circumstances associated with the violations and are subject to upward adjustment for inflation. As most recently adjusted here effective September 6, 2016, the following currently are the progressively increasing Civil Monetary Penalty tiers:

A minimum penalty of $100 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations which the CE or BA “did not know, and by exercising reasonable diligence would not have known” about using “the business care and prudence expected from a person seeking to satisfy a legal requirement under similar circumstances;”
A minimum penalty of $1,000 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations for “reasonable cause” which do not rise to the level of “willful neglect” where “reasonable cause” means the “circumstances that would make it unreasonable for the covered entity, despite the exercise of ordinary business care and prudence, to comply with the violated Privacy Rule requirement;”
A minimum penalty of $10,000 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations attributed to “willful neglect,” defined as “the conscious, intentional failure or reckless indifference to the obligation to comply” with the requirement or prohibition; and
A minimum penalty of $50,000 and a maximum penalty of $1.5 million per violation, for violations attributed to “willful neglect” not remedied within 30 days of the date that the covered entity or BA knew or should have known of the violation.

For continuing violations such as failing to implement a required BAA, OCR can treat each day of noncompliance as a separate violation. However, sanctions under each of these tiers generally are subject to a maximum penalty of $1,500,000 for violations of identical requirements or prohibitions during a calendar year. For violations such as the failure to implement and maintain a required BAA where more than one covered entity bears responsibility for the violation, OCR an impose Civil Monetary Penalties against each culpable party. OCR considers a variety of mitigating and aggravating facts and circumstances when arriving at the amount of the penalty within each of these applicable tiers to impose.

In addition to these potential civil liability exposures, covered entities, their business associates and other individuals or organizations that wrongfully use, access or disclose electronic or other protected health information also can face civil liability under various circumstances. The criminal enforcement provisions of HIPAA authorize the Justice Department to prosecute a person who knowingly in violation of the Privacy Rule (1) uses or causes to be used a unique health identifier; (2) obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an individual; or (3) discloses individually identifiable health information to another person, punishable by the following criminal sanctions and penalties:

A fine of up to $50,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both;
If the offense is committed under false pretenses, a fine of up to $100,000, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both; and
If the offense is committed with intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm, a fine of up to $250,000, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

Fresenius Breach, Charges & Settlement Agreement Illustrate Civil Exposures

The FMCNA resolution agreement is another example of a growing list of resolution agreements various HIPAA covered entities have entered into to resolve their exposure to potentially greater liability should OCR assess civil monetary penalties under HIPAA’s civil sanction scheme.

The breach reports filed on January 21, 2017 reported five separate breach incidents occurring between February 23, 2012 and July 18, 2012 implicating the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of five separate FMCNA owned covered entities (FMCNA covered entities): Bio-Medical Applications of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care Duval Facility in Jacksonville, Florida (FMC Duval Facility); Bio-Medical Applications of Alabama, Inc. d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care Magnolia Grove in Semmes, Alabama (FMC Magnolia Grove Facility); Renal Dimensions, LLC d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care Ak-Chin in Maricopa, Arizona (FMC Ak-Chin Facility); Fresenius Vascular Care Augusta, LLC (FVC Augusta); and WSKC Dialysis Services, Inc. d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care Blue Island Dialysis (FMC Blue Island Facility).

OCR concluded its investigation showed the breaches resulted because FMCNA failed to conduct an accurate and thorough risk analysis of potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all of its ePHI. OCR also concluded:

The FMCNA covered entities impermissibly disclosed the ePHI of patients by providing unauthorized access for a purpose not permitted by the Privacy Rule.
FMC Ak-Chin failed to implement policies and procedures to address security incidents.
FMC Magnolia Grove failed to implement policies and procedures that govern the receipt and removal of hardware and electronic media that contain ePHI into and out of a facility; and the movement of these items within the facility.
FMC Duval and FMC Blue Island failed to implement policies and procedures to safeguard their facilities and equipment therein from unauthorized access, tampering, and theft, when it was reasonable and appropriate to do so under the circumstances.
FMC Magnolia Grove and FVC Augusta failed to implement a mechanism to encrypt and decrypt ePHI, when it was reasonable and appropriate to do so under the circumstances.

In addition to a $3.5 million monetary settlement, a corrective action plan requires the FMCNA covered entities to complete a risk analysis and risk management plan, revise policies and procedures on device and media controls as well as facility access controls, develop an encryption report, and educate its workforce on policies and procedures.

HIPAA & Data Breach Enforcement A Growing Health Plan Risk

Health plans and other covered entities, plan sponsors and plan fiduciaries, their business associates and other consultants and service providers and members of their workforce need to recognize that the FMCNA and other resolution agreements are part of a growing trend, rather than isolated incidents of enforcement.

While civil monetary penalty enforcement remains much more common than criminal prosecution, covered entities, their business associates and members of their workforce must understand that HIPAA enforcement and resulting liability is growing.

While Department of Justice federal criminal prosecutions and convictions under HIPAA remain relatively rare, they occur and are growing. See e.g., Former Hospital Employee Sentenced for HIPAA Violations (Texas man sentenced to 18 months in federal prison for obtaining protected health information with the intent to use it for personal gain); Three Life Sentences Imposed On Man Following Convictions For Drug Trafficking, Kidnapping, Using Firearms and HIPAA Violations (drug king pin gets multiple 10 year consecutive prison terms for unauthorized access to private health information in violation of HIPAA; his health care worker friend sentenced for accessing electronic medical files and reporting information to him); Former Therapist Charged In HIPAA Case; Hefty Prison Sentence in ID Theft Case (former assisted living facility worker gets 37 months in prison after pleading guilty to wrongful disclosure of HIPAA protected information and other charges); Hefty Prison Sentence in ID Theft Case (former medical supply company owner sentenced to 12 years for HIPAA violations and fraud). While the harshest sentences tend to be associated with health care fraud or other criminal conduct, lighter criminal sentences are imposed against defendants in other cases as well. See e.g., Sentencing In S.C. Medicaid Breach Case (former South Carolina state employee sentenced to three years’ probation, plus community service, for sending personal information about more than 228,000 Medicaid recipients to his personal e-mail account.); HIPAA Violation Leads To Prison Term (former UCLA Healthcare System surgeon gets four months in prison after admitting he illegally read private electronic medical records of celebrities and others.)

While criminal enforcement of HIPAA remains relatively rare and OCR to date only actually has assessed HIPAA civil monetary penalties against certain Covered Entities for violating HIPAA in a couple isolated instances, the growing list of multi-million dollar resolution payments that FMCNA and other covered entities caught violating HIPAA make clear that HIPAA enforcement is both meaningful and growing. See e.g., Learn From Children’s New $3.2M+ HIPAA CMP For “Knowing” Violation of HIPAA Security Rules ($3.2 million Children’s Medical Center HIPAA Civil Monetary Penalty); 1st HIPAA Privacy Civil Penalty of $4.3 Million Signals CMS Serious About HIPAA Enforcement; $400K HIPAA Settlement Shows Need To Conduct Timely & Appropriate Risk Assessments; $5.5M Memorial HIPAA Resolution Agreement Shows Need To Audit. For more examples, also see here.

Beyond the direct exposure of their health plan to HIPAA and other compliance liabilities, health plan fiduciaries also should note that their fiduciary responsibility under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) likely includes taking prudent steps to safeguard health plan information and maintain and administer their health plan in accordance with HIPAA. As a consequence, fiduciaries generally will want to ensure that they take and document prudent steps to evaluate, monitor and address HIPAA and other privacy and data security safeguards to minimize not only the liability exposures of their health plans, but also to help mitigate their own potential personal liability exposures that could arise or be asserted in response to a HIPAA breach or other HIPAA violation involving their health plans.

Coming on the heels of an already lengthy and growing list of OCR high dollar HIPAA enforcement actions, the FMCNA and other resolution agreements and civil monetary penalties these and other announced enforcement actions clearly reflect that OCR takes HIPAA compliance seriously and stands ready to impose substantial penalties when it finds violations in connection with breach notice investigations. Viewed in the context of these and other enforcement actions, the FMCNA Resolution Agreement and others clearly reflect the time for complacency in HIPAA compliance and leniency in HIPAA HIPAA enforcement are passed. Rather, these and other enforcement actions make clear why health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and their business associates must make HIPAA compliance a priority now.

Covered entities and business associates also should recognize their potential responsibilities and risks for breaches or other improper conduct concerning patient or other sensitive personal financial information, trade secrets or other data under a wide range of laws beyond HIPAA and its state law equivalents. As documented by the media coverage of the legal and business woes of Alteryx, eBay, Paypal owner TIO Networks, Uber, Equifax and a long list of other previously trusted prominent businesses have and continue to incur from data breaches within their organizations, health care or other covered entities experiencing breaches often also face FTC or other government investigations and enforcement under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) and other federal or state identity theft, data privacy and security, electronic crimes and other rules as well as business losses and disruptions; civil litigation from breach victims, shareholders and investors, and business partners as well as OCR, FTC, and state data security regulation enforcement. Amid this growing concern, OCR has indicated that it intends to continue to diligently both seek to support and encourage voluntary compliance by covered entities and their business associates and investigate and enforce HIPAA against HIPAA covered entities and their business associates that fail to adequately safeguard PHI and ePHI in accordance with HIPAA. In the face of these growing risks and liabilities, covered entities and their business leaders face a strong imperative to clean up and maintain their HIPAA compliance and other data security to minimize their exposure to similar consequences.

In light of these rises, leaders, investors, insurers, lenders and others involved with covered entities and their business associates should take steps to verify that the covered entities and their business associates not only maintain compliance with HIPAA, but also comply with data security, privacy and other information protection requirements arising under other laws, regulations, and contracts, as well as the practical business risks that typically follow the announcement of a breach. Considering these risks, covered entities and their business associates must recognize and take meaningful, documented action to verify their existing compliance and ongoing oversight to ensure their organizations can demonstrate appropriate action to maintain appropriate practices, insurance and other safeguards to prevent, respond to and mitigate exposures in the event of a breach of protected health information or other sensitive data.

In response to these growing risks and concerns, covered entities and their business associates should ensure that they have conducted, and maintain and are ready to produce appropriate policies and procedures backed up by a well documented, up-to-date industry wide risk assessment of their organization’s susceptibility to breaches or other misuse of electronic or other protected health information. The starting point of these efforts should be to adopt and enforce updated written policies, procedures, technical and physical safeguards, processes and training to prevent the improper use, access, destruction or disclosure of patient PHI. Processes also should create, retain and be designed to cost effectively track, capture, and retain both all protected health information, its use, access, protection, destruction and disclosure, and the requisite supportive documentation supporting the appropriateness of those action to position the organization cost-effectively and quickly to fulfill required accounting, reporting and other needs in the event of a data breach, audit, participant inquiry or other event.

As part of this process, covered entities and business associates should start by reviewing and updating their policies, HIPAA audits and assessments and other documentation and processes. In doing so, they must use care to look outside the four corners of their Privacy Policies and core operating systems to ensure that their policies, practices, oversight and training address all protected health information within their operations on an entity wide basis. This entity-wide assessment should include both communications and requests for information normally addressed to the Privacy Officer as well as requests and communications that could arise in the course of media or other public relations, practice transition, workforce communication and other operations not typically under the direct oversight and management of the Privacy Officer.

Because the cost of responding to and investigating breaches or other compliance concern can be quite burdensome, covered entities and their business associates also generally will want to pursue options to plan for and minimize potential expenses in the design and administration of their programs as well as to minimize and cover the potentially extraordinary costs of breach or other compliance investigation and results that commonly arise following a breach or other compliance event. As a part of this planning, covered entities and their business associates also generally will want to add consideration of changes to federal tax rules on the deductibility of compliance penalty and other related compliance expenditures.

Constitute restitution (including remediation of property) for damage or harm which was or may be caused by the violation of any law or the potential violation of any law, or
Are paid to come into compliance with any law which was violated or otherwise involved in the investigation or inquiry into a violation or potential violation of any law;
Are identified as restitution or as an amount paid to come into compliance with such law, as the case may be, in the court order or settlement agreement, and
In the case of any amount of restitution for failure to pay any tax imposed under this title in the same manner as if such amount were such tax, would have been allowed as a deduction under this chapter if it had been timely paid.

