Physician Hospitals of America (PHA) and Texas Spine & Joint Hospital (TSJH) File Suit Challenging Healthcare Reform Restrictions on Expansion/Development

In prior posts I’ve discussed the significant impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the PPACA, more commonly referred to as the healthcare reform legislation) on the physician-owned hospital industry.  Section 6001 of the PPACA stymies growth of the industry by prohibiting expansion of existing physician-owned hospitals and bans any new physician-owned hospitals that are not Medicare-certified by December 31, 2010 (i.e. hospitals violating those limitations will not be permitted to bill Medicare/Medicaid for referrals made by their physician owners). Although a number of exceptions apply to the expansion prohibition, most industry analysts believe meeting the exceptions will be challenging to virtually impossible for existing physician-owned hospitals.

According to a press release issued today by Physician Hospitals of America (PHA), the trade association for the industry, there are approximately 265 existing physician-owned hospitals, 29 of which are scheduled to open and receive their Medicare certification by December 31, 2010. An additional 45 hospitals are currently under development and are not expected to be open or Medicare-certified by December 31, 2010. According to PHA, there were also 39 hospitals that were previously under development but were abandoned as projects due to passage of Section 6001.

In response to Section 6001, PHA and Texas Spine & Joint Hospital (TSJH) jointly filed suit today in U.S. Federal Court, Eastern District of Texas, challenging the constitutionality of Section 6001 on grounds that the law is a violation of due process and equal protection rights, and that the Section is void due to a contradictory, vague and arbitrary nature. TSJH is a privately owned hospital specializing in orthopedic and spine surgery, procedures, and tests which had sought and won local zoning approval to expand its facility with an additional 20 Medicare beds, which expansion project would now be prohibited by Section 6001.

Industry supporters and opponents will be carefully following progression of the lawsuit as the resolution is anticipated to have a profound impact on the ability of the physician-owned industry to thrive.

Scott Oostdyk and Victor Moldovan of McGuireWoods are representing PHA and TSJH in the lawsuit. 

Compliance Plans Under the PPACA: One More Reason for Careful Compliance Program Analysis

Now more than ever, it is critical that anyone contemplating investment in a healthcare sector carefully review the target company’s compliance protocols. We have always strongly recommended that investors analyze the company’s compliance program, as well as efforts at adhering to the program requirements, in order to better gauge the company’s overall goals and philosophy regarding compliance. Understanding a company’s compliance culture can help the buyer assess the risks it may be taking with investment in the company and what challenges, if any, may be on the horizon for the company.

Now, under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the PPACA, more commonly referred to as the healthcare reform legislation), certain healthcare providers, as a condition to participation in Medicare, must have in place a compliance plan that meets the requirements to be laid out by the Secretary of HHS. The PPACA lists several detailed requirements for the compliance plans of skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), likely due to the industry’s historical scrutiny and highly publicized investigations from the SNF industry in the past few years. SNFs must implement these compliance plans pursuant to the requirements of Section 6102 of the PPACA within 36 months following passage of the PPACA, and regulations must be issued by the Secretary of HHS for SNFs with additional guidelines no later than two years following passage of the PPACA. 

 

By contrast, the Secretary of HHS is mandated with determining which provider types must have compliance plans in place and what those plans must entail. HHS has informally indicated that it would likely roll out the compliance plan requirements on an industry-by-industry basis. It is likely that the requirements for most industries will closely follow the key components of the DHHS Office of Inspector General model compliance plan published for healthcare providers in 1997, which has subsequently been updated.

 

For healthcare providers without compliance plans that wish to make early moves toward a full compliance program, or for buyers who seek additional comfort through early implementation, an article entitled “A Practical Compliance Plan Approach for ASCs” authored by Scott Becker, Melissa Szabad and myself is available here. Although this article speaks specifically to the ambulatory surgical center industry, it has practical implications for most healthcare providers. 

Key Issues re Investment in the Dialysis Industry

On Wednesday, March 12th, McGuireWoods hosted our 8th Annual Business & Legal Issues in Dialysis & Nephrology Symposium. Leaders from various perspectives in the industry provided presentations and lead discussions on a wide array of topics, including the effects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the PPACA, commonly referred to as the Health Care Reform Law), key compliance issues and investment scenarios.

