In this Issue
From the Chair
Guide to Terms
Ober|Kaler in Print
Legislation
New Law Creates National Patient Safety Database
OIG Activity
OIG Focus: Part D, Nursing Homes and CMS
Safe Harbor Proposed for Federally Qualified Health Centers
OIG Advisory Opinions
OIG Cites Antikickback Risks with PAPs Under Part D
Long Term Care
Nursing Staff Data-posting Requirement for Nursing Facilities
Hospitals
Providers Score a Victory in DSH Litigation
PHARMA
CMS Relaxes Marketing Rules to Promote Part D Enrollment
Reimbursement
Hospitals Face Increased Risks for Improper Discharge Coding
Self-Referral
CMS Issues First Stark Advisory Opinion in 7 Years
FCA
More Courts Support FCA Actions Based on Kickbacks
First-to-file Bar Held Inapplicable to Qui Tam Suits
Landmark Clausen Decision Reaffirmed
Enforcement
Proposed Rule Allows Waiver of Exclusion
Litigation/ADR
Erlanger Resolves Scrutiny of its Physician Relationships
Michigan Hospital Settles Voluntary Disclosure of Physician Relationships
Federal Government Settles Investigation of AdvancePCS
Tax
When is a Home Health Agency Not a Home Health Agency?
Antitrust
Full-system Contracting: Business as Usual or Antitrust Time Bomb?
Technology
Stark, Antikickback Protection for E-prescribing, EHR
Physician Focus
More Specificity in Informed Consent
Health Law Group
Sanford V. Teplitzky, Chair
Melinda B. Antalek
William E. Berlin
Christi J. Braun
Marc K. Cohen
Thomas W. Coons
John J. Eller
Joshua J. Freemire
Leslie Demaree Goldsmith
Lindsay E. Greenwood
Carel T. Hedlund
S. Craig Holden
Leonard C. Homer
Thomas K. Hyatt
Julie E. Kass
Paul W. Kim
John F. Lessner
William T. Mathias
Robert E. Mazer
Carol M. McCarthy, Ph.D.
John J. Miles
Christine M. Morse
Patrick K. O'Hare
Leon Rodriguez
Martha Purcell Rogers
Laurence B. Russell
Donna J. Senft
Ray M. Shepard
Steven R. Smith
Howard L. Sollins
E. John Steren
Chiarra-May Stratton
Emily H. Wein
James B. Wieland
Editorial Assistant: Michele Vicente, Paralegal
|
|
Proposed Rule Allows Waiver of Exclusion
Lindsay E. Greenwood
Under a rule proposed by CMS in August 2005, providers excluded from the
Medicare program could request that CMS act on their behalf to recommend to the
OIG that their exclusion from Medicare be waived because of a hardship that would
result for Medicare beneficiaries. 70 Fed. Reg. 44,879 (Aug. 4, 2005). The proposed
rule establishes general requirements and procedures to implement section 949 of
the MMA, which outlines the basis upon which a request for waiver of exclusion
must be based.
Background
Section 1128A of the Social Security Act authorizes the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to impose civil money penalties, assessments, and exclusion from the
Medicare program when providers are disciplined for fraud, misrepresentation, or falsification.
The MMA amended section 1128(c)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act to
waive the minimum five-year period of exclusion "upon the request of the administrator
of a federal health care program who determines that the exclusion would
impose a hardship on individuals entitled to benefits under Medicare .the Secretary
may, after consulting with the OIG, waive the exclusion with respect to that program
in the case of an individual or entity that is the sole community physician or sole
source of essential specialized services in the community." The Conference Agreement
accompanying the MMA highlighted that a hardship determination must be made
before a waiver is approved.
Requirements of Proposed Rule
The proposed rule establishes the requirements and procedures necessary for CMS to
make a request to the OIG for a waiver to the exclusion. An excluded provider must
submit a written request for a waiver of exclusion to CMS that includes the following:
- A copy of the exclusion notice from the OIG;
- A statement requesting that CMS present a waiver of exclusion request to the
OIG on the provider's behalf;
- A statement that the provider is the sole community physician or sole source
of essential specialized services in the community; and
- Documentation to support the provider's position as sole community physician
or sole source of essential specialized services in the community.
The burden of presenting convincing information would be left to the discretion of the
provider, but CMS will initiate its own analysis and reserves the authority to require
the provider to furnish additional, specific information, and authorization to obtain
information from private health insurers, peer review organizations, and others as
necessary to determine the validity of all facts presented.
Only upon a finding by CMS that the exclusion of a provider has the effect of posing
a hardship to Medicare beneficiaries will CMS consider or make a recommendation
to the OIG for waiver of the exclusion. Furthermore, CMS's decision is not subject
to administrative or judicial review. Finally, a request made by CMS to the OIG
will not automatically grant a waiver to the exclusion. Rather, the OIG will make the
final decision.
In July 2004, CMS published a proposed rule delineating the procedures for pursuing
exclusions. 69 Fed. Reg. 43,956 (July 23, 2004). CMS has stated that it intends to
respond to the public comments in connection with such proposed rule together with
this proposed rule in a single final rule.
Although the deadline for comments regarding the proposed rule was October 3, 2005,
to date a final rule has not been published.
Copyright© 2006, Ober, Kaler, Grimes & Shriver
|