Because the true effect of these modifications will be impacted by implementing regulations and a number of other special conditions and rules may impact the deductibility of these payments and the reporting obligations attached to their payment, covered entities will want to consult with legal counsel about these rules and monitor their implementation to understand their potential implications on compliance expenditures and penalties.

About The Author

Ms. Stamer also has an extensive contributes her leadership and insights with other professionals, industry leaders and lawmakers. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance often appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, SHRM, HIMMS, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others. You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see here, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (214) 452-8297.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on $3.5M HIPAA Settlement Highlights Need To Prioritize Health Plan HIPAA Compliance in 2018 | Association Health Plan, board of directors, Brokers, church plan, Civil Monetary Penalties, Civil Rights, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Cybercrime, Data Breach, Data Security, EBSA, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, ERISA, FACTA, Fair Credit Reporting Act, fiduciary duty, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HR, Human Resources, Identity Theft, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Technology, third party administrators, Trade secret, Uncategorized | Tagged: Health Plans, HIPAA, Technology | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Check & Protect Health & Other Electronic Systems & Data Against New Security Threat

January 17, 2018

Health plans, their employer, union, insurer or other sponsors, fiduciaries, administrative or other service providers and their vendors and advisors should act immediately to investigate if any action is needed to protect electronic protected health information or other sensitive data and systems in response to the following cyber risk alert from the Department Of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights.

TLP: WHITE: ASPR/CIP HPH Cyber Notice: Meltdown and Spectre Vulnerability Guidance UPDATE #1

January 17, 2018

DISCLAIMER: This product is provided “as is” for informational purposes only. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) does not provide warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. HHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this product or otherwise. Further dissemination of this product is governed by the Traffic Light Protocol (TLP) marking in the header.

TLP: WHITE information may be distributed without restriction (subject to standard copyright rules).

Healthcare and Public Health Sector partners-

The attached report is a technical update to the previously distributed HPH Cyber Notice covering chip vulnerabilities named Meltdown and Spectre. Both Meltdown and Spectre are vulnerabilities in how computer chips handle data that have the potential to expose sensitive information, such as protected health information (PHI), being processed on the chip. As this information is protected from disclosure under HIPAA, Healthcare and Public Health (HPH) entities should employ risk management processes to address these vulnerabilities and ensure the security of medical records and other PHI.

Major concerns for the HPH sector include but are not limited to:

• Challenges identifying vulnerable medical devices and accessory medical equipment and ensuring patches are validated to prevent impacts to the intended use.

• Cloud Computing: Potential PHI or Personally Identifiable Information (PII) data leakage in shared computing environments

• Web browsers: Possible PHI/PII data leakage

• Patches: Potential for service degradation and/or interruption from patches

The detailed report can be found here: Technical Report on Widespread Processor Vulnerabilities

Comments Off on Check & Protect Health & Other Electronic Systems & Data Against New Security Threat | 4980D, ADA, Association Health Plan, board of directors, Brokers, Civil Rights, compliance, Corporate Compliance, Cybercrime, Data Breach, Data Security, directors, Disease Management, Electronic Medical Record, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, ERISA, exchange, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$23M Penalty Small Part of 21st Century’s Data Breach Fallout; Offers Data Breach Lessons For Other Businesses

January 5, 2018

Continuing Fallout of 2015 Data Breach Provides Many Lessons For Other Businesses & Their Health Plans

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments Off on $23M Penalty Small Part of 21st Century’s Data Breach Fallout; Offers Data Breach Lessons For Other Businesses | ADA, Association Health Plan, Banking, Bankruptcy, board of directors, Brokers, Cafeteria Plans, Civil Monetary Penalties, Claims Administration, compensation, compliance, Consumer Protection, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Cybercrime, Data Breach, Data Security, defined benefit plan, Defined Benefit Plans, defined contribution plan, Defined Contribution Plans, Disability, EBSA, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, ERISA, Excise Taxes, FACTA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Form 5500, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HR, Human Resources, Identity Theft, Internal Revenue Code, IRC, Labor Management Relations, Management, Mental Health, Pay, pension plan, Reporting & Disclosure, retirement plan, Retirement Plans, Retirements, Salaried, Tax, Uncategorized | Tagged: Cyber Security, Cybercrime, Data Breach, HIPAA, Identity Theft, Privacy, Technology | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Read Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Conference Report For Tax Reform From Source

December 18, 2017

Want to know what tax changes are included in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1) (Act”) and expected to pass Congress tomorrow (December 20, 2017)? Check out the House Conference Committee Report, H. Rept. 115-466 (the “Conference Report”) released on Friday, December 15, 2017.

The House Conference Committee Report details the negotiated reconciliation of House Bill (H.R. 1) as passed by the House of Representatives on November 16, 2017 and the provisions of H.R. 1 with amendments passed by the Senate on December 2, 2017. Over the past few weeks, a joint committee made up of key representatives from the House and Senate have engaged in highly publicized negotiations to reconcile differences in the House and Senate versions of the Act. The House Conference Committee Report signed off by the Conference Committee and filed in the House of Representatives of December 15, 2017 documents the agreements reached by House and Senate Conferees reconciling the House and Senate versions of H.R. 1, which Congress will vote upon this week. Solutions Law Press, Inc. will publish analysis of various provisions of these reforms over the next few days. In the meantime, taxpayers interested in learning about the Act may use the links in this article to begin familiarizing themselves with its provisions.

About The Author

Well-known for her extensive work with health, insurance, financial services, technology, energy, manufacturing, retail, hospitality, governmental and other highly regulated employers, her nearly 30 years’ of experience encompasses work with domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes as well as extensive work with Congress and U.S. federal and state regulatory agencies on workforce, compensation and benefits, and performance and operational compliance challenges. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Pension Privitization law who also has worked on workforce, tax, employee benefits, health care, insurance, safety, immigration, privacy and data security and other federal and state legal reforms domestically and internationally throughout her adult life, Ms. Stamer also has been extensively involved in various aspects of Congressional considerations of the current Act and other legislation considered by the current Congress.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service as a management consultant, business coach and consultant and policy strategist as well through her leadership participation in professional and civic organizations such her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association; Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Gulf Coast TEGE Council Exempt Organization Coordinator; a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; former board member and Vice President of the Managed Care Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; a member and policy adviser to the National Physicians’ Council for Healthcare Policy; current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section; ABA Real Property Probate and Trust (RPTE) Section former Employee Benefits Group Chair, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, and Defined Contribution Committee Co-Chair, past Welfare Benefit Committee Chair and current Employee Benefits Group Fiduciary Responsibility Committee Co-Chair, Substantive and Group Committee member, Membership Committee member and RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council; past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a former member of the Board of Directors, Treasurer, Member and Continuing Education Chair of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Read Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Conference Report For Tax Reform From Source | 105(h), 401(k), 5000, Cafeteria Plans, church plan, compensation, compliance, defined benefit plan, Defined Benefit Plans, defined contribution plan, Defined Contribution Plans, EBSA, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreement, Employment Tax, ESOP, Excise Tax, Excise Taxes, Executive Compensation, Exempt, Form 5500, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, HR, Human Resources, Income Tax, Insurance, insurers, IRC, Management, Obamacare, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Patient Protection and Affordabel Care Act, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pay, Payroll Tax, pension plan, Premium Subsidies, retirement plan, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Social Security, Tax, Tax Credit, Tax Qualification, Uncategorized | Tagged: tax reform, Taxes | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Prepares To Nail Employers Under Obamacare Mandate While Giving Some Individual Mandate Relief

December 12, 2017

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) is acting to help Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) health subsidy-eligible individuals living in regions where exchange insurers do not offer bronze (lowest cost) coverage even as it moves ahead to nail employers failing to comply with Obamacare’s employer shared responsibility rules (commonly referred to as the “employer mandate”). The move comes as House and Senate Conferees are preparing to conference to work out differences in the tax bill which could repeal the Obamacare individual mandate penalty for failing to maintain coverage while leaving intact penalties against employers violating the employer mandate by failing to offer affordable minimum essential coverage as well as other Obamacare penalties on plans and their employers.

IRS New Individual Obamacare Relief

Notice 2017-74 will provide that Individuals who are not eligible for coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan and who lack access to affordable coverage should not be denied the use of the affordability exemption under § 5000A(e)(1) of the Code and § 1.5000A-3(e) of the Regulations merely because they reside in an area served by a Marketplace that does not offer a bronze-level plan. Consequently, for purposes of the affordability exemption under § 5000A(e)(1) and § 1.5000A-3(e), if an individual resides in a rating area served by a Marketplace that does not offer a bronze plan, the individual generally should use as his or her applicable plan the lowest cost metal-level plan available in the Marketplace serving the rating area in which the individual resides.

Notice 2017-74 will be in IRB 2017-51, dated December 18, 2017.

Employer’s Still Face Obamacare Penalties

While the IRS has issued limited relief for individuals from the ACA’s individual mandate penalties, so far it has remained steadfast in its refusal to grant employers corresponding relief from the ACA employer shared responsibility penalties or other ACA penalties. Instead, IRS officials continue to make clear that the IRS intends to enforce the ACA employer shared responsibility rules against employers with 50 or more full-time employees (including full-time equivalent employees) (“covered employers”).

Under the Obamacare employer mandate rules, covered employers face significant Federal tax penalties for (1) failing to offer minimal essential coverage to substantially all full-time employees and their dependents (the “A Penalty”), or (2) offering coverage that is either “unaffordable” or does not provide “minimum value” (the “B Penalty”) (referred to collectively as the “ACA Penalties”) if a full-time employee enrolls in the Health Insurance Marketplace (the “Exchange”) and receives a Premium Tax Credit.

While many employers assumed President Trump’s January 20, 2017 Executive Order Executive Order Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pending Repeal would insulate them against enforcement of the employer mandate and other Obamacare penalties, the IRS doesn’t see the Executive Order as barring its enforcement of Obamacare against sponsoring employers or their group health plans. An April 14, 2017 IRS Chief Counsel letter, for instance, the IRS announced it does not interpret its discretionary authority under Obamacare to allow waiver of the employer mandate tax imposed under Internal Revenue Code Section 4980H against covered employers that fail to provide the affordable minimum essential coverage required by the employer mandate. In keeping with this interpretation, the IRS has announced that it will begin enforcement of the employer mandate tax liability for plan years after 2015 against covered employers that failed to meet the employer mandate.

Of course, the employer mandate is not the only Obama care provision that employers and their health plans need to worry about. In addition to the employer mandate, Obamacare imposed a host of patient protection and other federal mandates upon employer-sponsored plans, most of which apply to plans covering two or more employees. In addition to any benefit and other administrative penalties that otherwise arise under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and/or the Social Security Act for violating these mandates, employers sponsoring plans that violate any of 40 listed mandates imposed by Obamacare or certain other federal laws also become liable under Internal Revenue Code Section 6039D to self-identify, self-assess, report on Form 8928 and pay an excise tax equal to $100 per person per uncorrected violation. The IRS, Department Of Labor and Department Of Health and Human Services have taken the position the January 20 Executive Order also does not bar enforcement of those Obamacare penalties. Accordingly, employers and their group health plans continue to face potentially substantial liability if their group health plan does not comply with Obamacare.

In the face of these exposures, employers and their group health plan administrators, fiduciaries and advisors should carefully review their plans and their administration for compliance before the end of the plan year so as to be able to take appropriate and timely corrective action before penalties attach and while stop loss or other insurance is available to help mitigate the cost of these corrections. Employers preparing for upcoming health plan renewals also should review their group contracts and conduct due diligence to verify their group health plan terms and operations meet the mandates as they initiate new plan years. Employers also generally will want to review their compliance and take action to address any deficiencies against any vendors or advisers who may have culpability in the defective health plan design or administration. Prompt action against vendors who may be culpable for the design or administration defects is necessary to preserve potential claims for contractual, deceptive trade practices or other causes of action that an employer might have under state contract, tort or other law. Employers and health plan fiduciaries should consider engaging experienced legal counsel to conduct this review on behalf of the employer other plan sponsor within the scope of attorney-client privilege so as to assess and address these potential risks on a timely basis and explore options within the scope of privilege. Brokers, advisors, consultants and insurers whose employer clients also may want to assess compliance risks and/or urge their clients to do so to help minimize their exposure to malfeasance or other claims from clients angry about penalties and other unexpected costs of noncompliance.