Various themes emerged from the day, including the following:

 

1)      Many people continue to view investment in the dialysis industry as a viable option.   Even with the uncertainties of the bundling system and the impact of healthcare reform generally, many believe there are still great opportunities for investment in dialysis programs and nephrology/dialysis-related vendors. 

 

2)      Not surprisingly, the impending conversion to bundled reimbursement by Medicare for dialysis providers is a focal point for providers.   The response from small dialysis organizations (SDOs), large dialysis organizations (LDOs) and others is varied, but most look forward to the results of a General Accounting Office (GAO) study on the impact of the inclusion of oral drugs in the dialysis bundle, which was mandated by the PPACA.  The deadline for delivery of the GAO report is a year from passage (i.e., March 23, 2011). Most dialysis companies are encouraged by the mandate for investigation and are hopeful that it will help illustrate whether or not those drugs are being adequately priced and if there are any quality of care concerns. For more detail regarding the bundled payment structure and its potential impact on different dialysis providers, see our prior post entitled twww.thehealthcareinvestor.com/2010/03/articles/healthcare-services-investing/dialysis-industry-prepares-for-new-payment-methodology-how-might-bundling-effect-providers-differently/

 

3)      Nephrology physician practices face a variety of challenges these days, including both from a patient care and daily practice administrative perspective as well as from the perspective of their roles in the delivery of dialysis care as Medical Directors and/or joint venture partners. We discussed opportunities for facing those challenges through practice merger or other consolidation into larger organizations such as a hospital system or Physician Practice Management (PPM) or Management Services Organization (MSO).

 

4)      The industry is closely examining the potential for increased liability of dialysis companies under various state and federal laws aimed at curbing fraud and abuse, including The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (FERA) which was signed into law by President Obama in April of 2009. FERA implemented significant changes tothe federal False Claims Act, including the expansion of prohibited conduct under the False Claims Act to include not justthe improper filing to collect monies, but also the known retention of overpayments by hospitals or other health careproviders. The 2009 amendments also make clear that false claims submission to a state Medicaid program, although not directly submitted to the federal government, does constitute a violation of the False Claims Act. We discussed the impact of these changes and other compliance concerns for the dialysis industry.

 

5)      Accountable care organizations (ACOs) are a hot topic for many healthcare sectors, including dialysis providers. ACOs have been officially endorsed in the PPACA, Section 3302. Under the ACO provisions, groups of providers that work together to manage and coordinate care for Medicare beneficiaries can qualify to receive additional Medicare payments if they achieve specified cost savings and meet a range of criteria, including standards established by CMS relating to quality, reporting, and governing structure. In essence, if they are able to improve outcomes and lower costs then those ACOs can potentially share in the savings. The PPACA provides that the ACO program is to be established no later than January 1, 2012.   It leaves much discretion to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to determine the policies and procedures that will apply to ACOs. 

 

6)      Various existing and new laws effect day-to-day clinical care and administration in dialysis facilities such as the revised Conditions for Participation in the Medicare/Medicaid programs. Changes to the National Fire Protection Association's Life Safety Code (commonly called the Life Safety Code) applicable to dialysis providers and other recent changes in the Conditions for Participation must be understood and properly implemented by dialysis providers. In their article entitled Applying the Life Safety Code: Are you Ready?, Bob Bednar and Ron Reynolds discuss the Life Safety Code changes implemented in 2010 in detail.

 

7)      Compliance plans, which were previously highly recommended for the dialysis industry and nephrology providers, are now mandated by the PPACA for certain providers who participate in Medicare/Medicaid.  While details of the compliance plan requirements for skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) are set out in detail in the PPACA, the Secretary of DHHS was given the authority to designate the types of providers that will be required to have compliance programs in place and the details of such programs. State Medicaid programs also must require participating providers to have programs in place that meet the federal guidelines to be issued. DHHS has indicated that details of those programs will likely be issued on an industry-by-industry basis, and we generally expect the components of the programs to be similar to the key components of the DHHS Office of Inspector General model compliance plan first published for healthcare providers in 1997 and since updated. 