About The Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service as a management consultant, business coach and consultant and policy strategist as well through her leadership participation in professional and civic organizations such her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association; Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Gulf Coast TEGE Council Exempt Organization Coordinator; a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; former board member and Vice President of the Managed Care Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; a member and policy adviser to the National Physicians’ Council for Healthcare Policy; current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section; ABA Real Property Probate and Trust (RPTE) Section former Employee Benefits Group Chair, immediatepast RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, and Defined Contribution Committee Co-Chair, past Welfare Benefit Committee Chair and current Employee Benefits Group Fiduciary Responsibility Committee Co-Chair, Substantive and Group Committee member, Membership Committee member and RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council; past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a former member of the Board of Directors, Treasurer, Member and Continuing Education Chair of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Ms. Stamer also is a widely published author, highly popular lecturer, and serial symposia chair, who publishes and speaks extensively on human resources, labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation, occupational safety and health, and other leadership, performance, regulatory and operational risk management, public policy and community service concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, BenefitsMagazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on IRS Prepares To Nail Employers Under Obamacare Mandate While Giving Some Individual Mandate Relief | 105(h), 5000, ACA, compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Taxes, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, health reform, Human Resources, Premium Subsidies, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Read Trump Health Care Executive Order

October 12, 2017

President Trump today (October 12, 2017) issued the following that he promised to be the first in a series of executive orders and other administrative actions that his administration will roll out to provide Obamacare relief for consumers, employers and others by promoting healthcare choice and competition given the continued difficulty by the Republican-led Congress to pass legislation repealing or replacing the health care law.

What actually will result remains to be seen. Like the January 20, 2017 Executive Order Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pending Repeal that President Trump signed as his first executive order, the new Executive Order doesn’t actually change anything; it merely directs the agencies to review and propose for implementation changes to regulations and other guidance allowed by law.

On the heels of his announcement of the Executive Order, President Trump moved forward on his promise to take other action on Obamacare by announcing that the Administration will not continue funding for individual subsidies that currently are continued under an Obama Administration action in the absence of Congressional action funding those subsidies.

Concerned parties should monitor and inform themselves about proposed changes in the Executive Order and other actions as they are proposed and develop, and provide timely comments and other input to help influence the shape and content of any changes proposed or adopted in response to the Executive Order. Solutions Law Press, Inc. will be monitoring developments. Stay tuned for updates.

Language of Executive Order

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy.

(a) It shall be the policy of the executive branch, to the extent consistent with law, to facilitate the purchase of insurance across State lines and the development and operation of a healthcare system that provides high-quality care at affordable prices for the American people. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), however, has severely limited the choice of healthcare options available to many Americans and has produced large premium increases in many State individual markets for health insurance. The average exchange premium in the 39 States that are using http://www.healthcare.gov in 2017 is more than double the average overall individual market premium recorded in 2013. The PPACA has also largely failed to provide meaningful choice or competition between insurers, resulting in one-third of America’s counties having only one insurer offering coverage on their applicable government-run exchange in 2017.

(b) Among the myriad areas where current regulations limit choice and competition, my Administration will prioritize three areas for improvement in the near term: association health plans (AHPs), short-term, limited-duration insurance (STLDI), and health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs).

(i) Large employers often are able to obtain better terms on health insurance for their employees than small employers because of their larger pools of insurable individuals across which they can spread risk and administrative costs. Expanding access to AHPs can help small businesses overcome this competitive disadvantage by allowing them to group together to self-insure or purchase large group health insurance. Expanding access to AHPs will also allow more small businesses to avoid many of the PPACA’s costly requirements. Expanding access to AHPs would provide more affordable health insurance options to many Americans, including hourly wage earners, farmers, and the employees of small businesses and entrepreneurs that fuel economic growth.

(ii) STLDI is exempt from the onerous and expensive insurance mandates and regulations included in title I of the PPACA. This can make it an appealing and affordable alternative to government-run exchanges for many people without coverage available to them through their workplaces. The previous administration took steps to restrict access to this market by reducing the allowable coverage period from less than 12 months to less than 3 months and by preventing any extensions selected by the policyholder beyond 3 months of total coverage.

(iii) HRAs are tax-advantaged, account-based arrangements that employers can establish for employees to give employees more flexibility and choices regarding their healthcare. Expanding the flexibility and use of HRAs would provide many Americans, including employees who work at small businesses, with more options for financing their healthcare.

(c) My Administration will also continue to focus on promoting competition in healthcare markets and limiting excessive consolidation throughout the healthcare system. To the extent consistent with law, government rules and guidelines affecting the United States healthcare system should:

(i) expand the availability of and access to alternatives to expensive, mandate-laden PPACA insurance, including AHPs, STLDI, and HRAs;

(ii) re-inject competition into healthcare markets by lowering barriers to entry, limiting excessive consolidation, and preventing abuses of market power; and

(iii) improve access to and the quality of information that Americans need to make informed healthcare decisions, including data about healthcare prices and outcomes, while minimizing reporting burdens on affected plans, providers, or payers.

Sec. 2. Expanded Access to Association Health Plans.

Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Labor shall consider proposing regulations or revising guidance, consistent with law, to expand access to health coverage by allowing more employers to form AHPs. To the extent permitted by law and supported by sound policy, the Secretary should consider expanding the conditions that satisfy the commonality‑of-interest requirements under current Department of Labor advisory opinions interpreting the definition of an “employer” under section 3(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Secretary of Labor should also consider ways to promote AHP formation on the basis of common geography or industry.

Sec. 3. Expanded Availability of Short-Term, Limited‑Duration Insurance.

Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretaries of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services shall consider proposing regulations or revising guidance, consistent with law, to expand the availability of STLDI. To the extent permitted by law and supported by sound policy, the Secretaries should consider allowing such insurance to cover longer periods and be renewed by the consumer.

Sec. 4. Expanded Availability and Permitted Use of Health Reimbursement Arrangements.

Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Secretaries of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services shall consider proposing regulations or revising guidance, to the extent permitted by law and supported by sound policy, to increase the usability of HRAs, to expand employers’ ability to offer HRAs to their employees, and to allow HRAs to be used in conjunction with nongroup coverage.

Sec. 5. Public Comment.

The Secretaries shall consider and evaluate public comments on any regulations proposed under sections 2 through 4 of this order.

Within 180 days of the date of this order, and every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Labor and the Federal Trade Commission, shall provide a report to the President that:

(a) details the extent to which existing State and Federal laws, regulations, guidance, requirements, and policies fail to conform to the policies set forth in section 1 of this order; and

(b) identifies actions that States or the Federal Government could take in furtherance of the policies set forth in section 1 of this order.

Sec. 7. General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 12, 2017

Implications & Actions

The impact of this and other Executive Orders and other Presidential actions depend upon what actions, if any, the agencies determine they are allowed by law to take and how those changes are implemented. Concerned persons and organizations should begin preparing input to the agencies and monitoring and commenting on proposals and other guidance to help shape the outcome.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. is preparing initial analysis of this Executive Order and will be closely monitoring and updating this analysis. Follow up to learn more and stay abreast of new developments.

About The Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service as a management consultant, business coach and consultant and policy strategist as well through her leadership participation in professional and civic organizations such her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association; Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Gulf Coast TEGE Council Exempt Organization Coordinator; a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; former board member and Vice President of the Managed Care Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; a member and policy adviser to the National Physicians’ Council for Healthcare Policy; current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section; ABA Real Property Probate and Trust (RPTE) Section former Employee Benefits Group Chair, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, and Defined Contribution Committee Co-Chair, past Welfare Benefit Committee Chair and current Employee Benefits Group Fiduciary Responsibility Committee Co-Chair, Substantive and Group Committee member, Membership Committee member and RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council; past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a former member of the Board of Directors, Treasurer, Member and Continuing Education Chair of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Read Trump Health Care Executive Order | 105(h), ACA, Affordable Care Act, Association Health Plan, Brokers, Civil Rights, Claims Administration, Corporate Compliance, EBSA, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Excise Taxes, Fiduciary Responsibility, FLSA, Form 5500, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, Health Care Reform, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, health reform, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Revenue Code, IRC, MEWA, Payroll Tax, Premium Subsidies, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax Credit, Uncategorized, Union, Wellness, Wellness Programs, Worker Classification, Workforce, zane benefits | Tagged: ACA, Affordable Care Act, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, employment law, ERISA, executive, Health Care, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health Plan, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Labor, Labor Department, Managed Care, Medical Coverage, Overtime, Tax, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Dealing With HR, Benefits & Other Headaches From Equifax and Other Data Breach

October 6, 2017

As businesses continue to struggle to comply with the growing plethora of federal and state laws mandating data security, the identity theft and cyber security epidemic keeps growing.

As human resources and other business leaders work to guard their own data and respond to employee demands for assistance in responding to breaches of their personal financial and other data, this weeks’ announcement that embattled credit monitoring giant Equifax has been awarded the exclusive contract to provide taxpayer identification and fraud prevention services to the Internal Revenue Service has many questioning whether these investments are futile.

The IRS’ announcement comes despite the September 7, 2017 announcement by Equifax of a data breach of its records impacting sensitive personal information of millions of consumers including:

The names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses and, in some instances, driver’s license numbers of an estimated 143 million U.S. consumers;
Credit card numbers for approximately 209,000 U.S. consumers,
Certain dispute documents with personal identifying information for approximately 182,000 U.S. consumers,and
Personal information for certain U.K. and Canadian consumers.

The huge breach already was creating many headaches for many businesses and their human resources departments before the IRS announced the award of the contract to Equifax. Due to the massive size of the breach, mist companies have been required to respond to concerns of workers impacted directly by the breach as well as requests of employees and identity theft protection companies that the business consider offering cybersecurity protection for employees or customers.

Beyond helping their workforce understand and cope with the news, many businesses and employee benefit plans also face the added headache of needing to investigate and respond to concerns about their own potential responsibilities to provide breach notification or take other actions. This added headache arises due to their or their plans’ use of Equifax or vendors utilizing Equifax to run employee or vendor background checks or carry out internal employee or employee benefit plan, customer or other business activities. These involvements often give rise to duties to conduct investigations and potentially provide notification or other responses to employees, applicants, benefit plan members, contractors or customers whose data may have been impacted under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Fiduciary Responsibility rules or various other federal and state laws and regulations, vendor contracts or their own data privacy or security policies.

When notification is recommended or required, human resources and other business leaders also have to consider if modifications should be considered to standard protocols recommended to data breach victims. Notification and registration as an identity theft victim with Equifax long has been a standard part of the federal and state government recommended protocol for recommended to consumers impacted by identity theft or other data breaches. See,e.g., IRS Taxpayer Guide To Identity Theft. Although government agencies as of yet have not changed this recommendation to remove Equifax reporting, many consumers and others view reporting to Equifax as akin to the fox watching the hen house. Consequently, employers and other parties helping consumers respond to the breach often receive push back or questions from consumers about the appropriateness and security reporting to Equifax in light of its breach.

Beyond evaluating and handling their own legal responsibilities to investigate and deal with any breach impacting their data, employers and other business leaders also likely are or should consider what claims against Equifax, other vendors and business partners involved with Equifax and their own liability insurers are available and warranted to help cover the costs and potential liabilities for the business arising from the breach and it’s fall out.

As employers and other businesses work through these issues, They should keep in mind that the fallout is likely to continue for years and be further complicated by past and subsequent breaches impacting other governmental and private organizations. Human resources, employee benefits and other businesses and their leaders can expect to experience challenges dealing with fraudulent uses of misappropriated information as well as demands that they tighten up their background check, data security and usage and other practices and documentation to mitigate risks from the compromised data.

Human resources, employee benefits and other business leaders need to secure the assistance of counsel experienced in guiding their organizations through these and other challenges.

About The Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service as a management consultant, business coach and consultant and policy strategist as well through her leadership participation in professional and civic organizations such her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association; Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Gulf Coast TEGE Council Exempt Organization Coordinator; a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; former board member and Vice President of the Managed Care Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; a member and policy adviser to the National Physicians’ Council for Healthcare Policy; current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section; ABA Real Property Probate and Trust (RPTE) Section former Employee Benefits Group Chair, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, and Defined Contribution Committee Co-Chair, past Welfare Benefit Committee Chair and current Employee Benefits Group Fiduciary Responsibility Committee Co-Chair, Substantive and Group Committee member, Membership Committee member and RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council; past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a former member of the Board of Directors, Treasurer, Member and Continuing Education Chair of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

▪RAISE Act Immigration Reforms Touted As “Giving Americans A Raise”

▪Health Clinic At Houston Convention Center, Other HHS Help For Hurricane Harvey Victims

▪IRS Updates Amounts Used To Calculate 2017 Obamacare Individual Individual Shares Responsibility Tax Penalties

▪DB Plan Sponsors Check Out New Bifurcated Distribution Model Amendmentsy

▪U.S. News Names 2017-2018 “Best” Hospitals; Patient Usefulness Starts With Metholodogy Understanding

▪Use Lessons Of Past Mistakes or Injustice To Build Better Future

▪Prepare For Turnover, Other Challenges From Rising Workforce Competition

▪Employers, Health Plans Should Brace For Tightened Federal Mental Health Coverage Mandate Disclosure And Enforcement

▪Withholding Calculator Tool Helps Workers Figure Withholding

▪Better Preparing U.S. Workers To Fill Your Jobs

▪SCOTUS Ruling Bars Many State Arbitration Agreement Restrictions

▪$2.4M HIPAA Settlement Message Warns Health Plans & Providers Against Sharing Medical Info With Media, Others

Comments Off on Dealing With HR, Benefits & Other Headaches From Equifax and Other Data Breach | Banking, board of directors, Brokers, Civil Monetary Penalties, Claims, Claims Administration, compliance, conflict of interest, Consumer Protection, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Cybercrime, Data Breach, Data Security, defined benefit plan, Defined Benefit Plans, defined contribution plan, Defined Contribution Plans, directors, E-Verify, EBSA, Educational Privacy, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, Employment Tax, ERISA, ESOP, Excise Tax, FACTA, Fair Credit Reporting Act, FICA, fiduciary duty, Fiduciary Responsibility, Financial Security, Form 5500, GINA, Government Contractors, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Hiring, HR, Human Resources, I-9, Identity Theft, Income Tax, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Internal Revenue Code, Internet, IRC, Labor Management Relations, Leadership, Management, Managment, Patient Empowerment, Payroll Tax, pension plan, Physician, Plan Admistrator, Privacy, Professional Liability, Protected Health Information, Provider, Reporting & Disclosure, retirement plan, Retirement Plans, Retirements, Risk Management, Security, Tax, Tax Credit, Tax Qualification, Technology, third party administrators, visas, Workforce | Tagged: ADA, Corporate Compliance, Data Breach, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, employment law, Equifax, ERISA, Health Care, Health Insurance, HIPAA, Human Resources, Insurance, Insurer, Labor Department, Privacy, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Tax, Technology, wage and hour, Worker Classification | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Updates Amounts Used To Calculate 2017 Obamacare Individual Individual Shares Responsibility Tax Penalties

August 21, 2017

Individual Americans that don’t maintain their and their dependents’ enrollment in at least minimum essential coverage in a health program meeting the requirements of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act commonly referred to as “Obama Care” still generally should expect to pay individual shared responsibility tax penalties imposed by Obamacare.

Despite campaign promises to quickly repeal or reform Obamacare, the Republican controlled Congress has been unable to pass legislation repealing the individual tax penalty or other Obamacare coverage mandate related rules. Moreover, contrary to the impression widely held by many Americans that President Trump’s January 20 Executive Order protects uncovered individuals from the tax imposed under Internal Revenue Code Section 5001A, the Internal Revenue Service still plans to enforce and collect the tax. See here. Consequently, Internal Revenue Code Section 5001A still generally requires uncovered taxpayers to pay the individual shared responsibility payment.

This means that taxpayers not enrolled in minimum essential coverage or otherwise exempt from the individual responsibility payment need to be prepared to pay the tax.

In anticipation of enforcement of the individual shared responsibility tax, the Internal Revenue Service just set the monthly national average premium for qualified health plans that have a bronze level of coverage offered through Exchanges at $272 per individual and the maximum monthly national average premium for qualified health plans with a bronze level of coverage offered through Exchanges at $1,360 for a shared responsibility family with five or more members. The Internal Revenue Service intends that these amounts will be used to calculate individual shared responsibility tax penalties for 2017. The updated amounts are published in Rev. Proc. 2017-48

In general, the individual responsibility tax equals the lesser of (1) the sum of the monthly penalty amounts, or (2) the sum of the monthly national average bronze plan premiums for the shared responsibility family. See § 1.5000A-4(a). The monthly national average bronze plan premium means, for a month for which a shared responsibility payment is imposed, 1/12 of the annual national average premium for qualified health plans that (1) have a bronze level of coverage, (2) would provide coverage for the taxpayer’s shared responsibility family members, and (3) are offered through Exchanges for plan years beginning in a calendar year with or within which the taxable year ends. §§ 5000A(c)(1)(B) and 1.5000A-4(c). For this purpose, “shared responsibility family” means, for a month in a taxable year, all nonexempt individuals for whom the taxpayer and the taxpayer’s spouse, if the taxpayer is married and files a joint return with the spouse, are liable for the shared responsibility payment under § 5000A for that taxable year. See § 1.5000A-1(d)(17).

Taxpayers who are not enrolled in the necessary health coverage to meet the Obamacare health coverage mandate should evaluate their shared responsibility tax penalty exposure and weigh whether it makes more sense to enroll in qualifying health coverage or prepare to pay the tax.

About The Author

Recognized as “Legal Leader™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in both Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law, a “Texas Top Lawyer,” and an “AV-Preeminent” and “Top Rated Lawyer” by Martindale-Hubble, singled out as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in employee benefits by D Magazine; Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely recognized for her nearly 30 years’ of work and pragmatic thought leadership, publications and training on health coverage and health care, health plan and employee benefits, workforce and related regulatory and other compliance, performance management, risk management, product and process development, public policy, operations and other concerns.

Throughout her legal and consulting career, Ms. Stamer has drawn recognition for combining extensive knowledge and experience with her talents as an insightful innovator and problem solver when advising, representing and defending employer and other plan sponsors, insurers, fiduciaries, insurers, electronic and other technology, plan administrators and other service providers, governments and others about health coverage, benefit program design, funding, documentation, administration, data security and use, contracting, plan, public and regulatory reforms and enforcement, and other risk management and operations matters as well as for her work and thought leadership on a broad range of other health, employee benefits, human resources and other workforce, insurance, tax, compliance and other matters. Her experience encompasses leading and supporting the development and defense of innovative new programs, practices and solutions; advising and representing clients on routine plan establishment, plan documentation and contract drafting and review, administration, change and other compliance and operations crisis prevention and response, compliance and risk management audits and investigations, enforcement actions and other dealings with the US Congress, Departments of Labor, Treasury, Health & Human Services, Federal Trade Commission, Justice, state legislatures, attorneys general, insurance, labor, worker’s compensation, and other agencies and regulators, She also provides strategic and other supports clients in defending litigation as lead strategy counsel, special counsel and as an expert witness.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares shared her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organization including her involvement as Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE; Coalition on Patient Empowerment, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, Past Group Chair, current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Welfare Committee Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and current RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Counsel, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposia chair and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry, human resources, employment and other privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, the Society of Professional Benefits Administrators, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients, serves on the faculty and planning committee of many workshops, seminars, and symposia, and on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see CynthiaStamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via email to here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates and notices about other upcoming Solutions Law Press™ events, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here. For important information concerning this communication, see here.

NOTICE: Any party accessing or using any content obtained from or through Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ acknowledges and agrees that any and all programs, publications, statements and materials presented or published by Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ and any statements or other contents made or contained therein are for general informational and educational purposes only. They are generic in nature and not tailored or intended to be relied upon by any person, business, entity or other party for purposes for determining the legal, financial or other appropriateness, defensibility, suitability, outcome or consequences of any strategy, action, course of action, or any other facts, circumstances, event or conduct. Users of these resources are responsible at all times for independently evluating the suitability of any content, materials, tools or other materials or information accessed from or through Solutions Law Press, Inc. directly or indirectly.

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ and its authors and contributors do not represent or warrant in any form or manner, and expressly disclaim and deny the appropriateness of the use or reliance of any person or entity on any content, tools or resources accessed or obtained from or through Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ for any general or particular use or purpose by any party under any circumstances.

Likewise, they do not establish an attorney-client relationship or other fiduciary, contractual or other relationship between Solutions Law Press, Inc. and/or any of its authors or contributors and any other party. They are not, and do not serve as a substitute for legal, accounting, tax or other advice. They don’t create or otherwise give rise to any duty, obligation, responsibility on behalf of Solutions Law Press, Inc™ or any provider or offeree of content, tools or services to any party.

Parties accessing or using any of Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The publisher and the author expressly disclaim all liability for this content and any responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Comments Off on IRS Updates Amounts Used To Calculate 2017 Obamacare Individual Individual Shares Responsibility Tax Penalties | 4980D, 4980H, 6039D, ACA, Affordable Care Act, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Excise Tax, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, Health Care Reform, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, health reform, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, insurers, Internal Revenue Code, IRC, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Premium Subsidies, Tax, Uncategorized | Tagged: ACA, Health Insurance, Health Plans, individual shared responsibility tax, Obamacare | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

RAISE Act Immigration Reforms Touted As “Giving Americans A Raise”

August 2, 2017

Employers operating in the United States (U.S.) should evaluate potential workforce and implications of immigration law reforms proposed in the revised The Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy Act (RAISE Act) reintroduced in the Senate by co-sponsors Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue with the announced backing of President Donald Trump earlier today (August 2, 2017).

Applauding the RAISE ACT as his preferred vehicle for implementing the “merit based” Green Card system he promised would be implemented during his Presidential campaign, President Trump said the RAISE Act reforms will “give Americans a raise” by creating a “skills-based immigration system that seeks to make America more competitive, raise wages for American workers, and create jobs” while also ensuring that “newcomers to our wonderful country will be assimilated, will succeed, and will achieve the American Dream.”

In pursuit of these goals, the RAISE Act would radically restructure U.S. rules to radically change the foreign workers and others eligible to qualify for work or other visas to enter the U.S., the procedures for their selection and other visa rules.

The centerpiece of these reforms are the RAISE Act’s proposal to replace the current permanent employment visa and lottery visa programs used to determine what foreign workers receive Green Cards to work in the U.S. with a “merit based system” under which a newly created “skills-based point system” would determine the workers eligible for selection to receive a work visa to work in the U.S. based upon listed “predictors of immigrant success and economic contribution.” Under the skills-based point system created by the RAISE Act, selection for inclusion in the pool of workers eligible to work in the U.S. would rank foreign workers seeking visas based on a merit-based point system created under the legislation.

Beyond these specific reforms to the worker visa programs, other proposed reforms that tighten the eligibility rules and requirements for granting visas to noncitizen family members of U.S. citizens and foreign workers also can be expected to impact the recruitment and employment of foreign workers. For this reason, employers and workers concerned with the recruitment of foreign labor to work in the United States generally will want to carefully evaluate all of these proposed reforms.

Proposed Direct Reforms To Work Visa Programs

The RAISE Act’s strategy for reforming the worker visa program focuses on the replacement of the current permanent employment visa and lottery programs with a newly created “skills-based points system” for granting work-eligible visas similar to systems used by Canada and Australia. Concurrent with the deployment of the new skills-based point system, the RAISE Act provides for the elimination of the existing diversity visa lottery program, pursuant to which the U.S. currently grants via lottery selection 50,000 visas annually in a lottery to applicants from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States, with no regard to the applicants’ skills.

As proposed under RAISE Act §5, the U.S. would issue up to 140,000 employment-based visas annually to applicants selected by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services twice a year to receive an invitation to file full applications and undergo security vetting from the pool of applicants scoring the highest points the new skills-based points system created under the RAISE Act.

Under the RAISE Act reforms, a new skills-based points system would be used to prioritize applicants for visa eligibility based on the following “predictors of immigrant success and economic contribution:”

Education,
English-language ability,
High-paying job offers,
Age,
Record of extraordinary achievement, and
Entrepreneurial initiative.

The RAISE Act would require that an applicant score at least 30-points to eligible to qualify for inclusion in the pool of applicants eligible to be considered for possible selection to receive an employment-based visa or “Green Card.” Subject to this floor, applicants would be selected for invitation to complete the application process and undergo a security check based on their score relative to other applicants.

Immigrant households arriving through the points system are not eligible for federal means tested benefits for a period of 5 years.