 

8)      Investment opportunities in businesses ancillary to the dialysis industry, including nephrology-specific electronic health records (EHR) systems and vascular access programs remain attractive options for some investors. Vascular access centers provide a particularly critical service to patients suffering from end-stage renal disease (ESRD), who require, prior to beginning dialysis, the surgical creation of a site in which the patient’s vascular system can be accessed during dialysis. The various methodologies for creating the access site are reimbursed by Medicare and other payors.  There are a number of regulatory issues governing the investment and referral relationships that need to be examined prior to creating vascular access company.

 

All of these topics will be addressed in further detail in future posts. For additional details on any of these issues in the interim, please contact the authors.

Transparency Initiatives in Health Reform Bring Burdens and Opportunities

The Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act (commonly known as the "healthcare reform" bill) includes significant new transparency and disclosure obligations that apply to physicians, hospitals, and medical device and pharmaceutical manufacturers. 

Some of these transparency and disclosure obligations are based on legislation introduced by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), which was previously entitled ‘‘the Physician Payments Sunshine Act of 2009.’’ The transparency and disclosure obligations have been included in the Act in an effort to reign in costs of expanded health care availability. The premise behind the obligations is that ‘‘sunshine’’ on physicians' financial relationships with industry will reduce conflicts of interest by deterring industry from spending excessive amounts of money on such relationships and consequently reduce the negative impact such relationships have on prescribing practices.  The transparency initiatives impact physicians, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers and PBMs.  For a full description of each new requirement, please read this article by Krist Werling and Holly Carnell published in BNA's Health Care Fraud Report.

These new initiatives will impact healthcare investors in two ways.  First, investors should be aware of added burdens on target investments.  For example, for medical device manufacturers, these disclosures will require added infrastructure to address tracking and reporting requirements.  Second, investors may find opportunities in these burdens.  Software, web services and consulting services have sprung up to assist physicians, pharmaceutical manufacturers and device manufacturers in remaining compliant with new obligations. 

 

Healthcare Reform Update: U.S. House Votes to Approve Senate Bill and Reconciliation Bill

Yesterday, the House voted in two separate votes to approve healthcare reform legislation. In a vote of 219-212, the House approved the healthcare reform bill that was passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve. Then, in a vote of 220-211, the House approved the reconciliation bill that will modify the Senate bill.  These votes will send the Senate bill to the President to be signed tomorrow, and the reconciliation bill to the Senate, where Senate Democrats will try to pass the bill through the reconciliation process.

A compromise deal on abortion funding brought in several key votes at the last minute. Under the terms of the deal, President Obama will issue an executive order clarifying that the federal money provided by the bill can not be used for abortions.  

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has said he will take up the package of changes shortly. The bill will be considered under the reconciliation process, which will allow Democrats to pass the bill with a simple majority and preclude the possibility of a Republican filibuster. Today, the Senate parliamentarian will meet with Democratic and Republican leadership to discuss the rules for this procedure. Under the Byrd rule, all provisions of the bill must have a budgetary impact. Republicans are likely to object to provisions of the reconciliation bill under this rule, and if the provisions are found to be in violation of the Byrd rule, they will be stricken from the bill. There will likely be at least two days of debate and two days of votes, which means there could be a vote in the Senate as early as Friday or Saturday.

The above update was provided by Mona Mohib, Vice President of Federal Public Affairs for McGuireWoods Consulting. Ms. Mohib, along with other professionals at MWC, provide specialized insight to McGuireWoods attorneys and clients who are closely following the healthcare reform debates.  Founded in 1998 as a subsidiary of McGuireWoods, MWC is a full-service public affairs firm offering infrastructure and economic development, strategic communications & grassroots, and government relations services.

Blog Authors

Amber McGraw Walsh

Amber McGraw Walsh Amber Walsh focuses on healthcare transactional work and regulatory matters. Her experience includes representation of various types of healthcare providersMore...

Kristian A. Werling

photo of Kristian A. Werling Kristian Werling concentrates in healthcare transactional work and regulatory matters for all participants in the healthcare and life science industry.More...

Twitter Feed

@healthcareinvestor McGuireWoods' Most Recent Twitter Posts