Section 5(e) of the RAISE Act requires an annual statistical report on the skills-based points system while Section 5(f) requires a quadrennial report to Congress recommending updates to the points system with the aim of improving the economy and enhancing working Americans’ wages.

Section 6 conditions naturalization on the sponsors of an immigrant fulfilling their obligation to reimburse the federal government for benefits used by the immigrant, as required under current law.

Proposed Changes To Immigration Preferences for Family Members of U.S. Citizens & Residents

Beyond the direct reforms to the worker visa systems, the RAISE Act’s proposed changes to the preferences for granting visas to family members of U.S. citizens and residents also are likely to impact the recruitment and retention of foreign workers to fill positions in the United States by both narrowing to spouses and children the list of family members eligible to qualify as “family-sponsored immigrants” and tightening the requirements for parents of citizens and residents to qualify for visitors visa.

As proposed, the RAISE Act would keep, but narrow the availability of visas for “family-sponsored immigrants.” RAISE Act §4 would continue to allow preferences for spouses and minor children of U.S. residents but eliminate visa preferences for extended family and grown adult family members of U.S. residents. Along with narrowing the individuals that can qualify for visa preferences as family-sponsored immigrants, the RAISE Act also caps the allowable number of “family-sponsored immigrants” eligible for admission per fiscal year to 88,000 reduced by the number of certain previously admitted family-sponsored immigrants not obtaining alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence status within a specified period remaining in the United States.

Along with this narrowing of the applicability of preferences for family-sponsored immigrants, the RAISE Act also proposes to create a temporary visa under which elderly parents of U.S. residents could come to the United States for a limited period of time conditional upon the fulfillment by the resident of certain conditions. This newly created nonimmigrant classification for alien parents of adult United States Citizens would be conditional upon the sponsoring nonimmigrant child being at least 21 years old, legally resident in the U.S., responsible for the nonimmigrant parent’s support and for providing satisfactory proof that the sponsoring child maintains health insurance coverage for the parent at no cost to the parent. Furthermore, the parent receiving the visitor’s visa would not be authorized to be employed in the United States or eligible for any Federal, State, or local public benefit.

Proposed Cap on Offers Of Permanent Residency To Refugees

RAISE Act § 3 would caps the number of refugees granted permanent visas to the United States at 50,000 per year, in line with a 13-year average. It also requires the President to report the annual number of refugees admitted to the United States.

President, Sponsors Say Reforms Give U.S. Citizens “A Raise”

Joined by RAISE Act co-sponsors Senator Cotton and Senator Perdue for his Rose Garden announcement of support for enactment of the RAISE Act this morning, President Trump reaffirmed his campaign commitment to create “a merit-based immigration system that protects U.S. workers and taxpayers” that “demonstrates our compassion for struggling American families who deserve an immigration system that puts their needs first and that puts America first” while helping “ensure that newcomers to our wonderful country will be assimilated, will succeed, and will achieve the American Dream.

According to President Trump, “The RAISE Act — R-A-I-S-E — the RAISE Act will reduce poverty, increase wages, and save taxpayers billions and billions of dollars … by changing the way the United States issues Green Cards to nationals from other countries” to protect low skilled U.S. workers from unfair foreign immigrant competition by replacing a “low-skilled system” with a new points-based system for receiving a Green Card “that favors applicants who can speak English, financially support themselves and their families, and demonstrate skills that will contribute to our economy.”

President Trump also touted provisions of the RAISE Act for preventing new migrants and new immigrants from collecting welfare and other benefits upon entry to the country as protecting U.S. taxpayers.

Implications For Employers

The reforms proposed by the RAISE Act, if enacted as proposed are likely to impact U.S. based employers in a multitude of ways including, but not limited to the obvious changes in the selection and availability of foreign workers for employment in the United States.

Obviously, the proposed changes to the processes for selection and qualification of non-citizens will impact both the nature of the workers eligible for employment, and the procedures and timing of their availability. The emphasis on granting visas to higher skilled workers over those with lower skills likely will raise concerns for employers reliant upon lower skilled foreign labor. While the new point system is touted as preferring the recruitment of higher skilled workers, it remains to be seen whether the system actually will meet the workforce needs already expressed by a host of hi-tech and other U.S. businesses concerned about immigration reform. Meanwhile, employers recruiting foreign workers with family members also should anticipate that foreign workers may request or require assistance from their U.S. employer to fulfill newly imposed requirements that the worker provide health care coverage as a condition to his sponsorship of a parental visa or to address new government benefit eligibility exclusions included in the RAISE Act.

Beyond impacting the actual availability of foreign workers and their skill sets, it also is likely that the English-speaking and other preferences incorporated into the skills based point system proposed by the REACH Act also inevitably will necessitate some reconsideration if not actual reform of federal or state laws or regulations concerning nondiscrimination based on national origin, race or other civil rights laws that have been the basis of challenges to English language only workforce or other business rules. It remains to be seen how Congress and the Administration contemplates the new priority system will integrate with the employment and other federal and state laws that commonly are relied upon to protect foreign and English as a Second Language individuals against employment and other discrimination.

About The Author

Well-known for her extensive work with health, insurance, financial services, technology, energy, manufacturing, retail, hospitality, governmental and other highly regulated employers, her nearly 30 years’ of experience encompasses domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes. A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Reform project, Vice Chair of Policy of the American Bar Association International Section Life Sciences Committee and an active in a host of migration reform and other cross-border workforce, pandemic and other healthcare, education, ethics, cyber crime policy reforms within and outside the United States throughout her career, Ms. Stamer also has extensive experience working with domestic and foreign businesses on a host of immigration, workforce, compensation, benefits, privacy, and other compliance and management challenges arising in connection with the management and use of ex-pat and other global workforces by U.S. and foreign businesses.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service as a management consultant, business coach and consultant and policy strategist as well through her leadership participation in professional and civic organizations such her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association; Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Gulf Coast TEGE Council Exempt Organization Coordinator; a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; former board member and Vice President of the Managed Care Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; a member and policy adviser to the National Physicians’ Council for Healthcare Policy; current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section; ABA Real Property Probate and Trust (RPTE) Section former Employee Benefits Group Chair, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, and Defined Contribution Committee Co-Chair, past Welfare Benefit Committee Chair and current Employee Benefits Group Fiduciary Responsibility Committee Co-Chair, Substantive and Group Committee member, Membership Committee member and RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council; past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a former member of the Board of Directors, Treasurer, Member and Continuing Education Chair of the Southwest Benefits Association, the US-Mexico Chamber of Commerce and others.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on RAISE Act Immigration Reforms Touted As “Giving Americans A Raise” | Discrimination, E-Verify, EEOC, EEOC, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, English As A Second Language, h-2A Visa, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health plan, Health Plans, Hiring, HR, I-9, Immigration, Internal Controls, RAISE Act, Uncategorized, visas, Worker | Tagged: EEOC, ESL, Immigration, International, Migration, RAISE Act | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer To Moderate, Talk Medical CyberSecurity At 5/19 ISSA-LA IT Security Meedical Privacy Forum

May 12, 2017

Solutions Law Press, Inc. editor and attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will speak and moderate two key panel programs on health care privacy and data security scheduled at the Healthcare Privacy & Security Form hosted on May 19, 2017 by the Information Security Systems Association of Los Angeles County (ISSA-LA) as a component of its 9th Annual ISSA-LA Information Security Summit. The presentations of Ms. Stamer and others at the conference are particularly timely coming on the heels of the May 12 Cyber alerts to U.S. health industry and other businesses about the urgent need to defend against the spread of an epidemic international malware threat targeting U.S. healthcare and other businesses. See Urgent WannaCry Ransomware Cyber Warning Issued; Alert: Guard Health E-Mail, Other IT Against WannaCry Malware Attack.

The Medical Privacy & Security Summit is part of the 9th Annual ISSA-LA Information Security Summit scheduled for May 18-19, 2017 at the Universal City Hilton in Los Angeles. Recognized as a premier information security education and networking event, the Summit is expected to bring together 1000 or more health industry and other IT and InfoSec executives, leaders, analysts, and practitioners to learn from the experts, exchange ideas with their peers, and enjoy conversations with the community.

The Healthcare Privacy & Security Forum offered for the 5^th year as a component of the annual Summit on May 19 specifically focuses on leading challenges, issues and opportunities confronted by health industry privacy and security professionals and their organizations. Ms. Stamer has served on the steering committee, moderator and popular faculty member for the 2017 Forum for the 5^th consecutive year. During the 2017 Forum, she will moderate and speak on two panels:

“Finding & Negotiating The Mine Fields: CISO, CIO & Privacy Officer’s Playbook for Promoting Compliance & Security Without Getting Fired,” a luncheon interactive panel discussion with the audience exploring the challenging mission CISOs, CIOs and Privacy Officers face to ensure their healthcare, financial and other critical information, data and systems continue to support the patient care and operating functions of their organizations, while at the same time defending these systems, operations and their sensitive, but mission critical data against malicious or innocent misappropriation, use, access or destruction; and
The closing panel on “What Initiatives Are on the Horizon in Healthcare, and How Can We Secure Them?”, which will explore likely future emerging privacy and security threats and technologies, regulatory challenges and enforcement, and other trends that Privacy and Security professionals are likely to face and tips and strategies for preparing to leverage these likely new opportunities and manage new challenges.

Register or get the full schedule of programs and other events scheduled at the Healthcare Privacy & Security Forum specifically along with the overall Information Security Summit here.

About Ms. Stamer

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent (Top 1%) rated practicing attorney and management consultant, health industry public policy advocate, widely published author and lecturer, recognized for her nearly 30 years’ of work on health industry and other privacy and data security and other health care, health benefit, health policy and regulatory affairs and other health industry legal and operational as a LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® “LEGAL LEADER™ and “Top Rated Lawyer,” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; a D Magazine “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in the fields of “Health Care,” “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits” and “Business and Commercial Law,” a Fellow in the American Bar Foundation, the Texas Bar Foundation and the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel.

Scribe for ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with OCR for many years, Ms. Stamer is well-known for her extensive work and leadership throughout her career on HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, IRC and other tax, Social Security, GLB, trade secret, physician and other medical confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security and data breach and other information privacy and data security rules and concerns. Ms. Stamer has worked extensively throughout her career with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers and other plan sponsors, banks, insurers and other financial institutions, and others on trade secret confidentiality, privacy, data security and other risk management and compliance including design, establishment, documentation, implementation, audit and enforcement of policies, procedures, systems and safeguards, drafting and negotiation of business associate, chain of custody, confidentiality, and other contracting; risk assessments, audits and other risk prevention and mitigation; investigation, reporting, mitigation and resolution of known or suspected breaches, violations or other incidents; and defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR, FTC, state attorneys’ general and other federal or state agencies, other business partners, patients and others; reporting known or suspected violations; commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance and other regulatory affairs, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns.

Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, employers, payroll, staffing, recruitment, insurance and financial services, health and other technology and other vendors, and others.

Author of a multitude of highly-regarded works and training programs on HIPAA and other data security, privacy and use published by BNA, the ABA and other premier legal industry publishers In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also speaks extensively and conducts training on health care and other privacy and data security and many other matters Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

Beyond these involvements, Ms. Stamer also is active in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. Through these and other involvements, she helps develop and build solutions, build consensus, garner funding and other resources, manage compliance and other operations, and take other actions to identify promote tangible improvements in health care and other policy and operational areas.

For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly by e-mail here or by telephone at (469) 767-8872. ©2017 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Limited, non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on Stamer To Moderate, Talk Medical CyberSecurity At 5/19 ISSA-LA IT Security Meedical Privacy Forum | ADA, ARRA, board of directors, Brokers, Child Safety, Civil Monetary Penalties, compliance, Consumer Protection, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Cybercrime, Data Breach, Data Security, EBSA, Educational Privacy, Electronic Medical Record, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, EMR, ERISA, FACTA, Fair Credit Reporting Act, FICA, fiduciary duty, FINRA, Government Contractors, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA, HR, Human Resources, Identity Theft, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Internet, Management, Mental Health, officers, Physician, Plan Admistrator, Privacy, Professional Liability, Protected Health Information, Provider, Public Policy, Security, Technology, third party administrators, Uncategorized | Tagged: Cyber Security, Cybercrime, Data Security, Information Security, IT, medical data, Medical Privacy, medical security, Protected Health Information, speech | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

SHOP Marketplace Still Health Coverage Option For Small Employers; All Employers Should Confirm Health Plan Compliance

May 10, 2017

While Congress continues to debate the future of the Obamacare health reforms and its exchanges, the Department of Health & Human Services is reminding employers with less than 50 employees that wish to offer group health coverage for their employees to check out their coverage options offered the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Marketplace established as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Before or when offering health coverage for employees or their dependents, employers and their management should confirm they fully understand and appropriately arrange for fulfillment of all applicable federal, contractual and other requirements to avoid unfortunate and often expensive liabilities.

The SHOP Marketplace is intended to offer an opportunity for for small employers who want to provide health and dental insurance to their employees. Use of the SHOP Marketplace to obtain coverage may be an option for an employer if it is a business or non-profit organization with 50 or fewer full-time equivalent employees (FTEs). An employer that qualifies to get group health coverage through the SHOP doesn’t have to wait for an annual enrollment period; it can start offering SHOP insurance to your employees any time of year by completing the enrollment process by the applicable deadline prior to the first day of the month that the employer wants to start offering coverage through the SHOP.

In addition to the option to buy coverage through the SHOP, employers with 25 or fewer employees also may be eligible to use the Small Employer Health Care Credit created by the ACA to help defray the costs of providing this coverage to their qualifying employees. For instance, Monday, May 15 is the sign up deadline for small employers and nonprofit employees interested in obtaining small group health plan coverage for their employees through the the SHOP Marketplace beginning on June 1. See HealthCare.gov/Small-Business to enroll your small business or non-profit employees or get more details.

While many excellent reasons may exist for a business to offer group health coverage for qualifying employees, all employers regardless of size considering offering group health coverage obtained through the SHOP or other sources should keep in mind that employers that establish and maintain group health coverage, the group health plans they establish and the company or persons with discretionary authority or responsibility for the maintenance, management or administration of these programs or their plans are required to comply with a variety of federal tax, labor and other rules.

Businesses and their owners or management leaders making these decisions should confirm that they fully understand these responsibilities and take appropriate steps to ensure their fulfillment before establishing or maintaining a group health plan to avoid exposing their business, its management or owners or others to unexpected and often substantial liabilities that can result from violation of these requirements. While small employers plans sometimes qualify for some relief from a few of these requirements, depending on their size, the majority of these federal rules apply to most if not all group health plans. Furthermore, businesses sponsoring these programs and their leaders involved in deciding whether and what health coverage to offer for employees and their dependents should not presume that their organization, the resulting plan or its fiduciaries will fulfill these requirements simply by purchasing coverage through the SHOP Marketplace, directly from an insurer, or with the assistance of a broker or consultant. Fulfillment of applicable requirements generally requires that sponsoring employers and individuals within the management responsible for or appointed to oversee the program to take other steps. The scope of responsibility and resulting liability to a sponsoring employer and members of its ownership or management also typically are impacted by the plan design and contracts used to establish and maintain the program, its funding, and various other factors. These factors generally include contractual language in insurance, consulting or brokerage, administrative services and other contracts presented by vendors for use in purchasing and maintaining the program that often shift responsibility for many duties an employer otherwise might assume would be born by the vendor. For these and other reasons, most businesses and their leadership will want to consider arranging for their proposed program and its associated contracts and arrangements to be reviewed by legal counsel experienced in group health plan and associated labor, tax and other laws and arrangements.

About The Author

Well-known for her extensive work with health, insurance, financial services, technology, energy, manufacturing, retail, hospitality and governmental employers, her nearly 30 years’ of experience encompasses domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organization including her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association; Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Gulf Coast TEGE Council Exempt Organization Coordinator; a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; former board member and Vice President of the Managed Care Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; a member and advisor to the National Physicians’ Council for Healthcare Policy; current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section; a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group; immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and current RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council; past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a former member of the Board of Directors, Treasurer, Member and Continuing Education Chair of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposia chair and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on human resources, labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation, occupational safety and health, and other regulatory and operational risk management. Examples of her many highly regarded publications on these matters include the “Texas Payday Law” Chapter of Texas Employment Law, as well as thousands of other publications, programs and workshops these and other concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | employee, Employer, Employers, Employment, HR, Human Resources, Labor Management Relations, Leadership, Managment, MSHA, NLRA, Uncategorized | Tagged: Labor Law, labor-management relations, NLRA, Trump Administration | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employers Review Health Plans Now To Avoid Excise Taxes & Other Current Law Plan Risks & Ready For Health Reform

April 25, 2017

While Congress and the Trump Administration continue to ponder and debate what if anything to do with the health care reforms of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), employer and other health plan sponsors, health plan insurers, plan fiduciaries and others responsible for health plan design, administration or funding must take steps to verify their past and continuing compliance with the ACA and other federal mandates while laying the groundwork to respond quickly to any eventual reforms.

Regardless of what, if anything, the existing Congress or the Trump Administration does to repeal or reform the ACA or other federal health plan rules, all health plan sponsors, insurers, fiduciaries and administrators should act to mitigate their substantial and ever-growing health plan exposures by arranging for an independent compliance audit of their health plan terms, materials and operations for potential uncorrected past or current violations of the 40 federal mandates covered by the Form 8928 reporting and associated Internal Revenue Code excise tax liability exposure, as well as other applicable plan liabilities under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the Social Security Act, the Internal Revenue Code and other federal laws within open statute of limitation periods.

The cost, complexity and riskiness of health plan sponsorship and administration has grown exponentially over the past two decades. Thanks to the ACA and the continuous stream of other federal laws and regulations implemented over the past 20 years, sponsoring employers, as well as their health plans and those responsible as fiduciaries for administering, funding and insuring these programs now face huge costs, responsibilities and liabilities. While the ACA substantially expanded the federal health plan mandates and liabilities, the ACA is not the lone cause and its amendment or repeal alone won’t fully resolve these risks prospectively or retrospectively insulate sponsoring employers, their plans or their fiduciaries and insurers from the liabilities and costs of compliance issues occurring before Congress repeals or amends the ACA.

Of particular note for employer and other sponsors of group health plans are the self-reporting and excise tax self-assessment and payment requirements for employers coupled with the companion responsibilities and liabilities fiduciaries, plan administrators and others face under these federal mandates make it important that employers and others sponsoring group health plans and their management or other leaders overseeing or participating in plan design or vendor selection, plan administration or other plan related activities get advice and help from qualified legal counsel experienced in health plan matters:

To conduct an independent compliance review and risk assessment of their health plans,
To recommend and assist in the performance of recommended steps to correct or mitigate risks from any potential past or existing violations or other exposures that have arisen or are likely to arise from existing contractual, plan design or other health plan actions;
To explore the potential advisability of taking additional steps to prevent or mitigate health plan associated compliance or other risks going forward whether or not health reform happens; and
To begin preparing to take advantage of any impending health care reforms by evaluating the requirements and procedures that existing plan terms, contracts, vendors and arrangements are likely to require to implement changes necessary to respond to any reforms as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Spring Clean Your Health Plan House

Since any reforms eventually enacted are unlikely to retroactively eliminate liability of employers, their health plans or fiduciaries for violations of federal health plan mandates, health plan terms, or associated contracts occurring before the effective date of reform, employer and other health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers and administrators should begin by identifying, cleaning up any existing, unresolved, and preventing any new health plan compliance problems.

While overall compliance with applicable federal mandates and health terms generally should be the goal, employers or others sponsoring group health plans need to be particularly concerned with their responsibilities and potential liability under the Internal Revenue Code to self-identify, report and pay stiff excise tax penalties of $100 per day per violation of any of 40 federal health plan mandates imposed by the ACA and various other federal laws when the sponsor files its annual tax return.

This employer or other plan sponsor excise tax liability generally arises in addition to the liabilities that plans, their fiduciaries and their insures face for failing to administer and pay benefits under the plans in accordance with the listed 40 federal mandates, whether actually written into or imputed by operation of law into the plan, the costs of which sponsoring employers often will bear responsibility for funding in whole or in part pursuant to their contractual liabilities under the health plan contracts, as plan fiduciaries or both. See, Businesses Must Confirm & Clean Up Health Plan ACA & Other Compliance Following Supreme Court’s King v. Burwell　Decision;　 More Work For Employers, Benefit Plans Following SCOTUS Same-Sex Marriage　Ruling; 2016 & 2017 Health Plan Budgets, Workplans Should Anticipate Expected Changes To　SBCs.

Sponsors and plan fiduciaries also need to be concerned about other risks beyond sponsoring employers’ excise tax liability exposures for sponsoring a non-compliant group health plan. Among other things, group health plans and their fiduciaries can face audits, litigation and enforcement actions by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other health plans for improperly coordinating plan claims with other coverage as well as lawsuits from covered persons, their health care providers or other beneficiaries, the Department of Labor and CMS, or others seeking to enforce rights to benefits, penalties in the case of CMS or the Department of Labor, and attorneys’ fees and other costs of enforcement. Beyond benefit litigation, the employer or representatives of the sponsoring employer, if any, named or acting as fiduciaries, insurer or third-party service providers named or acting as fiduciaries, also could face fiduciary lawsuits seeking damages, equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs of court, for failing to prudently administer the plan in accordance with its terms and the law brought by covered persons or their beneficiaries or the DOL as well as fiduciary breach penalties if the fiduciary breach action is brought by the DOL. If the plan fails to comply with claims and appeals procedures or other ERISA notification requirements, parties named or functioning as the plan administrator for this purpose also could face penalties of up to $125 per violation per day in the case of enforcement actions brought by participants and beneficiaries or $1025 per violation per day in the case of actions brought by the DOL, plus attorneys’ fees and other costs of enforcement. Unless the employer previously took steps to draft its health plan documents and negotiate its vendor contracts to provide otherwise, most vendor provided plans typically assign these liabilities to the sponsoring employer or a member of its management by naming that employer or the management person the “plan administrator” and/or “named fiduciary” responsible for those activities and liabilities, requiring the plan sponsor to indemnify the vendor for costs and liabilities arising from the performance of actions under the plan even when those actions don’t comply with ERISA fiduciary or other legal standards applicable to the performance of those duties under the plan, or both, and other contractual or plan provisions that shift liabilities and costs to the plan sponsor.

To mitigate their exposure to these liabilities and costs, employer or other health plan sponsors should consider arranging for an independent legal compliance and risk assessment of their health plan, its terms, materials and operations to help mitigate the sponsoring employer’s exposure to self-identify, self-report on IRS Form 2848 and pay the $100 per day per violation excise tax liability now generally required under the Internal Revenue Code for any such violation.

Beyond mitigating a plan sponsor’s Form 8928 reporting and associated excise tax exposures, an independent compliance audit also can mitigate other risks and exposures for the sponsoring employer, the plan and its fiduciaries, the cost of which the sponsoring employer often bears financial responsibility for funding pursuant to the contractual indemnification and funding obligations entered into in connection with the establishment and maintenance of the plan, the fiduciary role, if any, of the employer with respect to the plan, or both. Accordingly, a timely and appropriate review is likely to help mitigate other risks and liabilities such as:

Fiduciary liability that can arising from failing to administer the plan in accordance with these and other federal health plan mandates under ERISA;
Unanticipated benefit costs and liabilities, which for self-insured plans are likely to be particularly burdensome if compliance issues are not identified and corrected before applicable deadlines to pay and submit claims to the stop-loss or other insurer expire (usually at or shortly after the close of a plan year or if earlier, contract termination);
Benefit costs and penalties for wrongful coordination of benefits with Medicare, Medicaid, DOD and certain other plans or coverage in violation of Secondary Payer and other mandates; and
Costs of defending and settling audits, litigation and other government or participant enforcement actions.

Since prompt self-audit and correction can help mitigate all of these liabilities, business leaders of employers sponsoring health plans should act promptly to engage experienced legal counsel experienced with health plan laws and operations to advise the plan sponsor about how to audit their group health plan’s plan documents, materials and operations for compliance with these and other federal health plan rules within the scope of attorney-client privilege while managing tax, financial, benefit and fiduciary liability exposures to deal with potential compliance concerns that the review might discover as well as mitigate risks that could result if the audit is improperly structured or conducted.

Prepare To Respond To Potential Health Reform & Other Health Plan Improvement

Beyond identifying and addressing existing compliance concerns and other risks associated with prior or existing plan design or administration, most employer and other sponsors also will want to review the health plan document and materials and associated insurance, third-party administration and other health plan vendor contracts pursuant to which the health plan is established, maintained and administered to identify requirements and opportunities to respond quickly to make changes when and if health care reform happens as well as for other opportunities to mitigate existing risks and costs.

As most commentators expect some type of regulatory or statutory health plan relief to result from the current health care reform debates in Congress, employer and other health plan sponsors desiring to accelerate their ability to take advantage of any forthcoming relief should familiarize themselves with the procedures required under existing plan terms, contracts and rules to modify their programs in response to these changes. Almost certainly, plan sponsors should anticipate needing to adopt some amendments to plan documents, summary plan descriptions and other materials to take advantage of any legislative or statutory relief. Plan sponsors also need to keep in mind that their vendor contracts with administrators, group, stop-loss or captive insurers, and other vendors likely also will require the plan sponsor to notify and negotiate with its vendors to secure their agreement before adopting these changes to avoid violating those vendor agreements and prudently to arrange for appropriate implementation and administration of the modified plan design and terms. Identification of the contractual and plan requirements and commencement of discussions with the relevant vendors can help expedite the planning and implementation of any desired plan modifications the plan sponsor elects to make in response to any statutory or regulatory reforms.

While preparing for anticipated health care reforms, most plan sponsors also will want to review their plans and vendor contracts for other potential opportunities to mitigate risks or expenses. With respect to existing and future liability mitigation, each plan sponsor generally should carefully assess the allocation of fiduciary responsibility and liability between the sponsoring employer, members of its management or other workforce team, and vendors to identify potential areas where the contract may assign named or other plan administrator or other fiduciary status and liability to the plan sponsor or a member of its workforce for duties outsourced to a vendor. Sponsoring employers or their management may want to initiate negotiations with the vendor to reallocate the fiduciary role and responsibility to the party responsible for performance of the specific duties, enhancement of performance guarantees, indemnifications and insurance coverage for proper performance of the outsourced duties by the vendor in accordance with the plan terms, including any mandates imposed by the ACA and other federal laws in form and operation, and other safeguards or, if the vendor is unwilling to consider these changes, begin searching for a replacement vendor willing to provide better accountability for its actions with respect to the services it is hired to perform.

Except in rare circumstances where the sponsoring employer has carefully contracted to transfer fiduciary liability to its insurer or administrator and otherwise does not exercise or have a fiduciary obligation to exercise discretion or control over these responsibilities, employers sponsoring group health plans that violate federal mandates like the out-of-pocket limit often ultimately bear some or all of these liabilities even if the violation actually was committed by a plan vendor hired to administer the program either because the plan documents name the employer as the “named fiduciary” or “plan administrator” under ERISA, the employer or a member of its management named in the plan generally bears fiduciary responsibility functionally for selection or oversight of the culpable party, the employer signed a contract, resolution or plan document obligating the employer to indemnify the service provider for the liability, or a combination of these reasons.

Since prompt self-audit and correction can help mitigate all of these liabilities as well as help to preserve access to stop-loss or other reinsurance coverage, if any, applicable to help pay for some or all of any additional benefit liabilities resulting from these benefit mandates, business leaders of companies offering group health plan coverage should act quickly to engage experienced legal counsel for their companies for advice about how to audit their group health plan’s compliance with these and other federal health plan rules within the scope of attorney-client privilege while managing tax, financial, benefit and fiduciary liability exposures to deal with potential compliance concerns that the review might discover as well as mitigate risks that could result if the audit is improperly structured or conducted.

While businesses inevitably will need to involve or coordinate with their accounting, broker, and other vendors involved with the plans, businesses generally will want to get legal advice in a manner that preserves their potential to claim attorney-client privilege to protect against discovery in the event of future enforcement or litigation actions sensitive discussions and analysis　about compliance audits, plan design choices, and other risk management and liability planning as well as to get help identifying potential plan design, contracting, procedural or other changes that may be needed to fix compliance deficiencies and mitigate other risks, particularly in light of complexity of the exposures and risks.

About The Author

Recognized by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as a “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%/ the highest) and “Top Rated Lawyer,” with special recognition as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Health Care,” “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, the author of this update is widely known for her 29 plus years’ of work in health care, health benefit, health policy and regulatory affairs and other health industry concerns as a practicing attorney and management consultant, thought leader, author, public policy advocate and lecturer.

Throughout her adult life and nearly 30-year legal career, Ms. Stamer’s legal, management and governmental affairs work has focused on helping health and othre employee benefit, financial services, health care and other organizations and their management use the law, performance and risk management tools and process to manage people, performance, quality, compliance, operations and risk.

Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer supports these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis as well as outsourced operations or special counsel on an interim, special project, or ongoing basis with strategic planning and product and services development and innovation; workforce and operations management, crisis preparedness and response as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

Throughout her career, she has helped a diverse array of clients manage, administer and defend employee and other workforce, vendors and suppliers, their recruitment, selection, performance management, contracting, investigation, discipline and termination; health and other employee benefits; compensation; safety; governance; compliance and internal controls; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; change management; trade secret and other privacy, data security and data breach;; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party reporting relations, audits, investigations and enforcement; government affairs and public policy; and other compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns.

The American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting, former Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, past ABA JCEB Council Representative, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively throughout her career with employers, health and other employee benefit plans, insurers, managed care organizations, health care clearinghouses, health care providers, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, management services organizations, professional and trade associations, accreditation agencies, auditors, technology and other vendors and service providers, and others on benefit and insurance program legal and operational compliance, risk management, public policies and regulatory affairs, contracting, payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations and matters including extensive involvement advising, representing and defending plan sponsors, fiduciaries, service providers, managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers. Her experience includes both leading edge work designing and administering programs, as well as defending clients in connection with audits and enforcement actions by OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC, OSHA, Department of Insurance, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry investigation, enforcement including insurance or other liability management and allocation; process and product development, contracting, deployment and defense; evaluation, commenting or seeking modification of regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement, and a host of other related concerns for public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, employers, and others.and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns.

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and group and other health benefit programs and coverages including but not limited to advising public and private payers about coverage and program design and documentation, advising and defending providers, payers and systems and billing services entities about systems and process design, audits, and other processes; provider credentialing, and contracting; providers and payer billing, reimbursement, claims audits, denials and appeals, coverage coordination, reporting, direct contracting, False Claims Act, Medicare & Medicaid, ERISA, state Prompt Pay, out-of-network and other nonpar insured, and other health care claims, prepayment, post-payment and other coverage, claims denials, appeals, billing and fraud investigations and actions and other reimbursement and payment related investigation, enforcement, litigation and actions.

Heavily involved in health care and health information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations innovation and a Scribe for ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with OCR for many years who has authored numerous highly-regarded works and training programs on HIPAA and other data security, privacy and use, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive work and leadership on leading edge health care and benefit policy and operational issues including meaningful use and EMR, billing and reimbursement, quality measurement and reimbursement, HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security and data breach and other information privacy and data security rules and many other concerns. Her work includes both regulatory and public policy advocacy and thought leadership, as well as advising and representing a broad range of health industry and other clients about policy design, drafting, administration, business associate and other contracting, risk assessments, audits and other risk prevention and mitigation, investigation, reporting, mitigation and resolution of known or suspected violations or other incidents and responding to and defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, DOJ, OCR, FTC, state attorneys’ general and other federal or state agencies, other business partners, patients and others.

A lead policy advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its pension privitization project and involved in U.S. federal and state as well as cross border workforce, pension, health care, Social Security, immigration, and tax regulatory and statutory reform throughout her adult life, Ms. Stamer also is widely sought out for her thoughtleadership and assistance with domestic and international public policy concerns in Pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas.

Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposium and chair, faculty member and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry, human resources, employment and other privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, Insurance Thought Leadership and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

©2017 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ All other rights reserved. For information about republication or other use, please contact Ms. Stamer here.

Leave a Comment » | 4980D, 4980H, 6039D, ACA, board of directors, Brokers, Cafeteria Plans, church plan, Civil Monetary Penalties, Civil Rights, Claims Administration, compliance, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, directors, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, ERISA, Fair Labor Standards Act, fiduciary duty, Fiduciary Responsibility, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, health reform, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, IRC, Management, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Obamacare, Patient Empowerment, Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Premium Subsidies, preventive care, Reporting & Disclosure, SBC, Uncategorized, Wellness Programs | Tagged: Americas Health Care Act, Employee Benefits, Employer, Health Benefits, Health Care Reform, Health Plans, Obamacare, Trump Care | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Latest HIPAA Resolution Agreement Drives Home Importance Of Maintaining Current, Signed Business Associate Agreements

April 24, 2017

Health plans, their fiduciaries and sponsors, health insurers, health care providers, health care clearinghouses (“covered entities”) and their business associates must get and keep your business associate (BA) agreements (BAAs) in place, up-to-date, and readily available for inspection in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule, 45 C.F.R. Part 160 and Subparts A and E of Part 164 (Privacy Rule). That’s the clear message to covered entities and their business associates in the April 17, 2017 HIPAA Resolution Agreement just announced by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) with the Center for Children’s Digestive Health (CCDH).

While the Resolution Agreement relates to breaches of the BAA requirements of a small pediatric practice, all health plans, health care providers and other covered entities and business associates should focus on the adequacy of their BAAs and their BAA record keeping. HIPAA compliance surveys reflect deficiencies with the BAA rules are common throughout the industry. These findings and the involvement of BAs in data breaches or other OCR enforcement activities suggest a high probability that many other covered entities and business associates may be sitting ducks for similar sanctions. See e.g., HIPAA Compliance Survey Churns Up Many Business Associate Problems (January 3, 2017). Consequently, all covered entities and business associates generally should treat the CCDH Resolution Agreement as a message to review and correct as necessary their organizations’ compliance and recordkeeping to minimize their exposure to potential sanctions from violations of the HIPAA business associate rules.

The HIPAA Business Associate Agreement Requirements

OCR’s announcement of the CCDH Resolution Agreement is the latest in a growing series of HIPAA enforcement actions showing the growing risk covered entities and their business associates face for failing to take appropriate steps to comply with the BAA and other Privacy Rule requirements of HIPAA.

As compliance audits and surveys of covered entities and business associates suggest a high level of noncompliance with the business associate agreement requirements among covered entities and business associates, While the ever-growing list of Resolution Agreements and Civil Monetary Penalties announced by OCR cover a variety of categories of HIPAA violations, the CCDH Resolution Agreement highlights the importance of covered entities and their business associates ensuring that before the BA creates, accesses, receives, discloses, retains or destroys any PHI for the covered entity, a BAA meeting the Privacy Rule requirements is signed and retained for at least the six-year period the Privacy Rule requires in a manner easily producible when and if OCR or another agency asks for a copy as part of an investigation or other compliance audit. See Privacy Rule §§ 164.502(e), 164.504(e), 164.532(d) and (e).

The Privacy Rule requires that covered entities and business associates enter into a written and signed business associate agreement that contains the elements specified in Privacy Rule § 164.504(e) before the business associate creates, uses, accesses or discloses PHI of the covered entity. Meanwhile, the Privacy Rule recordkeeping requirements require that covered entities and BAs maintain copies of these BAAs for a minimum of six years.

Violations of the Privacy Rule can carry stiff civil or even criminal penalties Pursuant to amendments to HIPAA enacted as part of the HITECH Act, civil penalties typically do not apply to violations punished under the criminal penalty rules of HIPAA set forth in Social Security Act , 42 U.S.C § 1320d-6 (Section 1177).

Under Section 1177, the criminal enforcement provisions of HIPAA authorize the Justice Department to prosecute a person who knowingly in violation of the Privacy Rule (1) uses or causes to be used a unique health identifier; (2) obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an individual; or (3) discloses individually identifiable health information to another person, punishable by the following criminal sanctions and penalties:

A fine of up to $50,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both;
If the offense is committed under false pretenses, a fine of up to $100,000, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both; and
If the offense is committed with intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm, a fine of up to $250,000, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

In contrast, as amended by the HITECH Act, the civil enforcement provisions of HIPAA empower OCR to impose Civil Monetary Penalties on both covered entities and BAs for violations of any of the requirements of the Privacy or Security Rules. The penalty ranges for civil violations depends upon the circumstances associated with the violations and are subject to upward adjustment for inflation. As most recently adjusted here effective September 6, 2016, the following currently are the progressively increasing Civil Monetary Penalty tiers:

A minimum penalty of $100 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations which the CE or BA “did not know, and by exercising reasonable diligence would not have known” about using “the business care and prudence expected from a person seeking to satisfy a legal requirement under similar circumstances;”
A minimum penalty of $1,000 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations for “reasonable cause” which do not rise to the level of “willful neglect” where “reasonable cause” means the “circumstances that would make it unreasonable for the covered entity, despite the exercise of ordinary business care and prudence, to comply with the violated Privacy Rule requirement;”
A minimum penalty of $10,000 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations attributed to “willful neglect,” defined as “the conscious, intentional failure or reckless indifference to the obligation to comply” with the requirement or prohibition; and
A minimum penalty of $50,000 and a maximum penalty of $1.5 million per violation, for violations attributed to “willful neglect” not remedied within 30 days of the date that the covered entity or BA knew or should have known of the violation.

For continuing violations such as failing to implement a required BAA, OCR can treat each day of noncompliance as a separate violation. However, sanctions under each of these tiers generally are subject to a maximum penalty of $1,500,000 for violations of identical requirements or prohibitions during a calendar year. For violations such as the failure to implement and maintain a required BAA where more than one covered entity bears responsibility for the violation, OCR an impose Civil Monetary Penalties against each culpable party. OCR considers a variety of mitigating and aggravating facts and circumstances when arriving at the amount of the penalty within each of these applicable tiers to impose.

While criminal enforcement of HIPAA remains relatively rare, a review of the OCR enforcement record in recent years makes clear that civil enforcement of HIPAA and the sanctions imposed is growing. See e.g., $400K HIPAA Settlement Shows Need To Conduct Timely & Appropriate Risk Assessments; $5.5M Memorial HIPAA Resolution Agreement Shows Need To Audit. For more examples, also see here.

CCDH Sanctions For Violation Of HIPAA Business Associate Agreement Rules

The CCDH Resolution Agreement arises from violations of this requirement that OCR says it discovered as a result of a compliance review conducted in response to an OCR investigation of a CCDH business associate, FileFax, Inc. According to OCR, OCR found from the compliance review of CCDH triggered by OCR’s investigation of FileFax that while CCDH began disclosing PHI to Filefax in 2003 and that Filefax stored records containing protected health information (PHI) for CCDH, neither CCDH nor Filefax could produce a signed Business Associate Agreement (BAA) covering their relationship for any period before October 12, 2015.

Based on the resulting investigation, OCR concluded:

CCDH failed to obtain a BAA providing written assurances from Filefax that it would appropriately safeguard the PHI in Filefax’s possession or control satisfactory assurances as required by Privacy Rule §164.502(e); and
Because CCDH failed to secure the required BAA, it violated the Privacy Rule by impermissibly disclosing the PHI of at least 10,728 individuals to Filefax when CCDH transferred the PHI to Filefax without obtaining the requisite BAA from Filefax (Covered Conduct).

In the Resolution Agreement, CCDH agrees to pay HHS $31,000.00 (Resolution Amount) and enter into and comply with a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) in return for OCR’s release of CCDH from liability for “any actions it may have against CCDH under the HIPAA Rules” for the Covered Conduct. The Resolution Agreement only settles the civil monetary penalty and other OCR enforcement liabilities of CCDH with respect to the Covered Conduct. Its provisions expressly state the Resolution Agreement does not affect any exposures of CCDH to CCDH to OCR civil monetary penalties or other enforcement for any HIPAA violations other than the Covered Conduct.

Perhaps even more noteworthy given the HITECH Act’s provisions coordinating the civil and criminal sanctions of HIPAA, while the Resolution Agreement provides no clear indication that the Justice Department might be considering criminally prosecuting CCDH or any other party in relation to the Covered Conduct, the Resolution Agreement also expressly states that its provisions do not affect CCDH’s potential exposure, if any, to criminal prosecution by the Justice Department for a criminal violation of the Privacy Rules under Section 1177 of the Social Security Act.

Implications For Covered Entities & Business Associates

Covered entities and their business associates should heed the CCDH Resolution Agreement as a strong message from OCR to ensure their organizations are complying with HIPAA’s BAA and other requirements. The Resolution Agreement makes clear that the starting point of this compliance effort must be obtaining and maintaining the requisite BAAs for each BA relationship.

To position their organizations to withstand potential investigation by OCR, covered entities and BAs should start by conducting a well-documented audit within the scope of attorney-client privilege both to verify that an appropriate, signed BAA is in place for each BA relationship as well as adequacy of processes for identifying business associate relationships, ensuring that signed BAAs are in effect before BAs access any PHI, and for investigating, reporting and resolving any breaches of the HIPAA Privacy or Security Rules that may arise in the course of operations.

Conducting this audit as soon as possible is particularly important in light of reported findings of widespread compliance concerns. See HIPAA Compliance Survey Churns Up Many Business Associate Problems (January 3, 2017). As the audit process could identify potential violations or other legally sensitive concerns, covered entities and business associates generally will want to arrange for this audit and evaluation to be conducted under the supervision of legal counsel experienced with HIPAA within or pursuant to processes structured with the assistance of legal counsel within the scope of attorney-client privilege.

Beyond confirming all necessary BAAs are in place, covered entities and business associates also generally will want to evaluate the adequacy of BAs’ processes and procedures for maintaining compliance with the Privacy and Security Rules as well as processes and procedures for responding to audits, investigations and complaints, reporting and addressing breaches of electronic and other PHI and other possible compliance concerns under HIPAA and other related laws. In many instances, parties may n wish to revise and strengthen existing BAAs to more specifically define these policies and procedures more specifically as well as indemnification, cyber or other liability coverage requirements and other contractual provisions for allocating potential costs and liabilities arising from breaches, audits, investigations and other expenses associated with the administration of these provisions.

About The Author

Throughout her adult life and nearly 30-year legal career, Ms. Stamer’s legal, management and governmental affairs work has focused on helping health industry, health benefit and other organizations and their management use the law, performance and risk management tools and process to manage people, performance, quality, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer supports these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis as well as outsourced operations or special counsel on an interim, special project, or ongoing basis with strategic planning and product and services development and innovation; workforce and operations management, crisis preparedness and response as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

As a core component of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively throughout her career with health care providers, health plans and insurers, managed care organizations, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, management services organizations, professional associations, medical staffs, accreditation agencies, auditors, technology and other vendors and service providers, and others on legal and operational compliance, risk management and compliance, public policies and regulatory affairs, contracting, payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations and matters including extensive involvement advising, representing and defending public and private hospitals and health care systems; physicians, physician organizations and medical staffs; specialty clinics and pharmacies; skilled nursing, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing and management services organizations; consultants; investors; technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers; and other health industry clients to manage and defend compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing and other operations and risk management concerns. A core focus of this work includes work to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; dealings with JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; investigation and defense of private litigation and other federal and state health care industry investigations and enforcement; insurance or other liability management and allocation; process and product development; managed care, physician and other staffing, business associate and other contracting; evaluation, commenting or seeking modification of regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; and a host of other related concerns for public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, employers, and others.

In the course of this work, Ms. Stamer has accumulated extensive experience helping health industry clients manage workforce, medical staff, vendors and suppliers, medical billing, reimbursement, claims and other provider-payer relations, business partners, and their recruitment, performance, discipline, compliance, safety, compensation, benefits, and training, board, medical staff and other governance; compliance and internal controls; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; change management; assess, deter, investigate and address staffing, quality, compliance and other performance; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other data security and breach and other health IT and data; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party reporting, audits, investigations and enforcement; government affairs and public policy; and other compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns.

Author of leading works on HIPAA and other privacy and data security works and the scribe leading the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, her experience includes extensive compliance, risk management and data breach and other crisis event investigation, response and remediation under HIPAA and other laws.

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and group and other health benefit programs and coverages including but not limited to advising public and private payers about coverage and program design and documentation, advising and defending providers, payers and systems and billing services entities about systems and process design, audits, and other processes; provider credentialing, and contracting; providers and payer billing, reimbursement, claims audits, denials and appeals, coverage coordination, reporting, direct contracting, False Claims Act, Medicare & Medicaid, ERISA, state Prompt Pay, out-of-network and other nonpar, insured, and other health care claims, prepayment, post-payment and other coverage, claims denials, appeals, billing and fraud investigations and actions and other reimbursement and payment related investigation, enforcement, litigation and actions.

In connection with this work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers and other plan sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA, FACTA, trade secret and other information privacy and data security rules, including the establishment, documentation, implementation, audit and enforcement of policies, procedures, systems and safeguards, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others.

Her work includes both regulatory and public policy advocacy and thought leadership, as well as advising and representing a broad range of health industry and other clients about policy design, drafting, administration, business associate and other contracting, risk assessments, audits and other risk prevention and mitigation, investigation, reporting, mitigation and resolution of known or suspected violations or other incidents and responding to and defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, DOJ, OCR, FTC, state attorneys’ general and other federal or state agencies, other business partners, patients and others.

In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, MGMA, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in Pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas.

Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposium and chair, faculty member and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry, human resources, employment and other privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management. Examples of her many highly regarded publications on these matters include “Protecting & Using Patient Data In Disease Management: Opportunities, Liabilities And Prescriptions,” “Privacy Invasions of Medical Care-An Emerging Perspective,” “Cybercrime and Identity Theft: Health Information Security: Beyond HIPAA,” as well as thousands of other publications, programs and workshops these and other concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, Insurance Thought Leadership and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | ARRA, Attorney-Client Privilege, Cafeteria Plans, church plan, Civil Monetary Penalties, Civil Rights, Claims, Consumer Protection, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, Cybercrime, Data Breach, Data Security, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, HIPAA, HR, Human Resources, Identity Theft, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Patient Empowerment, Physician, Plan Admistrator, Privacy, Professional Liability, Protected Health Information, Provider, Risk Management, Uncategorized | Tagged: Business Associate, Health Care, Health Insurer, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA OCR, HIPAA Privacy, HITECH, Insurer, Technology, tpa | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Consider Access In Prudent Investment Broker Selection

April 19, 2017

https://videopress.com/embed/3futNZyv?hd=0&autoPlay=0&permalink=0&loop=0
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here.©2017. Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. All other rights reserved.

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Reform: Tell Congress Until It Listens

April 19, 2017

https://videopress.com/embed/MqUiaSs1?hd=0&autoPlay=0&permalink=0&loop=0

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

YOU ARE FOLLOWING THIS BLOG

You are following this blog, along with 737 other amazing people (manage).
PAGES
RECENT POSTS
ARCHIVES
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
SHARE THIS BLOG
May 2017

S M T W T F S

« Apr

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31
BLOGROLL
SOLUTIONS LAW
- Cynthia Stamer.com
- stamerchadwickstamer.com
SOLUTIONS LAW PRESS HR & BENEFITS UPDATE

May 2017
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Apr
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

Comments Off on SHOP Marketplace Still Health Coverage Option For Small Employers; All Employers Should Confirm Health Plan Compliance | 105(h), 4980D, 4980H, 6039D, ACA, Affordable Care Act, Bankruptcy, board of directors, Brokers, Cafeteria Plans, Claims, Claims Administration, COBRA, compensation, compliance, conflict of interest, Contraception, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, EBSA, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Tax, ERISA, Excise Tax, Excise Taxes, Exempt, Fiduciary Responsibility, Form 5500, health benefit, Health Benefits, health Care, health insurance, health insurance marketplace, health plan, Health Plans, health reform, HIPAA, HIPAA, HR, Human Resources, Uncategorized | Tagged: ACA, Employer, Health Benefits, Health Insurance, Health Plan, Obamacare, shop marketplace | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

More Information

Coronavirus Testing & Other Health Coverage

IRS Guidance Clears Way For High Deductible Health Plans To Raise Deductibles

Business & Other Disruptions Response

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

About the Author

Continuing Fallout of 2015 Data Breach Provides Many Lessons For Other Businesses & Their Health Plans

YOU ARE FOLLOWING THIS BLOG

PAGES

RECENT POSTS

ARCHIVES

SHARE THIS BLOG

BLOGROLL

SOLUTIONS LAW

SOLUTIONS LAW PRESS HR & BENEFITS UPDATE

Email Subscription

Pages

Recent Posts

Archives

Share this blog

Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update